Kris and Gombrich now asked the next logical question. They appreciated that understanding the viewer’s response to art-what Gombrich called the beholder’s share-is the natural bridge between the sciences and art, between psychology and portraiture. This is an obvious point, but it had not been pointed out in precisely these terms and had not been highlighted as being a key issue for experimental investigation.Ī later generation of Riegl disciples, the Viennese trained art historians Ernst Kris and Ernst Gombrich, took up this challenge. Without the response of the beholder, art is incomplete. The artist creates the painting, Riegl argued, and the beholder responds to it. Let me put this issue into perspective.Īt the turn of the century, in Vienna 1900, Alois Riegl the leader of the Vienna School of Art History argued that art history is going to die unless it becomes more scientific, and that the science it ought to relate itself to is psychology, and the question that it ought to address is the beholder’s share. What is art for? In the most general sense, it is for the beholder. Tomilson (“Tom”) Hill III, the collector and president and chief executive of Blackstone Alternative Asset Management, and Lina Lazaar, the founder of Jeddah Art- can be viewed on our website. Kandel was among the speakers invited to investigate the subject What is Art For? Videos of the different speakers-Eric Kandel, a Nobel Prize-winning neuro-psychiatrist, James Davis of the Google Cultural Institute, J. The text below is an edited transcript of Eric Kandel’s presentation at The Art Newspaper’s 25th anniversary celebrations, hosted at the Museum of Modern Art in New York last month and sponsored by Volkswagen.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |