The essay on Baroque, which Lavin considers “vintage Panofsky” and which Erwin Panofsky () was one of the preeminent art historians of the. Title, What is Baroque?: Summary of Lecture. Author, Erwin Panofsky. Published, Length, 20 pages. Export Citation, BiBTeX EndNote RefMan. Posts about Erwin Panofsky written by johannajuni. I kept reading that Turin was the Baroque city which was causing concern. Having.
|Published (Last):||12 June 2007|
|PDF File Size:||18.90 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.27 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Skip to main content. Log In Sign Up. The Future of the Baroque, ca. Panofsky, Stechow and Middeldorf The future of the baroque, ca. Heckscher as a starting point for considering the status of the baroque in the historiography of art and architecture at the very beginning of the post-war bwroque. The reflections by Panofsky and Stechow—and the discourse they index— offers a cross-section of thinking around this problem.
This paper does not claim an undue influence of this body of work upon the post-war decades, but it does help historicise the possibilities that scholars saw in a term disarticulated from its formerly negative connotations, bound to cultural decay and the Counter Reformation project, and now operating within an expanded concept of the arts.
It also raises as a question of timeliness the importance Stechow and his colleagues saw in regularising panovsky meanings that had accrued to the term, and the importance Panofsky saw in the idea of the baroque in particular at that moment.
Introduction In a letter dated June 22,Erwin Whxt wrote to his errwin student and fellow art historian William S. Concerning Baroque as a style, I can only refer your friend to a forthcoming article by [Wolfgang] Stechow Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio but I do not know whether he already has proof prints and would be willing to give them avant la lettre.
Another impending article by [Ulrich] Middeldorf Chicago University is concerned with the vicissitudes of the term and will certainly be of interest but has not appeared either so far as I know.
In the meantime, I am sending along an unpretentious lecture of my own fabrication which you may pass on to Mr. Daniells baeoque you are sure that he will return it.
I may want to use it again if occasion offers. It is not very good and full of typographical and other errors but he may get some ideas, if only by way of opposition. This was first prepared in the mids, revised over the course of several decades and first published posthumously in in an essay collection edited by Irving Lavin. The reflections presented from the end of the Second World War—of which the brief essays considered here together comprise merely two examples—tend to synthesise those discursive shifts occurring in many different fields, including the history of art.
As a consequence, the term baroque undergoes, from this time, one of the periodic recalibrations to which it has been subject over the course of its life. In this instance it owes something to the migration of terms and ideas from one discipline to another, to the migration of scholars from Germany and its neighbours to the United Kingdom and North America, and to the need to account for baroque in relation to the discourse on mannerism, which reshaped the field during the interwar decades.
What is Baroque?: Summary of Lecture – Erwin Panofsky – Google Books
The essays briefly discussed here us document a new standard against which we can now measure the uptake of a critico-historical and platonic baroque by the historical discourse on architecture among the visual arts in the s and s.
This is simply one of those fields well prepared dhat accept the baroque and its conceptual baggage in order to compel it into service towards projective ends. Where the parameters sketched out for the baroque in the essays of Panofsky and Stechow might now seem obvious and granted, even dated to our eyes, they were once making sense of a field that, much more than now, was rife with ambiguities and contradictions as a result of inconsistencies within and between historical disciplines.
He instead addresses three distinct meanings that had accrued to the term since the end of the nineteenth century. The baroque spans the period from between and to between and Books by August Schmarsow and Josef Strzygowski took a clue from this distinction, reassessing the classical painting erwim sculpture of the long seventeenth century as baroque on the basis of the relatively greater internal coherence found in works of that period than with works of another period, however established historiographically.
It occurs, after all, in the way Burckhardt treats rococo in the history of the classical tradition. Second, if there is, which meaning shall we recommend for adoption? A term that can mean anything ultimately means nothing when the audience expands beyond those who agree upon its use and encounters another that uses it elsewise.
A more comprehensive, all-embracing definition of the Baroque in art history will have to stand the acid test of our increasing factual knowledge which tends to dissolve that unity, but it may come, I believe, in the wake of a more penetrating analysis of the content of the art of that epoch.
It is not the unified appearance of the arts that holds together an age, but the culture those arts variously express. On this basis he remains sceptical of the value of the idea of a recurrent baroque as being whar more than an historical reading of late style that recognises the verisimilitude in several cases with seventeenth- century forms. A truly recurrent baroque will be a cultural rather than morphological phase, drawing in all artistic expressions of culture. He leaves this issue open.
His proposition does, however, rest upon a fundamental point: In order to get closer to what Panofsky might have dispatched we can negotiate between the edited, published post version of the essay and the most widely distributed unpublished version of the lecture text.
The dichotomies do not exist for him between classic and baroque periods, but rather within those developments, which together constitute a four-phase Renaissance.
These phases are, put simply, the classic Renaissance of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, the mannerist phase extending to the end of the seventeenth century, the baroque, as conventionally defined for a long seventeenth century, and the neo-classical developments of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, opening out onto a modern era. If the baroque age is marked by melancholy and humour, then these traits fulfil the promise of the fifteenth-century rise of the individual in Italian society and overcome his suppression through the first band of reactions to the Reformation.
A modus vivendi had been found in every field; scientists were no longer burnt like Giordano Bruno …; Roman sculptures were no longer hidden in cellars; the system of the church was now so powerful and undisputed that it could afford to be tolerant towards any vital effort, and more than that: They nonetheless serve to illustrate the role claimed for the baroque in the immediate post-war moment towards three ends that deserve our attention.
In one sense, the baroque offered a repository for the complex development of the German-language discourse on art history for an academic culture that had hitherto paid scant attention to the subject and the conceptual questions it raised. They continued to hold sway irrespective of the criticisms systematically mounted against them in academic literature and the lecture hall, and irrespective of the refinements made to them by his commentators.
These essays also illustrate the imperative for history to act as a check on knowledge and its deployment—a key ethical theme in the wake of the horrific deformations of human reason embodied in the Holocaust. Parallel to the pre-war and wartime traffic of individuals from Europe to North America and Britain is evidence of a widespread reflection within the humanities and social sciences prompted by experience of the War itself.
It is nonetheless difficult to regard the efforts of scholars to consider the premises of their work through an examination of methods, frames and nomenclature as entirely divorced from this broader historical imperative.
In some cases the baroque explicitly figures in this discussion over the s and s while in others it fades into the background as the question itself assumes greater significance. For its expression across the arts, this is a form of baroque recurrence with which Stechow might hold truck—even if he would wish for a banal form of the neutralisation of knowledge in light of the possibility of its instrumentalisation.
It arises from a new perspective on the function of art historical knowledge, neither the reflection of a modernist programme nor as a reactionary view of the relationship between past and present, but as the means by which to move society and the arts past what was widely regarded as their darkest moment in recent history.
Irving Lavin Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,f. Studio per edizioni scelte, Lavin confirms that he has no direct knowledge of the essay to which Panofsky refers—pers. Der humanistische Ikonologe William S. Finally, although Middeldorf did publish a couple of methodologically minded essays, his specialization and interests appear to reside elsewhere than the baroque.
University of Toronto Press,in which he demonstrates a working knowledge of the by then well-known discourse on the translation of the term baroque from the field of the fine arts to that of literature. Judging from subsequent letters from Panofsky to various correspondents and cited by Lavin, Mr. Daniells—later of the University of British Columbia—did not return the lecture.
They must therefore remain provisional. Thanks to Evonne Levy for sharing her research on this collection. The lesser known of the two authors considered here, Wolfgang Stechow was an historian of seventeenth-century Dutch painting. Continuum,1. He cites from Georg Dehio, Geschichte der deutscher Kunst, 2nd ed.
Walter de Gruyter, Eine Untersuchung u ber wesen und entstehung des Barockstils in Italien Munich: Das Problem der Stilentwicklung in der neueren Kunst Munich: Seeman,vol. Hugo Bruckman, panofsjy, Compare Paul Frankl, The Gothic: Whqt has kindly made a copy of the various privately held versions of the lecture available for my consultation. Panofsky to Peter Chobanian, November 14, Columbia University Press, Atti del convegno internazionale tunutosi a Roma dal 6 al 9 marzo Rome: Campisano, National Gallery of Art; Hannover and London: University Press of New England, Bell and Sons, ; New York: Giedion, Space, Time and Architecture: Barosue Growth of a New Tradition, 5th ed.
Harvard University Press, A Study in the History of Taste London: A Colin,trans.
Manchester University Press, Kunstwissenschaft und Barockforschung ca. Thanks particularly to Evonne Levy for her comments and criticism. Research on the papers of Wilhelm S. Thanks to Irving Lavin and Elizabeth Sears for their generous responses to my questions about the Panofsky-Heckscher correspondence.
Remember me on this computer. Enter the email address you signed up with and we’ll email you a reset link.
Click here to sign up. Help Center Find new research papers in: