Reading Snippet - Art History - a Very Short Introduction (1)

The art history orthodox and why it has become a problem

The author of this short guide to art history has no intention to enforce the 'orthodox' trail of art history upon us. On contrary, her wish is to inform us of this orthodox way, alongside its criticisms and the realistic issues faced by this model, so that the readers could walk away more educated, alert and interested than otherwise.

The orthodox model aims at transforming an art lover into an art connoisseur, someone who could has an acquired taste for 'high art' and could instantly understand the value (both artistic, social and economic) and origins of value for an artwork. To help with this training, studies would be centred around 'star artists' (geniuses) and time-period-bound styles (e.g. classical, impressionist etc). Through these two basic methods, the orthodox art history is presented as a linear progression from primitive to advanced art styles led or signified by geniuses. There can be variations within this orthodox narrative, such as the concept of 'zeitgeist' which is 'the spirit of the age' which emphasises artwork being a manifest of that time period's thoughts. Nonetheless, this reinforces the concept of 'classics', which are the representative artists and artworks for each period.

The most obvious problem brought about by this model is its narrow nature - within each time period, there should only be one 'high art' style manifest through a number of classic artists and artworks. Even if a fair number of styles exist, they might be grouped into an umbrella style such as post-impressionism. Other styles, thoughts and explorations are simply deemed secondary, not-high-enough and fade into the background.

Another trouble is its linear nature - this time-period study face pressure to portray art as ever-advancing. As we move forward into the next period, we expect there to be improvements in art techniques and wisdom - going from 2D to perspective, going from expressing realistic concepts to abstract concepts etc. However, some of the time-period-shifts may simply be a change in how people see art and the anxieties that should be expressed through art, instead of a technical or conceptual improvement per-se. This emphasis on improvement is masking some genuine discussions and researches.

The narrow and linear nature combine is OK when the subject of art history only needs to deal with European art - they can 'force' a lineage from Graeco-Roman art through the middle ages to Renaissance then to impressionism and modernism. But what about art time periods that co-exist with this classic textbook narrative, such as art in South America, Asia and Australasia? They are ignored, sidelined or deemed 'primitive' not worthy of consideration. Where they are considered, it would be in terms of their influence on the mainstream narrative (e.g. Chinese porcelain entering Europe, or impact of Chinese concepts on Romanticism). A wealth of art has now been put into the background, and when the orthodox model picks them up again, the mainstream artists or artwork will take the glory for re-discovering styles/art narratives/improving the global high art. The focus of such re-discovery (or re-attribution to be more precise) is then mis-placed.

One final trouble - by emphasising the orthodox-sanctioned artists and styles, the corresponding artworks become sought after and their monetary value sky-rocket, and a positive-feedback loop is usually in place to then put more weight on these styles and artefacts in the next iteration of the orthodox narrative. Mona Lisa will be attracting a bigger and bigger crowd, with other magnificent artworks in the same period becoming niche or ignored.

This is the issue with the orthodox narrative in art history, but how can we be sure it's not an issue in other subject areas, or indeed a lot of world models that somehow support a 'mainstream narrative'?