Kurt Badt. Verlust der Mitte (On the Question of Modernism and the Anti-modernism in mid-20th Century German Art History)

IF 0.1 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Iskusstvovedenie Pub Date : 2021-10-02 DOI:10.21638/spbu15.2021.309
Ivan Sablin
{"title":"Kurt Badt. Verlust der Mitte (On the Question of Modernism and the Anti-modernism in mid-20th Century German Art History)","authors":"Ivan Sablin","doi":"10.21638/spbu15.2021.309","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On the example of the activities of the German art historian Kurt Badt, the article reveals the complex relationship between modern art and contemporary art history. The outstanding and, obviously, underestimated figure of the scholar, who throughout his long life was ready to confront the rest of the discipline unwilling to become a part of the university system, with all his creativity embodied the very idea of freedom that modern artists and sympathizing art critics strove for. Due to the availability of English-language versions of the art historian’s texts mainly on the masters close to modern art — Delacroix, Constable, and Cézanne — his position in the dispute about modernism seems more or less unambiguous. The aim of this article is to show that this is far from the case, discovering the points of contact of Badt with many of his colleagues who have earned a reputation as unconditional conservatives. First of all, it concerns the Austrian art theorist Hans Sedlmayr, an interest for whom, especially in recent times, is predetermined by widespread ideas about the fundamental incompatibility of academic art history with attempts of unbiased consideration of the history of modern art. Moreover, a deep kinship of such research activity with the most reactionary political ideas is also widely discussed, which, as it should be noted, this outstanding critic of the modern culture was not absolutely innocent of. Nevertheless, his clash with Badt, a polemic that took place in the 1950s and 60s, centered on the work of not Cézanne, but Vermeer van Delft, can be considered from the point of view of the attitude of the two scholars to phenomena less distant in time. This makes it possible to raise the question of the paradoxical similarity of the views of these two authors — with such a different creative and human destiny.","PeriodicalId":40378,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Iskusstvovedenie","volume":"112 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Iskusstvovedenie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu15.2021.309","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

On the example of the activities of the German art historian Kurt Badt, the article reveals the complex relationship between modern art and contemporary art history. The outstanding and, obviously, underestimated figure of the scholar, who throughout his long life was ready to confront the rest of the discipline unwilling to become a part of the university system, with all his creativity embodied the very idea of freedom that modern artists and sympathizing art critics strove for. Due to the availability of English-language versions of the art historian’s texts mainly on the masters close to modern art — Delacroix, Constable, and Cézanne — his position in the dispute about modernism seems more or less unambiguous. The aim of this article is to show that this is far from the case, discovering the points of contact of Badt with many of his colleagues who have earned a reputation as unconditional conservatives. First of all, it concerns the Austrian art theorist Hans Sedlmayr, an interest for whom, especially in recent times, is predetermined by widespread ideas about the fundamental incompatibility of academic art history with attempts of unbiased consideration of the history of modern art. Moreover, a deep kinship of such research activity with the most reactionary political ideas is also widely discussed, which, as it should be noted, this outstanding critic of the modern culture was not absolutely innocent of. Nevertheless, his clash with Badt, a polemic that took place in the 1950s and 60s, centered on the work of not Cézanne, but Vermeer van Delft, can be considered from the point of view of the attitude of the two scholars to phenomena less distant in time. This makes it possible to raise the question of the paradoxical similarity of the views of these two authors — with such a different creative and human destiny.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
库尔特Badt。论20世纪中期德国艺术史中的现代主义与反现代主义问题
本文以德国艺术史学家库尔特·巴德的活动为例,揭示了现代艺术与当代艺术史之间的复杂关系。这位杰出的、显然被低估了的学者,在他漫长的一生中,准备好面对学科的其余部分,不愿成为大学系统的一部分,他所有的创造力体现了现代艺术家和富有同情心的艺术评论家所追求的自由理念。由于英文版本的艺术史学家的文本主要是关于接近现代艺术的大师-德拉克洛瓦,康斯特布尔和csamzanne -他在关于现代主义的争论中的立场似乎或多或少是明确的。本文的目的是通过发现巴德特与他的许多同事的接触点来证明情况远非如此,这些同事赢得了无条件保守主义者的声誉。首先,它涉及奥地利艺术理论家汉斯·塞德迈尔(Hans Sedlmayr),尤其是在最近,他的兴趣是由关于学术艺术史与对现代艺术史的公正考虑的根本不相容的普遍观点所决定的。此外,这种研究活动与最反动的政治思想之间的深刻亲缘关系也被广泛讨论,应该指出的是,这位杰出的现代文化批评家并非绝对清白。尽管如此,他与巴德的冲突,发生在20世纪50年代和60年代的一场争论,焦点不是csamzanne的作品,而是Vermeer van Delft的作品,可以从这两位学者对时间较近的现象的态度的角度来考虑。这就有可能提出这样一个问题,即这两位作者的观点自相矛盾的相似之处——他们的创作和人类命运是如此不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
50.00%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
Sources of Figurenlehren of the Baroque Era in Musicology of the German Language Space Reproduction Technology. From Replica to Brand The Pragmatics of Romanticism. Edmund Burke as Art Theorist The Pavan in English Music of the 16th–17th Centuries Tapestry Art in Buryatia: Experience and Perspectives
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1