Architectural History and the History of Art: A Suspended Dialogue

Author(s): Alina A. Payne

Source: The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 58, No. 3, Architectural
History 1999/2000 (Sep., 1999), pp. 292-299
Published by: Society of Architectural Historians
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/991521
Accessed: 15/10/2009 16:43
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sah.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
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.

Society of Architectural Historians is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
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

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 crossdisciplinarity is only the paradoxicalconfirmationof a statusquo and
the discomfortit has engendered.In this scenarioarchitecture'sslow but sure distancingfrom the center of art history as a disciplineis 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 architectureis virtually
(and often entirely) absent. Nor is architecturepresent at
the sites where the rethinkingof 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 CriticalAnthology,1998),
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 historicalperiIt

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 ArchitecturalHistorians),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 dialogueshould be particularlytrue 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 consequencesof this split for architectureand the academy?And
finally,is it endemic, or can (and should) it be checked?
Of course,the gradualwithdrawalof architecturefrom
the heartof academicarthistoryshould not be readin negative terms only, for if there have been losses, there have
also been gains.Thus, in the centrifugalmovementthathas
swept the humanities in the past two or three decades,
architecturalhistoryhas founda secondhome in the schools
of architectureand in the discoursesthey foster.2Unlike art

history,whose relationshipwith the practiceof contemporaryarthas remaineddistant,architecturalhistoryhas been

ableto operatein two arenasandso to addressa wideraudience in a varietyof contextsand ways.3
In itself,this developmentneed not havebroughtabout
simultaneous
the
distancingof 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
curricula,aftera hiatusof severaldecades,has paradoxically
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
field. The appropriationof history by a profession-driven
discoursehas also addedfuel to the perennialdebateon the
relationshipandlocationof historyvis-a-vistheoryandcriticism, traditionallythe domainof architectssince Vitruvius
at the very least. The presence of an alternativevantage
point from which to examine architecture'spast has certainlyenrichedthe discourse,but it has also causeda divide
within the field. It is true that in a world that has lost its
faithin the Archimedeanvantagepoint of the historian,the
separationof history from theory and criticism and their
locationin differentuniversitydepartmentsandpublication
venues is ever more difficult to defend. Yet, old sins have
long shadows,andthe limitationsplacedupon the objectsof
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
betweentwo homes, the discourseof architecturethusloses
its unity,and the internallogic of a self-referentialart that
requires both a synchronic and a diachronic study is
obscuredfromview.This temporalsplit also effectivelysevers architecturefrom the researchand teachingof the modern period in the field of art history,yet in the last decades
this has been the real growthindustryfor the academy,and
the separationhas been a loss for both.5
Publicationvenues have come to mirrorand therefore
reinforcethis split. Importantarchitecturejournalssuch as

Figure 1 GiorgioVasari,Cosimo I and His Artists, 1559. Sala di

Cosimo I, PalazzoVecchio, Florence. Courtesy of the Sopraintendenza
per i Beni Artisticie Storici, Ministeroper i Beni Culturaliet Ambientali, Florence

and
Oppositions
(in the 1970s and early 1980s)or Assemblage
ANY (in the 1980s and 1990s), as well as architectureoriented presses such as MIT or Princeton Architectural
Pressandarchitecturemuseumssuch as the CanadianCentre for Architectureor the Deutsches Architekturmuseum
in Frankfurt,tend to focus predominantlyon modern and
contemporarymaterial,both in their collectionsand in the
exhibitions they initiate. While this has substantially
increasedthe visibilityof architecture,it has also createda
dominantsite for modernistarchitecturalscholarshipand
has developeda readershipand a discoursethat is increasingly isolatedfrom academicart history.
However,the "continentaldrift"of disciplineshas also
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-

ever,with each generationthe definitionof architecturehas

ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY AND THE HISTORY OF ART

293

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
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
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,
architecturalhistoryappearsto be a conflictedacademicterrain and thus it mystifiesstudents and scholarsalike. In a
world of diminishingresourcessuch a perceptionhas also
had less intellectuallybased (but more dangerous)repercussions.At a moment when art history departmentshave
embracednon-Westerncultures,contemporaryart,andhistoriography,new positions in these fields are not created
but arereassignedawayfrom the traditionalcore. In such a
zero-sum game architecturalhistory has often been the
loser.With twentieth-centuryand contemporaryarchitecture firmly located in the professionalschools, one or at
most two architecturalhistoriansare deemed sufficientfor
Figure 2 Jacket cover, SigfriedGiedion, Bauen in Frankreich,bauen
most art history programsto add what remainsessentially
in Eisen, bauen in Eisenbeton (Leipzig,1928). Courtesy ArchivS.
a lateralperspectiveon a predominantlypainting-(andless
Giedion, Institutfur Geschichte und Theorie der Architektur,ETHsculpture-)orientedcurriculum.
Honggenberg, Zurich
But culturalpressures,universityadministrationtrends
with their economic and political origins or publication
also changed and consequentlyalso its location within the policies,areultimatelyonly the superficialsigns of a deeper
academy.In a move that acceleratedin the nineteenth cen- rupture.What is more alarmingis the absenceof architectury,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
engineeras culturehero, modernistcriticsandtheoreticians betweenthe two fields.10This has not alwaysbeen the case.
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-Artsbehind 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, architectureplayed
definitionof architecturealso 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
(culturalhistory)that shapedart-historicaldisIt
affected
the
the
choin
course
the
firstdecadesof this century.Thus Alois Riegl
asked,
modernity.
questions
projects
in
the
used.7
the
1960s
architects
took
architecture
as his departurepoint in establishingthe
sen,
vocabulary
Although
initiateda radicalrevisionof earliermodernistagendas,the concept of Kunstwollen
that revolutionizedthe disciplineof
growing autonomy of architecturaldiscoursewas further art history (1901);11and Dagobert Frey in his Gotikund
reinforced. To check a functionalism run riot meant Renaissanceals Grundlagender modernenWeltanschauung
redeeminghistory(asmemory)for the practicingarchitect; (1929) and, even more famously,Arnold Spengler in his
294

JSAH / 58:3, SEPTEMBER, 1999

as a fixed coordinatein its historicalunfolding.19Although

Mannerismwas ultimately found to be unhelpful for the
studyof architectureandwas in effect discardedas a central
concern, architecturehad playedits part in establishingan
importantcategoryfor art-historicalresearch.20The definitions of Baroque,Neoclassicism,and Rococo were reached
by way of a similarcooperativeeffort between architectural
and art history-the proliferationin the 1960s of books on
these periodstylesmarksits apogee-before eachfieldwent
on to refine its respectiveapplications.2'
Finally, the vocabularyof art history itself, its lexical
field, is partlyindebtedto architecture.The prominenceof
the monumentas objectof studyand the 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 sculpturetraveled easily to architecture.22The impulse to privilege the
monument and its featurescould find no better home, and
it is here that much of the criticalvocabularyto describeit
was developed,sharpened,andrefined.Reabsorbedinto the
largerdiscourseof the visualarts,it furnishedthe field with
a critical/analyticallanguage that bespoke a shared problematic and invited exchangesamong fields.
Architecture'searlyuse of photographyoffereda visual
counterpartto this verbal orientation toward the monument. Architecturalphotographyitself was an offshoot of a
preservationcampaign,particularlythat of the Monuments
with its focus on the medieval French heritage.
historiques
However, photographssuch those by EdouardBaldusthat
recorded, aestheticized, isolated, and monumentalized
buildings institutionalized a genre of representationthat
come.17
survived in the ubiquitous art history slides and thus
Architecturealso playedan importantrole in the fine- affectedthe very tools with which the field was studiedand
tuning of historical/stylisticperiodizationthat preoccupied the lens throughwhich the art objectswere seen.23
scholarsfrom the 1920s onward.The amorphous"classical
However,if in the firsthalf of the centuryarchitecture
the
dawn
of
the
to
that
stretched
from
Renaissance
and
art history were at work on a common project, their
period"
was
broken
the eighteenthcenturyand beyond
up paths soon diverged. Over the subsequent decades other
gradually
into periodsdistinguishableby their apparentstylisticunity. issues took over the attention of the art history academy:
In orderto confirmtheir validity,it was imperativeto show among them iconographyand style held pride of place, and
the Hegelian Zeitgeist (or,alternatively,Riegl'sKunstwollen) from the later 1960s on social history and linguistictheory
at work and thus to find similarcharacteristicsand trends have also much affectedits course. In the last two decades
acrossthe arts.A case in point is the invention of Manner- iconography has been recast into image theory and
ism as an intermediaryphase between the Renaissanceand visual/verbalissues,24and the cultural"other"(as definedin
the Baroque. Proposed for the mimetic arts by Walter genderand colonialismstudies)25alongwith historiography
Friedlanderand Max Dvorak (1922), Mannerismwas also have joined a renewed panopticum of art-historicalconshown to have affectedarchitectureby Pevsner (1925) and cerns.26Yet not all these trends find easy or relevantappliWittkower(1930s).18Thus established,its applicationcould cation to architecture,the exceptionsbeing social, gender,
then be expandedto include all aspectsof cultureand serve and colonialismissues. In fact, even when concernssuch as

(1918) used conceptionsof space

UntergangdesAbendlandes
as a historicalordering device.12Similarly,it was to architecturethat HeinrichWolfflin turnedin the 1880swhen he
translatedtheories from aestheticsand psychologyinto his
own seminalempathyconcept.13From BernardBerenson's
"tactileforms"(1896) to Wilhelm Worringer's"abstraction
and empathy" (1908), the notion swept the visual arts,
affectingboth historicalscholarship,connoisseurship,and
the course of art makingitself.14
There was also a more sachlich(objective)trend to the
inauguralscholarshipof the discipline.Worksby Heinrich
von Geymiiller or Hans Willich and Paul Zucker on the
Renaissance,for example, or the pioneering architectural
archaeologyof medievalhistoriansfall more readilyinto the
(buildinghistory).'5This direction
categoryof Baugeschichte
was more akinto that of classicalarchaeology,itself notoriously difficult to locate in the academy. Yet, though
survivedand blossomedin architecturalscholBaugeschichte
to the perceptionof architectureitself as
and
added
arship
a technicallyintensive discipline,it also was the fountainhead of much art-historicalmethodology.In the years that
sawthe fledglingdisciplineof arthistoryattemptingto position itselfwithinthe academyas Kunstwissenschaft
(scienceof
art), the technical rigor of architecturalscholarship,well
establishedsince the mid eighteenth century,was particularly appealing.l6Art historians Adolf Goldschmidt and
Wilhelm Voge, who trainedErwin Panofsky,RudolfWittkower, and others of their generation, started their own
research careers with the study of medieval architecture.
tradition of careful firsthand study of
The Baugeschichte
was
translated
monuments
by them into an art-historical
methodology that paid close attention to documents and
primary sources and shaped the field for generations to

ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY AND THE HISTORY OF ART

295

these areshared,art-historicalresearchrarelyintersectswith fruitfulfor architecturalhistoryin giving a new orientation

architecturalscholarship.27Elsewhere,the continued rele- and impetus to building-typestudies.32Yet they have done
vance of once shared methodologies has been diverse. little to reconnect it to an art history more concernedwith
of society and culturethan with the active
Despite a steadystreamof patronagestudies,the social his- the representation
tory of arthas lost the leadershiprole it once held in arthis- agentsof societal change.
Of course, these are only a few instancesof a disjunctory.28In architecture,however,socialhistoryandMarxism
in particularhavenot only furnishedpowerfulmodelsfor its tion within the discipline undertaken primarily from a
historicaldiscourseever since the 1960s, but they continue North Americanperspective;the list cannot even begin to
to do so.29As an eminently public art form, more directly be exhaustive.But they describea patternwhere opportuaffectingsocial and politicalbehaviorthan the other visual nity andloss standside by side. On the one hand,arthistory
arts,architectureremainsan idealsubjectfor the application has developeddiscoursesand tools-particularly relatingto
of Marxistand social-historymethodologies.
representation,image construction,and visual narrativeThe embraceof wider culturalissueswithin art history that architecturalhistory has been less attentive to but
has also led to a sustainedeffortto reconfigureits discourse which may serveit well; on the other hand,both fieldshave
(andthe departmentswhere it is taught)into visualand cul- tended to ignore the exchanges among the arts, the sites
turalstudies.Architecturedoes not fit easilyin this expanded that facilitated such exchanges, and their consequences.
field.The paintedor printedimagecan be readilyconsumed Ultimately, the slowly widening chasm between architecas one among many exempla of material culture, unlike turaland art history does not seem to ariseeither from any
buildings,whicharecomplex,three-dimensionalobjectsthat particulartechnical expertise that they require or from a
often take generations to build. Such a process unfolding diverselydefined historian'scraft (where we find evidence
over the longuedureecausesauthorshipand period style to and how we marshalour arguments).The real dividelies in
recede and consequentlymakes architecturefar less useful the nature of the objectswe study,for they guide what we
as a snapshotof culturaltrendsand mindscapes.
choose to raise to the statusof problem and where we find
If imageproductionandreceptionstudieshaveclaimed our conceptualmodels.
the lion's share of attention in art history of late, recent
It also lies in our differentrelationshipto the present.
work in cultural history on the history of practices-col"Ifhistoricalnarrativesareinevitablyfreightedwith the idelecting,reading,writing,gifting,scientificinquiry-are now ological assumptionsof the period in which they are comslowly finding their way into the discipline.Yet, here too,
posed, what is the cultural function of history?" This
architectureand art history are moving on parallelbut sep- question,raisedat the 1999 Getty SummerInstitutein Art
arate courses. For example, the relationship between sci- History and Visual Studies at the University of Rochester,
ence and the arts is dealt with in separatevolumes in two expressesarthistory'sconundrumat the turn of the millenrecent collections of essays,PicturingScience,ProducingArt nium. For architecturalhistory-that is, for a field that con(1998) and Architectureand Science(1999), although they tinues to be relevantfor the practiceof architecture-this
shareboth an editor and similarthemes.30
question may have an answer:history interacts with the
Yet, despite moving on a differentcourse from art his- present and its discoursesactively,through dialogue, in a
tory,architecturehas not been isolatedfrom the shiftsshap- Habermasiansense.33The history of architecturalhistory
ing contemporary discourse in the academy. In an shows that the disciplinehas alwaysbeen closely tied to the
intellectual environment where sociology and cultural performanceof architecture:its migration in and out of
anthropology have led the way, architecture has figured architectureschools and arthistorydepartmentshas always
prominently.However,becauseof its relevanceas a form of coincided with upheavalswithin the professionitself. It is
cultural"deepstructure,"it has developedstrongerties with not a coincidencethat architecturalhistory entered arthisthe social sciences.After all, Michel Foucault'sseminalfirst tory departmentsin Americain the 1940sjustas it was elimessaystook architectureas their departurepoint: the clinic, inated from its traditional home in the schools of
the asylum,the prisonmayhavebeen institutionsaccording architecture;it is also no coincidence that the Society of
to his definition, but what made them apparentand mate- ArchitecturalHistorians separateditself from the College
rially present were the buildings in which they were Art Association in the early 1970s, at the very same time
housed.31In these narrativesarchitecturebecomes the ulti- when historywas reclaimedby the schools of architecture,
mate document:not only does it represent,but it contains, when journalslike Casabellaand Oppositions
reassertedthe
codifies, and shapes behavior and therefore cultural and importanceof historyand claimedan autonomousdiscourse
social practices. These new perspectives have been very for architecture,and when the star of architecturalhistory
296

JSAH / 58:3, SEPTEMBER, 1999

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 historymattersto practicein the presentpropels us all forward,below the surfaceof discourse,regardless 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
1. Donald Preziosi,ed., TheArt ofArt History:A CriticalAnthology(Oxford
and New York,1998);Norman Bryson,Michael Holly, and Keith Moxey,
eds., VisualTheory(New York,1991). In this respect,Michael Baxandall's
Patternsof Intention(1987), which includes a chapteron architecture,is a
noteworthyexception.
2. For an accountof the phenomenonof history'sreinsertioninto the architecturalschool curriculum,see Gwendolyn Wright, "History for Architects,"in G. Wright andJ. Parks,TheHistoryofHistoryin AmericanSchools
(New York, 1990); for a history of architecturalhistory in
of Architecture
Historian
America,see ElisabethBlairMacDougall, ed., TheArchitectural
inAmerica,Studiesin the Historyof Art,no. 35 (Washington,D. C., 1990).
3. The separationof studio from art historystudieswithin most university
curriculatestifiesto this chasm,as does the absenceof a dialoguebetween
criticismand historyeven when performedby the same scholar.There are
Repreexceptions,of course,for example,CraigOwens,BeyondRecognition:
sentation,Powerand Culture(Berkeley,1992), in which categories of currency in recent art-historicalstudiesare appliedto contemporaryart.
4. In 1988 Trachtenbergnoted that this antagonismimpoverishesthe field
andconcludedhis reviewof architecturalscholarshipwith a quotationfrom
JamesAckerman:"willinglyor not, we [architectural
historians]areall in the
same boat with the critics and not mere practitionersof a mythicalKunstMarvinTrachtenberg,"SomeObservationson RecentArchiwissenschaft."
tecturalHistory,"Art Bulletin70 (1988):208-241.
5. There are importantexceptionsto this pattern,as evidentin the workof
Rosalind Krauss,Yve-Alain Bois, and Hal Foster or in exhibitions like
(MontrealMuseumof Fine Arts, 1992).However,such examples
Metropolis
are few and twentieth-centuryscholarshipremains fragmented.See, for
example, leading journals like Octoberor the interdisciplinaryCritical
Inquiry,wherethe issuesof modernandcontemporaryarchitecturearegenerally missing; similarly,the importantGetty Texts & Documents series
locatesGermanarchitecturaltheoryin the intellectualcultureof the period
though not in that of the other visualarts.
6. SigfriedGiedion, Space,TimeandArchitecture
(Cambridge,Mass., 1941);
TakesCommand
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 study of this phenomenonas it concernsRenaissancehistory
writingandfor bibliographyon the subject,see AlinaPayne,"RudolfWittkower and ArchitecturalPrinciplesin the Age of Modernism,"JSAH 53
(September1994):322-342.

8. Seminal for the development of 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
of theIdealVillaandOtherEssays(CamReview,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:"Thisexperienceled me to a growingrealisationof the
need to raisethe level of consciousnessof the epistemologicalfoundations
of the variousarchitecturalhistories;especiallyin a period like ours, burdened as it is with ephemeral,ad hoc and surreptitious'theory-hunting'.
Bearingthis in mind, it becomes clearthat the studyof the methodologyof
architecturalhistory is as important for the non-theoretically oriented
designer as it is for the student of architecturehimself." Demetri Porphyrios,"Introduction,"On theMethodology
ofArchitectural
History.ArchitecturalDesign51 (1981): 2.
9. For example,see the proliferationof mass-culture-orientedstudiesthat
spanthe spectrumfrom RobertVenturi'spolemicalLearningfromLasVegas
(Cambridge,Mass., 1972) to Richard Longstreth'sinvestigation of new
"buildingtypes" such as the highway or the commercial strip: Richard
Longstreth, City Centerto RegionalMall:Architecture,theAutomobile,and
Retailingin LosAngeles1920-1950 (Cambridge,Mass., 1997). The prototypicalstudy for the genre remainsNikolaus Pevsner,A Historyof Building
Types(London, 1976). For a comprehensiveand still valid reviewof trends
in architecturalhistoryscholarship,see Trachtenberg,208-241.
10. Symptomaticof this situationis the fact that Trachtenberg(as he himself notes) wasinvitedto reviewall architecturalscholarshipfor the Art Bulletin State of Researchseries becausethe art historianswho reviewedthe
literature on the individual historical periods had left architectureout
entirely:Trachtenberg,208. Another symptomof the absenceof communicationbetweenfieldsis evidentin the referenceapparatusused by scholars: the works cited in architecturaland art history publications rarely
intersecteven on the occasionswhen they are publishedin the samejournal.
11. "... abernicht alle GattungensinddieseGesetze [desKunstwollens]mit
gleich unmittelbarerDeutlichkeitzu erkennen.Am ehesten ist dies in der
Architekturder Fall und des weiteren Kunstgewerbe,namentlichsoweit
dasselbenicht figiirlicheMotiveverarbeitet:Architekturund Kunstgewerbe
offenbarendie leitendedGesetze des Kunstwollensoftmalsin nahezumathematischerReinheit"[... but these laws [of Kunstwollen]
cannotbe identified with equal clarityin all artisticmedia. It is most readilyapprehensible
in architectureand 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
purity.-author's translation]. As a result, Riegl starts his Spatromische
Kunstindustrie
with a chapteron architecture.See Alois Riegl, Spatromische
Kunstindustrie
(Darmstadt,1976; 1st. ed., 1901), 19.
12. Much was owed to neo-Kantian trends in contemporaryphilosophy.
See especiallythe impact of Cassireron art-historicalinquiry:Ernst Casin der Philosophie
und Wissenschaft
derneueren
sirer,Das Erkenntnisproblem
Zeit, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1906-1908). Schopenhauer'sDie Weltals Willeund
as
Vorstellung
(especiallyhis concept ofAnschaulichkeit,
offormasubstantialis
ultimateknowledge,Erkentniss)
also markedart-historicaldiscourse.
13. HeinrichWolfflin, "Prologomenazu einer PsychologiederArchitektur
(1886),"in KleineSchriften,ed. J. Gantner (Basel, 1946), 13-47. Some of
the sources Wolfflin cites are Friedrich Th. Vischer,AsthetikoderWissenschaftdesSchonen(Reutlingen/Leipzig, 1856-1858); Hermann Lotze,
derAsthetikin Deutschland(Munich, 1868); idem, Mikrokosmos.
Geschichte

ARCHITECTURAL

HISTORY

AND

THE HISTORY

OF ART

297

IdeenzurNaturgeschichte
undGeschichte
derMenschheit
(Leipzig, 1856-1865);
Robert Vischer, UberdasoptischeFormgefiihl(Leipzig, 1872); andJohann
in derneuerenAsthetik(Jena,1876).
Volkelt,Der Symbolbegriff
14. August Schmarsow,UnserVerhiltniszu denbildenden
Kiinsten(Leipzig,
1903); Wilhelm Worringer,Abstraktionund Einfiihlung.Ein Beitragzur
(Munich, 1908); BernardBerenson, TheFlorentinePainters
Stilpsychologie
(1896);DavidMorgan,"TheIdeaof Abstractionin GermanTheories of the
Ornamentfrom Kant to Kandinsky,"
andArt Criticism
JournalofAesthetics
50 (Summer1992):231-242; Payne, "RudolfWittkower."
15. Hans Willich andPaulZucker,BaukunstderRenaissance
in Italien(Wildpark-Potsdam,vol. 1, 1914; vol. 2, 1929); Carl von Stegmannand Heinrich von Geymiiller, Die Architekturder Renaissancein Toscana,11 vols.

Photographersin Second Empire France,"in The Photographs

of Edouard
Baldus,exhibitioncatalogue(New York,1994), 99-119.
24. Seminalin the areaof image theoryhave been Norman Bryson,Vision
andPainting.TheLogicoftheGaze(New HavenandLondon, 1983);Jonathan
On VisionandModernityin theNineteenth
Crary,Techniques
of the Observer:
Century(Cambridge,Mass., 1990); Hans Belting, Bild undKult (Munich,
andPresence:
A HistoryoftheImagebeforetheEra
1990),translatedas Likeness
of Art (Chicago, 1994);Louis Marin, Despouvoirsde l'image:Gloses(Paris,
1993);David Freedberg,ThePowerofImages(Chicago, 1989);Victor Stoidu tableau(Paris, 1993).For studieson the imbrication
chita,L'instauration
betweenvisualandverbalpractices,see especiallyMichaelBaxandall,Giotto
andtheOrators:
HumanistObservers
ofPaintingin ItalyandtheDiscovery
ofPictorialComposition
(Munich, 1885-1908).
(Oxford, 1971);ClarkHulse, TheRuleofArt, Literature,
16. The rigor of earlyarchaeologicalstudiesof ancientGreece (e.g., John
andPaintingin theRenaissance
(Chicago,1990);WJ.T. Mitchell,PictureTheStuartand Nicholas Revett, TheAntiquitiesofAthens,1763, or the subseand VisualRepresentation
ory.Essaysin Verbal
(Chicago,1996).Scholarlyjournalslike WordandImageandRepresentations
createdin this sameperiodtestify
quentAntiquitiesofIoniapublishedby the Society of the Dilettantistarting
in 1797) was picked up into similararchaeologicalenterprisesfocused on
to a high-densitypoint of interestin these issuesfor the field as a whole. A
Romanand later also on medievalmonuments.
relatedbody of scholarshipaddressedissuesof visualnarrative.Trendsetting
17. On Goldschmidt'scontributionto the discipline,see Marie Roosentextsin this areahavebeen:Mieke Bal,Narratology
(Toronto,1985;firstpub1863-1944 Lebenserrinerungen
lished 1980); SvetlanaAlpers, TheArt of Describing(Chicago, 1983); and
(Berlin,
Runge-Mollwo,AdolphGoldschmidt
Mieke Bal,ReadingRembrandt
1989);on the impactof medievalscholarshipat the turnof the centuryon the
(New York,1991).
25. Scholarshipin this areawas deeply indebtedto the work of Julia Krisdisciplineof arthistory,see CatherineBrush,TheShapingofArtHistory.WilandtheStudyofMedievalArt
helmVoge,AdolphGoldschmidt,
(New York,1996).
teva, Homi Bhaba,and EdwardSaid.
The careerof ArthurKingsleyPorter,whose firstworkswere on medieval
26. Seminalfor scholarshipin this areawasHaydenWhite, Metahistory
(Balarchitecture(1909and 1915),is an eloquentexampleof the paththatled from
timore and London, 1973). For studies on art history,see especiallyHans
architectureto the studyof the othervisualarts(sculpturein his case).
Belting, The End of the Historyof Art? (Chicago and London, 1987), and
18. Max Dvorak("UberGreco und den Manierismus,"
KunstMichael
Ann Holly, PanofikyandtheFoundation
Jahrbuchfiir
ofArtHistory(Ithaca,1984),
I [1921/22]) and WalterFriedlander("MannerismandAntimanand idem, PastLooking:HistoricalImaginationand the Rhetoricof theImage
geschichte
nerismin ItalianPainting,"RepertoriumfiirKunstwissenschaft
47 [1925]);for
(Ithaca,1996).
the place of architecturein this cross-culturalphenomenon,see, for exam27. See, for example,the exclusivefocus on architecturein volumes like
ple, Nikolaus Pevsner, "Gegenreformationund Mannierismus,"Reperto- BeatrizColomina, ed., Sexualityand Space(Princeton,NJ., 1992); Diana
riumfir Kunstwissenschaft
46 (1925): 259-285; Rudolf Wittkower, "Zur
(New York,1996);MarkCrinson,
Agrestet al., eds., TheSex ofArchitecture
andVictorian
Architecture
PeterskuppelMichelangelos"(1933) and "Michelangelo'sBibliotecaLau(London, 1996);JeanEmpireBuilding.Orientalism
renziana"(1934);the most comprehensiveformulationof the phenomenon
Louis Cohen and Monique Eleb, Casablanca.
Mythesetfiguresd'uneavenas it affectedarchitectureis ManfredoTafuri,L'architettura
delManierismo tureurbaine(Paris, 1998).
nel Cinquecento
28. For seminalstudies in this area,see especiallyLinda Nochlin, Realism
Europeo(Rome, 1966).
19. For example,Gustav-ReneHocke, Die Weltals Labyrinth(Hamburg,
Artistsand
(Harmondsworth,1971), and T.J. Clark,TheAbsoluteBourgois:
und der
Politicsin France,1848-1851 (London, 1980).For a statementon the eclipse
1957);Arnold Hauser,Der Manierismus.Die KrisederRenaissance
Kunst(Munich, 1964).
of social history from current art-historicalconcerns, see Marc Gotlieb,
Ursprungdermodernen
20. WolfgangLotz, "ManneristArchitecture,"in TheRenaissance
andMan"WhateverHappened to the Social History of Art?"Abstracts.CollegeArt
Art (Princeton, 1963), vol. 2, 239-246; Ludwig
Association
nerism,Studiesin Western
(New York,forthcoming).
H. Heydenreichand WolfgangLotz, Architecture
in Italy1400-1600 (Har29. For the impactof social historyon architecturalstudies,see, for exammondsworth,1974).
ple, the Penguin 1960s series The Architect and Society edited by John
21. See, for example,the Penguin series Style and Civilization,edited by
Fleming and Hugh Honour of which James Ackerman,Palladio(HarJohn Fleming and Hugh Honour, in which appearedHugh Honour, Neomondsworth,1968), is an outstandingexample.For seminalcontributions
classicism
to a Marxistdiscoursein architecture,see especiallyManfredoTafuri,The(Harmondsworth,1968), andJohn Shearman,Mannerism(HaroriesandHistoryofArchitecture
mondsworth,1967). Such cross-culturaldefinitionsare still noticeable in
and
(New York,1980), andidem,Architecture
the field whenevera period previouslyconceivedas one unit becomes too
Utopia:Designand CapitalistDevelopment(Cambridge,Mass., 1976); for
Marxism'scontinued relevancefor the field, see most recently Eve Blau,
complex to be defined by one overarchingdefinition. Thus, at the other
end of the historicalspectrum,the term "postmodernism"was originally
TheArchitecture
of RedVienna,1919-1934 (Cambridge,Mass., 1999). The
coined and definedby CharlesJencksto serve architecturalcriticism;simpopularityofTheodor Adornoandthe FrankfurtSchool with architectural
theoristsand historiansis anothermanifestationof the recognitionof the
ilarly"deconstruction"
(thoughnot a stylisticperiod)embedsa referenceto
building(anddismantling)in all the contextswhere it is to be found.
politicalrole of architecture.
22. On the originsandimportanceof the conceptof monumentfor arthis30. CarolineA. Jones and Peter Galison, eds., PicturingScience,Producing
Art (London, 1998);Peter GalisonandEmilyThompson, eds.,Architecture
tory and for architecturalcriticism,see AnthonyVidler,"The Art of Hisand Science(Cambridge,Mass., 1999). For an examplein the reception of
tory: Monumental Aesthetics from Winckelmann to Quatremere de
25 (1982): 53-67.
culturestudies,see Jill Kraye,ed., The Cambridge
Quincy,"Oppositions
to Humanism
Companion
23. See especially RichardPare, Photography
andArchitecture1839-1939
(London, 1996),which containsno essayon architecture,
(Montreal,1982),and BarryBergdoll," 'AMatterof Time':Architectsand
31. Michel Foucault,TheBirthof the Clinic:An Archaeology
of MedicalPer298

JSAH / 58:3, SEPTEMBER, 1999

ception(New York, 1973; first published 1963), Madnessand Civilization

(New York,1965;firstpublished1961),andDisciplineandPunish:TheBirth
of thePrison(New York,1973;firstpublished1963).
32. See, for example,ChandraMukerji,TerritorialAmbitions
andtheGardens
Versailles
Sharon
Stories.
(London,
Marcus,
1997);
of
Apartment
Cityand
Homein Nineteenth-Century
ParisandLondon(Berkeley,1999).
33. See Jiirgen Habermas, ThePhilosophical
Discourseof Modernity(Cambridge,Mass., 1987), 296-298. I am referringto Habermas'stheory of the

participantin his critiqueof Foucault'semphasison the observer.Habermas

attacksFoucault'sfocus on the reflexiveattitudeof the subjectand argues
insteadthat a performativesituationexists,an interactionakinto speech of
"reciprocallyinterlockedperspectivesamong speakers"and a "reflection
undertakenfrom the perspectiveof the participant."This position should
not be confusedwith the long traditionof militancyin architecture'shistoricaldiscourse,of which Giedion and others have been outspokenapol5-7.
ogists. See, for example,Giedion, Space,TimeandArchitecture,

ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY AND THE HISTORY OF ART

299