Ut Pictura Noesis? Criticism in Literary Studies and Art History
Ut Pictura Noesis? Criticism in Literary Studies and Art History
复制标题
Ut Pictura Noesis？
DOI：
10.2307/468542
复制
发表时间：
1972
影响因子：
0.9
通讯作者：
Paul J. Alpers
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Alpers;Paul J. Alpers
艺术史是人文学科中最负盛名的领域之一。在它最有力的两个方面--风格研究和图像学研究--它对其他人文学科产生了巨大的影响。我们对时代风格的认识要归功于威夫林，对马累、帕诺夫斯基、温德等人的图像学知识要归功于他们，因为图像学既是一种文化事实，也是一种解释方法。自布克哈特以来，我们对文化史的意识和理解一直与艺术史密切相关，并被研究艺术史的人所加强。由于文学学者对艺术史学家的解释方法和历史排序原则的依赖，他们很少有机会注意到艺术史著作中几乎完全没有那种批评性的考虑，这种考虑是正常的，更不用说是基本的，在文学的学术研究中。这有各种原因。文学专业学生
ART HISTORY is one of the most prestigious fields in the humanities. On the two fronts on which it operates most powerfullythe study of style and the study of iconography-it has had great influence on other humanistic disciplines. We owe to Wilfflin our ideas about period style and to Male, Panofsky, Wind and others our knowledge of iconography, as both a cultural fact and a method of interpretation. Ever since Burckhardt, our consciousness and understanding of cultural history have been intimately connected with art history and enhanced by those who study it. Because of their debt to art historians for methods of interpretation and principles of historical ordering, literary scholars have had little occasion to notice the almost complete absence from art historical writings of the kind of critical considerations which are normal, not to say basic, in the academic study of literature. There are various reasons for this. Students of literature