Abstract
Giving a methodological and ontological explanation to the art history is the core thought of “a theory of /cloud/” of Hubert Damisch. It shows that there is no uniform explanation for art history. And the explanation of art history can only be placed in the framework of history. Language is the main reason for this, because it is historical, and through it the art history can be narrated and explained. As an explanatory activity, art history needs to plan a historical horizon which is different from the present, and integrate with the current horizon to explain historical events. Therefore, all art history is bound to be a historical explanation. This is the logic of why art history needs to be constantly renovated. On the other hand, because art history is inseparable from language, it must rely on linguistic methods in the specific analysis process. Taking this as his starting point, Damisch takes semiotics as the dominant method of explaining the art history. In his eyes, semiotics, as a method of combining meaning reading and characterization analysis, can effectively reconcile the contradiction between formal analysis and iconology. Not only that, the symbol as a kind of representation of representation can also make the painting back to the field of representation. Because representation is the basic purpose of painting. As a symbol, cloud precisely emphasizes that painting should pay attention to representation. And the sensibility and materiality of cloud in painting indicates that the painterly should become the mainstream of the representation. This kind of painterly is exactly what “A Theory of /Cloud/” aims to reveal. According to this, the painterly of painting should become the main focus of the writing of art history.
Highlights
How to construct art history is the first problem that art historians have to face when art history became a discipline in Alois Riegl’s time
When art history began to enrich itself by drawing on the achievements of aesthetics, of literature and of cultural theories since the middle of the 20th century, its relationship with art theory began to become more tense and subtle on the one hand, and the traditional interpretation modes of formal analysis and iconography began to be challenged on the other hand
Just as Damisch makes it clear that his study of the cloud is to establish a new history of painting, “a theory of /cloud/”should first solve the problem of how to explain the history of painting or how to write the history of painting in the contemporary context
Summary
How to construct art history is the first problem that art historians have to face when art history became a discipline in Alois Riegl’s time. When art history began to enrich itself by drawing on the achievements of aesthetics, of literature and of cultural theories since the middle of the 20th century, its relationship with art theory began to become more tense and subtle on the one hand, and the traditional interpretation modes of formal analysis and iconography began to be challenged on the other hand. New art history has brought new methods, the constant changes in art practice still prompt theorists to seek new modes of explanation. For the French art historian Hubert Damisch, the reason why art history can be constantly renovated is that people constantly put forward new questions. How to reconstruct art history under this new background? This paper takes Damish’s A Theory of /Cloud/: Toward a History of Painting as an example, and tries to answer these questions through a case study How to reconstruct art history under this new background? And what are the question patterns and attributes of this reconstruction? This paper takes Damish’s A Theory of /Cloud/: Toward a History of Painting as an example, and tries to answer these questions through a case study
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
