Architectural History and the History of Art: A Suspended Dialogue Author(s): Alina A.

Payne Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 58, No. 3, Architectural History 1999/2000 (Sep., 1999), pp. 292-299 Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society of Architectural Historians Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/991521 . Accessed: 07/01/2012 06:07
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of California Press and Society of Architectural Historians are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians.

http://www.jstor.org

Architectural History
and the

History

of

Art

A Suspended Dialogue

ALINA A. PAYNE University of Toronto

t is a sad but inescapabletruth that for some time now academic disciplines have been drifting apart, carried along by the energy of their increased specialization. The recent rise in the numberof conferences,publications, and exhibitions that attempt to bridge the gaps and that proclaima new awarenessof the merits of crossdisciplinarconfirmationof a statusquo and ity is only the paradoxical the discomfortit has engendered.In this scenarioarchitecture'sslow but sure distancingfrom the center of art history as a discipline is a fact so well known that it requires little restating.One need only think of the session slatesfor the College Art Association,the InternationalConference for Art History, or the RenaissanceSociety of America,or of theme-based conferences like "The Renaissancein the 20th Century"(I Tatti, 1999),where architecture is virtually (and often entirely) absent. Nor is architecturepresent at the sites where the rethinking of the discipline of art history is in progress.Publicationssuch as the volumes edited by Norman Bryson,Michael Holly, and Keith Moxey (arising from Getty SummerInstitutesin Art History andVisual Studies at the University of Rochester) or by Donald Preziosi (TheArt ofArt History: A Critical 1998), Anthology, to name only two examples,amplyattest to this fact.1 No one can disputethe fact that some specializationis inevitableandindeed desirableand that, as resultof the discipline'sgrowth over the past century,neither publications nor conferencescan encompassthe whole field any longer. Indeed, the divisionof the field by media or historicalperi-

ods, vividly displayedby the numeroussocieties gathering ancient (American Institute of Archaeology), medieval (InternationalCongress of Medieval Studies),Renaissance (RenaissanceSociety of America,Sixteenth Century Studies), architecture(Society of Architectural Historians),and other specialistscholars,is a naturalresponseto a complex condition.However,if the presenceof specializedscholarly sites is a positive and inevitablefeatureof a developed discourse, the absence of dialogue among them is not. To be sure, isolation is problematic in all cases, but that this absenceof dialogue should be particularly true of architectural and art history-especially the closer we get to the modern period-calls for an assessmentbecauseit reflects on the state of the discipline as a whole and raises some importantquestions.Is this split a recent phenomenon, or was it built into the very foundationof the discipline?Are its causes methodological, or is it due to the different naturesof the objectsstudied,whose researchdemandsspecialized techniques and expertise? What are the conseand the academy? And quences of this split for architecture finally,is it endemic, or can (and should) it be checked? Of course,the gradualwithdrawal of architecture from the heartof academicarthistoryshould not be readin negative terms only, for if there have been losses, there have also been gains.Thus, in the centrifugalmovementthat has swept the humanities in the past two or three decades, architectural historyhas founda secondhome in the schools of architecture and in the discoursesthey foster.2 Unlike art

history,whose relationshipwith the practiceof contemporaryarthas remaineddistant,architectural historyhas been able to operatein two arenasandso to addressa wideraudience in a varietyof contextsandways.3 In itself,this development need not havebroughtabout the simultaneousdistancingof architecturalhistory from the historyof art.Yetboth the way a disciplineis taughtand its location in the university affect its discourse; more importantly,they also constitute important public statements about its aims and thus shape its reception by the academy.In this case, the fact that since the 1970s architecture schools have embracedhistory once more in their aftera hiatusof severaldecades,has paradoxically curricula, contributed to the fragmentation of the discipline. For example,such an associationwith the professionalschools suggeststhat specializedexpertiseis requiredto engage the study of architectureand raisespsychologicalbarriersthat often discouragestudents and scholarsfrom entering the of history by a profession-driven field. The appropriation discoursehas also addedfuel to the perennialdebateon the andlocationof historyvis-4-vistheoryandcritrelationship the domainof architectssince Vitruvius icism, traditionally at the very least. The presence of an alternativevantage past has cerpoint from which to examine architecture's tainlyenrichedthe discourse,but it has also causeda divide within the field. It is true that in a world that has lost its faithin the Archimedean vantagepoint of the historian,the of from separation history theory and criticism and their andpublication locationin differentuniversitydepartments venues is ever more difficult to defend. Yet, old sins have placedupon the objectsof long shadows,andthe limitations arthistoryat the height of its positivisticself-definitionstill cause drawnlines within the field.4 However, one of the most seriousconsequencesof the reinsertionof history in architectureschools has been the reconfigurationof the modern field. Most often, the history and theory of modernity (variously defined as the period from c. 1750 or c. 1900 to the present)are claimed awayfrom art history departmentsand are thus separated from the study of architecture of earlier periods. Split thus loses betweentwo homes, the discourseof architecture its unity,and the internallogic of a self-referentialart that requires both a synchronic and a diachronic study is obscuredfromview.This temporalsplit also effectivelysevers architecture from the researchandteachingof the modern period in the field of art history,yet in the last decades and this has been the real growthindustryfor the academy, the separationhas been a loss for both.5 Publicationvenues have come to mirrorand therefore reinforcethis split. Importantarchitecture journalssuch as

wr4w

1559.Saladi Cosimo Vasari, Figure1 Giorgio IandHisArtists, of the Sopraintendenza Florence. CosimoI, Palazzo Vecchio, Courtesy et Ambiene Storici, Ministero peri BeniCulturali peri BeniArtistici tall,Florence

and (in the 1970s and early 1980s)or Assemblage Oppositions ANY (in the 1980s and 1990s), as well as architectureoriented presses such as MIT or Princeton Architectural CenPressandarchitecture museumssuch as the Canadian tre for Architectureor the Deutsches Architekturmuseum in Frankfurt, on modern and tend to focus predominantly in their collections and in the both material, contemporary exhibitions they initiate. While this has substantially it has also createda increasedthe visibilityof architecture, dominantsite for modernistarchitectural scholarshipand has developeda readershipand a discoursethat is increasingly isolatedfrom academicart history. drift"of disciplineshas also However,the "continental had a deeper and more longstandingcause at its origin. A traditionalsisterart to paintingand sculpture,architecture was officially associatedwith them from the time of the founding of the Accademia del disegno (1563) and was therefore also a component of art history as presentedby
Giorgio Vasari in his inaugural Le vite de' piu eccellenti architetti,pittori, et scultoriitaliani of 1550 (Figure 1). How-

has ever,with each generationthe definitionof architecture

HISTORY AND THE HISTORY OF ART 293

ARCHITECTURAL

but the path to the developmentof such a discoursedid not lead to art history.8Studies of typologies, the columnar orders, mass culture, tectonics, materials,the vernacular, urban issues, and professional tools and processes took precedence over the issues of style and iconographythat loomed large in art-historicalstudies and thus signaled a divergenceof interests.9 Intl It cannot be denied that the modern redefinition of architectureand history'slocation within it has broadened our spectrumof concernsand even contributedto the discipline'shealth and growthby expandingits field of action. However, the realignmentof architecturalhistory within Em I A i ni the academyhas also resulted in a real breach in the discourse-not an outwardbreach,but a fissure,more serious because not immediately apparent.Split between fields, architectural to be a conflictedacademic terhistoryappears rain and thus it mystifiesstudents and scholarsalike. In a world of diminishingresourcessuch a perceptionhas also had less intellectuallybased (but more dangerous)reperfib cussions.At a moment when art history departments have ec embraced non-Westerncultures,contemporary art,andhistoriography,new positions in these fields are not created but arereassignedawayfrom the traditional core. In such a zero-sum game architecturalhistory has often been the loser.With twentieth-centuryand contemporary architecture firmly located in the professionalschools, one or at most two architectural historiansare deemed sufficientfor bauen Figure 2 Jacket cover, SigfriedGiedion, Bauen in Frankreich, most art history programsto add what remainsessentially in Eisen, bauen in Eisenbeton (Leipzig,1928). Courtesy ArchivS. a lateralperspectiveon a predominantly painting-(andless ETHGiedion, Institutfor Geschichte und Theorie der Architektur, sculpture-)oriented curriculum. H6nggenberg, ZOrich But cultural trends pressures, universityadministration with their economic and political origins or publication also changedand consequentlyalso its location within the policies,areultimatelyonly the superficial signs of a deeper In a move that acceleratedin the nineteenthcen- rupture.What is more alarmingis the absenceof architecacademy. tury,architecturegraduallyembracedthe world of science ture from the core of art-historicalinquiry,or, better put, and technology, so that by the 1930s, to the image of the the absence of conversation and a shared problematic This has not alwaysbeen the case. engineeras culturehero, modernistcriticsandtheoreticians betweenthe two fields.1o like Sigfried Giedion held up a refashionedarchitectwho At the turn of the century,when the historicalstudy of art had left the world of the Beaux-Arts behind and inhabited became establishedas an academicdiscipline,architecture that of the social sciences, environmentaland urbanplan- made a substantialcontributionto the ways art historians ning, and industry(Figure 2).6 Inevitablythis shift in the set out to interrogatethe past. Indeed, architecture played definitionof architecture also affectedhistorywriting,even a prominentrole in the imbricationof Stilgeschichte (history when the scholarsthemselveswere not campaigningfor a of style), Geistesgeschichte (intellectual history), and Kulcause and even when the object of their study was not turgeschichte dis(cultural history)that shapedart-historical It affectedthe questionsasked,the projectscho- coursein the firstdecadesof this century.Thus Alois Riegl modernity. used.' Althoughin the 1960sarchitects took architecture sen, the vocabulary as his departurepoint in establishingthe initiateda radicalrevisionof earliermodernistagendas,the concept of Kunstwollen that revolutionizedthe disciplineof of architectural further discourse was art history (1901);"11 and Dagobert Frey in his Gotikund growing autonomy reinforced. To check a functionalism run riot meant Renaissance der modernenWeltanschauung als Grundlagen redeeminghistory(asmemory)for the practicingarchitect; (1929) and, even more famously,Arnold Spengler in his
.? F
j
OK: ?.

294

JSAH / 58:3, SEPTEMBER, 1999

desAbendlandes (1918) used conceptionsof space Untergang as a historicalordering device.12 Similarly,it was to architecturethat HeinrichWdlfflin turnedin the 1880swhen he translatedtheories from aestheticsand psychologyinto his From BernardBerenson's own seminalempathyconcept.13 "abstraction "tactileforms"(1896) to Wilhelm Worringer's and empathy" (1908), the notion swept the visual arts, affecting both historicalscholarship,connoisseurship,and the course of art makingitself.14 There was also a more sachlich (objective)trend to the the of discipline.Worksby Heinrich inauguralscholarship von Geymiiller or Hans Willich and Paul Zucker on the Renaissance,for example, or the pioneering architectural of medievalhistoriansfallmore readilyinto the archaeology This direction of (buildinghistory).15 category Baugeschichte itself notoriwas more akinto that of classicalarchaeology, in the to locate difficult Yet, though academy. ously in scholarchitectural and blossomed survived Baugeschichte as itself of architecture to and added the perception arship a technicallyintensive discipline, it also was the fountainhead of much art-historical methodology.In the years that sawthe fledglingdisciplineof arthistoryattemptingto position itself withinthe academyas Kunstwissenschaft (scienceof art), the technical rigor of architecturalscholarship,well establishedsince the mid eighteenth century,was particuArt historians Adolf Goldschmidt and larly appealing.16 Wilhelm Vige, who trainedErwin Panofsky,RudolfWittkower, and others of their generation, started their own research careerswith the study of medieval architecture. tradition of careful firsthand study of The Baugeschichte monuments was translatedby them into an art-historical methodology that paid close attention to documents and primary sources and shaped the field for generations to come.17 Architecturealso playedan importantrole in the fineperiodizationthat preoccupied tuning of historical/stylistic scholarsfrom the 1920s onward.The amorphous"classical to period"that stretchedfrom the dawnof the Renaissance brokenup the eighteenthcenturyandbeyondwas gradually into periodsdistinguishable by their apparent stylisticunity. In orderto confirmtheir validity,it was imperativeto show the Hegelian Zeitgeist (or,alternatively, Riegl'sKunstwollen) at work and thus to find similarcharacteristics and trends acrossthe arts.A case in point is the invention of Mannerism as an intermediary phase between the Renaissanceand the Baroque. Proposed for the mimetic arts by Walter Friedlinder and Max Dvorak (1922), Mannerismwas also shown to have affectedarchitecture by Pevsner (1925) and Wittkower(1930s).18 Thus established, its application could then be expandedto include all aspectsof cultureand serve

as a fixed coordinatein its historicalunfolding.19 Although Mannerism was ultimately found to be unhelpful for the andwas in effect discarded as a central studyof architecture in had its architecture concern, played part establishingan research.20The definimportantcategoryfor art-historical itions of Baroque,Neoclassicism,and Rococo were reached by way of a similarcooperativeeffortbetween architectural and art history-the proliferationin the 1960s of books on these periodstylesmarksits apogee-before each fieldwent on to refine its respectiveapplications.21 Finally, the vocabularyof art history itself, its lexical The prominenceof field, is partlyindebtedto architecture. the monumentas objectof studyandthe ensuingcategories for its analysisstem from a tight imbricationof discourses that goes back to Johann Joachim Winckelmann and the classicaltradition that he inherited. Since bodily qualities were understoodto constitute a bond acrossthe arts, categories developedinitiallyfor the analysisof sculpturetravThe impulse to privilege the eled easily to architecture.22 monument and its featurescould find no better home, and it is here that much of the criticalvocabularyto describeit into the andrefined.Reabsorbed was developed,sharpened, field with it furnished the of the visual discourse arts, larger a critical/analyticallanguage that bespoke a shared problematic and invited exchangesamong fields. Architecture's earlyuse of photographyoffereda visual this to verbal orientation toward the monucounterpart ment. Architectural photographyitself was an offshoot of a that of the Monuments preservationcampaign,particularly the medieval French heritage. with its focus on historiques Edouard Baldusthat However, photographssuch those by recorded, aestheticized, isolated, and monumentalized buildings institutionalized a genre of representation that survived in the ubiquitous art history slides and thus affectedthe very tools with which the field was studiedand the lens throughwhich the art objectswere seen.23 However,if in the firsthalf of the centuryarchitecture and art history were at work on a common project, their paths soon diverged. Over the subsequent decades other issues took over the attention of the art history academy: among them iconographyand style held prideof place, and from the later 1960s on social history and linguistictheory have also much affectedits course. In the last two decades iconography has been recast into image theory and visual/verbal and the cultural"other"(as definedin issues,24 genderand colonialismstudies)25 along with historiography have joined a renewed panopticum of art-historicalconcerns.26 Yet not all these trends find easy or relevantapplication to architecture,the exceptionsbeing social, gender, and colonialismissues. In fact, even when concernssuch as
295

ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY AND THE HISTORY OF ART

research these areshared,art-historical rarelyintersectswith architectural the continued releElsewhere, scholarship.27 vance of once shared methodologies has been diverse. Despite a steadystreamof patronagestudies,the socialhistory of arthas lost the leadershiprole it once held in arthisIn architecture, however,socialhistoryandMarxism tory.28 in particular havenot only furnishedpowerfulmodels for its historicaldiscourseever since the 1960s, but they continue to do so.29 As an eminently public art form, more directly affectingsocial and politicalbehaviorthan the other visual remainsan idealsubjectfor the application arts,architecture of Marxistand social-historymethodologies. The embraceof wider culturalissueswithin art history has also led to a sustainedeffort to reconfigureits discourse where it is taught)into visualand cul(andthe departments turalstudies.Architecture does not fit easilyin this expanded field.The paintedor printedimagecan be readilyconsumed as one among many exempla of material culture, unlike whicharecomplex,three-dimensional objectsthat buildings, often take generations to build. Such a process unfolding over the longueduriecauses authorshipand period style to recede and consequentlymakes architecturefar less useful as a snapshotof culturaltrendsand mindscapes. If imageproductionandreceptionstudieshaveclaimed the lion's share of attention in art history of late, recent work in cultural history on the history of practices-collecting,reading,writing,gifting,scientificinquiry-are now slowly finding their way into the discipline.Yet, here too, architectureand arthistory are moving on parallelbut separate courses. For example, the relationshipbetween science and the arts is dealt with in separatevolumes in two
recent collections of essays, Picturing Science,ProducingArt (1998) and Architecture and Science (1999), although they shareboth an editor and similarthemes.30

Yet, despite moving on a differentcourse from art hishas not been isolatedfrom the shiftsshaptory,architecture ing contemporary discourse in the academy. In an intellectual environment where sociology and cultural anthropology have led the way, architecture has figured However,becauseof its relevanceas a form of prominently. cultural"deepstructure," it has developedstrongerties with the social sciences.After all, Michel Foucault's seminalfirst essaystook architectureas their departurepoint: the clinic, the asylum,the prisonmayhavebeen institutionsaccording to his definition, but what made them apparentand materially present were the buildings in which they were architecture becomes the ultihoused.3'In these narratives mate document:not only does it represent,but it contains, codifies, and shapes behavior and therefore cultural and social practices. These new perspectives have been very
296 JSAH / 58:3, SEPTEMBER, 1999

fruitfulfor architectural history in giving a new orientation and impetus to building-typestudies.32 Yet they have done little to reconnect it to an art history more concernedwith the representation of society and culturethan with the active agentsof societal change. Of course, these are only a few instancesof a disjunction within the discipline undertaken primarily from a North Americanperspective;the list cannot even begin to be exhaustive.But they describea patternwhere opportunity andloss standside by side. On the one hand, arthistory has developeddiscoursesand tools-particularly relatingto representation,image construction,and visualnarrativethat architecturalhistory has been less attentive to but which may serveit well; on the other hand,both fieldshave tended to ignore the exchanges among the arts, the sites that facilitated such exchanges, and their consequences. Ultimately, the slowly widening chasm between architecturaland art history does not seem to ariseeither from any particulartechnical expertise that they require or from a diverselydefined historian'scraft (where we find evidence and how we marshalour arguments). The real dividelies in the nature of the objectswe study,for they guide what we choose to raise to the statusof problem and where we find our conceptualmodels. It also lies in our differentrelationshipto the present. "Ifhistoricalnarratives areinevitablyfreightedwith the ideof ological assumptions the period in which they are composed, what is the cultural function of history?" This question,raisedat the 1999 Getty SummerInstitutein Art History and Visual Studies at the University of Rochester, expressesarthistory'sconundrumat the turn of the millennium. For architectural history-that is, for a field that continues to be relevantfor the practiceof architecture-this question may have an answer:history interacts with the present and its discoursesactively,through dialogue, in a Habermasiansense.33The history of architectural history shows that the disciplinehas alwaysbeen closely tied to the of architecture:its migration in and out of performance architecture schools and art historydepartments has always coincided with upheavalswithin the profession itself. It is not a coincidencethat architectural history entered art hisin Americain the 1940sjust as it was elimtory departments inated from its traditional home in the schools of architecture;it is also no coincidence that the Society of ArchitecturalHistorians separateditself from the College Art Association in the early 1970s, at the very same time when history was reclaimedby the schools of architecture, when journalslike Casabella and Oppositions reassertedthe importanceof historyandclaimedan autonomousdiscourse for architecture,and when the star of architectural history

within art history began to fade. Indeed, it is this fundamentally self-referentialnature of architecturethat causes the constant reinvention of history in the present and inevitably and productivelyoffers new insights and questions not only for criticsand theoreticiansbut for historians as well. That history matters to practicein the presentproall us below the surfaceof discourse,regardforward, pels less of whether we work on the Renaissance,antiquity,or the modern period. Perhaps sharing this insight into the workings of our own field with art history could be the beginningof a reneweddialogueat a momentwhen the discipline standspoised to turn a new page at the beginning of a new millennium.

Notes
A Critical 1. Donald Preziosi,ed., TheArt ofArt History: (Oxford Anthology and New York,1998);Norman Bryson,Michael Holly, and Keith Moxey, eds., VisualTheory (New York, 1991). In this respect,Michael Baxandall's Patterns (1987), which includes a chapteron architecture,is a of Intention noteworthyexception. reinsertioninto the archi2. For an accountof the phenomenonof history's tectural school curriculum,see Gwendolyn Wright, "History for Archiin American Schools tects,"in G. Wright andJ. Parks,TheHistory of History (New York, 1990); for a history of architectural history in of Architecture Historian America,see ElisabethBlairMacDougall, ed., TheArchitectural D. C., 1990). inAmerica, Studiesin the Historyof Art,no. 35 (Washington, 3. The separationof studio from arthistorystudieswithin most university curriculatestifiesto this chasm,as does the absenceof a dialoguebetween criticismand historyeven when performedby the same scholar.There are exceptions,of course,for example,CraigOwens,Beyond RepreRecognition: Powerand Culture(Berkeley,1992), in which categories of cursentation, studiesare appliedto contemporary art. rency in recent art-historical 4. In 1988 Trachtenberg noted that this antagonismimpoverishesthe field and concludedhis reviewof architectural with a quotationfrom scholarship or not, we [architectural areallin the JamesAckerman: historians] "willingly same boat with the criticsand not mere practitioners of a mythicalKunstMarvinTrachtenberg, "SomeObservations on RecentArchiwissenschaft." tecturalHistory," Art Bulletin70 (1988):208-241. 5. There areimportantexceptionsto this pattern,as evidentin the work of Rosalind Krauss,Yve-AlainBois, and Hal Foster or in exhibitions like (MontrealMuseumof Fine Arts, 1992).However,such examples Metropolis are few and twentieth-centuryscholarshipremains fragmented.See, for or the interdisciplinaryCritical example, leading journals like October wherethe issuesof modernandcontemporary architecture aregenInquiry, the Texts & series Documents erally missing; similarly, importantGetty locatesGermanarchitectural theoryin the intellectualcultureof the period though not in that of the other visualarts. 6. SigfriedGiedion, Space, TimeandArchitecture Mass., 1941); (Cambridge, Takes Command idem,Mechanization (New York,1948).The most powerful statementof this idea is to be found in Le Corbusier,Towards a NewArchitecture (1st ed., 1923). 7. For a case studyof this phenomenonas it concernsRenaissance history on the subject,see Alina Payne,"RudolfWittwritingandfor bibliography kower and ArchitecturalPrinciplesin the Age of Modernism," JSAH 53 (September1994):322-342.

8. Seminal for the developmentof this discourse (especiallyof historical typology)was Colin Rowe andin the 1960sand 1970sthe School of Architecture in Venice, particularly Saverio Muratori, Aldo Rossi, Carlo Aymonino, and Massimo Scolari. See Colin Rowe, "The Mathematicsof the IdealVilla,"in TheMathematics (Camof theIdealVillaand Other Essays Review,1947).A bridge,Mass., 1976), 1-28 (firstpublishedin Architectural later statement of the importance of history for practice was made by Demetri Porphyrios in his introduction to a volume of AD exclusively devotedto the topic:"Thisexperience led me to a growingrealisation of the need to raisethe level of consciousnessof the epistemologicalfoundations of the variousarchitectural histories;especiallyin a period like ours, burdened as it is with ephemeral,ad hoc and surreptitious'theory-hunting'. Bearingthis in mind, it becomesclearthat the studyof the methodologyof architecturalhistory is as important for the non-theoretically oriented designer as it is for the student of architecturehimself." Demetri PorOn theMethodology Archiphyrios, "Introduction," ofArchitectural History. tectural Design51 (1981):2. 9. For example,see the proliferationof mass-culture-oriented studiesthat spanthe spectrumfrom RobertVenturi's polemicalLearning from Las Vegas (Cambridge,Mass., 1972) to Richard Longstreth'sinvestigation of new "buildingtypes" such as the highway or the commercial strip: Richard theAutomobile, and Mall:Architecture, Longstreth, City Centerto Regional Retailingin LosAngeles1920-1950 (Cambridge,Mass., 1997). The prototypicalstudyfor the genre remainsNikolaus Pevsner,A History ofBuilding (London, 1976). For a comprehensiveand still validreviewof trends Types in architectural see Trachtenberg, 208-241. history scholarship, 10. Symptomaticof this situationis the fact that Trachtenberg (ashe himself notes)wasinvitedto reviewall architectural for the Art Bulscholarship letin State of Researchseries becausethe art historianswho reviewedthe literature on the individual historical periods had left architectureout 208. Another symptomof the absenceof commuentirely:Trachtenberg, nicationbetween fieldsis evidentin the referenceapparatus used by scholars: the works cited in architecturaland art history publications rarely intersecteven on the occasionswhen they are publishedin the same journal. 11. "... abernicht alleGattungensind dieseGesetze [desKunstwollens] mit zu unmittelbarer Deutlichkeit Am erkennen. ehesten ist dies in der gleich Architekturder Fall und des weiteren Kunstgewerbe,namentlichsoweit dasselbenicht figiirliche Motive verarbeitet: Architektur und Kunstgewerbe die leitendedGesetzedes Kunstwollens offenbaren oftmalsin nahezumathematischerReinheit"[ ... but these laws [ofKunstwollen] cannotbe identified with equal clarityin all artisticmedia.It is most readilyapprehensible in architecture and the decorativearts,that is, to the extent that the latter do not develop figure-basedmotifs:frequentlyarchitectureand the decorativeartsdisplaythe leadinglaws of Kunstwollen with a near mathematical As a starts his Spitromische translation]. result, Riegl purity.-author's Kunstindustrie with a chapteron architecture. See Alois Riegl, Spitr'mische
Kunstindustrie (Darmstadt, 1976; 1st. ed., 1901), 19. 12. Much was owed to neo-Kantian trends in contemporary philosophy. See especially the impact of Cassirer on art-historical inquiry: Ernst Cassirer, Das Erkenntnisproblemin der Philosophie und Wissenschaftder neueren Zeit, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1906-1908). Schopenhauer's Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung(especially his concept ofAnschaulichkeit, offorma substantialis as ultimate knowledge, Erkentniss) also marked art-historical discourse. 13. Heinrich Wdlfflin, "Prologomena zu einer Psychologie der Architektur (1886)," in Kleine Schriften, ed. J. Gantner (Basel, 1946), 13-47. Some of the sources W6lfflin cites are Friedrich Th. Vischer, Asthetik oder Wissenschaft des Schonen (Reutlingen/Leipzig, 1856-1858); Hermann Lotze, Geschichteder Asthetik in Deutschland (Munich, 1868); idem, Mikrokosmos. HISTORY AND THE HISTORY OF ART 297

ARCHITECTURAL

zurNaturgeschichte Ideen undGeschichte derMenschheit (Leipzig, 1856-1865); Robert Vischer, Uberdasoptische (Leipzig, 1872); andJohann Formgefiihl in derneueren Asthetik Volkelt,Der Symbolbegriff (Jena,1876). 14. August Schmarsow,UnserVerhdltnis zu denbildenden Kiinsten (Leipzig, und Einfiihlung.Ein Beitragzur 1903); Wilhelm Worringer,Abstraktion Painters (Munich, 1908); BernardBerenson, TheFlorentine Stilpsychologie David "The Idea of Abstraction in German Theories of the (1896); Morgan, Ornamentfrom Kant to Kandinsky," andArt Criticism JournalofAesthetics 50 (Summer1992):23 1-242; Payne, "RudolfWittkower." 15. Hans Willich andPaul Zucker,Baukunst derRenaissance in Italien(Wildvol. vol. Carl von 1, 2, 1914; 1929); park-Potsdam, Stegmannand Heinrich von Geymiiller, Die Architektur der Renaissance in Toscana, 11 vols. (Munich, 1885-1908). 16. The rigor of earlyarchaeological studiesof ancientGreece (e.g., John Stuartand Nicholas Revett, TheAntiquities ofAthens,1763, or the subsequentAntiquities of oniapublishedby the Society of the Dilettanti starting in 1797) was pickedup into similararchaeological enterprisesfocused on Romanand later also on medievalmonuments. 17. On Goldschmidt'scontributionto the discipline, see Marie Roosen1863-1944 Lebenserrinerungen (Berlin, Runge-Mollwo,AdolphGoldschmidt at the turnof the centuryon the 1989);on the impactof medieval scholarship of arthistory, see CatherineBrush,TheShaping Wildiscipline ofArtHistory. and the helmVoge, Goldschmidt, York, (New 1996). Adolph ofMedievalArt Study The careerof ArthurKingsleyPorter,whose firstworkswere on medieval architecture of the paththatled from (1909and 1915),is an eloquentexample architecture to the studyof the othervisualarts(sculpture in his case). 18. Max Dvorak("UberGreco und den Manierismus," KunstJabhrbuchfiir and AntimanI [1921/22]) and WalterFriedlinder("Mannerism geschichte nerismin ItalianPainting," 47 [1925]);for Kunstwissenschaft Repertoriumflir in this cross-cultural the place of architecture phenomenon,see, for examund Mannierismus," ple, Nikolaus Pevsner,"Gegenreformation RepertoriumfAr Kunstwissenschaft 46 (1925): 259-285; Rudolf Wittkower, "Zur BibliotecaLauPeterskuppel Michelangelos"(1933) and "Michelangelo's renziana" formulation of the phenomenon (1934);the most comprehensive as it affectedarchitecture is ManfredoTafuri,L'architettura delManierismo nel Cinquecento (Rome, 1966). Europeo 19. For example,Gustav-ReneHocke, Die Weltals Labyrinth (Hamburg, Die Kriseder Renaissance undder 1957); Arnold Hauser,Der Manierismus. dermodernen Kunst(Munich, 1964). Ursprung 20. WolfgangLotz, "Mannerist in TheRenaissance andManArchitecture," in Western Art (Princeton, 1963), vol. 2, 239-246; Ludwig nerism,Studies H. HeydenreichandWolfgangLotz, Architecture in Italy1400-1600 (Harmondsworth,1974). 21. See, for example,the Penguin series Style and Civilization,edited by John Fleming and Hugh Honour, in which appearedHugh Honour, Neoclassicism (Harmondsworth,1968), andJohn Shearman,Mannerism (Harmondsworth, 1967). Such cross-culturaldefinitionsare still noticeable in the field whenevera period previouslyconceivedas one unit becomes too
complex to be defined by one overarching definition. Thus, at the other end of the historical spectrum, the term "postmodemrnism" was originally coined and defined by Charles Jencks to serve architectural criticism; similarly "deconstruction" (though not a stylistic period) embeds a reference to building (and dismantling) in all the contexts where it is to be found. 22. On the origins and importance of the concept of monument for art history and for architectural criticism, see Anthony Vidler, "The Art of History: Monumental Aesthetics from Winckelmann to Quatrembre de Quincy," Oppositions25 (1982): 53-67. 23. See especially Richard Pare, Photography and Architecture 1839-1939 (Montreal, 1982), and Barry Bergdoll, " 'A Matter of Time': Architects and

Photographersin Second Empire France,"in The Photographs of Edouard exhibitioncatalogue(New York,1994), 99-119. Baldus, 24. Seminalin the areaof image theory have been Norman Bryson, Vision andPainting. TheLogic Jonathan oftheGaze(New HavenandLondon, 1983); On Vision andModernity in theNineteenth Crary,Techniques of the Observer: Century (Cambridge,Mass., 1990); Hans Belting, Bild undKult (Munich, as Likeness andPresence: A History theEra 1990),translated of theImagebefore de l'image:Gloses (Paris, of Art (Chicago, 1994); Louis Marin, Despouvoirs 1993);David Freedberg,ThePowerofImages (Chicago, 1989);Victor Stoidu tableau chita, L'instauration (Paris,1993). For studieson the imbrication betweenvisualandverbalpractices, see especially MichaelBaxandall, Giotto andtheOrators: Humanist Observers in and the ofPainting Italy ofPicDiscovery (Oxford, 1971);ClarkHulse, TheRuleofArt, Literature, torialComposition andPainting in theRenaissance The(Chicago,1990);W.J.T Mitchell,Picture in Verbal and Visual ory.Essays Representation (Chicago,1996).Scholarly journalslike Word andImage andRepresentations createdin thissameperiodtestify to a high-densitypoint of interestin these issuesfor the field as a whole. A relatedbody of scholarship addressed issuesof visualnarrative. Trendsetting textsin this areahavebeen:Mieke Bal,Narratology (Toronto,1985;firstpublished 1980); SvetlanaAlpers, TheArt of Describing (Chicago, 1983); and Mieke Bal,Reading Rembrandt (New York,1991). 25. Scholarship in this areawas deeply indebtedto the work of Julia Kristeva, Homi Bhaba,and EdwardSaid. 26. Seminalfor scholarship in this areawasHaydenWhite, Metahistory (Baltimore and London, 1973). For studieson art history,see especiallyHans Belting, TheEnd of the Historyof Art? (Chicago and London, 1987), and MichaelAnn Holly,Panofiky andtheFoundation (Ithaca,1984), ofArtHistory and idem, PastLooking: Historical and the Rhetoric of theImage Imagination (Ithaca,1996). 27. See, for example,the exclusivefocus on architecturein volumes like BeatrizColomina, ed., Sexuality and Space(Princeton,N.J., 1992);Diana (New York,1996);MarkCrinson, Agrestet al., eds., TheSex ofArchitecture Orientalism and Victorian Architecture (London, 1996); Empire JeanBuilding. Louis Cohen and Monique Eleb, Casablanca. Mythesetfiguresd'uneaventureurbaine (Paris, 1998). 28. For seminalstudiesin this area,see especiallyLindaNochlin, Realism Artistsand (Harmondsworth, 1971), and T.J. Clark,TheAbsolute Bourgois: Politics in France, 1848-1851 (London, 1980).For a statementon the eclipse of social history from current art-historicalconcerns, see Marc Gotlieb, "WhateverHappened to the Social History of Art?" Abstracts. Art College Association (New York,forthcoming). 29. For the impactof social historyon architectural studies,see, for example, the Penguin 1960s series The Architect and Society edited by John Fleming and Hugh Honour of which James Ackerman,Palladio(Harmondsworth,1968), is an outstandingexample.For seminalcontributions to a Marxistdiscoursein architecture, see especiallyManfredoTafuri,TheandHistory and ories (New York,1980),andidem,Architecture ofArchitecture Utopia:Designand Capitalist Development (Cambridge,Mass., 1976); for
Marxism's continued relevance for the field, see most recently Eve Blau, The Architecture of Red Vienna, 1919-1934 (Cambridge, Mass., 1999). The popularity ofTheodor Adorno and the Frankfurt School with architectural theorists and historians is another manifestation of the recognition of the political role of architecture. 30. Caroline A. Jones and Peter Galison, eds., Picturing Science, Producing Art (London, 1998); Peter Galison and Emily Thompson, eds., Architecture and Science (Cambridge, Mass., 1999). For an example in the reception of culture studies, see Jill Kraye, ed., The Cambridge Companionto Humanism (London, 1996), which contains no essay on architecture, 31. Michel Foucault, The Birth of the Clinic:An Archaeologyof Medical Per-

298

JSAH / 58:3, SEPTEMBER, 1999

and Civilization ception(New York, 1973; first published 1963), Madness andPunish: TheBirth (New York,1965;firstpublished1961),andDiscipline of thePrison(New York,1973;firstpublished1963). 32. See, for example,Chandra andtheGardens Mukerji,TerritorialAmbitions Versailles Sharon Stories. (London, 1997); Marcus,Apartment of Cityand Homein Nineteenth-Century ParisandLondon (Berkeley,1999). 33. See Jiirgen Habermas,ThePhilosophical Discourse (Camof Modernity bridge,Mass., 1987), 296-298. I am referringto Habermas's theory of the

in his critiqueof Foucault's Habermas participant emphasison the observer. attacksFoucault'sfocus on the reflexiveattitudeof the subjectand argues insteadthat a performative situationexists,an interactionakinto speech of interlockedperspectivesamong speakers" and a "reflection "reciprocally undertakenfrom the perspectiveof the participant." This position should not be confusedwith the long traditionof militancyin architecture's historicaldiscourse,of which Giedion and others have been outspokenapolTimeandArchitecture, 5-7. ogists. See, for example,Giedion, Space,

ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY AND THE HISTORY OF ART

299