Further Interrogating the Concept of 'Origins'

It is true that it would be almost be impossible to pinpoint the exact origins of any literary or artistic movement. However, let us imagine a world in which there is literature that attempts to explain--via a theoretical framework--the origins of say....art or the history of art in an irresponsible manner; that is, it trains the reader to think discretely and not holistically or critically. One does not need to imagine because one is currently living it.

In fact, in the "Beginning the History of Art" Whitney Davis critically looks at many art historians' inability to really question the concept of origin as it relates to the history of art. More specifically, Davis challenges the way some art historians can depict the history of art as something linear, completely disregarding the multi-dimensionality and complexity of art by dangerous simplification.W hile Davis certainly dealt with this subject in a cogent manner, the same principles that went behind exploring the concept of 'origin' were not applied in relation to what 'history of art' and what 'art' the author was analyzing. Simply put, the author conflated art and the history of art with the Western conception of art and the history of Western art.

There was only one moment in the text which explicitly stated that it was talking about 'Western art' ': "In the broadest terms, the supposed wholeness of artworks might be a condition or a consequence of the larger Western aesthetic intuition..." (332). Indeed, could art made in China or in pre-Columbian Peru have followed the same trajectory as art made in Western Europe? If not, the language found in this text certainly made it appear as such. Are we to operate under the assumption that, living in this country where Western culture is dominant, it is not necessary to explicitly state the 'kind' of art that is being discussed? What is at stake if authors such as Davis remain complacent with only a superficial exploration of Eurocentrism in the realm of art and art history?

My critique reflects the same frustration Davis has with some art historians: certain philosophical and cultural aspects of art and the history of art, are only superficially dealt with.

Clearly I find the theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of looking at the concept of 'origins' more than the actual origins themselves.