Beginning the History of Art

Whitney Davis begins the article with the problem of textbooks never really addressing the historical origins of Paleolithic images. Davis states that this problem is in both conservative and “new” art history. He believes that origins are identified maybe but certainly not analyzed or explained. He criticizes that Lascaux is put in the slot of “Figure 1” and also criticizes the complex status of “Figure 1”. Using “Figure 1” makes art making emerge in time and space that can be classified. It implies that art is a matter of replication and can go on and on with “Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3”. The term “Figure 1” is used to organize the art historical chronicle and to show the actual historical beginnings. Those who compare artworks are art historians. Art historians are not the only ones who make comparisons between artworks. Artists, critics, philosophers and other viewers can also compare artworks. The comparison of artwork seems to help with the understanding of artwork. Why the paradoxical quality of the comparison? Davis states that there is a possibility of two different artworks that go together and are connected by the same historical association. Then there is also the possibility of two artworks that don’t go together but are connected already as elements in an individual artworks art-historicity. By trying to compare artworks sometimes and making pre-art historical into art-historical one ends up finding actual history. Therefore by just eliminating the gaps of artworks it may be possible to have art historicity as a whole.

Later in the article Davis says that “being-in-history is being comparable, what is without comparison could not be in history and what is in history must be comparable at all costs” (50). Therefore art history cannot conceptualize without comparison. Davis ends the article with “At the end of an artwork’s becoming whole, art history begins. Before that point, there is only the beginning of the history of art (51).” It seems that the main idea is that the historicity of the artwork is not the comparison of artworks with other artworks it is the matter of the whole produced in the artwork’s comparison. However, after reading the article I am still confused. I feel like Davis contradicts himself.