The Future of Art History in the Context of Psychology and the Cognitive Sciences

Abstract

In March 2009 the important conference “E.H. Gombrich auf dem Weg zu einer Bildwissenschaft des 21.Jahrhunderts” was held in Greifswald, Germany, on the centenary of Gombrich’s birth. I was, I confess, a little surprised to hear that his reputation was in need of revival. Gombrich, it is true, relied upon the psychology of his day, and by the 1980s many younger art historians were no longer engaged by his ways of thinking. As feminists, they were offended by his focus on a male-oriented old master tradition; as modernists, by his obvious lack of sympathy with contemporary art; and as multicultural thinkers, by his lack of interest in non-European traditions. Also, of course, he had nothing to say about the emerging concerns of queer studies. Gombrich, like all of us, was a person of his own time. However, one result of the late-20th-century shift in how art-historical research was conducted was that most scholars resisted any attempt to ground analysis in the study of psychology. This then meant that the gap between the concerns of art history and those of experimental science became vast. In the past halfcentury, psychology has changed dramatically, but few art historians have followed these developments. Since cognitive psychology has revolutionized the ways that visual perception is understood, this gap seems unfortunate. To understand how we view and interpret pictures, one needs to appeal to psychology: what could be more obvious? The legitimate concerns of feminists, modernists and multicultural art historians might legitimately be formulated in these terms: that is our hope. There is a widespread, unspoken anxiety that a scientific concern with generality might undermine the pressing need for art history to do justice to the varieties of art produced by women and men of all cultures. There is also a fear that the study of psychology leads us back to a reductive, Eurocentric aesthetic. Gombrich, it is true, focused his attention on the naturalistic tradition that developed in Europe. In his survey history The Story of Art, art from outside Europe has a very marginal position. However, as Gombrich liked to note, his late study of decoration, The Sense of Order, focused attention on art from many cultures outside Europe. It is revealing that that book attracts less commentary than his accounts of representation. So, I propose, it is time to revisit Gombrich’s ways of thinking, not in a purely historical analysis, but rather to understand how we can reformulate his concerns in line with present-day psychology of perception. It is time again to open up discussion. John Onians’s Neuroarthistory: From Aristotle and Pliny to Baxandall and Zeki (2008) offers a historical account. The renowned Columbia University scholar David Freedberg has relevant work in progress. And there are many other scholars also at work on this subject. What can art history learn from empirical studies of visual experience? What can analysis of visual art contribute to scientific studies of perception? Gombrich was the last of the art historians to take contemporary scientific issues pertaining to art seriously. It is time to revive his concerns. The humanities have much to gain and nothing to lose from serious reflection on this topic. It is time for art history to overcome its alienation from scientific psychology. This, then, is a call for submissions exploring this theme in Leonardo. We are interested not in purely historical perspectives, but in research looking to the future. What are the most promising new approaches? How can they aid our understanding of visual art? We are interested both in general programmatic statements and in innovative accounts of individual works of art. Knowing the importance of this topic, and the fact that all interesting claims are sure to be highly controversial, we welcome friendly, engaged debate.