Fig. 1. Josef Strzygowski, 1927. © Archiv der Universität Wien. GeoRG VAsold RIegl, STRzygowskI And the Development of ART The viennese art historian Josef Strzygowski ostracized scholar was subjected to compre- (1862–1941) has recently attracted conspicu- hensive discussion.5 ous scholarly attention. (Fig. 1.) This is re- Two factors can be cited to explain the re- markable given that, until recently, his reputa- cent interest in Strzygowski. First, it must be tion has been that of a thinker blinded by ide- stressed that his thinking shattered geographi- ology, a crude and at times openly racist ideo- cal boundaries. Today, in an era of increasingly logue, and a willing servant of the National global cultural awareness, Strzygowski’s rest- Socialist regime.1 For this reason, it would be less explorations of the frontiers of art history, all too easy to renounce any consideration of including his travels to remote areas and his this thinker, and to relegate his work to where exploration of works largely unknown outside it belongs, in the dark corridors of a dusty ar- of Europe, must be regarded as progressive. In chive, never to see the light of day.2 this respect he is cited in many recent studies For a few years, however, there have been as a pioneer of “global art history,” as for exam- more and more voices calling for a fresh ap- ple an explorer who stressed the limitations of praisal of Strzygowski. Strzygowski’s writings, Europe’s eurocentric views on art and science.6 these voices insist, should not be rejected in Secondly, the critical revision of his work their totality, particularly given the consider- can also be attributed to an academic stance in able farsightedness of his early work. Suzanne which the historiography of art has emerged as L. Marchand’s 1994 “Case” of Strzygowski is an increasingly serious sub-discipline within but one of many examples of works in which the field of art history. A strikingly intensive the Viennese scholar has been treated with at involvement with the founding fathers of art least cautious respect.3 Since then there has historiography has lately given rise to confer- been an attempt at the university level to re- ences and publications, all of which seek to appraise his work; a proposed master’s thesis remind us of the early masters of our disci- on Strzygowski was recently approved at the pline and their often forgotten achievements.7 University of Vienna, and there is another the- The foremost goal in that connection is the sis as well as a dissertation underway there. attempt to contextualize academic traditions. And at the University of Frankfurt am Main, The question regarding the conditions under a research project on near Asian art, in which which the history of art was pursued around Strzygowski plays a prominent role, has been 1900, matters of cultural politics, institutional established. Moreover there have been many strategies underlying art scholarship, and more papers dealing with the Austrian scholar’s precisely, which inclusionary and exclusionary influence on the international level.4 Finally, procedures were developed – these and related the high point of these endeavors to date took questions have led to a series of detailed analy- place in 2005 in Budapest, at a conference in ses, which have sought not only to deepen our which the sphere of influence of the hitherto knowledge about individual scholars, but also 103 to scrutinize the institutions at which they The following text attempts to settle some of were active. these principles. Above all it attempts to sub- Strzygowski’s colleague in Vienna, Alois ject Strzygowski’s early work, the work that is Riegl, can be pointed to as a leading subject of awakening so much interest today, to a critical such an approach. (Fig. 2). Certainly the enor- analysis. Riegl’s work may be viewed as noth- mous international interest in Riegl mainly ing less than an obsession for Strzygowski, for, concerns his work in the field of art history, as will be shown, Strzygowski concerned him- and above all his considerable influence on self for decades with his colleague and, despite art-historical scholarship in the 20th century.8 his assertions to the contrary, could never free But at the same time this exploration of his himself from his persistent engagement with milieu has yielded a clear and deep knowledge Riegl.10 of the professional and institutional difficul- ties he faced as a contributor to the decisive, watershed issues of Austrian cultural politics. RIegl vs. STRzygowskI: Opponents Thanks to Diana Reynolds Cordileone’s works on Common GRound on Riegl’s activities at the Austrian Museum for Art and Industry (“MAK”), we now know Reviewing the relevant literature assessing how much he suffered under the bureaucratic Strzygowski’s intellectual contribution to the limitations of the late Habsburg Empire. In Vienna School of art history, one quickly finds many of his writings he stood up against the oneself at a loss. In his still worthwhile article prevailing opinions in Vienna, championing entitled Die Wiener Schule der Kunstgeschich­ the cause of intellectual freedom and deplor- te. Rückblick auf ein Säkulum deutscher Gele­ ing its subordination to political ends. Par- hrtenarbeit in Österreich Julius von Schlosser ticularly in his early texts he did not hesitate certainly mentions his colleague, but the tone to hold a “state-controlled” circle responsible of his remarks on that subject is exclusively for the failure of a conclusive art and cultural negative.11 Strzygowski, we are told, has noth- politics.9 In this respect Riegl was perceived ing to do with the tradition of art-historical not only as a prudent scholar, but also as an scholarship in Vienna. Schlosser contends that active participant in the intellectual life of the his entire academic orientation has been the Viennese fin de siècle, and was given credit for counterpart, even the antithesis, of the Vienna his unshakable conviction that an art historian School; his “particular goals and aims [have] can and should speak out about the social and scarcely anything in common with the Vienna political problems of his time. Thus, what in- School; indeed they often run deliberately to terests scholars of early 20th century art history the contrary.”12 only secondarily concerns respect for one’s Schlosser’s refusal even to discuss Strzy- elders. It is primarily a question of analyzing gowski’s achievements is doubtless grounded writings, studying the origin and their impact on the deep grudge that he nursed against his in context, and keeping that impact in mind. It colleague.13 At the same time we must consider concerns the search for the theoretical founda- the date when the piece was written. Schloss- tions underlying the scholarly work, the ques- er’s history of the Vienna School appeared in tion of which intellectual tradition it belonged 1934, the year of the Austrian Civil War, and to, against whom or what it was directed the date that marks the beginning of Austro- against, which social and political implications fascism; at that point the country had skidded it expressed, and how the disciplinary and his- into a deep political, economic and, not least, torical principles from which scholars derived academic crisis. The previous years had already their theories were developed. been marked by persistent struggles in higher 104 Fig. 2. Alois Riegl, ca. 1904. of their work they marched in lockstep. The © Archiv der Universität two were both in Rome as young men, where Wien. they increased their devotion to Baroque art, specifically to the question of its emergence.15 At the same time they researched the art of the Middle Ages.16 A few years later their first ex- pansive studies on the Late Antique appeared, almost simultaneously.17 The art ofR embrandt seemed to fascinate them in similar ways. While Riegl lectured many times at the Uni- versity of Vienna between 1896 and 1900 on Dutch painting generally and on Rembrandt in particular, Strzygowski published an ap- pendix on Rembrandt’s work in his book on Baroque art. Riegl’s essay on the Dutch group portrait was published in 1902; in the same year Strzygowski published an article on “The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Tulp.” The two had other interests in common, including oriental educational circles. With this article Schlosser textile art, Dalmatian monuments, the golden at last had his final reckoning with his adver- treasure of Nagyszentmiklós, and the theme of sary. He aimed to portray Strzygowski’s teach- folk art in general. ing as defectively developed and hardly worthy In addition to this substantive common of note, and thus to “completely eliminate” him ground between Riegl and Strzygowski, there from the annals of Vienna School art history.14 were also a great many methodological simi- In counterpoint, he had to portray his own re- larities between the two art historians. Like search, which was linked back to Eitelberger, Riegl, Strzygowski insisted that the art histo- Wickhoff andR iegl, in the most flattering light rian’s attention be directed primarily to the ap- possible, to please the new political leaders. pearance of form. For that reason both privi- Schlosser accordingly described the Vienna leged style as a subject of scholarly research. School as a richly traditional, self-contained Both took pains to repress the influence of institution, which in its intellectual homoge- philology on art history. And both explicitly neity was a guarantor of native study. Discord- privileged the role of the observer in art.18 ant or ambiguous views, which Strzygowski regularly produced, were not desired. It seems needless to say at this point that LAte AntIQUIty And ModeRN TImes the respectful portrait that Schlosser painted of the Vienna School in no way accorded with This wealth of similarities between the two the facts.