Skip to main content


<?xml version="1.0"?>

<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "base.dtd">




<title>"Contemporary Approaches to the History of Art 1: Iconography, Marxism, Feminism"</title></titleStmt>

<publicationStmt><distributor>BASE and Oxford Text Archive</distributor>


<availability><p>The British Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading, under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Centre for English Language Teacher Education, Warwick) and Paul Thompson

(Department of Applied Linguistics, Reading), with funding from BALEAP,

EURALEX, the British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. The

original recordings are held at the Universities of Warwick and Reading, and

at the Oxford Text Archive and may be consulted by bona fide researchers

upon written application to any of the holding bodies.

The BASE corpus is freely available to researchers who agree to the

following conditions:</p>

<p>1. The recordings and transcriptions should not be modified in any


<p>2. The recordings and transcriptions should be used for research purposes

only; they should not be reproduced in teaching materials</p>

<p>3. The recordings and transcriptions should not be reproduced in full for

a wider audience/readership, although researchers are free to quote short

passages of text (up to 200 running words from any given speech event)</p>

<p>4. The corpus developers should be informed of all presentations or

publications arising from analysis of the corpus</p><p>

Researchers should acknowledge their use of the corpus using the following

form of words:

The recordings and transcriptions used in this study come from the British

Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus, which was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Warwick) and Paul Thompson (Reading). Corpus development was assisted by

funding from the Universities of Warwick and Reading, BALEAP, EURALEX, the

British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. </p></availability>




<recording dur="00:50:37" n="9162">


<respStmt><name>BASE team</name>



<langUsage><language id="en">English</language>



<person id="nf0094" role="main speaker" n="n" sex="f"><p>nf0094, main speaker, non-student, female</p></person>

<person id="om0095" role="observer" n="o" sex="m"><p>om0095, observer, observer, male</p></person>

<personGrp id="ss" role="audience" size="m"><p>ss, audience, medium group </p></personGrp>

<personGrp id="sl" role="all" size="m"><p>sl, all, medium group</p></personGrp>

<personGrp role="speakers" size="4"><p>number of speakers: 4</p></personGrp>





<item n="speechevent">Lecture</item>

<item n="acaddept">History of Art</item>

<item n="acaddiv">ah</item>

<item n="partlevel">UG</item>

<item n="module">Methods in Art History</item>





<u who="nf0094"> i rather abruptly <pause dur="0.4"/> finished last week so you were deprived of the nice <pause dur="0.5"/> formal analysis of Wölfflin's but i think you can really <pause dur="0.2"/> read this up i mean Preziozi has actually an extract of his introduction which is quite <pause dur="0.4"/> eloquent on those different categories he uses <pause dur="0.4"/> but what i do want to do which i think is quite important in a lecture is to come to <pause dur="0.2"/> good summary to recall for you what i've been doing so i'll try to do this and that nicely leads over i think <pause dur="0.4"/> into what i'm going to do today <pause dur="0.7"/> so last week i <pause dur="0.5"/> kept hammering <pause dur="0.4"/> down that # <pause dur="0.2"/> in order to have art history you need some sense of development you need an understanding of <pause dur="0.4"/> well you need a conceptualization <pause dur="0.3"/> of a course which you hold responsible for you know what makes art <pause dur="0.3"/> historically specific <pause dur="0.3"/> but a course which is also sufficiently timeless so that you can compare the different <pause dur="0.4"/> historical moments with each other <pause dur="0.2"/> so one course which leads through the <pause dur="0.5"/> the the different ages of the history of art <pause dur="0.3"/> and yet is <pause dur="0.2"/> specific

enough to account for their differences as well <pause dur="0.4"/> so in <pause dur="0.4"/> in with Hegel with whom i started is it was this <pause dur="0.2"/> funny category which nobody really quite <pause dur="0.2"/> was able to grasp the world spirit <pause dur="0.6"/> and with Riegl and Wölfflin it was <pause dur="0.3"/> this diverse well it was really human perception they felt was an underlying stable <pause dur="0.4"/> continuum # # an underlying course which changed historically specific <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>ve</trunc> # Riegl had <pause dur="0.3"/> the oppositional categories haptic-optic and Wölfflin had those five sets <pause dur="0.4"/> like open and closed forms <pause dur="0.2"/> <vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/> plan and recessionary <pause dur="1.0"/> the ones i <pause dur="0.4"/> couldn't quite take you through entirely last week <pause dur="0.7"/> now it's really only with such superhistorical categories <pause dur="0.5"/> that i argued a systematic account of the history of art is possible one which gives you you know # sort of sense and # after <trunc>r</trunc> the Renaissance came the baroque and after the baroque came the rococo <pause dur="0.3"/> those kind of accounts <pause dur="0.7"/> and that was quite in contrast <pause dur="0.6"/> to <pause dur="0.2"/> the connoisseurs <pause dur="0.4"/> about whom i've <pause dur="0.3"/> gave you a

little bit last week <pause dur="0.3"/> who really didn't have any such concept they had sort of implicitly but they were really <pause dur="0.2"/> quite quiet about it and they really only looked into <pause dur="0.3"/> digging out as much as they could about a specific artist or at most a specific context <pause dur="0.3"/> but they couldn't really give you a sort of superhistorical account of the history of art <pause dur="1.1"/> now then <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>fini</trunc> or # halfway through i said well really Hegel's <trunc>metaph</trunc> # <trunc>p</trunc> the reason why they were silent was that Hegel's metaphysical account of the world spirit <pause dur="0.3"/> really seemed very very <pause dur="0.3"/> speculative nobody could really quite grasp what that meant let alone understand it it's very dense stuff <pause dur="0.5"/> so <pause dur="0.5"/> you know they <pause dur="0.3"/> did away with that and said that's too metaphysical and along came Wölfflin and Riegl <pause dur="0.3"/> and gave you <pause dur="0.2"/> human perception as the underlying thing <pause dur="0.5"/> but <pause dur="0.5"/> what i then didn't say is <pause dur="0.2"/> they in turn were criticized and i come to that today the criticism of Wölfflin and Riegl <pause dur="0.3"/> what they <pause dur="0.3"/> said what people said shortly

after Riegl and Wölfflin had published was <pause dur="0.4"/> what about subject matter if you listen to those guys you <pause dur="0.3"/> you think you you know there's # artists never have any thoughts in their brains they just work with forms <pause dur="0.4"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> shouldn't we take subject matter and what is depicted a little bit more serious <pause dur="0.9"/> and that was the first criticism <pause dur="0.2"/> and the first response <pause dur="0.3"/> was developed by someone <pause dur="0.2"/> by a guy who <trunc>ha</trunc> i had here on the blackboard called Erwin Panofsky <pause dur="0.9"/> and that approach is called iconography <pause dur="0.3"/> that's the first one i will be talking about <pause dur="1.0"/> Panofsky really resolutely restored subject matter <pause dur="0.7"/> and thought content to the work of art </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nf0094" trans="pause"> and then i come <pause dur="0.3"/> to the second criticism <pause dur="0.2"/> people of Wölfflin and Riegl and people said <pause dur="0.3"/> look you know that's all very well and we have these sort of <pause dur="0.2"/> again # categories and they're nice in helping us looking at art <pause dur="0.3"/> but really we learn very very little about the <pause dur="0.2"/> specific historical circumstances in which a work of art is produced <pause dur="0.4"/> they said we really need a much much

better conceptualization of how a work of art <pause dur="0.2"/> is tied into <pause dur="0.3"/> their particular societies <pause dur="0.6"/> so you know i mean with human perception it's rather <trunc>wa</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> vague i mean Wölfflin at the end of one of his books says <pause dur="0.4"/> well you know if you look at the Renaissance it's all very clear and the baroque it's all you know quite convoluted <pause dur="0.2"/> that really reflects <pause dur="0.3"/> the feeling for life during those times people feel <pause dur="0.2"/> clarity there's more democratic <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> state in the Renaissance <pause dur="0.4"/> then <pause dur="0.2"/> on come all the absolute monarchies and it's much more obscure the workings of power <pause dur="0.2"/> so it's vaguely related to society but really only vaguely <pause dur="0.3"/> and the critics came along and said <pause dur="0.5"/> no we can ground this much much better in social reality in <trunc>sp</trunc> and we really can <pause dur="0.2"/> tie a work of art much much closer <pause dur="0.4"/> to <pause dur="0.2"/> in particular the economic and social circumstances in a society <pause dur="0.5"/> and that's the Marx of course the Marxist <trunc>appro</trunc> # social history approach <pause dur="0.2"/> to which i will come <pause dur="0.4"/> which is the second one i introduce today </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nf0094" trans="pause"> # and the

third one is feminism <pause dur="0.3"/> now as some of you have already encountered in the seminars # feminism really <pause dur="0.2"/> isn't systematic in the sense that any of the others i will have been talking <pause dur="0.2"/> about by then <pause dur="0.3"/> are <pause dur="0.2"/> all of the others have to a certain extent <pause dur="0.4"/> an idea of a fundamental course which drives the history of art which <pause dur="0.4"/> accounts for the changes in the history of art and # <pause dur="0.6"/> # and give us some sort of continuity to through the times <pause dur="0.3"/> now feminism really doesn't have a coherent sense of that <pause dur="0.4"/> really they attach their particular question to a variety of approaches so you can have a Marxist feminist approach <pause dur="0.3"/> you can <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>h</trunc> even have an iconographical and # and a feminist approach <pause dur="0.3"/> and a formalist <pause dur="0.2"/> and feminist approach you can <pause dur="0.2"/> can get combinations of those so i'll take you through those </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nf0094" trans="pause"> you might now this is the third approach today you might now say <pause dur="0.3"/> what what <pause dur="0.2"/> what's the point # in <pause dur="0.2"/> you know telling you all about those approaches you <pause dur="0.3"/> really will encounter in much more depth again

throughout this course <pause dur="0.2"/> when the different modules start <pause dur="0.4"/> now my argument here is that well there is something to be said for repeating things and <unclear>again i</unclear> eventually and you give them get them get them from different angles from different people <pause dur="0.3"/> you'll have a much <pause dur="0.4"/> surer <trunc>f</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> footing in in those approaches <pause dur="0.4"/> but also my argument here is that i will give them a kind of <pause dur="0.8"/> context i will put them into a <trunc>c</trunc> a context of reaction to each other which i <trunc>h</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> well hope will steer you through the jungle of those approaches <pause dur="0.3"/> so as i've done today you know these are actually reaction the different approaches come about because they react to approaches which happened before <pause dur="0.6"/> and i hope <pause dur="0.4"/> by asking <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>my <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>guiding questions you remember that one the question about you know how do these approaches conceptualize <pause dur="0.3"/> the relation of the work of art to the society in which it was produced <pause dur="0.2"/> i hope that will give the kind give a <trunc>conti</trunc> continuum in in in those lectures <pause dur="0.2"/> and will really tie them

together </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nf0094" trans="pause"> so <pause dur="0.7"/> let me <pause dur="0.3"/> come to iconography <pause dur="0.4"/> now iconography <pause dur="0.4"/> was advanced by this guy Erwin Panofsky <pause dur="0.2"/> who really was a German intellectual working <pause dur="0.2"/> in <pause dur="0.2"/> you know # reworking this method <pause dur="0.6"/> over many many years from the nineteen-thirties until nineteen-fifty-five really <pause dur="0.8"/> and what happened during those years is if you think at the dates being a German he <pause dur="0.8"/> had to emigrate he was Jewish he had to emigrate and really a lot of his <pause dur="0.5"/> method developed then developed first in Germany and then he emigrated to the States and # there started writing in in in <pause dur="0.4"/> in in English <pause dur="0.2"/> and it is perhaps one could argue and people have argued <pause dur="0.2"/> that it's because this German artist who had started to publish in English <pause dur="0.3"/> that this has become such a famous and really very very prevalent approach in the history of art <pause dur="0.3"/> because it suddenly <pause dur="0.2"/> arrived in America where there was hardly any systematic <trunc>matic</trunc> art history going <pause dur="0.4"/> and really took the country by storm and England <pause dur="0.3"/> at the same time <pause dur="1.2"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> i will give you a really very

schematic <pause dur="0.3"/> description of what he meant by iconography and what he thought was to be gained from looking at a work of art <pause dur="0.2"/> in such a systematic way <pause dur="0.8"/> and i've already on the blackboard given you some indication do you <trunc>r</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> you've taken down the words haven't you but i'll repeat them it just helps you <pause dur="0.6"/> keep with me <pause dur="1.6"/> Panofsky <pause dur="0.2"/> said very clearly several times in order to <trunc>st</trunc> understand the meaning of the artwork <pause dur="0.2"/> we first have to ask <pause dur="0.2"/> or we we really have to ask three questions and we have to ask them in quite a systematic order <pause dur="0.9"/> the first one is <pause dur="0.6"/> what is depicted we first simply have to look <pause dur="0.4"/> at the work of art <pause dur="0.2"/> and describe what is there what do we see <pause dur="1.2"/> just really looking carefully <pause dur="0.2"/> and that he called the pre-iconographical <trunc>d</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> description a <trunc>pre</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> pre-iconographical description <pause dur="2.7"/> after that follows a second <pause dur="0.4"/> attempt <pause dur="0.3"/> to get closer to the work of art and its meaning <pause dur="0.6"/> and that is really asking the question <pause dur="0.2"/> where does the subject matter come from <pause dur="0.4"/> what is depicted we've seen what is depicted

but where does it come from <pause dur="1.4"/> and really here at that point you really need already quite a lot of knowledge you need a kind of knowledge of the history of art and you <trunc>n</trunc> <trunc>m</trunc> <pause dur="0.6"/> it's supposed that you've seen quite a lot of works of art in in collections or elsewhere in books <pause dur="0.3"/> so that you can actually say <pause dur="0.3"/> oh well yes i've seen this figure before it <pause dur="0.3"/> comes this # this nude <trunc>f</trunc> was in you know it's not a Manet invention it comes from <pause dur="0.2"/> this Odalisque <trunc>po</trunc> pose comes from Titian <pause dur="0.4"/> in the in the in the sixteenth century <pause dur="0.4"/> Venetian sixteenth century artist <pause dur="1.9"/> the third <pause dur="0.3"/> after that follows the third approach in Panofsky's order <pause dur="0.4"/> and that is <pause dur="0.2"/> after all of that you really have to ask yourself <pause dur="0.3"/> why is it depicted in the way is it what is specific in the way that the subject matter is taken up here and why did the artist choose to treat that subject matter <pause dur="0.8"/> and that he calls iconological <trunc>in</trunc> interpretation <pause dur="1.0"/> iconological interpretation so we have <pause dur="0.4"/> pre-iconographical

description <pause dur="0.3"/> iconographical analysis <pause dur="0.3"/> and iconological interpretation <pause dur="1.6"/> let me give you an example <pause dur="0.6"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> i have chosen quite deliberately to take you through <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>th</trunc> probably one of the most <event desc="turns down lights" iterated="n"/> famous <pause dur="0.2"/> works of art discussed by by # <pause dur="3.3"/><kinesic desc="turns on projector showing slide" iterated="n"/> discuss is that too dark </u><u who="om0095" trans="latching"> no it's fine </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="nf0094" trans="pause"> that's fine okay <pause dur="0.8"/> this is probably yes # <pause dur="0.3"/> whenever people think of Panofsky they immediately associate the German Renaissance artist Albrecht Dürer <pause dur="0.2"/> with <pause dur="0.2"/> Panofsky because Albrecht # because Panofsky <pause dur="0.9"/> gave an analysis a compelling analysis of this <pause dur="0.5"/> artwork here <pause dur="0.4"/> by Dürer which is a print by Dürer Dürer was you know # a painter <trunc>al</trunc> but also <pause dur="0.3"/> a very very versatile engraver who marketed his own engravings <pause dur="0.6"/> in a fantastic way he engraved his subject matter <pause dur="0.2"/> as you can see here <pause dur="0.2"/> and this <pause dur="0.7"/> work this sheet of paper this engraving is called Melancholia One <pause dur="0.5"/> and it's

quite well if you look at it it's quite <pause dur="0.5"/> it's quite mind-boggling what is depicted what's going on here <pause dur="0.3"/> what <pause dur="0.5"/> what did the artist want to do with this painting <pause dur="0.7"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> Panofsky said okay well let's first look what we see <pause dur="0.4"/> we see and you will start now <pause dur="0.2"/> we see <pause dur="0.4"/> a grumpy person <pause dur="0.2"/> sitting there <trunc>contem</trunc> # surrounded by many tools and you can sort of recognize this is a <pause dur="0.2"/> plane isn't it is it pronounced plane plane yes <pause dur="0.4"/> and some other here here many sort of workmen tools <pause dur="0.4"/> craftsmen's tools <pause dur="0.3"/> there's a sleeping dog here and then you have these <pause dur="0.3"/> funny geometric <pause dur="0.4"/> elements the sphere and the truncated <pause dur="0.2"/> polyhedron i think it is <pause dur="0.3"/> this one <pause dur="0.4"/> and you have a rainbow at the back and you have a building there with a with a bell <pause dur="0.4"/> # a sort of magic <pause dur="0.5"/> magic # <pause dur="0.5"/> number <pause dur="0.7"/> what do you call them number square <pause dur="0.3"/> # on that building <pause dur="1.0"/> and a putto here <pause dur="1.9"/> so that's what you get when you just look closely you sort of <trunc>in</trunc> try to enumerate what you really see <pause dur="0.2"/> in this picture <pause dur="3.4"/> but <pause dur="0.7"/> Panofsky was quite clear that

it's not really enough to just stop there or actually he also was clear enough that <pause dur="0.3"/> even the pre-iconographical <pause dur="0.3"/> description <pause dur="0.5"/> with which you have to start <pause dur="0.2"/> can't really function very well without any knowledge whatsoever <pause dur="0.2"/> because if you i mean this is very clear here if you have no knowledge whatsoever in recognizing some of the features you see here and giving them a name to them <pause dur="0.3"/> you will probably just end up saying <pause dur="0.5"/> # a grumpy person in the midst of lots of rubbish or you know things like this and that <pause dur="0.2"/> that's probably where you end <pause dur="0.3"/> so you know you already need probably in your <pause dur="0.2"/> pre-iconographical description to say <pause dur="0.3"/> well this is really an angel isn't it it's not just a person because <kinesic desc="indicates point on slide" iterated="n"/> that figure has wings and we recognize it as an angel <pause dur="0.2"/> and recognize <kinesic desc="indicates point on slide" iterated="n"/> that as a putto <pause dur="0.5"/> and we recognize <kinesic desc="indicates point on slide" iterated="n"/> those as tools rather than just rubbish <pause dur="0.4"/> and we see some sort of relation between the <pause dur="0.6"/> # <trunc>geo</trunc> geometrical forms and the tools <pause dur="0.3"/> perhaps <pause dur="0.5"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> at the second step of interpretation <pause dur="0.7"/> the

iconographical analysis <pause dur="0.8"/> one needs to know <pause dur="0.4"/> he says <pause dur="0.3"/> you know not just <pause dur="0.3"/> to give a name to things but we need one needs to know contemporary writings one really needs to have a look in the archives to see <pause dur="0.3"/> why Dürer # <pause dur="0.3"/> what <pause dur="0.2"/> what is sorry what did i how <pause dur="0.2"/> where does the subject matter come from you need to get a wider framework to depict # to get a clear idea of <pause dur="0.7"/> you know where does <trunc>h</trunc> where have we seen these tools before where have we seen those <trunc>geom</trunc> geometric figures before <pause dur="0.2"/> where have we seen such a figure before <pause dur="0.6"/> and the first of course the first <pause dur="1.1"/> instance or the first thing you look for <pause dur="0.3"/> is some writing by the artist himself and that's very scant the i mean obviously the more you go back in time <pause dur="0.3"/> towards the medieval ages or even beyond that the the <trunc>m</trunc> the less there is <pause dur="0.3"/> but in Dürer's case we have one brief note which says <pause dur="0.4"/> key means power sex # sex <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>means love <pause dur="0.7"/> <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.8"/> so this is <pause dur="0.4"/> you know this is the one note we have <pause dur="0.5"/> and then <pause dur="0.6"/> you go from there

and you look further into other contemporary writers <pause dur="0.4"/> and because you say well this doesn't really get us where gets us very far # far and you really need to look into what # what what Panofsky calls <pause dur="0.2"/> the history of types <pause dur="1.7"/> subject matter really <pause dur="0.4"/> and # <pause dur="1.1"/> <trunc>pan</trunc> in Panofsky's own words he says <pause dur="0.4"/> <reading>how under different historical circumstances are particular themes or ideas articulated</reading> <pause dur="0.2"/> that's really the question at that stage <pause dur="0.5"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> in the during the <trunc>stecon</trunc> second step it's less interpretation still than still description you still <trunc>m</trunc> of <trunc>m</trunc> which goes beyond but in this case beyond the individual image before we just looked and described the individual image <pause dur="0.3"/> but at that second stage we <trunc>d</trunc> we described <pause dur="0.2"/> the surroundings of the image the texts which could have been available to the artist <pause dur="0.3"/> or other images which he could have seen <pause dur="0.3"/> he or she <pause dur="0.3"/> in this case he <pause dur="0.6"/> now for Dürer's image <pause dur="0.3"/> Panofsky recognized <pause dur="0.3"/> that there were two pictorial traditions brought into one here <pause dur="0.9"/>

the first was <pause dur="1.1"/> a kind of personification of the arts which stemmed from the medieval ages <pause dur="0.2"/> which depicted the arts still in its <pause dur="0.2"/> in the craftsman tradition <pause dur="0.2"/> with tools craftsmen's tools and <trunc>geo</trunc> geometry <pause dur="1.4"/> and the second <pause dur="0.3"/> was a personification of the four temperaments another Renaissance concept <pause dur="0.5"/> and i don't know if you're familiar with the four temperaments they were <pause dur="0.2"/> characterized as the sanguine the phlegmatic <pause dur="0.2"/> the choleric <pause dur="0.3"/> and the melancholic <pause dur="1.2"/> and particularly the melancholic was <pause dur="0.4"/> characterized as being dark in moods as having mood swings and you can see in fact if you look at this figure <pause dur="0.3"/> <kinesic desc="indicates point on slide" iterated="n"/> there it's quite dark in the face so it's already the colour <pause dur="0.2"/> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> depicted as a melancholic figure a moody figure <pause dur="4.3"/> really in order to get to that stage Panofsky had to identify texts and he saw that there was a German humanist who <pause dur="0.2"/> it is very likely that Dürer knew about <pause dur="0.3"/> called Agrippa of Nettesheim <pause dur="0.3"/> actually i must <pause dur="0.2"/> interrupt myself at that point because i do see you

writing away fiercely <pause dur="0.2"/> i want to make a point you get a lot of those approaches again throughout this course <pause dur="0.3"/> really try to listen today don't take so many notes # <pause dur="0.3"/> particularly those names are not important it's easy to find them in in texts again if you ever read up on Dürer they will <trunc>f</trunc> will come up there <pause dur="0.3"/> so it's not important to <pause dur="0.2"/> try to get those names down <pause dur="0.2"/> try to see if you get the argument today that's much more important <pause dur="0.9"/> so don't bother with Agrippa of Nettesheim <pause dur="0.2"/> or indeed the other text which which Panofsky identified for the # <pause dur="0.3"/> # <trunc>f</trunc> # # as a as a source for Dürer Dürer's image <pause dur="0.3"/> and that's the Italian Renaissance humanist called Ficino <pause dur="0.3"/> now both of them <pause dur="0.2"/> talked about <pause dur="0.3"/> the different temperaments <pause dur="0.9"/> and Agrippa in particular said that <pause dur="0.6"/> there are actually three ways the human mind works and they are related to the <pause dur="0.3"/> to the to the temperaments <pause dur="0.5"/> and the first is <pause dur="0.2"/> the <trunc>imagi</trunc> # is a sort of way that # that you work <pause dur="0.3"/> imaginatively <pause dur="0.3"/> an imagination which operates in the

sensory world <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> uses mechanical tools and geometry to understand <pause dur="0.3"/> the world outside <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> he thinks <pause dur="0.2"/> it's usually architects and artists who do that and who fall in that category <pause dur="0.3"/> there's a second category where you use reason knowledge of the natural and social world in order to understand it <pause dur="0.3"/> that's the scientists <pause dur="0.4"/> or natural historians as they would have been called <pause dur="0.2"/> during those times <pause dur="0.6"/> and sort of scientists is really only a word which comes about in the nineteenth century <pause dur="0.9"/> and then there's a third approach to the world which <pause dur="0.2"/> really uses the mind and that's you know in order to understand divine matter and those are of course the theologians <pause dur="1.2"/> now Agrippa said it's the artist who use their <trunc>mima</trunc> imagination and it's artists who try to understand it by measuring the world <pause dur="0.3"/> but it is actually quite a futile attempt because <pause dur="0.2"/> however much you measure however much you try to order the world it always somehow escapes your <trunc>un</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> order you never quite grasp it entirely in your

understanding in your imagination <pause dur="0.3"/> and therefore <pause dur="0.3"/> it's related to <pause dur="0.2"/> a melancholic <pause dur="0.4"/> personification a melancholic person <pause dur="0.5"/> and <pause dur="0.6"/> it is for that reason that Dürer called it Melancholia One because it is the first <pause dur="0.4"/> melancholic type Agrippa <pause dur="0.2"/> talked about <pause dur="2.0"/> then further reading in those texts and around enabled Panofsky to say <pause dur="0.2"/> ah well really the magic number square here <pause dur="0.2"/> # is a protection against Saturn now Saturn is the <pause dur="0.5"/> the the the <pause dur="0.2"/> # primary example of a melancholic temperament <pause dur="0.2"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>th</trunc> # <trunc>e</trunc> # also the the the # <pause dur="0.3"/> the badge which flies up which holds the <pause dur="0.3"/> the title of the plate <pause dur="0.2"/> is also <pause dur="0.2"/> # aligned with Saturn and Melancholia <pause dur="0.2"/> and all this <pause dur="0.2"/> suddenly fell for Panofsky into one big piece it was melancholia and it comes from those texts and it is in this kind of <pause dur="0.4"/> in in in <pause dur="0.2"/> it is composed in this framework of of thoughts </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nf0094" trans="pause"> but that still doesn't <pause dur="0.2"/> that explains a little bit more about the circumstances and what people thought and # at

the time and how people tried to understand the world at the time <pause dur="0.3"/> but it doesn't really explain much why <pause dur="0.2"/> Dürer has chosen this subject and has depicted it in the way that he has <pause dur="0.5"/> so at that point <pause dur="0.3"/> we come to the third step <pause dur="0.4"/> in <pause dur="0.3"/> in # Panofsky's order <pause dur="0.4"/> and that is <pause dur="1.7"/> to make sense of that knowledge we have now gained in the three stages the <trunc>icono</trunc> # the pre-iconographic description the <pause dur="0.3"/> iconographic analysis <pause dur="0.3"/> and so we come to the <pause dur="0.4"/> iconological analysis or interpretation and # really it is at that point that interpretation sets in <pause dur="0.9"/> why did Dürer depict it in this way <pause dur="1.0"/> so we know from Dürer that key <pause dur="0.3"/> and money <pause dur="0.5"/> means <pause dur="0.4"/> wealth <pause dur="0.3"/> and power <pause dur="0.5"/> and we do know that he has a tradition of <pause dur="0.2"/> melancholia worked in too <pause dur="0.3"/> and that this melancholia was understood as being <pause dur="0.3"/> # this person's melancholic <pause dur="0.2"/> because the attempt to understand the world to measure it to use the tools to use geometry <pause dur="0.5"/> is actually in the end quite futile <pause dur="0.4"/> so <pause dur="0.5"/> according to Panofsky what we really have here is a

self-portrait of Dürer <pause dur="0.7"/> because he says <pause dur="1.2"/> the artist himself <pause dur="0.2"/> at that time saw himself as quite a success he was quite a successful artist particularly with his prints <pause dur="0.3"/> and he saw that <trunc>h</trunc> the rewards for his endeavours <pause dur="0.2"/> were wealth <pause dur="0.3"/> the money <pause dur="0.5"/> and # <pause dur="0.3"/> and the key and power <pause dur="0.6"/> but in the end <pause dur="0.7"/> according to Panofsky Dürer had to admit defeat he couldn't however much he measured and you probably are are you aware that Dürer had these most fantastic <pause dur="0.3"/> attempts of <pause dur="0.3"/> giving you treatises of perspective and measure human the human body and anatomy <pause dur="0.6"/> however hard he worked to try to understand the rules and orders <pause dur="0.3"/> # you know <trunc>un</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> lying underneath the natural order <pause dur="0.2"/> he he couldn't ever grasp it entirely <pause dur="0.2"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> this is a melancholic picture and it is a self-portrait because there is a sense of defeat here as well </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nf0094" trans="pause"> now i think you have to admit that we really do very clearly <trunc>ha</trunc> get a sense here of an artist working intellectually and being engaged with <pause dur="0.5"/> intellectual

discussions at the time <pause dur="0.3"/> so really i think one has to admit that with this analysis certainly Panofsky has achieved that and with all his other analysis <pause dur="0.5"/> as well you really have the you always have the feeling when you read Panofsky <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="0.3"/> all the artists he ever worked on must have been incredibly learned <pause dur="0.3"/> they must have known so many texts and all those texts and discussions filtered in beautifully into these images <pause dur="0.6"/> so that certainly Panofsky restored to art history the the significance of subject matter and content <pause dur="0.4"/> and artists <pause dur="0.2"/> working <pause dur="0.2"/> as intellectuals if you want <pause dur="1.2"/> but <pause dur="0.7"/> so far we really <pause dur="0.5"/> haven't <pause dur="0.3"/> gone much beyond what a connoisseur well we have gone much beyond in intellectual matters but not <pause dur="0.4"/> # we haven't really <pause dur="0.2"/> got to an art history with development we can't really write from the instance of this analysis a history of art of how art changed over time can we we really have only <pause dur="0.4"/> only illuminated one or Panofsky has illuminated for us one image <pause dur="0.8"/> but that

would be unfair to Panofsky to say well really in that respect he doesn't really go much beyond the connoisseurs <pause dur="0.5"/> Panofsky did and in fact Panofsky had a very clear idea of <pause dur="0.2"/> superhistorical conceptions of the history of art <pause dur="0.4"/> and that might strike you as as obscure as Hegel's was because his idea was <pause dur="0.3"/> that there isn't <pause dur="0.2"/> and i quote him now an essential tendency of the human mind <pause dur="0.3"/> to make the world conform <pause dur="0.3"/> to thought <pause dur="0.3"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> he said very clearly <pause dur="0.2"/> we really don't have <pause dur="0.3"/> and <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> as another philosopher who comes in a Kantian position but i just mention that it's not important <pause dur="0.3"/> he really says <pause dur="0.3"/> very clearly we don't <pause dur="0.3"/> whatever happens whatever we think is just what happens in our we order the world according to our mind <pause dur="0.3"/> we never ever know entirely <pause dur="0.2"/> what the world outside is <pause dur="1.0"/> the object in itself remains <pause dur="0.5"/> completely the world outside remains <pause dur="0.4"/> obscure as such <pause dur="0.2"/> what we know about it and that's all there is and that's sufficient and that's great is what the

mind makes of it the mind has a tendency <pause dur="0.3"/> to order it <pause dur="0.6"/> so <pause dur="0.8"/> this <pause dur="0.3"/> thought takes according to Panofsky <pause dur="0.2"/> this capacity of the human mind so really what you have and you can see it quite clearly an <sic corr="amalgam">amalgamam</sic> of a bit of Hegel's world spirit here you have the <trunc>m</trunc> human mind <pause dur="0.2"/> always trying to make sense <pause dur="0.3"/> and of course Wölfflin and Riegl's <pause dur="0.2"/> human perception <pause dur="0.2"/> although they capture they said this is just sensory perception <pause dur="0.2"/> here <pause dur="0.2"/> you have someone who says no it's not sensory perception it's thought <pause dur="0.3"/> which changes over time <pause dur="0.3"/> and makes the world conform to it <pause dur="0.4"/> which is <pause dur="0.2"/> therefore historically specific because thought can take as we've seen here <pause dur="0.2"/> quite a different form from the way that we think about the world nowadays <pause dur="0.3"/> but it is always that same essential tendency and it is because there's always that same same essential tendency <pause dur="0.2"/> that we can trace the history of art <pause dur="0.3"/> our thought <pause dur="0.2"/> has at different stages differently related to the world <pause dur="1.1"/> does that sound Hegelian

to a certain extent i'm sure it will ring a bell again <pause dur="3.2"/> thus <pause dur="0.2"/> for Panofsky there was really no problem in relating the works of art to society and you've seen this how he's done it <pause dur="0.2"/> he really <trunc>rel</trunc> thought that a work of art was intricately related to the way that a particular society at any one time <pause dur="0.2"/> thought about <pause dur="0.3"/> the world and itself <pause dur="0.4"/> and therefore he could <pause dur="0.2"/> ad lim <pause dur="0.3"/> lib <pause dur="0.3"/> # connect texts all sorts of discussions at the time with a with an image because for them they were <pause dur="0.3"/> similar <pause dur="0.8"/> # examples of the way that <pause dur="0.2"/> thought at that moment in history <pause dur="0.4"/> had related to the outside world or made sense <pause dur="0.2"/> to the outside world <pause dur="1.0"/> so he could relate it to contemporary philosophical or theological writings whatever <pause dur="0.4"/> really seemed appropriate at the time </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nf0094" trans="pause"> now <pause dur="0.8"/> for a Marxist of course such an approach <pause dur="0.2"/> is <pause dur="0.3"/> really not connecting art works very much to a society <pause dur="0.7"/> all this talk about thought and <trunc>tho</trunc> thought processes <pause dur="0.2"/> and in fact <pause dur="0.2"/> Karl Marx who's who <pause dur="0.2"/> was a <trunc>m</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> writer on economy and well philosopher as

well in the in the nineteenth century <pause dur="0.4"/> Karl Marx himself reacted very strongly to Hegel # <pause dur="0.2"/> and what Karl Marx proposed to do was <pause dur="0.2"/> to put Hegel's <pause dur="0.4"/> lofty buildings down from the <pause dur="0.2"/> take it from the head onto its feet that's what he wanted to do from the thought processes down onto the feet of economical processes which go on in a society <pause dur="0.3"/> really <pause dur="0.4"/> the way what Marx discussed was the way that the means of production were distributed in a society <pause dur="0.6"/> the way that <pause dur="0.3"/> very basic <pause dur="0.4"/> distributions of wealth structured a society <pause dur="0.2"/> who was working who gained the surplus of that work who owned the land who owned the factories who owned the tools who <pause dur="0.3"/> was to do the work with it <pause dur="0.3"/> really those basic <pause dur="0.2"/> economical <pause dur="0.2"/> and # circumstances <pause dur="0.3"/> were absolutely fundamental for Marx and he thought <pause dur="0.2"/> they determined <pause dur="0.2"/> the work of art <pause dur="0.2"/> and they <trunc>n</trunc> well he actually was quite quiet about works of art <pause dur="0.2"/> he said they <trunc>de</trunc> determined <pause dur="0.3"/> all the intellectual going-ons in a society <pause dur="0.3"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> Marx actually divided <pause dur="0.4"/> his or in his

analysis of societies he divided <pause dur="0.6"/> societies into a base which is the economic <pause dur="0.8"/> and social structure <pause dur="0.4"/> and then a superstructure <pause dur="0.3"/> which is all our intellectual <trunc>f</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> you know ramblings # all our <pause dur="0.4"/> intellectual justifications we produce in order to justify this economical base <pause dur="0.4"/> and of course <pause dur="0.2"/> Marx said <pause dur="0.3"/> at the base <pause dur="0.6"/> really # <pause dur="0.2"/> the the economical base <pause dur="0.3"/> is <pause dur="0.2"/> throughout society so far <pause dur="0.5"/> fundamentally <sic corr="unjust">injust</sic> <pause dur="0.4"/> there are people who work with the tools and there are people who own the tools and the land and <pause dur="0.2"/> own the means of production <pause dur="0.4"/> and although it is the workers who produce the value in the <pause dur="0.2"/> in <pause dur="0.2"/> in the piece in a piece it's really their handwork which produces it <pause dur="0.3"/> it is someone else who simply has money has capital <pause dur="0.3"/> who gets the surplus who gets that you know if you have a base material say a clump of earth <pause dur="0.4"/> it is worth nothing <pause dur="0.2"/> until someone works on it <pause dur="0.3"/> and then <pause dur="0.2"/> when it gets sold this <pause dur="0.2"/> surplus this extra value is added by the person who works on it but Marx

says <pause dur="0.2"/> look <pause dur="0.2"/> who actually gains that surplus <pause dur="0.2"/> very rarely the worker they only get a you know a a very very trivial amount <pause dur="0.2"/> back you know a <trunc>w</trunc> a fee a wage <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> real <pause dur="0.2"/> the the value which is accrued to this object <pause dur="0.3"/> that money which <pause dur="0.3"/> comes with that that goes back into the pockets of the people who own the tools and and the land and he says that's <pause dur="0.2"/> that's in <trunc>capa</trunc> in capitalism fundamentally <sic corr="unjust">injust</sic> <pause dur="0.2"/> there's a fundamental <pause dur="0.4"/> injustice underneath capitalist societies </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nf0094" trans="pause"> now what did art historians do with that and bear in mind Marx was quite quiet about the work of art <pause dur="0.3"/> now art historians # <pause dur="0.3"/> actually i have to <pause dur="6.6"/> art historians thought well this is actually quite a good concept to help us understand what <pause dur="0.2"/> if you want to link a work <trunc>o</trunc> of art to society <pause dur="0.3"/> to understand <pause dur="0.4"/> how it really really what really determines it and Marx very clearly says it's the economical <pause dur="0.2"/> conditions in a society which determine it <pause dur="0.2"/> so let's <pause dur="0.2"/> look and see if this is really what determines <pause dur="0.3"/> the way a

work of art looks <pause dur="0.5"/> and on came people <pause dur="0.2"/> like <pause dur="0.3"/> Frederick Antal <pause dur="0.3"/> the other names here and Arnold Hauser <pause dur="0.2"/> and they all gathered together also in the thirties when Panofsky started working <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> in a in a in a in a circle called # at Budapest where lots of Marxist # <pause dur="0.3"/> intellectuals at the time gathered <pause dur="0.5"/> and they sat down and developed <pause dur="0.4"/> Antal and Hauser developed a history of art based on a Marxist analysis of society <pause dur="1.3"/> what we get and i give you an example here <pause dur="0.6"/> and i come to this image which has been on the <pause dur="1.0"/> on the screen for quite some time now this beautiful <pause dur="0.2"/> Madonna <pause dur="1.1"/><kinesic desc="changes slide" iterated="n"/> which i <pause dur="0.6"/> hope i can focus a little bit better <pause dur="2.8"/> so Frederick Antal <pause dur="0.4"/> for example <pause dur="0.5"/> came up with an analysis and said <pause dur="0.2"/> look we have these two works both produced in the early fifteenth century <trunc>i</trunc> in the Florence republic in the State Republic of Florence <pause dur="0.4"/> they're almost contemporary <pause dur="0.3"/> both produced <trunc>w</trunc> the the one here on the on on your left is produced in fourteen-twenty-five <pause dur="0.4"/> and the other one on your right is produced in

fourteen-twenty-six <pause dur="0.9"/> the one here on the left is by an artist called # <pause dur="0.4"/> Gentile da Fabriano and the other one on the right is produced by Masaccio <pause dur="0.2"/> they're both the same subject matter Madonnas with child <pause dur="0.4"/> yet they're <pause dur="0.3"/> really quite fundamentally different <pause dur="0.5"/> and Antal said <pause dur="0.6"/> we can't explain the difference if we just looked at the difference of style and just # you know # if you want a Wölfflian approach of you know some is a more open form another more closed one is more <pause dur="0.4"/> more # <pause dur="0.5"/> planned <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>pla</trunc> this would be a slightly more planned arrangement <pause dur="0.2"/> <unclear>this</unclear> a more recessional <trunc>pray</trunc> # # <pause dur="0.2"/> # # approach here <pause dur="0.5"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> he says we don't understand anything at all if we just try to explain the difference in style <pause dur="0.3"/> by looking at those <pause dur="0.2"/> formal categories <pause dur="0.4"/> what we really have to understand he said <pause dur="0.4"/> was <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="0.5"/> they were <pause dur="0.2"/> really <pause dur="0.2"/> both produced by very <trunc>f</trunc> for very different clienteles very different people with very different interests <pause dur="0.3"/> who struggled for power at the time in the in the Florence

republic <pause dur="0.7"/> if you look at the da Fabriano here on the left <pause dur="0.3"/> you see it's quite delicate you have a very delicate attitude of the Madonna and you have a <trunc>h</trunc> and and and # <pause dur="0.3"/> Christ gives you <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> a grace here you know the divine grace of course raises his hand <pause dur="0.3"/> and it's <pause dur="0.2"/> very stylized in its in in its mannerisms and in its in in in in its movements <pause dur="0.2"/> and you have of course <pause dur="0.2"/> all this wealth of ornamentation and decoration very delicately done <pause dur="0.9"/> now Antal related this <pause dur="0.4"/> to the aristocracy in Florence at the time <pause dur="0.3"/> and said <pause dur="0.2"/> look really <pause dur="0.3"/> in the way that <pause dur="0.3"/> Christ is depicted in a ritualistic function in the in the emphasis on decoration and and <pause dur="0.2"/> and ornament <pause dur="0.3"/> that really reflects the interests of the <trunc>aristoc</trunc> # <pause dur="0.2"/> aristocratic culture at the time <pause dur="0.3"/> now contrast that <pause dur="0.3"/> with Masaccio and you very clearly see that the Madonna is put in a much <pause dur="0.4"/> clearer sense of a sort of three-dimensional spatial <pause dur="0.4"/> naturalistic <pause dur="0.2"/> environment <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="0.5"/> the <pause dur="0.3"/> Christ here is a real baby not sort of

ritualistic <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> figure it's a real baby which sucks its fingers and # <pause dur="0.4"/> and the Madonna is sort of turned in space and much and just simply much <pause dur="0.3"/> much chunkier much three more three-dimensional these as <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="0.3"/> really <pause dur="0.3"/> was <pause dur="0.3"/> in the interests of the emerging mercantile classes of the Florence society at the heart of the Florence society were really was <pause dur="0.3"/> really struggling for power at the time <pause dur="0.3"/> and they didn't want to have anything to do <pause dur="0.2"/> with all this ephemeral <pause dur="0.3"/> you know decoration of the aristocratic course their sense of the world was very realistic very down to earth very grounded <pause dur="0.3"/> and we can explain the difference <pause dur="0.4"/> in those images <pause dur="0.4"/> by looking at the different interests at the heart of the Florence society <pause dur="1.5"/> i give you an <pause dur="0.7"/> a more contemporary <trunc>analy</trunc> Marxist analysis <pause dur="0.4"/> just to show you what it means for art history to take that approach <pause dur="0.8"/> and that's # <pause dur="1.3"/> i mean <pause dur="0.3"/> of course <pause dur="0.2"/> those are already # <pause dur="0.2"/> produced at the beginning of what one would call the <trunc>capita</trunc> capitalist societies <pause dur="0.5"/>

fundamental to Marx's understanding of the world there are stages through which the world history has to go <pause dur="0.5"/> through # so there are feudal states and then you know and # by the time you arrive at capitalism the injustice has become so great <pause dur="0.3"/> that the last step in Marx's <pause dur="0.2"/> understanding <pause dur="0.2"/> would lead to a kind of sharing of all the means of productions in all the worlds <pause dur="0.3"/> to <pause dur="0.2"/> # societies which are communist in arrangement <pause dur="0.2"/> so Marx had a very clear idea and you can see how that actually leads to history of art because there's a clear sense of the development of society <pause dur="0.3"/> and as the societies develop and the means of productions change <pause dur="0.2"/> the works of arts change accordingly <pause dur="1.1"/><kinesic desc="changes slide" iterated="n"/> now <pause dur="0.3"/> let me illuminate this again and its problems actually <pause dur="0.2"/> by looking at this picture which very much comes from the really burgeoning # capitalist society of the nineteenth century in France <pause dur="0.2"/> this is Claude Monet <pause dur="0.7"/> La Grenouillère <pause dur="0.4"/> one of his La Grenouillère <pause dur="0.2"/> pieces <pause dur="0.4"/> it was painted in

eighteen-sixty-nine <pause dur="0.3"/> now La <trunc>gre</trunc> Grenouillère <pause dur="0.3"/> is a place in # # <pause dur="0.2"/> at the Seine near Chatou <pause dur="0.3"/> where all the Parisian folk would flock for leisure time pursuits for you know in the <trunc>a</trunc> in the afternoon or on Sundays when they weren't working it was a leisure <pause dur="0.2"/> leisure <pause dur="0.5"/> time destination <pause dur="1.0"/> for and in fact what was significant about it <pause dur="0.5"/> so Marxist art historians tell us is that <pause dur="0.3"/> at that place all the different classes the different sexes mingle completely <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> # without any any sense of the of the divisions <pause dur="0.3"/> which # structured their living together in the city during the day during the week and during work times <pause dur="1.1"/> but really <pause dur="0.3"/> you don't get much of that sense in the Monet <pause dur="0.5"/> do you <pause dur="0.2"/> i mean the reading goes here that there's no indication of such a potentially explosive social mix of all the you know working classes with the bourgeoisie and aristocracy <pause dur="0.5"/> at best these divisions here <pause dur="0.3"/> the divisions which are prevalent in the city <pause dur="0.6"/> are only temporarily suspended during leisure hours they

really are fundamentally there in the society <pause dur="1.7"/> we don't really get a sense furthermore of <pause dur="0.2"/> that this is actually quite a seedy ground this rather glamorous scene here <pause dur="0.3"/> because prostitutes were rampantly plying their trade during this # # at that <trunc>s</trunc> at at at that place <pause dur="0.3"/> and of course <pause dur="0.2"/> prostitutes were a big issue at that time in # in France in the late nineteenth century <pause dur="0.2"/> and how one could <pause dur="0.2"/> regulate them and how one could because there was a rapid spread of diseases at the time so people <pause dur="0.3"/> were actually quite afraid of <pause dur="0.4"/> rampant <trunc>prosti</trunc> you know <trunc>pr</trunc> prostitutes rampantly plying their trade and in places like this <pause dur="1.0"/> so really what is remarkable <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> Marxist analyst # analysts will tell us about <pause dur="0.2"/> La # Grenouillère <pause dur="0.3"/> would be <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="0.2"/> the way <pause dur="0.5"/> this environment this rather <pause dur="0.4"/> conflict laden environment <pause dur="0.3"/> appears <pause dur="0.5"/> like a glamorous playground <pause dur="0.8"/> really within the scene you just only have a had a feeling that people sort of casually meet each other sort of leisurely standing by <pause dur="0.2"/> that even you as

the spectator are asked to sort of casually walk by <pause dur="0.2"/> take in just an instant of a scene it's not properly framed like a sort of <pause dur="0.3"/> monumental scene it's really <unclear>i see it</unclear> <pause dur="0.3"/> it's a snapshot you pass by <pause dur="0.2"/> and that's of course supported <pause dur="0.3"/> by the brushstroke this rather hastily <pause dur="0.6"/> impressionist brushstroke which emphasizes the ephemerality <pause dur="0.3"/> so Marxist analysts <pause dur="0.3"/> would say <pause dur="0.2"/> look and this really shows that <pause dur="0.3"/> there there is this amazing conflict in the society <pause dur="0.2"/> and art is just part <pause dur="0.2"/> of the ideological superstructure <pause dur="0.3"/> which works in the interests of the capitalists and the bourgeoisie <pause dur="0.3"/> at the expense of the workers and conceals those <pause dur="0.5"/> those conflicts underneath it <pause dur="0.3"/> it's just a glamorous image which completely conceals all the conflicts in late nineteenth century French society <pause dur="5.5"/> so here then in such accounts is a clear sense of <pause dur="0.5"/> i think you would agree of how art relates to contemporary society and its problems <pause dur="1.2"/> but <pause dur="0.5"/> is it a systematic account as well well i tried to map

out that if it was strictly speaking a Marxist account it would be very systematic because you would then would have an understanding of how one society changes to another <pause dur="0.5"/> # and you have a teleology that would again something with direction something which goes from one point to another <pause dur="0.5"/> and of course <pause dur="0.3"/> therefore you would have a means of explaining the differences in the works of art <pause dur="0.4"/> when a society changes <pause dur="0.2"/> say from a capitalist society to a communist society accordingly <pause dur="0.3"/> the outlook of the work of art will change <pause dur="0.3"/> now that would be systematic <pause dur="0.3"/> but of course <pause dur="0.2"/> you know very few people hold to a such strict Marxist explanation <pause dur="0.3"/> nobody particularly after the walls came down in in Berlin in nineteen-eighty-nine <pause dur="0.3"/> believes in you know in the in in this teleology that a communist <trunc>sex</trunc> # society necessarily has to replace a capitalist one <pause dur="0.2"/> so there are very few and indeed i hardly know any art historian <pause dur="0.2"/> who really holds tight and fast to a Marxist analysis of society <pause dur="0.4"/> and

therefore <pause dur="0.2"/> what you get is a much more problematic account of art history <pause dur="0.2"/> the weaker social art history <pause dur="0.2"/> is actually quite unable to <pause dur="0.2"/> you have to and you can see this already with the two examples i've given you you have two conflicting ideas of <pause dur="0.4"/> you do you always have to ask <pause dur="0.3"/> how do they see the artwork related to the society that's my guiding question <pause dur="0.3"/> now <pause dur="0.2"/> in one sense in this for example you have it clearly as a reflection of the society <pause dur="0.9"/> and of course Marxists have been <pause dur="0.3"/> vehemently criticized <pause dur="0.3"/> as just <trunc>understan</trunc> or social art historians as just understanding artworks as being a reflection of the society and not being able to contribute <pause dur="0.2"/> in any significant means <pause dur="0.3"/> to the society in which it is produced <pause dur="0.3"/> so it's simply a <trunc>refl</trunc> a mirror of that society and nothing more <pause dur="0.2"/> and the artist appears as a sort of <pause dur="0.3"/> agent completely at the mercy of <pause dur="0.2"/> of all the economic forces <pause dur="0.2"/> so that's one criticism which which Marxists have been approached with <pause dur="0.3"/> but and and therefore some social art

historians have reacted by saying <pause dur="0.2"/> look it doesn't necessarily need to be this reflection model it can be much weaker it can <pause dur="0.2"/> both be reflecting the society and contributing to it <pause dur="0.4"/> but in any case it's not entirely clear how <pause dur="0.2"/> # the artwork is really linked to society in the in in <pause dur="0.3"/> in those accounts <pause dur="0.3"/> there's always a <trunc>s</trunc> a slight ambiguity is it a reflection is it contributing <pause dur="0.2"/> in which way <pause dur="0.2"/> if it's contributing you have to prove <pause dur="0.3"/> that the artwork <pause dur="0.2"/> not only is there because the society is in the way it is <pause dur="0.3"/> but also <pause dur="0.2"/> that it is <pause dur="0.3"/> there # that <pause dur="0.2"/> # the society is there because the artwork looks this way and i don't know of any <pause dur="0.7"/> stringent art historical account <pause dur="0.2"/> which can give me proof that say <pause dur="0.3"/> Turner # the the <pause dur="0.2"/> industrial revolution in Britain happened in the early nineteenth century <pause dur="0.3"/> because <pause dur="0.2"/> Turner painted Rain Steam and Speed <pause dur="1.2"/> but this is just <pause dur="0.4"/> because it's become such a prevalent # # <pause dur="0.2"/> approach in the history of art <pause dur="0.3"/> i just wanted to give you some <pause dur="0.2"/> idea of that there is criticism to

this too <pause dur="0.4"/> and this criticism has been approached <pause dur="0.2"/> # has been has been advanced not only by me here and i'm really only <pause dur="0.2"/> giving it to you in order to <pause dur="0.5"/> make clear that there's always a criticism to all the <sic corr="approaches">approproaches</sic> which <pause dur="0.2"/> we <unclear>were just</unclear> discussing about there's not one foolproof approach which you can just pick and choose <pause dur="0.3"/> if you pick one <pause dur="0.2"/> you have to be aware of its weaknesses and its strengths and you pick it for its strengths </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nf0094" trans="pause"> of course all the problems i've outlined with <pause dur="0.2"/> with Hegel with Wölfflin with the connoisseurs now with the social history approach <pause dur="0.4"/> they continue simply in the last approach i want to introduce here today in feminism <pause dur="0.2"/> if it's true what i've said <pause dur="0.3"/> that feminism <pause dur="0.3"/> simply doesn't have a systematic account of its own how artworks are connected <pause dur="0.2"/> in time <pause dur="0.2"/> and develop over time <pause dur="0.2"/> but append their specific <pause dur="0.4"/> # its specific question <pause dur="0.3"/> to other accounts other systematic accounts <pause dur="0.2"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> the most <pause dur="1.2"/> probably the most widespread feminist and the earliest

feminist account which came about in the nineteen-seventies <pause dur="0.3"/> was really one influenced by Marxist analysis of society or or or or art historians' <pause dur="0.3"/> social history <pause dur="1.3"/> and at that # and there the most famous name is one which you've seen here on the board but you've encountered in the seminars as well this is Linda Nochlin <pause dur="0.9"/> and of course <trunc>w</trunc> <pause dur="0.5"/> again with with her account you would simply <trunc>als</trunc> always have to ask how precisely does she see the artwork related to society so those all those problems although i'm not mentioning them any more <pause dur="0.3"/> will continue with all the approaches i'm going through now <pause dur="1.2"/> let me start with Linda Nochlin <pause dur="0.2"/> now she in particular argued <pause dur="0.2"/> that the reason why there are no great women artists known to us <pause dur="0.2"/> is because <pause dur="0.2"/> male <trunc>supra</trunc> supremacy <pause dur="0.2"/> governs the superstructure at the exclusion of women <pause dur="0.5"/> now <pause dur="0.2"/> this is simply instead of asking i mean often they ask the class question as well <pause dur="0.2"/> but this is simply <pause dur="0.5"/> <trunc>ask</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> adding to the questions of class and society the

question of women and in no doubt it is true if you look into the history of art <pause dur="0.3"/> that there aren't any women <pause dur="0.4"/> art historians <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/> # # i mean art historians <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> there are women artists or not very much we have to look very hard and fast <pause dur="0.3"/> yet <pause dur="0.3"/> women have always been <pause dur="0.5"/> half of the <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>population <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.2"/> so why is that so Linda Nochlin says <pause dur="0.2"/> it's institutions such as for example the French Academy <pause dur="0.3"/> where women were simply excluded from artistic training <pause dur="0.3"/> and even when they <pause dur="0.3"/> the odd one managed to <pause dur="0.4"/> get in # it # they weren't really allowed to make a mark on their own <pause dur="0.6"/> and on their own grounds <pause dur="0.6"/> and the remarkable thing is she says that and this is her particular area of expertise <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>fre</trunc> # France in the eighteenth and nineteenth century <pause dur="0.3"/> at the end of the French Revolution <pause dur="0.2"/> in the # at the end of the eighteenth century <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> where there were huge advances made for you know representation for bourgeois representation in <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>m</trunc> political structures <pause dur="0.2"/> women were actually

excluded women <trunc>di</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> the case of women were was not advanced during the French Revolution <pause dur="0.7"/> and Linda Nochlin and others then have set out <pause dur="0.2"/> to see what happened to such women artists who actually did participate what happened to the such women artists who actually did feel <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="0.2"/> during <pause dur="0.2"/> the time of the French Revolution <pause dur="0.6"/> there <pause dur="0.2"/> # # there was a call for <trunc>f</trunc> <trunc>f</trunc> <trunc>m</trunc> emancipation and people # wanted freedom and they <trunc>m</trunc> and and they felt this included them <pause dur="0.2"/> so what happened <pause dur="0.2"/> when they emerged <pause dur="0.3"/> and she <pause dur="0.2"/> and i give you here an example of one of her discussions <pause dur="0.6"/> <kinesic desc="changes slide" iterated="n"/> on the right <pause dur="0.3"/> she <trunc>dis</trunc> discusses for example <pause dur="0.2"/> an artist you probably never have heard of and might not <trunc>a</trunc> even hear about any more for <pause dur="0.3"/> reasons i will give you in a second <pause dur="0.2"/> an artist called Marie Guillaume Benoist <pause dur="0.4"/> who actually engaged very actively in the social struggles during the French Revolution <pause dur="0.2"/> and painted this painting <pause dur="0.4"/> called # <pause dur="0.4"/> called # # A Female Black <pause dur="0.2"/> # it was painted

around eighteen-hundred and it's very clear that <pause dur="0.2"/> she clearly meant it to link into with <pause dur="0.3"/> contemporary appeals for the abolishment of slavery <pause dur="0.3"/> and there was a a particular decree which was <pause dur="0.2"/> # advanced in the # during the French Revolution <pause dur="0.2"/> which wanted # which abolished slavery <pause dur="0.3"/> in nineteen-ninety-four <pause dur="0.2"/> and this her painting here <pause dur="0.2"/> is clearly managed to be # <pause dur="0.2"/> in the way that she depicts this <pause dur="0.2"/> the this black woman <pause dur="0.3"/> in in the tradition of French art <pause dur="0.3"/> in the dignified manner <pause dur="0.2"/> was <pause dur="0.6"/> managed to participate in that struggle for # emancipation <pause dur="0.2"/> but what happened to Benoist <pause dur="0.2"/> as soon as she got married shortly after <pause dur="0.2"/> she was expected to disappear from the scene and retreat into the household <pause dur="0.3"/> and that's precisely what she did and we <pause dur="0.3"/> didn't hear won't hear anything or wouldn't didn't hear anything from her any more <pause dur="0.3"/> she didn't paint <pause dur="0.3"/> and Linda Nochlin says <pause dur="0.2"/> that's characteristic of the fundamental <pause dur="0.5"/> <trunc>m</trunc> of fundamental <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> # chauvinist structures in society which make it impossible

for women artists to make a mark <pause dur="1.7"/> now such accounts look for social and economic explanations <pause dur="0.2"/> like other Marxist and social art historians <pause dur="0.5"/> to recover and explain <trunc>a</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> are produced by the other half of the world's population <pause dur="0.3"/> why why doesn't exist it tries to explain or when it exists <pause dur="0.2"/> why # <pause dur="0.2"/> how does it <pause dur="0.3"/> does it look differently <pause dur="0.2"/> why does it look in the way it looks and here this is an example i'll come back to next week in a different context <pause dur="0.5"/> <kinesic desc="changes slide" iterated="n"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> no <pause dur="0.3"/> oh <pause dur="1.0"/> yep <unclear>there we go</unclear> <pause dur="1.5"/><kinesic desc="changes slide" iterated="n"/> yep <pause dur="0.8"/> here are two pictures <pause dur="0.5"/> again by French impressionists on the <trunc>r</trunc> on the right you have Renoir's La Loge of eighteen-seventy-four <pause dur="0.5"/> and on the left you have a <pause dur="0.6"/> have a female impressionist called Mary Cassatt who depicts Woman in Black at the Opera both are opera scenes <pause dur="0.4"/> and both have again i mean this is five years later in <trunc>seventy-ni</trunc> in <trunc>eighteen-ni</trunc> # seventy-nine <pause dur="0.6"/> and it's very clear to a <trunc>f</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> to a feminist artist who instead of course what we have here is a typical image

of a of a male artist <pause dur="0.2"/> which although it is in the opera <pause dur="0.2"/> can see <pause dur="0.2"/> a woman is <pause dur="0.3"/> woman is made the object of the of the of the artwork <pause dur="0.5"/> it is the woman we look at she's not the subject she isn't doing anything we look at the woman and in fact we see the man behind <pause dur="0.2"/> scanning other women not looking at the stage but <trunc>scanni</trunc> scanning other women <pause dur="0.2"/> in the <unclear>lowest</unclear> and in the theatre <pause dur="0.2"/> to look at <pause dur="0.4"/> like we look at a voyeuristic in a sense look at this woman here <pause dur="0.3"/> when Mary Cassatt paints a scene like this <pause dur="0.6"/> the account goes <pause dur="0.3"/> we don't she actually shields herself from our view <pause dur="0.2"/> and she actually looks herself she's active she's not she's not so much an object of our gaze of our stare any more she shields herself and she is actively looking onto the stage and into the theatre <pause dur="0.6"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> feminist art historians try to explain those differences as well <pause dur="1.4"/> there is however another feminist approach <pause dur="0.4"/> which and this is quite neat for me to now come to the end of this lecture because i now go through <pause dur="0.3"/> i've now taken

a social historian's approach and showed you what a feminist angle on it would mean <pause dur="0.4"/> i now quickly show you what an iconographical angle would mean in and there is such a thing in for feminist art historians <pause dur="0.4"/> now feminist art historians would say <pause dur="0.2"/> well if it's true that women have always been the object of male artists never and and been excluded as artists' subjects themselves <pause dur="0.4"/> let's look at how artists have depicted them <trunc>lek</trunc> let's look at the history of types <pause dur="0.3"/> and really what we can if we look carefully see is that women have always been <pause dur="0.3"/> been depicted in two ways two camps <pause dur="0.3"/> either <pause dur="0.2"/> they are Madonnas saints or goddesses <pause dur="0.3"/> or <pause dur="0.2"/> they are Eves sinners and # witches <pause dur="0.4"/> and there's very little ground so women as they are depicted by men are stereotyped into those categories into those histories <pause dur="0.2"/> or and and then then you can give a history of types <pause dur="1.2"/> <kinesic desc="changes slide" iterated="n"/> two examples very briefly here <pause dur="0.2"/><kinesic desc="changes slide" iterated="n"/> Lucas Cranach seven # sixteenth century <pause dur="0.2"/> # German

artist <pause dur="0.7"/> painting Eve <pause dur="0.4"/> and of course Eve is <pause dur="0.2"/> Eve Eve is the the the the primary seductress in in this because of her <trunc>tempta</trunc> because she is tempted and she succumbs to it <pause dur="0.3"/> it is because of that that humankind has fallen the fall from paradise <pause dur="0.9"/> and <pause dur="0.6"/> on <pause dur="0.2"/> on the right i couldn't help putting this in this is this is by a nineteenth century German artist again <pause dur="0.5"/> Franz von Stuck <pause dur="0.3"/> late nineteenth century <unclear>because really bad</unclear> quality <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> and it's called <pause dur="0.3"/> this # <pause dur="0.2"/> Sensuality and again it's a it's a it's a <pause dur="0.3"/> woman as <unclear>can and</unclear> you can see the the snake here again as a vamp a seductress as somehow evil she's pale and there are other pictures <pause dur="0.3"/> where you have a sort of extreme <trunc>co</trunc> # contrast between the glowing gold of in this painting style <pause dur="0.2"/> and the extreme <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>pil</trunc> pale and <pause dur="0.3"/> ill looking <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> depiction of the woman who is an evil seductress of course <pause dur="0.9"/> obviously disease ridden as well <pause dur="2.2"/> that is an iconographical approach <pause dur="0.4"/> not as elaborate <pause dur="0.2"/> as <pause dur="0.2"/> as Panofsky's but it looks for a history of types it

<trunc>go</trunc> goes into the history of whenever you look and whenever art historians look for <pause dur="0.2"/> models of some particular depiction they in one sense or another <pause dur="0.3"/> do link into the into Erwin Panofsky's iconography <pause dur="1.3"/> but there is also and you might be surprised <pause dur="0.2"/> a feminist formalist approach <pause dur="0.4"/> 'cause formalists are after all all <trunc>th</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> all those people who have been heavily derided by contemporary <pause dur="0.6"/> art historical approaches <pause dur="0.8"/> and very quickly i give you examples of that <pause dur="0.3"/> <kinesic desc="changes slide" iterated="n"/> here on the on the left you have a minimalist artist of the nineteen-sixties <pause dur="0.2"/> called Donald Judd and on the right <pause dur="0.4"/><kinesic desc="changes slide" iterated="n"/> a female minimalist artist called Eva Hesse <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> and you <pause dur="0.2"/> and # a formalist approach <pause dur="0.2"/> as it has been advanced with regard to these objects <pause dur="0.3"/> would say <pause dur="0.2"/> look <pause dur="0.2"/> here on the on the left <pause dur="0.2"/> you have <pause dur="0.4"/> industrial material clonky material rather macho in appearance <pause dur="0.5"/> yet <pause dur="0.2"/> Eva Eva Hesse takes it up a female artist <pause dur="0.2"/> she still uses those geometric forms which minimalists in the nineteen-sixties

used <pause dur="0.3"/> but she uses it in a much more <pause dur="0.2"/> biomorphic <pause dur="0.3"/> way in a in a way which resembles much more body you can see those little things <kinesic desc="indicates point on slide" iterated="n"/> i mean they're metal <pause dur="0.2"/> but it looks <pause dur="0.3"/> much more like something which is bodily which is furry or you know <pause dur="0.8"/> and and therefore the argument goes <pause dur="0.3"/> it is because women are much more in touch with their body they are after all the people who <pause dur="0.3"/> bear children who raise children who are often been because they have been <pause dur="0.4"/> condemned to the home and the household they are much more in touch with those kind of aspects of the society rather than the <pause dur="0.3"/> the sort of <pause dur="0.4"/> mass produced clunky industrial worlds <pause dur="0.4"/> and and it's because of that that their work looks in the way it does that's where the difference sets in <pause dur="1.0"/> that's of course <pause dur="0.5"/> really problematic i think as an approach because <pause dur="0.3"/> if you want <pause dur="0.3"/> you have something <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>y</trunc> you have in many ways <pause dur="0.2"/> a <trunc>r</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> a recourse to Riegl and Wölfflin who say well it's human perception which changes over

time <pause dur="0.4"/> and it's but it's the constant as well <pause dur="0.2"/> here the constant is a biological difference between men and women <pause dur="0.5"/> if you think about it <pause dur="0.4"/> and there's of course no way that that can if it if it is really gets down to such a determinism then it's obviously no way that this can ever change then you would always look at works of art as women as <pause dur="0.2"/> what makes it <pause dur="0.6"/> intrinsically different from men because it's a different <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> different sex <pause dur="1.0"/> and of course there's a as you can imagine a huge struggle within <pause dur="0.2"/> feminist art historian circle <pause dur="0.3"/> between <pause dur="0.3"/> who <pause dur="0.2"/> because <pause dur="0.2"/> a social history account would not quite square with an account which sees biological differences as determining <pause dur="0.3"/> the differences of <pause dur="0.2"/> women and <trunc>me</trunc> men artists' production <pause dur="0.6"/> and so there's huge discussion going on there <pause dur="1.3"/> now with this <pause dur="0.3"/> last approach and i do have to come to the end and i do <trunc>n</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> do not want to i mean to a certain extent i think i've given you a summary again because <pause dur="0.3"/> with looking at <pause dur="0.4"/> feminism we came back to some

of the approaches <pause dur="0.3"/> from the last lecture and this lecture iconography and formalism and social history of course as well <pause dur="0.6"/> but with this <pause dur="0.2"/> you know we have seen what is actually quite <pause dur="0.4"/> quite significant for a lot of <pause dur="0.2"/> very recent approaches is that they aren't systematic in the sense that nineteenth and early twentieth century art history was <pause dur="0.3"/> that they don't aim that they <pause dur="0.3"/> that they don't aim to have one underlying cause which <pause dur="0.4"/> remains consistent <pause dur="0.6"/> throughout the ages # if you take <pause dur="0.2"/> away the one the the feminist approach which says there are fundamental biological differences <pause dur="0.5"/> all other approaches always say <pause dur="0.2"/> well <pause dur="0.6"/> you know we we don't we we can't actually hold to all these

metaphysical or whatever <pause dur="0.3"/> fundamental constants things have always changed and we certainly don't have any access to it <pause dur="0.2"/> so all we can always give <pause dur="0.3"/> is a particular account at a particular time <pause dur="0.4"/> but we can't give you a survey in the history of art <pause dur="0.2"/> and i think this is where the lectures come in as well you don't get a survey of the history of art <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>any more <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.4"/> and i will continue with more approaches which have <pause dur="0.3"/> which still account for <pause dur="0.3"/> the <trunc>w</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> differently in the way that the art object relates to society <pause dur="0.5"/> but # <pause dur="0.3"/> they don't give you a systematic <pause dur="0.2"/> you know long term development account in the way that the approaches <pause dur="0.3"/> until you know <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>th</trunc> feminism today did <pause dur="0.4"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> thank you