Art and history

-santosh Kumar
Art ,sculpture, painting are
not just forms of expressions
of individuals or just the
perceptions of the society art
is equally understood as a
way of understanding history
of the period. Art thus should
not just understand just a
source of aesthetics and
sensory beauty but as an
eyewitness to history whose
hidden symbolism need to
be extracted to reconsider a
period historically. Here we
will discover how art is
intrinsically related to history
and how could we construct
history through art forms
The origins of art forms, as a
tool of understanding history,
dates back to Paleolithic art.
Since we don't have any
writing available for the
period. These tools who over
the course of time became
more and more sophisticated
and a hence holds aesthetic
value. Cave art are also
used to understand the
cultural perspectives,
ideologies and religious
beliefs etc of the pre modern
man
Likewise architecture is not
just about huge monumental
structures for personal or
public use but it also
represents the symbolic
world view created and could
be subjected to abstract
subjective interpretation.
Here the question of
patronage and the reason of
creating these structures
become very important
because it reflects the
relation between art and
social relations, political
legitimization, ideologies of
the time etc reflected in art.
But a piece of art could be
interpreted in a lot many
ways and sometimes the
interpretations could be
contradictory to each other.
So here the problem arises
about which version should
we use for historical analysis
and there are no easy
answers to it. Scholars like
Burckhardt have tried to see
the spirit of the age defined
by its art (zeitgeist in
German). According to him
art of an age is not devoid of
its sociopolitical context and
particular time produces a
particular type of art. He
traces the evolution of
European art from middle
ages and consider
renaissance as the
beginning of modernity art
being an important
parameter. According to him
in the preceding centuries
the rulers of Italian city states
used art just for popularizing
and legitimizing their
illegitimate rule. And the real
revolution in terms of art
came during renaissance
period only. Though his
views are open to criticism
nevertheless he presents a
very important breakthrough
on how art could act as a
catalyst for understanding
the history of a time. For
example in Greece the
concept of masculinity was
given enough emphasis and
that is reflected in the Greek
busts as well as nudes with
their reflection of well
proportioned bodies
especially in their depiction
of emperors this idea of
masculinity is clearly evident.
The art not only reflects one
who produces but also of the
people who consumes and
commission this art. Mostly
art was used in most ancient
societies to reflect the glory
and aura of the ruler but also
the utopianism the ruling
class want to project like the
symbolic representation of
pax romana through art in
the simple picture of lion and
goat together. Art thus was
used by people to project
themselves for future
generations by documenting
their personal or political life.
Art acted a way to preserve
memory as portraiture. On
the contrary, sometimes the
future rulers try to demean,
discredit the legacy of a
person by ruining their
material signs including
portraits or either creating
counter figures distorting the
prevalent imagery of the
ruler.

Art differs not only according

to the time it is representing
but also the context which is
reflected in the art. Like art
can be used to depict the
urban settlements. As we
know Gordon childe while
discussing the
characteristics of the urban
centers discuss presence of
monumental architecture as
one of the features of
urbanization. Art depicting
wars and a very different
form of architecture form is
found in the form of
graveyards or funerary art.
Finally we also find different
art and architecture related
to festivities, occasions or
events.

One of the main epochs of

time devoted to study of art
was the renaissance period
where the ancient Greco
roman art was not only
rediscovered and
reinterpreted but we also find
attempts to study these arts
and artists and take
inspiration from them. Some
of these inspirations also
harked back to the pagan
texts before coming of
Christianity. Such texts were
given new dimensions and
new meanings through
renaissance art.
One of the important
examples of these
inspirations is given by
Thomas Puttfarken who
studied the paintings of
Titian. The textual basis of
these paintings was Ovid’s
metamorphosis which was a
pagan text. In his essay the
author discusses the
underlying symbols,
meanings, motives etc in the
paintings of titian. Strangely
enough these paintings were
given patronage by the
catholic prince Philip.
Different scholars present
different views over his
choice of text as well as his
choice of paintings and also
nude art as his form of
painting. Some scholars
believe that nude art forms
were prevalent art form in
renaissance art to show the
eroticism in the renaissance
art form. Some other
believes that it was the ruler
Philip who decided upon the
choice of paintings who tried
to find the Christian ideals
and morality in pagan texts.
Thomas Puttfarken himself
gives an alternative view by
tracing the inspiration of the
poems and the changing
rules of poetry itself. For a
long time poises or poetry
was influenced by the literary
criticisms of Horace and
Plato, both of whom
considered poetry as a
means of instruction and
teaching morality and
condemned abstract or
creative prowess in poetry.
Thus the poetic theories of
Horace discouraged the use
of strong emotions like
cruelty, tragedy etc. in the
16th century with the
discovery and study of the
poetics by Aristotle, a new
poetic line started to be used
by the contemporary artists.
Aristotle was much more
lenient in allowing use of
strong emotions which
allowed whole range of
tragedies during 1540’s-
1550’s which not only
influenced poetry but also
tragedy plays and in case of
titian paintings. So it must be
assumed according to
Puttfarken that the choice of
texts as well as meaning
may belong to titian and not
Phillip. The concept of
eroticism as well as tragedy
is clearly evident in his
paintings. But this didn’t
came up immediately but
rather developed gradually.
As we find in his earlier
painting like Danae, there
are least elements of a
tragedy even though the
painting depicts a killing in its
hindsight the painting
focuses on the aspect of
liberty of a women. It is only
later with his paintings like
Venus and Adonis that we
find elements of tragedy
clearly visible. Though still
there were some paintings
which created a sense of
horror or tragedy but
eventually culminated to a
happy ending example being
rape of Europa.
But using art as depiction of
an event or story presents a
problem as a painting could
only usually depict an event
frozen in time. Different
artists solved this problem
through different ways and
that’s what perhaps
differentiates renaissance art
from others. We all know the
use of geometry and rules of
mathematics to depict depth
distance linear movement
etc. but there were other
creative ways also. Like titian
used eroticism as a cover for
attracting audience who can
look at the frozen erotic
frames but the meaning will
not be evident to the viewer
until he is capable of looking
beyond eroticism.
Engagement and
interpretation of the viewer
was also an important aspect
of art.

According to Haskell, text is

also a form of visual as the
text is a visual initially which
is then de-coded to form
meanings. According to him
art can be used as
corroborative evidence in
history and this process of
construction of history
through visual sources is as
old as history itself. Even
Herodotus used paintings of
temple to corroborate
historicity of certain events.
Art is not just visual but
according to scholars it also
has philosophical and literary
values as well. Though in
Greek period art was used
as a corroborative source to
know history and not the
primary source, which used
to be textual sources only.
Haskell also points out that
art could be used to recover
the imagination, patterns,
styles, conventions, and
beliefs etc of people
belonging to a given period
of time.
Art was not just found in
portraits but also in coinages
the study of which sprawled
a discipline of its own called
numismatics. Earlier Greco-
Roman coins were used in
renaissance period to
corroborate historical
evidence but after 16th the
importance of coinage
increased manifold as they
can now be used to ascribe
coins to a particular ruler as
well as a particular period of
time. There were also
attempts to collect coinages
in a reign of a particular ruler
and how rulers like Julius
Caesar tried to represent him
differently in different
coinages. But using
coinages as a source of
history has its own limitations
as firstly only those coins
could be studied who were in
circulation or which existed
till the present time.
Secondly the difference of
coinages not always
represents a break from the
past but different regions had
different mint technologies
which made them difficult to
date. Thirdly the study of
coinages may not take into
account the prevalence of
forged coins which were not
issued legally by the state
and thus doesn’t represent
the ideology of the state.
Actually it was the study of
portraits that proved to be
the watershed for studying
art history when Giorgio
Vasari inspired by Vico’s
discourse on coins of
antiquity, wrote for the first
time not just about art but
also about the art system,
and life and studios of
renaissance artists. This was
also important in the sense
that in a rare manner, non
royal aristocratic people
were recorded in a
biographical manner. Vasari
made use of the self portraits
of these artists and helped
them to write the
biographical sketches of
these artists as well as
distinguishing their art on the
basis of their style. Portraits
not only acted s a figurative
evidence but was much
more accessible to readers
and writers to study. But the
most important aspect of
portraiture is that it could be
understood by even
illiterates through visual
medium. In Munich in 1566
huge antiquarianism was
established where portraits
created through coins were
kept. But not just the kings
but also the portraits of the
popes found their way.
Portraits were used to reveal
“actions of great men”.
Secondly, historical
narratives were created
through depiction of rulers
and popes which
corroborated with scriptural
and archaeological sources.
But as with coinages
portraiture had their
shortcomings. Firstly only
certain moments and events
were recorded in the
portraits. Secondly,
according to scholars these
portraits hardly ever
attempted in depicting “total
history”, that is these
portraits only reflects great
events(more or less elitist)
like Punic wars or war
between Pompey and
Caesar etc

Another aspect of history of

th th
art during 16 -17 century
was that art theorists mostly
trace epochs with art in the
form of origin –development-
decline. According to Gilbert
for instance art declined in
Rome due to the change in
political structures. Similarly
Raphael saw the decline of
roman sculpture from 2nd-4th
century which he traced to
change in the civilization
standards within Rome
rather than the oft quoted
reasons of barbaric invasion
or Christianity.
Renaissance period also
saw attempts to study the
political and cultural events
through sculpture especially
in the form of the busts of the
roman period. These
sculptures were unique in
their depiction of masculinity
and their use of drapery
inspired many great
renaissance sculptures most
important being
Michelangelo’s David. Most
of the sculptures of Greco
roman rimes are unearthed
in archaeological
excavations thus
archaeology acting as a
more prominent way of
constructing history than
numismatics.
Up till 16th-17th century, art
remains and history were
viewed together and
perceptions about a
particular period were
formed by studying its art.
But the credit to establish art
history as a concrete
discipline goes to
Winckelmann. He tried to
construct roman history
through visual sources and
traced the cause of plethora
of visual evidence in Rome
due to the artistic freedom
that existed in Rome.
According to him, whenever
there is unfreedom or
suppression, there was a
decline in art like in late
antiquity. Due to him, a
whole school of art historians
emerged in Germany and a
number of writers,
philosophers tended to study
art and history. The study of
art was influenced by many
such philosophers like Hegel
and Herder etc. herder didn’t
believed in universal criteria
and standard but particular
societies have organic
relation with its time. He
traced the cultural
developments of the middle
ages to the economic
developments of the age but
he refuses this allegation
that gothic art was equal to
feudal art.
Hegel on the other hand
gave the idea of zeitgeist
(spirit of time) according to
which every epoch has its
own spirit which could be
seen in its material remains
including art. But his spirit of
age has a thesis and
antithesis which lead to
decline of one zeitgeist and
its replacement by another
zeitgeist. Though he didn’t
talk about art directly, his
idea provided a foundation of
studying socio cultural
developments with change in
art forms.
While most scholars
considered gothic period as
period of decline for art and
the redemption was art was
seen in the form of
renaissance art. But scholars
like john Ruskin criticized
this notion. He actually
considers gothic art far
superior than renaissance
art.
But the most important and
influential art historian of his
time was Jacob Burckhardt
who belongs to the positivist
school of history. He
discussed art, sculpture etc
as an important source of
history and was especially
renowned for his work on
renaissance in Italy. He
though follows the traditional
pattern of origin- decline-
renaissance with the coming
of Christianity treated as a
cause of decline of roman
civilization including art .He
also traced the transition of
Italian art from the medieval
ages to the awakening of
renaissance which he see as
the origin of the early
modern era of history.
Renaissance according to
him was not just about
development in art and
humanism but how people
started seeing themselves as
individuals rather than part of
a community or
conglomeration.
Renaissance was a rebirth
according to him of the
individualism existing in
classical times. It was
Burckhardt who define
renaissance of arts and
letters as a distinctive age of
its own and a break from its
past in terms of art as well as
ideas. But Burckhardt seems
to go too far in saying that all
painters before Raphael
were primitive. Also he is too
much focused on glorifying
renaissance period in a very
factual way. Even then,
Burckhardt was very
th
influential among 19
century art historians
especially in Germany and
Austria
Another important art
historian Huizinga was
concerned about the
construction of history of
people through art. He
believed history to be
didactic so as to be relevant
and popular in its time. In his
work “the waning of the
middle ages” he talks about
new methodology for cultural
history which is to write
history of middle ages with a
humanistic perspective
rather than scientific. This
was a clear challenge to
positivist methodology of
Burckhardt. Though he
agrees to the importance
given by Burckhardt to
renaissance he nonetheless
believe that apart from Italy
there were other centers of
cultural affluence as well like
Netherlands or France.
According to him though
Greco roman literature was
studied in Middle Ages also
but the motives of these
studies considerably differed
from renaissance. While
middle Ages used these
literature for religious
purpose whereas in
renaissance period the real
importance was given not to
classical form but rather the
new spirit of classical age in
renaissance age. Though
Huizinga shared many ideas
including renaissance people
as modern man but he
departed considerably in
scrutinizing objective data in
construction of cultural
history by incorporating
elements like emotions,
mythology, theology,
psychology of the people of
the period.
Even after giving a plausible
new way to study art history
Huizinga was criticized for
many things. Firstly- he took
cultural changes within
Netherlands to be static and
thus couldn’t develop his
theory according to changing
times. Secondly, he was
skeptical about historical
periodization and thus didn’t
delve into the dynamics of
14th-15th century enough,
thirdly he was concerned
about the context of art
rather than studying the
causality, and fourthly, while
dealing with decline of
middle ages he is accused of
being “cultural deterministic”.
Fifthly, he see the roots of
decline in middle ages in the
religious works but this
points to be criticized as
elaborate ritual was a
function of the elite class and
couldn’t be used to study the
decline of whole society. And
lastly it doesn’t take into
consideration the new type
of thinking that was
emerging at the end of
middle ages.
Erwin Panofsky is a modern
scholar renowned for his
work in defining iconography
as a source of reading
history. According to him art
and art objects could be
studied in 3 stages. First
stage is the simple
identification of history
through familiarity like in
case of depiction of historical
battle scenes. The
identification of weaponry,
the facial expressions of the
soldiers etc are used to
understand the meaning of
the art.
Second phase is linking of
artistic motifs with
conventional meanings.
According to him a
renaissance painting could
be read through
understanding of allegory,
knowledge of perceptions
etc. This, according to him, is
only possible, if we have
other specimens of paintings
belonging to that period for
comparison or any written
material to substantiate
those paintings.
Third phase is that of
interpretative iconology by
trying to recover the intrinsic
meaning and content of the
painting. This one
personality through
interpretative meanings
could then be used to study
the aspiration of a class,
region, nation etc.
Art critic John Berger talks
about how ancient symbols
are all pervasive and are
consumed by the society
through frequent recycling
and representations. Like the
female nudes in the gothic
art, renaissance art and
baroque art could be used to
study how visual culture
looks at male and female
differently.
From this whole discussion
what we can point out is that
art is just not means of mere
representation but it holds a
major key to unlocking
history. It not only tells us
about the person who is
being painted but also who is
painted what is depicted and
what is omitted. No longer is
art used to construct elitist
history but the scope of art
history to ask some difficult
questions related to
presence and even absence
of certain group of people in
art. For example feminist
historians question the whole
concept of renaissance by
pointing out that there was
hardly any presence of
female scholars, artists, and
painters etc. to call it an “age
of awakening”. According to
Panofsky producing art
history requires exhaustive
knowledge not just about the
technical principles but also
the underlying intrinsic
meanings. Thus art need to
be understood as a critical
source in it which requires
proper methodology,
interpretations looking
beyond the frames to
construct the history of those
people not depicted in art
forms.
.