The End of the History of Art? by Hans Belting (review)

ment of lightness is than the enhancement of hue or saturation. The above are minor criticisms. The fact remains that this book brings together a great amount of information on color that is not readily availableto artists and designers, and presents it asclearly as the material allows. Reference 1. Whitfield. Powell and O’Connor,in Cdm ResearchandApplimtion 13,No.2,119-123 (April 1988). THE END OF THE HISTORY OF ART? by Hans Belting. Christopher S. Wood, trans. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,IL, U.S.A., 1987. 120 pp. Trade. ISBN: 0-22604217-0. Reviewed by David Pariser, Concordia University,Montreal, Quebec, Canada. This slim volume consistsof two e s says-one dealing with the troubled relationshipbetween art history and contemporaryart, and the other addressing the impact of Vasari’sconception of art history on later art historians. The essays are not easy reading: Belting’sformidable scholarshippermits him to touch on a wide range of topics en passanba habit that may leave a less schooled reader gasping for breath. Such a reader will gain much from consulting the excellent annotated bibliography.On occasion, the language is turgid. Beltingunburdens himself of sentences that puzzle rather than elucidate.For example, in discussing the distinctionbetween contemporaryart and conception of modemism, or the ‘Classical Modem ’, Belting explains, This is an altogether different topic which is related to our previous argument only to the extent that such a distinctionbetween ‘modern’and contemporary may prove a necessaryprecondition for a historical perspectiveon some aspects of modernism” (p. 46). In general, however, the prose is less convoluted and the reader is well rewarded for an occasionalLaocoon-like struggle. Without doubt, this book will be of value to those who want a cogent introduction to, and evaluation of, contemporary art historical approaches. Throughout, Belting appliesthe insightsof the literary theoristJauss to the problems of art historical interpretation .Jauss is the formulator of ‘reception aesthetics’,an approach based on the proposition that over time the art object changes its meaning and significance.Phenomenally speaking,we can never read the same book or look at the same painting twice. Balanced against the extreme relativismofJauss’sview, Belting invokes his own erudition and grounding in traditional art historical scholarship . He is thus in the rare position of eating his cake and having it too. He can toy with extremely relativistic interpretative schemes,while guarding himself against the worst excessesof subjective art historical interpretation . For example, Belting is critical of the philosophicalhermeneutical position championed by Dilthey, Heidegger and Gadamer.The hermeneutical approach, warns Belting, 3vhich is bound to its own perception of things, in the end confirms only itself “(p. 20).In other words,we are admonished not to lose sight of the art object itself. This must remain the focusof our concern. In the title essay Belting argues against the claim that art has a history with a clearly defined telos. He indicates that art history as it has been practiced is incapableof dealing with contemporary art, because traditional art historical scholarshipis based on principles and assumptions that are not shared by most contemporary artists . In order to bridge this gap, he urges the use of a varied, non-unified art historical approach, one that encompasseseverythingfrom reception aestheticsto anthropologyand social historiography. The essay contains numerous surprisinginsights. Belting deftly turns received opinions on their heads. For example, it is commonly believed that the important difference between art as it was practiced in the Renaissance and as it is practiced today is the heterogeneity of artistic practice in contemporary societyand the homogeneity of artis tic practice in the Renaissance.It is believed that the diversity of contemporary art, with its myriad styles and approaches, reflects the fragmentation of our socialworld. It is also believed that the essential unity of Renaissanceart reflects the organized and total character of the culture in which it flourished. Belting says that such a formulation is badly flawed. Renaissanceart was not based on a unified approach to the practice of art; “olderart emergesas a sum of rival and complementaryfunctions and their respectiveexpressions” (p. 43). He asserts that wheneverwe examine an art historical period such as the Renaissance,3ve discover conflicting conceptions of art and its application” (p. 44). The author is critical...