Art Historians vs. Artists

[z a b]

I had a discussion with my friend the other day and would like your assistance. I argued that artists in general, and in particular artists centuries ago, used to study the works of their predecessors in a manner different than the study of art history; the artists focused more on the aspects relevant to thair art, while art history focuses more on historic events. In response, my friend argued that artists were very knowledgable in the history from which art emanated. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

 

Thank you.

[condivi]

It depends on the artist, and the art historian, and the period in question. I wouldn't say either of you is exactly right, but one could safely say that, as a rule, art historians and artists have different priorities in looking and studying.

[rheya19]

I think that in general, even one century ago education and training (in all fields) put more emphasis on studying the people who came before them and copying their styles and ideas. Modern education emphasizes innovation and individual style more. I think that's especially true in art. 

[Charlsa]

I know at least in 18th c. Germany, Winckelmann was scolding artists to imitate the Greeks. I was told he was the father of art history, so I'm not certain what was the norm before then. The study of art would have been considered the philosophy and/or science of aesthetics around his time. So it would be less "this guy did it this way for this reason" and more "there is one true and pure beauty and here are some instances in which somebody or some culture came close." (f--king HEGEL) And then there were the times and places in which artists were considered more like craftsmen, so it would be a matter of picking up techniques or styles according to what your talents were and what the patrons desired. We know that Michelangelo, that cheeky devil, would imitate ancient Roman statues, but they were also in high demand. Maybe the secret is following the money to determine how and what artists (and art historians) study?

Depending on how far back you want to go, literacy levels, dissemination of reproductions, the ability to travel, and the wealth of the artist would also impact what they studied. It's easy to understand how artists would be considered craftsmen if training through workshops and apprenticeships was the majority of their education. If we're talking in the last 200 years or so, I'd say artists were deeply involved in considering, forming, rejecting and using theory just as art historians have been. 

I know that I'm fond of looking at art in terms of historical events, and I came from a studio background. But after taking a historiography class for art history, I came to understand that theory is, unfortunately, nothing new in our field. It's pretty much founded on it thanks to German philosophers (those bastards---I might never forgive Kant and Hegel).

Sorry if this is a bit tangential. It's midnight and I'm super wired.