Erwin Panofsky, Leo Steinberg, David Carrier: The Problem of Objectivity in Art Historical Interpretation Author(s): David Carrier Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 47, No. 4 (Autumn, 1989), pp. 333- 347 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The American Society for Aesthetics Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/431133 . Accessed: 24/04/2012 07:48 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected]. Blackwell Publishing and The American Society for Aesthetics are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. http://www.jstor.org DAVID CARRIER ErwinPanofsky, Leo Steinberg,David Carrier:The Problemof Objectivityin Art HistoricalInterpretation My cheeky title was inspiredby an anonymous tive "as objectively as possible" and yet "when reader's complaint in a rejection letter: "and they ... compared ... their efforts ... their tran- what's worse, at one point Carrier even com- scripts differed to a surprisingextent." Under- pares himself to Panofsky." But why indeed standing"these limits to objectivity"may, Gom- shouldI not comparemyself to him, since doing brich suggests, help us understandnaturalistic that is not, absurdly,to imply that my work is images.