Category: 13 September

Having never studied art history while deliberately using theory, I found the expanse of theories applicable to art history’s study surprising and enlightening. D’Alleva begins by showing that theory is difficult to define and always changing, therefore eliminating my preconceptions that theory is a simple idea and preparing me to be more receptive to the theories in the chapters to follow.

After reading and learning about each of the theories, I concluded that every theory has its advantages, but that each is incomplete and can only be best applied to art when used concurrently with other theories. For example, I found formalism to be too inadequate of an approach to art, but that it is valuable because it helps to narrow the mind of the researcher and prevents the study of artists from being mistaken for the study of art. Formalism combined with iconography and the history of ideas would allow for a more well-rounded approach to a work of art by taking into account the formal qualities, the meanings of the images, and the context of the piece itself.

While completing the reading I was particularly drawn to the discussion of word and image due to James Elkins conviction that “art history’s words are always doomed to failure on some level, because there are aspects of images that are beyond explaining”. I found this statement intriguing because it presents a paradox in art history; that no matter the research done, or theories used, art history fails the reader, and can only be fulfilled when the artwork is viewed in person. However, art history (although doomed from the perspective of the word and image theory) continues to be studied and researched because from the point of view of the other theories, the merit of a piece of art history can lie in the discussion of art’s iconography, semiotics, role in culture, meaning with respect to the identity of the artist, or any of its other facets.

In my senior year, D’Alleva begins to bring concepts ever so frustrating into sensible form. A relief. 

My career in art history has had ups and downs when considering my feelings toward the field. Beginning with the excitement that comes with mastering formal analysis and then learning to intertwine this analysis with the use of deeper and more iconographical ideas felt like a radical achievement within the first courses of art history. But then, in the light of excitement around new found fluency in the discipline, it becomes easy to feel stuck. One may even feel as I did; unable to progress towards new and original thought, stuck appreciating deeper thinking but unsure how to form it. Possibly, this stems from a fear of failure (that at the time feels more like a lack of know-how), but more likely comes from a lack of process recognition. A misunderstanding that the field is in fact constantly at question, and even the greatest thinkers challenge themselves (and each other) to think in ways so abstract yet fundamentally basic.

D’Alleva surfaces questions many would scoff at “What is a theory?”, yet at the same time many (including D’Alleva), struggle to answer with confidence. I find this ever telling of the complexity within the discipline, and more-so encouraging. A justification to why I spent many semesters wondering why my understanding of art at a deeper level seemed stagnant. Now, feeling rejuvenated by just the beginning of this text, I can focus on the process of critical theory, rather than being concerned with finding a result that may not be more than an idea or slightly different way of asking a question.

Some of the earliest pages in the text had the largest impact on my understanding of theory, and how I may apply these techniques to my own thinking. Noting the difference between methodology and theory is an idea so basic yet not always intuitive in the field. D’Alleva, stressing the importance of this distinction while supporting it with real world practice, shows that progress in art historical thought is not only attainable, but to be done in many ways. Progressing through the reading illustrates just that (in many forms), and simply being taught (or reminded) of famous theoretical processes is an exciting way to begin thinking deeper about critical theory.

D’Alleva starts off her book by defining theory so we as the readers are better equipped to understand the different strands of critical theory addressed throughout the next couple chapters. She describes the term as “a basis for action, but also an explanation of how phenomena work (6).” As someone who hasn’t had that much experience with studying critical theory, chapter 1 was great in helping me understand the next few chapters.

Chapter 2 focuses on analyzing form, symbol, and sign. Formalism is a way of studying art by solely focusing on an artwork’s formal qualities. According to formalists, artworks have no connection to their respective artists or to the cultures in which they’re produced. I always thought this was a strange way to look at art, since I feel like you can’t separate the artist from their art in this way, but I understand the merit in studying an art piece in such an objective manner. Iconography and Iconology on the other hand, is the study of identifying motifs and images in works of art, then taking these symbols and further explaining its cultural context. Like iconography and iconology, semiotics is similar in that it asks what works of art mean and how these meanings are expressed. Both these studies are clearly very different from formalism, which relies on not reading into the meaning behind an art piece. The “Word and Image” section of this chapter describes the relationship between visual (image) and verbal (theory) representations, arguing that though they are often linked, both have their own unique qualities.

Chapter 3 explores several widely practiced methods of engaging in contextual analysis. The chapter begins with the “History of Ideas,” which according to D’Alleva is a study of how “cultural meanings generated by a group or society persist over time, continuing or changing in their relevance and interpretation (46).” The concept behind history of ideas seems to parallel with a few of the methods discussed in chapter 2 (for ex. iconography and iconology).  The “Feminisms” section introduces to the reader the complexities of feminist art history. Feminist art itself must take into account the ways in which an artist or his/her representations of women are affected by her gender/dominant gender ideologies. However, feminist art considers not just gender, but also other factors that may play into one’s identity (such as race, class, family, age, sexual orientation, etc.). It was interesting to read how arts such as textiles and ceramics were not seriously considered by art historians until recently. Like certain aspects of feminist art history, LGBT/Queer art history has only recently been given attention, and so there are still “few full-length studies of these subjects (73).” The chapter ends with a section on cultural studies and post-colonial theory, which examines the interconnections of culture throughout society. Cultural studies is mainly concerned with ideology and power and is closely connected to Marxist cultural analysis.

I learned a lot about Iconography and Iconography and how the two practices are connected while reading this section. D’Alleva does a great job by not only defining these two terms, but also going through the history of these practices from intellectuals around the world from Bellori in Italy during the seventeenth century to Panofsky in the Nineteenth century in England.

Both practices are necessary in order to further understand both the piece art being observed, but also the context around the work (i.e religion of the artist, political nature of the time period the work was made, etc). After reading this particular section, I feel as though I can become a better artist. All my art to date has been very rudimentary in terms of subject matter, but incorporating aspects of society and culture hadn’t crossed my mind when it came to creating. I believe that this is one of the major characteristics that separates good artists from great ones.

I really liked how Look Again! opened with a broad definition of a theory. A term that is so common in our everyday language, that maybe we take its meaning and significance for granted sometimes. Additionally, D’Alleva goes into more detail when discussing critical theories which can be used to further research into disciplines like feminism for example. I thought it was especially interesting that D’Alleva stressed the importance of ignoring a ‘canon’ of critical theory. This allows for individuals to engage with a theory in their own way, and not get stuck with the same ideas and lines of research as everyone else.

In Art History Concepts and Research Methods last spring, I dedicated the semester to researching the Western canon of art history. I learned how detrimental it can be to have a canon that excludes so much that it allows for so many great works of art, artists, and literature to slip through the cracks. Women were never considered to be ‘great artists’ and as a result, were largely left out of the narrative. It was Linda Nochlin who shattered the standards behind the western canon of art, and changed art history for the better. She argued that instead of just trying to find great women artists, we need to question and challenge the reasons as to why there haven’t been many female artists at all throughout history. It’s not that women aren’t ‘great’ artists, there just haven’t been any female artists to begin with. As a result, women were largely left out of the canon of art history, which allows them to be easily overlooked. By challenging existing canons, and thinking outside the box, we can pursue topics that are more personal and specific to what we are actually interested in, instead of just following the mainstream discourse.

I really liked the way D’Alleva began Look Again! with a discussion on the definition of a theory. I thought her definition of theory, “a basis for action and an explanation of how something works” was very interesting. I’ve always thought of theory as a way of understanding something, but D’Alleva takes it one step further by including action in her definition; theory is not just stagnant, but rather, it is dynamic . She then applies this definition of theory to the remaining chapters where she discusses different theories of art from Formalism to Postcolonial theory.

The section of Marx and Engels was very interesting. I am currently reading Marx and Engels in my American Studies seminar, which is titled Theories and Culture. In class on Tuesday we all struggled to understand Marx’s The German Ideology and his definition of materialism. We discussed how Marx believes that human culture is determined by economic relations not cultural relations (or at least economic relations heavily influence culture relations.) Thus, I thought it was interesting that D’Alleva discussed art in terms of Marx and Engels since I associate art more with culture than the economy. However,  as I know from my Economy of Art class, with the growing art market today, more and more art is being produced for economic gains instead of artistic expression.  In fact, D’Alleva quotes Marx saying,  “art is not something produced by geniuses but rather is simply another form of economic production.” This concept makes me think of artists like Jeff Koons or Damien Hirst who run multi million dollar art factories. The very nature of the word factory to describe their art production illustrates the commodification of art by Koons and Hirst and the economic impetus behind their production. Thus, although I initially never thought about analyzing art through a Marxist lens, Marxist theory really does apply to the art world today.