Style Art History A843 Block 2 Ex. 1.3
Jaṡ
Elsner (2003) ‘Style’
Style art history, according to Elsner, begins by attaching
a meaning to the term ‘style’ that allows it to signify something distinct
about a person, an age, a cultural movement or a group, that is remains constant
(whatever changes occur) while that person, age etc. persists and retains its
character and life.
This is a complicated definition because it implies not only
ontology but a dynamic story which explains and complicates that ontological
entity. It does not exist outside a descriptive story or ekphrasis.
This is why we call it a ‘history’ but we need to emphasise
in that term the constituent of ‘story’ or narrative. There are two types, with
one type having two sub-types, of possible story that characterise the dynamics
of style: Linear or metamorphic, although a mixed form is possible, and
together all three may appear in a number of sequential combinations:
a.
Linear story of decline / self-betrayal
b.
Linear story of improvement / self-realisation
The
style undergoes such significant changes within and without such that it changes
its ontological nature – into another distinct style.
History can be seen as such a pattern – either simply as one
of the above or a combination of any 2 or all 3. The choice of pattern(s) will
depend on the phase indicated in the story as that which we see occur in its
middle between a beginning & an end.
So Gibbon & Raphael tell a story of the decline of Roman
art and culture. Vasari one of transformation – from Greek manner to rebirth
and then one of improvement / self-realisation. Of course one sees cycles in
Vasari’s story, since a decline may follow a ‘self-realisation’ in art such as
Raphael. One can analyse the temporal bricolage of the Arch of Constantine in
these terms: ‘spolia’ from artefacts
of a more illustrious time mix with examples from a contemporary decay of style
(or if you prefer a metamorphosis of style).
Is style still evident & relevant?
It is because it allows us a language to talk about elements
of stasis or movement in time that can be plotted chronologically – even if
with overlaps. It will be relevant as long as we need to explicate spatial-temporal
phenomena, since ekphrasis offers a description that passes as an explanation –
of an historical shift.
However, it also serves as a means of applying value
judgements to history that are usually poorly substantiate – a decline moves
from something good to something not so good, etc. However, a metamorphosis is
more like a paradigm shift where we are not interested in values changing but
merely comparison of difference.
It works by COMPARISON of artefacts where the story of the
intervening spaces between the artefacts – of space & time – are seen as
explanatory of that difference in some way. Asa long as we need such
comparisons, we probably need this level of explanation. However, it should not
be seen as enough of an explanation in itself. Why?
·
It only pretends to empiricism & ‘objectivity’
·
It relies on the authoritative experience of the
interpretative comparison. It validates the role of the expert over other forms
of knowing or uses of evidence.
·
It may use assumptions that are unquestioned –
about value, or relationships between form and content.
·
It assumes constancies that may not explain
multicultural contexts or contexts in which values in relation to artefacts are
contested as part of their contemporaneity.
·
It may pass as ‘history’ in a way that is
reductive or biased to one set of interests.
·
It supports overlarge generalisations of change:
Onians’ ‘neuroarthistory’ for instance, based on Riegl’s notion of ‘necessary
transition made by the human mind.’ What is this necessity? Does it remain
vague and claim to be unspecifiable – which it is not in, say, Hegelian or
Marxist dialectics.
All the best
Steve
