Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 March 2011
The history of Chinese painting is a relatively new discipline. None of us who work in that discipline can as yet rely on a binding tradition, accepted methods, or even on established facts of historical significance. It is possible for several critics to arrive at surprisingly contradictory judgments about one and the same work, or sequence of works, or about the meaning of the same evidence. Our judgments, naturally, will change; the work adjudged will not. We have to come to terms with it in the end. Coming to terms, however, does not mean a compromise between opposed views or viewers. It means that the right understanding of the work or sequence in question will sooner or later prevail—that is, the right understanding of the work as a historical monument. But how is this understanding achieved? It is this seemingly simple question, the basic problem facing the historian, that I shall discuss.
1 Fiedler, Konrad, Schriften über Kunst, ed. Konnerth, Hermann (München, 1914) II, 121.Google Scholar
2 Hauser, Arnold, The Philosophy of Art History (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1959), p. 165.Google Scholar
3 Kahler, Erich, “What is Art? An answer to Morris Weitz's ‘The Role of Theory in Aesthetics’,” ApudGoogle ScholarWeitz, Morris, Problems in Aesthetics (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1959), pp. 157–171.Google Scholar
4 Jaspers, Karl, Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte (Zürich, 1949), p. 60Google Scholar; cf. Fischer Bücherei, Frankfurt/Hamburg, 1955, 1956, 1957, p. 46.
5 Hauser, , op. cit., p. 189.Google Scholar
6 Wölfflin, Heinrich, Principles of Art History, tr. Hottinger, M. D. (New York: Dover Publications, s.a. First publ. 1932, after seventh German ed., München, 1929). Cf. Hauser's critique, op. cit., Ch. IV, esp. p. 189.Google Scholar
7 Hauser, , op. cit. (n. 2 above), p. 208.Google Scholar
8 Ibid., p. 209.
9 Ibid., p. 208.
10 Simmel, Georg, “Das Problem der historischen Zeit,” in Zur Philosophie der Kunst (Potsdam: Kiepenheuer, 1922), pp. 152–169, esp. p. 156.Google Scholar
11 Hauser, , op. cit., p. 243.Google Scholar
12 van Gulik, R. H., Chinese Pictorial Art at Viewed by the Connoisseur, Serie Orientale Roma, XIX (Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1958), esp. Second Part, pp. 339 ff.Google Scholar
13 Kahler, , op. cit., p. 165.Google Scholar
14 Cf. Loehr, Max, “Chinese Paintings with Sung dated Inscriptions,” in: Ars Orientalis, IV (1961)Google Scholar, esp. Introduction, 219–229.
15 Kubler, George, The Shape of Time (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1962), p. 65.Google Scholar
16 Jo-hsü, Kuo, T'u-hua chien-wen-chihGoogle Scholar, Chüan 2:8 b; cf. Soper, Alexander C., Kuo Jo-hsü's Experiences in Painting (Washington: A.C.L.S., 1951), p. 26.Google Scholar
17 Rowley, George, Principles of Chinese Planting (Princeton, rev. ed., 1959), pp. 3 ff.Google Scholar
18 Fiedler, , op. cit. (n. 1 above), p. 131.Google Scholar
19 Cf. Paragraph I, above, and n. 2.
20 Riegl, Alois, Stilfragen (Wien, 1893)Google Scholar; idem, Die spätrömische Kunstindustrie nach den Funden in Österreich-Ungarn (Wien, 1901)Google Scholar (new edition tided Spätrömische Kunstindustrie, Wien, 1927).Google Scholar
21 A phenomenon which Gilson thought unlikely to exist; cf. Gilson, Étienne, Painting and Reality (New York: Bollingen Scries, 1957).Google Scholar
