1 2 3 4 5 6 THE WARBURG INSTITUTE 7 8 AND ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 9 10 11 12 13 Caroline van Eck 14 15 16 17 18 At first sight, classical architecture, with its continuous revivals and reworkings 19 of the forms of Greek and Roman building, would seem to offer a privileged field 20 to apply Aby Warburg’s central notion of the survival of antiquity and his view 21 of art history’s unfolding as a process of remembrance, of Mnemosyne. Yet War- 22 burg himself wrote very little on architecture, and after auspicious and impres- 23 sive beginnings by Rudolf Wittkower, Richard Krautheimer, Georg Kubler, and 24 Nikolaus Pevsner, the role of architectural history in the activities of the War- 25 burg Institute, its Library and Journal, dwindled. A brief survey of the Journal of 26 the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes shows that, up to the early 1970s, it published 27 three to four articles on architectural topics every year. Among them are classics 28 in the field that have kept their value to the present day, such as Wittkower’s arti- 29 cles on perspective and Palladianism, Robin Middleton’s article on Cordemoy, 30 or Krautheimer’s on medieval iconography.1 Beginning in the mid- 1970s, archi- 31 32 1. Richard Krautheimer, “Introduction to an ‘Iconogra- tauld Institutes 6 (1943): 154 – 64; George Kubler, “Archi- 33 phy of Mediaeval Architecture’,” Journal of the Warburg tects and Builders in Mexico, 1521 – 1550,” Journal of the and Courtauld Institutes 5 (1942): 1 – 33; Rudolf Wittkower, Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 7 (1944): 7 – 19; Robin 34 “Brunelleschi and Proportion in Perspective,”, Journal Middleton, “The Abbé de Cordemoy and the Graeco- 35 of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 16 (1953): 275 – 91; Gothic Ideal: A Prelude to Romantic Classicism,” Jour­ 36 Wittkower, “Pseudo- Palladian Elements in English Neo- nal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 25 (1962): Classical Architecture,” Journal of the Warburg and Cour­ 278 – 320. 37 38 Common Knowledge 18:1 39 DOI 10.1215/0961754X-1456935 40 © 2011 by Duke University Press 41 131 CK181_11vanEck_1pp_sh.indd 131 9/12/11 10:57:56 AM tectural contributions became less frequent, with an hiatus between 1992 and 1 132 2003. After 2003 architecture became incidentally present in the Journal, with 2 very diverse contributions ranging from articles on the funding of Santa Maria 3 GE D Novella to Michelangelo’s design method in the Bibliotheca Laurentiana.2 The 4 WLE gradual subsiding of interest in architectural history may have to do with Witt- 5 O kower’s departure from the Institute, but also with architectural historians work- 6 N KN ing on classical and Renaissance architecture moving away in this period from 7 O an iconographical approach that was based on Warburg’s and Wittkower’s ideas 8 MM O toward other fields, such as patronage studies or the social and economic history C 9 of building. 10 The first decades of the Institute show an astonishing variety and scope 11 of architectural studies, from Wittkower’s work on Renaissance proportion and 12 perspective to early comparative studies on Western, Indian, or New Mexican 13 architecture by George Kubler and R. A. Jairazbhoy; and from James Ackerman’s 14 essay on Renaissance villas to Suzanne Lang’s early contribution to architectural 15 reception studies.3 But can we speak of a Warburgian approach to architectural 16 history? And if so, what is the role of the Warburg Library, in distinction to its 17 founder’s thought? My argument is that the architectural history developed in the 18 context of the Warburg Institute is distinguished by two, distinct features that 19 can be connected respectively to Aby Warburg’s ideas on Nachleben der Antike and 20 Mnemosyne, and to the organization and holdings of the Library. But I will also 21 argue that Warburg’s own thought offers important, and hardly explored, start- 22 ing points for new questions and investigations of the built classical heritage. 23 24 25 Revivals of Antiquity on British Soil 26 One of the first public activities of the Warburg Institute after its reopening in 27 London was the exhibition “British Art and the Mediterranean World,” curated 28 by Wittkower and Fritz Saxl. It was first shown in London in 1941, then toured 29 the provinces. Publication in book form was suggested by a visitor, a Mr. Jarrold, 30 who offered to publish it using a new printing procedure that would allow the 31 reproduction of many (and large) plates at relatively low cost. The resulting book, 32 which appeared in 1949, was very close to Aby Warburg’s image atlas Mnemosyne, 33 yet also very different in a way that even then announced the divergence between 34 35 36 2. David Hemsoll, “The Laurentian Library and Michel- nal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 24.1/2 (1961): angelo’s Architectural Method,” Journal of the Warburg and 59 – 88; James Ackerman, “The Belvedere as a Classical 37 Courtauld Institutes 66 (2003): 29 – 62; Rab Hatfield, “The Villa,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 14 38 Funding of the Façade of Santa Maria Novella,” Journal of (1951): 70 – 91; Suzanne Lang, “The Early Publications of 39 the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 67 (2004), 81 – 128. the Temples at Paestum,” Journal of the Warburg and Cour­ tauld Institutes 13.1/2 (1950): 48 – 64. 40 3. R. A. Jairazbhoy, “The Taj Mahal in the Context of 41 East and West: A Study in Comparative Method,” Jour­ CK181_11vanEck_1pp_sh.indd 132 9/12/11 10:57:56 AM 1 2 133 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 arburg Institute and Architectural History 16 W 17 The 18 • Figure 1. Fritz Saxl and Rudolf Wittkower, British Art and the Mediterranean ck 19 E (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1948), plate 46. Saint Paul’s Cathedral: 20 The Variety of Sources. Photo Copyright: Royal Library, The Hague, Netherlands. van 21 22 the Hamburg and London phases of the Warburg Institute.4 Physically, the vol- 23 umes are very similar: the right hand page of the British volume offers a collage of 24 images, recalling the felt boards in Hamburg on which Warburg used to pin the 25 images whose connections he wanted to display (Figures 1 and 2); the left hand 26 page has the accompanying text, varying from mere captions listing names, dates, 27 places, and artists, to explanatory notes. The volumes also share a broad scope 28 of subjects. Warburg included high art and popular visual culture, newspaper 29 photographs, political propaganda, statues, film stills, and scrapbook fragments. 30 At the time, this choice of subjects and material was very much at odds with 31 academic art history, but it has become increasingly clear over the past decades 32 to what degree Warburg’s global, anthropological interest in images announced 33 present- day visual culture studies or Bildwissenschaft. 34 Saxl and Wittkower did not limit themselves to high art from antiquity and 35 its various renaissances and revivals; they also dealt with Celtic transformations 36 of classical forms; animal lore, botany, and astronomy; the revival of classical 37 38 39 4. Fritz Saxl and Rudolf Wittkower, British Art and the 40 Mediterranean (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1948). Saxl wrote the part to 1500, Wittkower the chapters on 41 the subsequent period. CK181_11vanEck_1pp_sh.indd 133 9/12/11 10:57:57 AM 1 134 2 3 GE D 4 WLE 5 O 6 N KN 7 O 8 MM O C 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Figure 2. The Warburg Institute, Photographic Exhibition “English Art and the 20 Mediterranean,” 1941, Panel XXXV, Copyright and Photo: The Warburg Institute. 21 22 mythology; humanistic scripts; the role of Flemish artists in the transmission of 23 classical art to Britain; Sir Christopher Wren’s Roman sources for Saint Paul’s 24 Cathedral; the strong influence of Michelangelo on British art; and the role of the 25 neoclassical hall as a setting for sculpture and the precursor of many nineteenth- 26 century museum displays of statues (Figures 3 and 4). “British Art and the Medi- 27 terranean World” thus addressed many of the themes that occupied Warburg. 28 It also exhibited Warburg’s capacity to detect connections and continuities (for 29 instance, the constant presence of Michelangelo in British art). But the manner 30 in which these themes were treated had changed profoundly. 31 Warburg’s introduction to Mnemosyne (1927 – 29) is a profound meditation 32 5 on the afterlife of classical art and memory. In the work of Renaissance art- 33 ists — Pollaiuolo, Donatello, Michelangelo — attitudes, expressions, and gestures 34 often figure that recall ancient statues, sarcophagi, or medals. Thus the drapery 35 of Botticelli’s Venus recalls that of ancient maenads. Such interests raise fairly 36 concrete art- historical issues of recognition, attribution, and artistic intention. 37 What antique works did these Renaissance artists know? What did they borrow, 38 39 5. Aby Warburg, intro. to Der Bilderatlas Mnemosyne, ed. 40 Martin Warnke and Claudia. Brink, in Gesammelte Werke, part 2, vol. 1 (Berlin: Akademie- Verlag, 2000), 3 – 8. 41 CK181_11vanEck_1pp_sh.indd 134 9/12/11 10:57:58 AM 1 2 135 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 arburg Institute and Architectural History 16 W 17 The 18 • ck 19 E 20 van 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Figure 3. Aby Warburg, Mnemosyne Atlas, 1929, panel 45 32 Copyright and Photo: The Warburg Institute.