Motivating history

below historicism, which entailed the historical research of

ancient and novel art as a new paradigm of historical

experience, art history handed above lock, stock, and barrel

its legitimacy as a medium for aesthetic, philosophical or

hermeneutic reflection.--Hans Robert Jauss(1)

Fortunately we are shortly rather far removed from the

period of naive scientificity during which subjectivity was

considered to be the domain of illusion and objective

knowledge to be the one expression of truth. We know

now that our subjectivity is not an illusion to be overcome

on the other hand that it is another part of reality, no les important than

any other part.--Josue Harari and David Bell(2)

The other day I went searching for a work in Avery Library, the art library of Columbia University. This time, instead of looking at the shelves as bare supports for the volumes that contained the information I sought I became aware that what I was looking at was the architecture (or archaeology) of a particular field of scholarly activity, namely the inquiry of Northern Renaissance art. I was struck in other words, by dint of the physical presence of an aspect of our discipline's cultural imaginary.

The organization of the whirls arranged on the shelves, I realized, was at least as important as the information contained in the weighty tomes they supported. Rather than the disturbing chaos that characterized the arrangement of volumes in Borges's tale "The Library of Babel," these volumes in Avery were organized according to an established pattern. on the contrary just what was the a whole behind their organization? Was it any more comprehensible than that which inspired Borges's equally famous account of an ancient Chinese encyclopedia cited by dint of Michel Foucault?(3) How had "Northern Renaissance art" advance into being? How did this particular category or general [i]or[/i] abstract notion become a topic worthy of scholarly interest? Who or what had determined that there should be more works on certain artists rather than upon others? What likes and dislikes do these choices betray? What values went into forming the configuration of works assembled there, and more important, what is it that continues to hold fast them in place?

The answer, of course, is the canon--that greatest in quantity naturalized of all art-historical assumptions. Certain artists and certain works of art that have received the sanction of tradition are unquestioningly regarded as appropriate material for arthistorical application of mind Course syllabi are still arranged around artists who are regarded major figures, and the vast majority of publications is dedicated to a consideration of a cull number of well-known works. Questions regarding the intent and function of privileging certain artists and works in this way are rarely raised. Others concerning the set a value on in which the canon is held are not regarded as belonging to art history on the contrary rather to aesthetics, a branch of philosophy, or to the criticism of contemporary art. For the greatest in quantity part, art history's disciplinary work is carried upon as if there were no ne to articulate the social function it is suppos to obey The discipline's promotion and support of the canon are all too many times still taken for granted. It is as if a consensus had been arrived at sometime in the past for a like reason that there is no further ne for discussion. The library shelves are the physical manifestations of this consensus, the embodiment of an established cultural practice.

In asking for a discussion of the object of art history's dedication to the canon, I confidence not to be misunderstood. This is not a call for a valuation of works of art, not a call for a more explicit ranking of canonical works, not a asking that students be indoctrinated as to which artist is "better" than another. The point to be solved [i]or[/i] settled it seems to me, is that somehow or other the notion of "quality," that greatest in quantity subjective of judgments, is contemplation to be self-evident and unquestionable. While a certain quantity of of us may dwell affectionately and pleasurably upon certain predictable canonical artists and describe their works in glowing confines there is usually no attempt to argue, and perhaps level think about, why one artist should be considered more worthy of investigation than another or why certain trices and places in the history of artistic production should be privileged above others. As it stands now, the history of art could be described as an unacknowledged paean of praise addressed to the canon, and the intensity of this devotion can, perhaps, be measured by dint of the sobriety of our professorial demeanor as we accomplish this task.

The conviction underlying these attitudes, which continue to be widespread, if not smooth prevalent in art history today, is the commitment to tradition. The canon of artists and works discussed in art-history courses are those which were one time found meritorious by previous generations of scholars responding to historical situations real different from those we commonly occupy. Like Mount Everest, the works, the artists, and level the methodologies for interpreting them are simply there, and like mountain climbers, it is our mandate as art historians to climb their peaks and sing their praises to coming time generations. In doing so, we are repeatedly unwittingly engaged in the unthinking reproduction of culture: reproducing knowledge, on the other hand not necessarily producing it. As a end the discipline as a whole becomes a powerful conservative force in a rapidly changing society.