Principes fondamentaux de l'histoire de l'art

by Heinrich Wölfflin

Longtemps, l'histoire de l'art a consisté en l'analyse des symboles, des sujets, des biographies d'artistes. Heinrich Wölffin, avec Principes fondamentaux de l'histoire de l'art, initialement paru en 1915, a radicalement changé la façon de regarder les oeuvres. Il va ériger une véritable discipline dotée d'une méthode rigoureuse basée sur le comparatisme. S'appuyant sur la période des XVIe et XVIIe siècles, aussi bien en Italie qu'en Europe du Nord, il confronte des oeuvres représentatives de la Renaissance et du baroque en fondant sa démonstration sur cinq couples de catégories : le passage du linéaire au pictural, le passage des plans parallèles à la profondeur, le passage de la forme fermée à la forme ouverte, le passage de la pluralité à l'unité et de la clarté absolue à la clarté relative des objets présentés. En étudiant tableaux historiques ou religieux, peintures de paysages, portraits ou natures mortes, Wölffin entend bien "faire parler les contrastes" entre deux types, saisir les transformations, les styles et, plus largement, révéler une époque et sa conception du monde.

Genres: Art, Art History, Nonfiction, History, Philosophy, Theory, Research

288 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1923

About the author

Heinrich Wölfflin was a Swiss art historian, whose objective classifying principles ("painterly" vs. "linear" and the like) were influential in the development of formal analysis in art history in the early 20th century. He taught at Basel, Berlin and Munich in the generation that raised German art history to pre-eminence. His three great books, still consulted, are Renaissance und Barock (1888), Die Klassische Kunst (1898, "Classic Art"), and Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe (1915, "Principles of Art History").

Reviews

[Uroš Đurković · Rating 4 out of 5]

Glavni krivac za rehabilitaciju baroka u istoriji umetnosti je Hajnrih Velflin. Za razliku od Vinkelmana kome je čak i Mikelanđelo bio preteran i kao takav predstavljao najavu propasti renesanse, Velflin je barok stavio rame uz rame sa renesansom. Štaviše, barok tu nije samo istorijska, nego i estetička kategorija koja osvedočuje princip smenjivanja umetničkih epoha. Promena epoha, vredi napomenuti, nije nikad vrednosno obojena, ali pokazuje nešto drugo – promenu ne samo ukusa već i načina opažanja. Velflin, stoga, primećuje da se u istoriji umetnosti stalno menjaju dve etape: KLASIČNO i BAROKNO.

Analizirajući pre svega italijansku i nordijsku likovnu umetnost 16. i 17. veka, Velflin pokazuje mehanizme tog sleda uopšte. Izdvaja pet ključnih odlika: 1) prelazak od linearnog ka slikarskom (tj. uspon i pad linije kao vodiča oka); 2) kretanje o površinskog ka dubokom; 3) od zatvorene ka otvorenoj formi, 4) mnogostrukosti ka jedinstvenosti (razdvajanje likova na slici spram utapanja u jedan utisak kretanja) i 5) prelazak od apsolutne ka relativnoj jasnoći likovne predmetnosti.

Dualizam klasičnog i baroknog može biti pregnantan za interpretaciju u najrazličitijim okolnostima, a jedno od najčešćih poređenja u tom svetlu bilo je između Direra i Rembranta. Direrova jasna linija, očuvane konture figura, nedostatak dubine u slici, ravnomerno svetlo, jasno diferenciranje boja, spram Rembrantovog kjaroskura, mase koja mami oko da se kreće, zamućenih lica, prelivanja boja van okvira konture...

[Frank · Rating 2 out of 5]

One wonders whether Wölfflin thought he could make this stone of a book more digestible through insistent repetition. One day the German edition will come into my hands and I will be able to tell whether Wölfflin's translator merited assassination. More than likely, here we have just another case of an arrogant German professor indulging in wilful obfuscation.

This is a difficult read, and not just because of HW's turgid writing style. The conceptual scheme is delicate and shifting. It was only in the last chapters that I could reliably apply Wölfflin's categories to the sample objects. (By then I had a self supporting repertoire to call on, plus the weight of 200 pages of illustrations and explanation.) Just the same: an important work, and one worth reading.

[zofia maria nadzieja maria · Rating 2 out of 5]

Fun drinking game: have a shot everytime there's "wydaje się, że tak nie jest, wygląda jakby nie powinno tak być, ale tak jest, bo tak twierdzę"

[Ly]

My archenemy

[Jonette · Rating 3 out of 5]

What a strange little book...if you don't want to burn it or want to tear your hair in the first thirty pages..something might be wrong with you. I have to say if it weren't required reading I would have never finished it oddly, however, it began to grow on me. Once you are able to get past the infuriating early style of writing it can get interesting. If you have ever taken an art history class or studio art class this book takes all the basic concepts of style and dresses them up in ridiculous language. The overall concept of the book is art history (from Early Renaissance to the Baroque) stripped down to stylistic developments with no regard for cultural or historical interpretations. Although this book is considered to be the quintessential book of art history it is in desperate need of some revision for the twenty first century reader.

[Emma-Rose Beauchamp · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you have no serious interest in art history, do not read this. It's not very enthralling. If you are interested in art history then take a look t this book and it may very well lend you a new way of thinking about art. You can imagine how hard it would be to invent categories in art that never existed before and that must apply across the board of all art in the selected time periods (renaissance and baroque). A warning to say that his methods do not particularly work well for modern art.
Somewhat dry but a useful tool.

[Kate · Rating 2 out of 5]

Can I actually claim that I read this? I was lulled into a torpor by selections from the work.

[Lilly Jane · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hey I actually dig this a lot!

[Kristján Hannesson]

I am baffled by reviewers who described this book as difficult and obscure.
Its aim is to establish concepts that art historians and theorists can agree on so as not to rely on the personal and subjective sentiment of the connoisseur. The period scope is very limited: the transition from late Renaissance to Baroque art around 1600, and the concepts that Wölfflin juggles throughout are pairs of terms that aim to characterize those two periods, such as open and closed composition, tectonic composition, movement, the painterly style, etc. Those terms are not hard to grasp, especially with the paintings before us, and the writing style is far from the convoluted academic style of so many scholars.

Perhaps readers are frustrated because they do not see what Wölfflin sees? This is entirely possible. As Steinberg frequently notes on Renaissance scholarship, we tend to accept what has been written about famous art even though our eyes tell us different when we look at the works. Instead of calling it difficult, I suggest asking whether Wölfflin is correct and useful in his analyses. Sometimes, when discussing the flow of energy and the positions of focal points that anchor paintings, I accidentally looked at the wrong painting and still found Wölffling observations plausible. They are, as he confesses, only broad categories that do not have any precise historical cutoff points, and most art sits somewhere between them. In this sense, the book is first and foremost an essay that readers should read critically. As such it is a pretty good primer in art history.

[Uriah Marc Todoroff · Rating 4 out of 5]

The absolute premiere example of formal analysis in language. Perhaps it has the advantage of setting out to systematize that language, and the subject of classical and Renaissance art is of secondary importance in the book's overall argument. The reproductions were excellent, especially clear, although I think that might be made easier because of the nature of the styles in question. I also quite liked the system for referencing figures in the text--it was intelligently laid out, and even though the page references were all contained in the table at the front of the book, it actually required me less labour than books that do without such a table. I also liked how the same pieces were re-visited under different headings.

The conceptual dyads became progressively less clear, but I think with re-reading and application anyone can get a handle on the tools the author supplies in this very important work of art historical methodology.

[Sencer Turunç · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sanat Tarihi, tarih disiplinin sınırlandırılmış bir alanıdır. Bir form/biçim tarihi olarak ele alınmaktadır.

Wöfflin’e göre sanat bir fikir ve kültür ürünü olup kendine özgülük taşır. Wolfflin tekrarlar; “insanlar hep aynı gözle bakmamışlardır dünyaya…”

Tarih boyunca üsluba baktığımızda, her devrin dünyaya başka bir gözle baktığını, gördüklerini, hissettiklerini anlatmak için bir biçim/form kullandığını gösteriyor. Görme ve düşünme etkinliğinin sürekli bir gelişme içinde olduğunu görüyoruz.

Wöfflin’e göre, sanat tarihinde her gelişmenin klasik bir yetkinliğe ulaştığı ya da baroklaştığı (etkileyici ve ayrıntılı formlara ulaştığı; klasizmden saptığı) aşamalar vardır.

[Shirunede · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very difficult read both in terms of the language and the understanding of the concept itself but definitely a worthy one. Considering that this book is one of the first valuable pieces of art history studies, Wölfflin did a great job, no doubt. Still, absolutely undigestable as the first book to read on the topic. Anyhow, the theory feels incomplete at certain points in the book, I felt I saw quite a few inconsistencies but I can't be sure since I still have no idea if I understood the whole thing well. Worthwhile, but definitely not perfect.

[Стефан Петков · Rating 5 out of 5]

Абсолютна класика. Коментирам набързо родното издание от 1985 г. Преводът на Никола Георгиев е отличен(все пак е един от утвърдените ни преводачи от немски), встъпителната студия на Аврамов - също. Инак самото издание е по последното дотогава, 16-о издание на класиката на Вьолфлин от 1979 г. Жалкото в случая е само, че великолепната поредица на "Жалони" е приключила преждевременно и българският любознателен читател не дочака редица други класически издания от водещи имена в изкуствознанието.

[Víctor López ~ vdl · Rating 2 out of 5]

Libro teórico y técnico para explicar los estilos y movimientos artísticos que rondaron entre el barroco y el neoclásico. Análisis sobre las técnicas en la pintura, escultura y arquitectura, de acuerdo al color, imágenes y movimiento. Un libro que se debe de leer con calma, al tiempo que se visualizan los ejemplos expuestos para comprender mejor.

[Iscritto Iscritti · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author gives these five dimensions to "evaluate" or better to understand a painting, so I found it very interesting. A bit verbose, though.

The five "dimensions" are: linear vs. painterly, flat vs. deep, closed vs. open, multiplicity vs. unity, clearness vs. unclearness

[Will Schumer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good, well structured, but of course, dated. Integral to the historiography of the discipline, but, once again, it will offer you few tools for your own research. I find it more an interesting relic of the field's early days.

[Maria Fernanda · Rating 5 out of 5]

Essential for everyone who's trying to up their art game.

[Hilal ÇİFTÇİ · Rating 2 out of 5]

Takip etmesi oldukça zor. Çeviriden ve döneminden kaynaklı günümüze uyarlanmış halini anlamak bana zor geldi.

[Katarina · Rating 5 out of 5]

HRV: Pročitano za nastavu na faksu i korišteno u seminarima.

ENG: Read for my college classes and used for seminars.

[Stephanie Xie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty solid given it’s my first book on art history

[Rafa González · Rating 4 out of 5]

muy interesante, he aprendido mucho y he crecido un poquito esquivando el ruido de casa mientras leía. muy recomendable!!!

[Clarablancoc · Rating 5 out of 5]

Manual fundamental para quien quiera tener conocimientos sobre Arte.

[Arthur Cristian · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good source for art students to get some basics done in their writing. Many ideas are repeated, but it gets the message across.

[Batuhan Hakyemez · Rating 3 out of 5]

Türkçe çevirisi iyi degil. Konular akmiyor, İngilizce versiyonunu tavsiye ederim.

[camila galmés · Rating 2 out of 5]

como puede estar 400 paginas repitiendo lo mismo y ademas tratando de explicar conceptos tan boludos

[Natalia Vallejo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Me gustó la estructura cíclica del libro, es muy claro en cuanto a eso. También los elementos que ofrece como herramientas de análisis de arte me parecen muy óptimos. Pero, el libro está aburrido

[Pavel Moiseenko · Rating 2 out of 5]

В предисловии Генрих Вельфлин, швейцарский искусствовед, манифестирует свой стиль как «история искусств без имен». Он пишет: «Самое оригинальное дарование не может перешагнуть определенных границ, поставленных ему датой рождения. В каждую данную эпоху осуществимы лишь определенные возможности, и определенные мысли могут родиться лишь на определенных ступенях развития». Вот, думаю я, та книга, которую хотел прочесть — меткая и без сентиментальных жизнеописаний художников. Но вот беда, последующие за предисловие четыреста страниц, Вельфлин разбирает формообразование картин, скульптур и строений вполне конкретных авторов, а на вопрос почему формы были такими, а стали другими этот анализ не отвечает. На мой вкус скучновато.

[Jen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Before you start, know that this isn't a light, charming pleasure read. His language is highly formal (perhaps it's the translation). After reading this for the first time, I can vouch that this is a book for referencing after you've read it more than once. Personally, I read it because an advisor was shocked that I hadn't.

Great book for the serious art history student to read more than once and impressively reference in papers.

[Emma · Rating 1 out of 5]

There is a reason that many people balk at written books written in the early 1900s. This book is the embodiment of all of those reasons.

[Robin]

art,history