A brief history of theory in art history

This is a talk about the ways people have thought about theories (semiotics, feminism, iconography, deconstruction, psychoanalysis, style analsis, connoisseurship, etc.) and theorists (Panofsky, Wölfflin, Rancière, Laruelle, Malabou, Foucault, Deleuze, etc.) in the discipline of art history.
There was a period before art history called its interpretive methods "theories," and then a period in which art historians identified what they did, and implicity distinguished it from what neighboring disciplines did, by enumerating their theories. In the 21st century theories have proliferated, but so has the idea that art historians don't need or use theories and that inquiry can be guided by the objects themselves or by any number of individual texts. Through all these changes there's been the question of what art history does differently from other fields.
It was originally given in the 2021 College Art Association conference, online on account of Covid.

[@sanjoychakraborty648]

Beautiful observation Elkins

[@magicknight13]

Excellent insight!! Thank you so much, so thorough! And I love your book Pictures and Tears!

[@BlankMalaysia]

Thank you for this introduction to art history.

[@reneevananrooy3697]

Thankyou James, just what I needed.

[@franciscocamachoherrera3469]

super

[@lttrstls]

To begin with the Theory of Art

[@momosajibrezy8528]

This is incredible

[@larsetom1]

Can you have theory without ideology? Like all ideologies they fall apart when picked at. In a few years people will be embarrassed that they fell for DEI ideology.

[@ronjohnson4566]

in my understanding, a theory has to do with finding the truth of something. so i am completely at a loss as to what this was all about. I think I gleaned that Western civilization has defined art history theory and you want to make a theory that includes all "art" i.e., the theory of everything. for the entire planet. A Newtonian vs a quantum theory that melds the two together. I think you will run into the same problems as theorists who say Newton works with the large and Quantum works with the small. I guess you want to include all theories/myths including a 6000-year-old universe, the aboriginal peoples of Australia, the Inuits of the north, and isolated groups that run the length of the Amazon. And you will do this thru a language that doesn't include it's creation from greek or latin. I guess we need to begin with the first word ever spoken or maybe even the first living thing. But, I know Im missing your meaning. Didn't Duchamp render all this useless? And, how can anyone put together a theory that doesn't include the roots of Indo-European history? Art is the history of man. Art is a playful exercise where liberties can be taken. And, I don't think it comes down to math. After all, there are people who think the cosmos is nothing more than math.

[@kreelesley]

a theory is not an answer to a question. is a system of ideas to explain something. the theory of art history is the historiography of art and what social/cultural/political influences and scientific breakthroughs shaped the art and the methods (mainly german) thinkers/art historian used to write about the art. that is why he is discussing 'everything' as you say

[@ronjohnson4566]

@@kreelesley still don't understand, but thanks for taking the time to respond.

[@p.f.9634]

You're epistemologically lost, it's beautiful in an uncanny way.

[@p.f.9634]

I'll try to think a way to make it clearer in the next day, when I'll get time to articulate my english and be as synthetic as possible.
But no, theory/truth is not a necessary couple, especially when we're in the field of humanities. Even in biology or physics actually, you don't seek for the truth by testing and experimentign a theory, you mainly aim toward efficiency aka "does it produces what I foresaw ? ", "What can I learn about my object from that experience" etc.
Another trail for you toexplore : the greek "theoria" is not translated by "truth" (which would traditionally be "aletheia"), but is much closer to "speculation" or "contemplation". So at this point let's say that the point of theory is mainly to build a precise as possible image of your object (actually "objectifying" what you're observing, making it an object implying some distance, some perspective).
Plus finding truth really isn't something science (including humanities) are looking forward, like, we don't even know how to define it....