Review: [untitled]Author(s): E. H. GombrichSource: The Art Bulletin, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Sep., 1964), pp. 418-420Published by: College Art AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3048199 .Accessed: 22/08/2011 15:25Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspJSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The ArtBulletin.http://www.jstor.org418THEARTBULLETIN nocanvas texture isvisible indetails oftheAttilain theBourbon library, painted directly onthe masonry (figs.65-68). Notall ofthe black and white photos are outstand- ing; some are notin sharp focus, but they are inthe mainfar superior to photographspreviously available. Thesixteencolor plates arenot good; colorisdis- torted, too intense and sometimes changed in hue, but they do present an aspect ofthe murals not tobe seen in the black and white plates. For example, the change in technique fromthe Attila(finished1847) tothe Heliodorus at Saint-Sulpice (finished1861) ismore striking ina comparison ofthetwocolor plates, figs. 6o and 122. Theselection of plates is good; all twenty ofthe pendentives inthePalais Bourbon library are repro- duced, withseven good details. One might ask only formore plates showing views ofthe murals withthe surrounding architecture, like thatoftheBourbon li- brary(fig.21). Whateverthe quality ofthearchi- tecture itself, suchviewsshowthe problems ofsite withwhichDelacroix hadtocontend. The many documents transcribed or reprinted by M.Serullaz havebeen handled with accuracy ofde- tail; the text is generally reliable, but two major errors mustbenotedhere.Thedimensions ofmurals that are given correspondexactly to those publishedby Ro- bautin i88o, and appear tohavebeentakenfrom Robautwithout rechecking. Robautis generally re- garded as trustworthy, butM.Serullazhasmadea significant error in transcribing thedimensions ofthe three half-domes, the Orpheus andthe Attila inthe Bourbon library, andthe Alexander intheLuxem- bourg. Thedimensions forthe first twoare givenby M.Serullaz as "H.: 7.35m.; L.: 10.98 m." (pp. 254 and 332); the last, as "H.:6.8o m.; L.:10.20 m." (p.454). Ineachcase thefirst dimension, as given byRobaut, isnot height, butdiameter (orwidth); the second, not length, but perimeter at the base. The error is evident ifone compares the above figures with thedimensions forthe Luxembourg domeas given correctly by M. Serullaz, "Diametre: 6.80m.; Cir- conference: 20.40m." (p.396). Thehalf-domeis ofthe same diameter, 6.8om. Asecond error occurs on the diagram ofthePalais Bourbon library muralson page77. TheAttilais placed correctly intheNorthand the Orpheus inthe South, but theorder ofthe cupolas is reversed, so that theSciences cupola, which should adjoin theOrpheus half-dome, is placed next to the Attila;and the Poetry cupola,nexttothe Orpheus, insteadoftheAttila. Since theorder ofthe cupola topics inrelation tothe half-domes is significant forthe meaning ofthe pro- gram, theerror is serious and detracts from another- wisevaluable diagram. Thecorrectorderismain- tained intheillustrations. Errors and omissionsinM. S~rullaz's book are out- weighed by the value of goodphotographs and nearly complete documents brought together ina single vol- ume.His work will provide abasic reference book for futurestudies onthemurals,whichcan pursue the problems implicit inhis book. Thereisnowneedfor monographs ontheindividual mural projects which will permit interpretation ofdocuments andmore de- tailed study ofthe history ofthe period, andofother aspects ofDelacroix's workconcurrent withandre- lated to the murals. Of great importance would be the inclusion in such monographs of preparatorydrawings, ofwhich several hundred are preserved inthe Cabinet des Dessins at the Louvre alone. Particularstudies may further explain the procedures followedinthemurals and the use of assistants, who were able to absorbDela- croix's style so wellthat their work is indistinguishable from his own. Although mural painters contemporary with Delacroix are not really worthy of intensive study, some attention tothem might better illuminate Dela- croix's work, just as Jean Adh6mar's exhibition, Dela- croix et laGravure Romantique (Bibliothique Nation- ale,1963), castnew light onDelacroix's prints by exhibiting them with those of contemporaries nowfor- gotten. ROBERTN.BEETEM Mills College Kunstgeschichte und Kunsttheorie im 19. Jahrhundert (Probleme der Kunstwissenschaft,i),Berlin, Wal- terde Gruyter,1963. PP. 233; 2 pls. DM 38.00. Thetitle ofthis volume is somewhat misleading. It isnotatallconcerned withthe historiography ofart and only withonekindof theory ofart-theante- cedents, that is, ofthe approach advocated by Pro- fessorHans Sedlmayr, forwhose sixty-fifthbirthday these seven papers were originally assembled by a group ofhis disciples. Itwould perhaps be raising expecta- tions too high even tocall this approach scholastic and hence Aristotelian, though itistruethat Sedlmayr's methodof"Structural Analysis" regards the"struc- ture" of a work of art as a kind of hidden essence that inhabits the painting or building muchastheAris- totelian entelechy inhabits the organism. Butitisnot the original noreventhemediaeval Aristotle whois hereencountered butthat artificially revived specter thathaunted Germanromantic thought afterHume andKant had laid the metaphysics ofessences torest. Inthis book the verbal twists by which Fichte,Hegel, and Schelling turned Kant'scritical philosophy intoa gnosticexposition ofultimate realities are accepted- as they have tobe if the rest is tobe ofmore than his- toricalinterest. Accordingly Mr.Rassem's introduc- tory chapter endorses the idea of"science" as a system of concepts within whichhelocates the "ontological" place of Kunstwissenschaftaccording tothe handbooks ofC.B.Stark (i88o) andF. Piper(1867). To those ofuswhodonotbelieve inthe importance of verbal labels sucheffortsarenot onlymisguided but even harmful, as theyencourage thebeliefthatthe arthistorian mustforever stick tohis"essential" last which was carved at a time when both shoes and prob- lemswere very different. Thesame faith in verbal categories marks the chap- BOOKREVIEWS419 ter by F.Piel onthe "Concept ofHistorical Style and the Historicity of Art."Almost one-half of its eighteen pages istaken upbyquotations andsummariesof Hegel's definitions. "Style," welearn (p.23), "is the concept for the negation ofthe contingent both ofthe subject andthe object. Itis throughstyle thatthe artist arrives athimself andattrue objectivity, that is to say true originality." Hegel's metaphysics of history, according towhich everyphase of development fol- lows logically fromits antecedents, isthen compared with the more naturalisticversion ofhistorical explana- tion that is found in Gottfried Semper, who is defended against the accusationof "materialism."Tothe author, in fact, Semper's system provides thedialectical transi- tiontothat ofAlois Riegl, whose concept ofKunst- wollen (will-to-art) is acknowledged tobe"thefinal secularized formofthe Hegelian World Spirit"(p. 36).Riegl, inhis turn, is hailed as thefounder ofthe Strukturwissenschaft whosevalueis seen, inSedl- mayr's words, inter alia inthe recognition that "Rea- son is avariable that changes with history" ("Die Ver- nunftist eine geschichtlich veriinderliche Grasse"). If that isthe case, itis unfortunately not possible by ra- tional methods to decide from London in 1964 whether an essay writteninMunichsome years earlier isthe product ofreason or unreason. Bethat as it may, the evolutionof Sedlmayr's doctrines from Riegl's must apparently beseenas oneofthose "genuine historical wholesand meaningful self-movements ofthe spirit" (p.36-"echte historische Geschehensganzheiten und sinnvolle Eigenbewegungen des Geistes") whichcan absolvetheindividualof personal responsibility and thehistorian oftheneedtosee history intermsof people andtheirdecisions. The essay isfollowed by L.Dittmann's exposition of "Schelling's Philosophy oftheVisualArts."One quotation must suffice: "Only because the work ofart is the reconciliationand the unity of the subjective and the objective, theconscious andthe unconscious, of spirit and nature, offreedom and necessity, isitable toreflect the absolute, the self-identical, the eternally one essence; only insofar as the work of art is a recon- ciliation ofall contradictions, a perfect synthesis, is the absoluteenabledto reveal itself through it" (pp. 52-53). Withinthe rules of ordinary logic itwouldbe easy to deducefromthis mumbo-jumbo thatart being both everything and nothing isnotafit subject fora"sci- ence,"orforanydiscussion, sinceallstatements we may beable tomake will equally apply, aswilltheir contradictions. Butitis really useless to argue where argument itself is rendered suspect as against some al- ternativemodeof knowledge thatis grounded in "myth" and "images." Thisconclusion ismadeex- plicit inthethirdand longestessay,by H.Schade, devoted toa critique ofWilhelm Dilthey'stheory of art. Despite his derivationfrom Hegel,Dilthey presents a problem because inhis version ofGeistesgeschichte, mythology and metaphysics arebothseenaslower stages which are overcome by the rise ofa rational ap- proach that acknowledges therelevance of psychology and sociology for the understanding of the past. His loss of any metaphysicalanchorage led Dilthey tosearch for a new foundationof consciousness"in the depths of the Germanicsoul" (p.o3). Thevariableof reason happens to have moved away from this particular solu- tion, and so Dilthey's historicalrelativismis made the occasion foranewsearch for absolutes, since Schade still believesthat sciencemustbe "foundedon concepts whichareboth necessary and embracing" (p.122). The philosophicalilliteracy ofthis demand ismatched by theauthor's historical illiteracy, forin contrasting histwomodes of knowing theauthor tries to adjudi- cate between Galileo and the Church: "It was the mis- take ofthe believing scientists that theyunreflectingly applied the image-insights(Bilderkenntnisse) ofthe Holy Writtothe realities ofnatural science, that is to say that they posited them as absolute. Themistake of Galileoandothers layprobably intheir opinion that they had fully exhausted cosmic reality by meansof empirical science" (p.127-Erfahrungswissenschaft). Quite apart from the historical fact that Galileo inhis Dialogueexplicitly distinguished between the way his Platonic God apprehends theworldandthe groping advances ofdiscursive reason, the imputation that itis the scientistrather than the Hegelian who believeshim- selfin possession ofultimate explanations must notbe allowed to stand. Granted that the author's uneasiness inthe face of Dilthey's approach is legitimate and that what WolfgangKShler called "the place ofvalue in a worldof facts" presents a real problem to the student of art, his remedy of founding arenovatedGeistes- wissenschaft ontheromantic belief inthe "analogical nature of Being"(p.132) will hardly commend itself to many readers ofthis journal. The remaining three essays are less pretentious and therefore more interesting to the historian, but they suf- ferfrom another shortcoming that vitiates thecontri- butions tothisvolume-their ignorance ofideas and movements outside the narrow circle of German Ideal- ism.Itis true that Mr.Rassem's preface explicitly ac- knowledges this shortcoming. "It goes without saying thatthe history of any science reaches beyond allna- tionalhorizons" (pp.16-17), butthis afterthought does not dispose ofthe question whether itever makes sense inthe history of historiography toconfine one's attention tothe literature ofone country or language. Canone really discuss Dilthey's interest in sociology without even mentioning the name of Hippolyte Taine? Canone pose the question ofnaturalism inthenine- teenth century without showing oneself awareofthe existenceofDarwin,of Spencer, ofWundt?Mr. Bauer's essay on"Architecture as Art" may bring to- gether quite interesting quotations and definitions from Schinkel, Goethe, Hegel,Schopenhauer,and Schelling, butcanone seriously discuss nineteenth century ideas about thatartwithout mentioningViollet-le-Duc or Ruskin?B. Rupprecht's final essay on"Plastic Ideal and Symbol inthe Dispute about Images inGoethe's Era" may also contain some illuminating extracts from the polemics ofclassicists andromanticsaboutthe suitability of pagan and Christian subjects for sculpture and painting, but can one forget that Friedrich Schlegel 420THEARTBULLETIN published his romanticmanifestoin his journal "Eu- ropa" in Parisin I803, one year after Chateaubriand had championed the superiority of Christianthemesin his Genie du Christianisme?Can one discuss Runge's and Creutzer's ideas about symbols without thinking of Blake and his sources? The onlyessay ofthevolume whichtreats its subject ina European contextis W. Messerer's "Remarks onSomeExtremeIdeasabout Funerals and Tombs around i 8oo." Its presence in this volume is probably due tothe importance which Pro- fessor Sedlmayr attachesin his bookon "Art in Crisis" to the utopian projects ofthe French Revolution. Un- fortunately the project herediscussed can hardly be taken seriously. Itis P.Giraud's plan ofa newkind of cemetery inwhich the bones ofthe dead are processed into avitreous substance used for columns and images roundthe inevitable pyramid.Still, as a historicalcuri- osity this plan deserves perhaps as much attention as do the weird systems of Schlegel and of Hegel. Nobody who appreciates theenormous contribution whichGermanscholars havemadeandcontinueto make tothe history ofart will deny thehistorical im- portance ofGerman romanticisminthis development. Science often starts from myth. Chemistry owesmuch to alchemy, astronomy to astrology. Thefact that Co- lumbus discovered America is notaffected by his mis- takenbeliefthathecouldsailwestwardasfaras India. But ifthere are geographers who still cling to thebelief that itwasIndia whereColumbus landed, they donot usually findaserious publisher. These areharsh words, I know, butfailureto speak out against the enemies ofreason has caused enough disas- ters to justify this breachof Academic etiquette. E.H.GOMBRICH The Warburg Institute Universityof London MILTONW.BROWN, The Story of the Armory Show, New York, NewYork Graphic Society, 1963.Pp. 320;104pls. $5-50. A legendcomplete with hero,staggering obstacles, a sense of manifest destiny, a moral for all seasons, and including such niceties as buried treasure (or treasurer's records, tobe precise) andthe indispensable meta- morphosis (for the uglyduckling ofmodernarthas long sincebecomethebeautiful swan), alltoldat breakneck speed ina popular idiomatic style-such is MiltonW.Brown's absorbing accountofAmerican art's coming of age. From the moment the idea ofthe Association ofAmericanPainters and Sculptors was conceived, through each development ofits organiza- tionalformtothe joyous birth ofthe Armory Show and the salmon-like demise ofthe Association, Brown has us holding ontoour seats as wefollowthe events andtake inthecritical scenery ofthis amazingstory chapterbychapter. The large castofcharacters is handled withenviable easeandtheconfrontation of protagonists and antagonists is delicately shaded, so that atthe end, whilethereisnodoubt about wherethe greaterpart of virtue lay, we are satisfiedthat the op- position has had a fair representation in court. Although the general outlinesof the Armory Show story have been known, with Walt Kuhn's memoirs, published in 1938, providing the main body of informa- tion, the detailedaccountof the formationof the AAPS, the ensuingpreparations for the exhibitionand the final dissolutionof the Association depended on recordsthat until recently were thought no longer to exist. Brenda Kuhn's recent bequest ofher father's papers tothe Archivesof American Art, and the accidentaldiscov- ery in 1958 of the MacRae Papers(in the courseof restoring anoldConnecticut inn),subsequently ac- quiredby the Joseph H.Hirshhorn Foundation, made availableto researchthe basicrecordsof the organiza- tion, thoseof the secretary and treasurer,respectively; these provide the materialfor a fairlycompletedescrip- tion of the event which, whateverits real impactmight or might not have been, symbolically marksthe mo- ment when Americanart enteredthe mainstreamof western tradition. These importantdocuments, to- gether with other new materialdiscovered during the researchundertaken by Brown and by peopleworking concurrently ontheFiftieth Anniversary Exhibition initiated by theMunson-Williams-Proctor Institute, form the basisof Brown's Story. Needlessto say, with such documentationthe booktakesits placeamong the indispensable volumesin the history of Americanart. Brown'shero in the Story is Arthur B. Davies, as hehad been Kuhn's, but Kuhn himself comes into greater prominence inBrown's book than modesty could allow inhis own memoirs, and weare easily brought to shareBrown'sadmirationfor thesemen and all the othersof the smallbandof Americanartistswho brought into being one ofthe greatest exhibitionsof modernart ever held anywhereup to that time. The range and characterof the problems of preparing the Show were enormous and, as Brown remarks,"Only dedicatedmen working for a singlepurpose couldhave done it ... if we did not have the ...evidence... and photographs to prove that it happened, it would be hard to believe" (p. 86). In additionto its documen- tary significance, this bookalso performs the serviceof payingproperhomage to the men who did thisincredi- ble job, men who, as Brown pointsout, were them- selves not the pioneers ofmodern art, not the artists who were to come to the front in the actualbattleof brush and paint, but whose convictions were so largely responsible for advancing and even reshaping the taste ofAmerican collectors. Withoutthis groundwork, the pioneers themselves might have bit the dust-asBrown mightsay, withhis preference forcolorful,informal language. Ifwearetotake issue withBrownatall,itisin his interpretation ofAmericancriticism oftheShow and,byextension, ofAmerican taste in general. We havethe impression fromthis book thatthecriticism andtaste werenot onlybackward, which theywere, but particularlybackward, which they werenot."The Americanartworldwasnot ready forthe Armory Show,"Brownwrites,"Itwas entirely unaware ex-