Beginning the History of Art

So as we embark on a semester long study of the “Aesthetic Revolutions in the History of Art”, one must remember that the history of art has a history of its own. As an academic discipline it requires an origin, with continuous development, specific milestones, and an inevitable evolution into the modern forms. In Whitney Davis’s “Beginning of the History of Art”, the author continually uses the motif of an art history textbook with a designated “Figure 1”, that marks the true beginning of the history of art. That “Figure 1” sets the stage for future comparisons, from which artistic movements and inventiveness can be defined. However as Davis discusses, “figure 1” is not necessarily the historical beginning but where art historian’s feel the beginning should be, or the works that allow for a continuous flow into the movements that have already been historicized. Lascaux has fulfilled the “figure 1” spot in many art history books because “the circumstances of its discovery are accidental and dramatic, confirming two of our longstanding intuitions about what and ‘origin’ should feel like” (32). In order for the discipline of art history to gain credibility and interest, its origin must be consumptive and resonate as the most obvious beginning for what was to come. Even if the origin is far off from being the historical beginning, it fits its purpose in the narrative of the history of art. Davis goes on to discuss the idea of continuity in the history of art, the flow from figure 1 to figure 2 and the subsequent comparisons made from them. “It is tied to art history’s conception of artworks as essentially historical. It asserts not only that art making somehow begins or emerges in time and space, that it is an historical object” (33). This need to define art as a chorological discipline also creates a need for continuity in its development. Similar to biology, in order for evolution to be accepted we require a series of continuous steps from species to species. Evolution isn’t credible without continuous change. Hence “figure 1” and “figure 2” were chosen as prototypical of certain movements because of their ability to give a sense of continuity. “What motivates its selection as the historical Figure 1 is a prior commitment to a history of Greek or Michelangelo’s art and of Leonardo’s creativity in which Lascaux is actually understood as a replication, admittedly retrochronologically” (34). Lascaux allows accepted “great” pieces of artwork make sense. So in retrospect, as we study a certain history of art and the numerous categorizations and periodizations of artwork, we must also remember that the history of art itself is susceptible to manipulation. The reasons for “framing” a certain piece of artwork, has a history and a frame of its own.