Renaissance 4/2017 - 1 4eorg Schelbert Art History in the 9orl! of Digital Humanities' As ects of a Difficult Relationshi 0ig. 1: No digital art history in the digital humanities? &The *-spheres model of the Digital Humanities #y <atrick 8ahle 2015)' Is Digital Art History failing at the Digital Hu- currently more or less a 4erman han!#ook manities? on !igital art history.[3] 5n the one han!" I agree com letely )ith +ames ,uno6s state- If one looks at com en!ia for the Digital Hu- ments, #ut )hat he is talking a#out is not in manities, it is striking that art history an! re- fact “the internet1" #ut rather the “Digital late! su#$ects, even archaeology, are still Humanities”, or )hatever you might call his- rather marginal to ics &cfr' fig' 1('[1] At Digit- torical an! visual culture stu!ies using !igit- al Humanities meetings, more an! more al metho!s. 7oreover" )e shoul! take a contri#utions are #eing ma!e that inclu!e close look at the situation to un!erstan! )orking )ith ictures, *D reconstructions or )hat this relationshi really !oes look like' ma s, #ut it is noticea#le that art historians 0irst" ,uno reca itulates the chal- are rarely responsi#le for this. +ames ,uno lenges of !igital initiatives in a fe) recise u#lishe! a fre-uently -uote! article in )or!s: /2ee ing u )ith the ace of 2012 )ith the title. “Ho) Art History is 0ail- change in the !igital )orl! is challenging" ing in the Internet1'[2] Hu#ertus 2ohle even an! harnessing its otential can #e frustrat- makes it into a kin! of motto for his 201* ing' 3ut the #iggest mistake many of us in #ook “Digitale 3il!)issenschaft1" )hich is the arts an! humanities aca!emy can make 4eorg 8chel#ert Art History in the 9orl! of Digital Humanities kunstte>te'!e 4/2017 - 2 is thinking of that otential only in terms of the case. Although she states that an aston- ho) )e can use the ne) technology to ishing num#er of inventories of museums" more -uickly an! #roa!ly !isseminate in- li#raries, galleries, an! collections have formation' ;he romise of the !igital age is #een !igitiFe!" she claims that this kin! of far greater than that' It offers an o ortunity effort “is !igitiFe! art history" one #uilt on to rethink the )ay )e !o" as )ell as to !eli%- the use of online resources' 3ut no articu- er ne) research in the arts'1[4] lar changes of thought or critical stance 3ut )hat are exactly, accor!ing to come )ith this convenience1' ,uno" the rospects of the !igital? /;he ;he !istinction ma!e here #et)een o)er of our com uters to store massive !igital an! !igitiFe! art history is not only amounts of information an! then or!er an! crucial #ut also fatal for the role of art his- reor!er it in a near-infinite num#er of )ays tory )ithin Digital Humanities since it )eak- shoul! #e ro!ucing ne) ara!igms in art ens even )ell-meaning !efenses of art his- historical research' Imagine )hat ?r)in tory'[6] <anofsky or A#y War#urg coul! have !one ;his !ichotomy reflects a certain )ith our technology.1 8uch a lack of ne) conce t of Digital Humanities that has its e istemic ara!igms )as also o#serve! #y see!s mainly in the hilological !isci lines, +ohanna Drucker in an article rovocatively especially linguistics. When I assert a rather entitle! “Is ;here a @Digital6 Art History?1" !ifficult relationshi #et)een art history an! cite! $ust as fre-uently as ,uno6s state- the Digital Humanities, I #asically )ish to in- ment'[5] 8he states that !igital technologies !icate a certain conflict of conce ts concer- !i! not in!uce any metho!ological an! the- ning the use of the com uter in various !is- oretical changes in the !isci line. “A useful ci lines of the humanities. contrast might #e !ra)n #et)een the im- We &still( have to assume a )i!e- act of critical theory an! that of !igital sprea! o inion that the Digital Humanities metho!ologies. In the 1AB0s, tra!itional art are rimarily a#out text analysis. ;his has to history )as u en!e!' 8emiotics, structural- !o )ith the fact that the um#rella term Digit- ism" ost-structuralism" sychoanalysis, al Humanities )as coine! in linguistics an! 7arxism" cultural an! critical stu!ies, an! other text-#ase! !isci lines. Here" com- feminist thinking shar ly !ivi!e! art histori- uter-#ase! o erations start from a &given( ans. CDE ?very aspect of art historical kno)- cor us, i'e' a text in !igital format" for e>- le!ge )as shaken at its foun!ations.1 8he am le" the com lete )orks of ;homas A-ui- !eman!s that /)e have to see a convincing nas. ;heir e> loration #y <a!re 3usa in the !emonstration that !igital metho!s change 1A40s an! =0s )ith the su ort of I37 is the )ay )e un!erstan! the o#$ects of our regar!e! as the #irth of Digital Humanities G in-uiry. CDE )hat are the )ays of thinking at least in accor!ance )ith the common a#out )orks of art that arise from !igital narrative of com uter hilologists.[7] ;hough metho!s an! reconfigure our fun!amental it )as e> ensive to #uil! u a !igital te>t un!erstan!ing of )hat constitutes a )ork of cor us )ith these !imensions at that time" it art? What ne) research -uestions can #e )as not too !ifficult to im lement" as char- aske!?1 Drucker answers her o)n -uestion acters an! text are almost !igital er se' #y ro osing “that )e coul! situate a )ork ,ontrary to art history an! relate! su#$ects )ithin the many net)orks from )hich it &)e )ill come #ack to this later(" the exciting gains meaning an! value" an! then resent )ork #eing !one )ith the com uter in the the results )ithin com le> visual argu- text #ase! !isci lines only starte! )hen the ments'1 In her o inion" ho)ever" this is not cor us )as rea!y to #e analyze!' In the !i- 4eorg 8chel#ert Art History in the 9orl! of Digital Humanities kunstte>te'!e 4/2017 - * gital format" text !oes not have to #e rea! any more la#oriously #y human #eings, #ut it can #e rocesse! an! visualiFe! gra hic- ally in various )ays. 0ranco 7oretti an! his /!istance rea!ings” of hun!re!s or thou- san!s of #ooks at a time may alrea!y #e fa- miliar to the au!ience'[8] :ot only !o many colleagues from the hilological fiel!s un!erstan! “Digital Humanities” exclusively in this )ay, #ut art historians have #egun to a!o t this vie) as )ell. so-calle! /!igital art history”" on the one han!" involves analytical metho!s, )hereas /!igitiFe! art history” is sim ly the ro!uction of !igital re resentations of )orks of art' ;he liaison #et)een art history an! com uta- tional metho!s I )oul! rather see the so-calle! !igitiFe! art history as an essential art of #oth !igital art history an! !igital humanities. 8o I a!- Fig. 2. /Taking ossession1 of the )orks of art &here still )ith re-!igital technology). 3' von TieschowitF an! R' Hamann- vocate here for a conce t of Digital Human- 7ac Hean taking ictures in Iezelay, 1A27 &Foto 7ar#urg)' ities as a !isci line" )hich also inclu!es the specific rocesses of art history an! relate! su#$ects. ;his also intrinsically inclu!es the In the !omain of the !igital ca ture of arti- !igitiFation of their o#$ects, )hich !oesn6t facts" art history is o erating com letely mean $ust scanning #ut also mo!eling an! )ithin its o)n tra!ition &fig' 2(' 0rom cata- virtualiFation in a #roa!er sense' 0inally, a loguing" to !escri#ing" to !ra)ing" to hoto- clear !istinction to so-calle! !igital art his- gra hy, the !isci line al)ays looke! for tory cannot #e !ra)n. Alrea!y storing !igital )ays to /take ossession1 of its su#$ects, images ca ture! from )orks of art even in articularly re licating an! emulating them the sim lest !ata#ase" sorting or classifying in or!er to have them rea!y for com arison them" means crossing the #or!er to a meth- an! other o erations. :either 9Jlfflin6s o!ological use of !igital ossi#ilities G in formalistic school" nor the War#urgian cul- other )or!s: crossing the #or!er to !igital tural history a roach" )ith its interest in art history G even )ithout so histicate! im- iconogra hy an! iconology, )oul! have age-technologies like attern recognition' #een ossi#le )ithout rior transformation in orta#le me!ia formats' Harge" systemat- ically structure! image archives, as )ell as classification systems like Iconclass are un- !ertakings of the !isci line that antici ate! the com uter as a !evice for counting" fil- tering an! calculation' It is true that com- 4eorg 8chel#ert Art History in the 9orl! of Digital Humanities kunstte>te'!e 4/2017 - 4 uters ha! alrea!y a eare! on the horiFon on the other han! are !efinitively only man- #y the mi!-20th century" #ut initiatives like agea#le )ith !igital technologies. While Iconclass )ere !efinitively inaugurate! #e- consi!ere! #y some e> erts as a core fiel! fore such technology )as actually availa#le' of Digital Humanities,[13] !ata mo!eling an! ;his is also true of the ,ensus of Anti-ue kno)le!ge management in art history" actu- Works of Art an! Architecture 2no)n in the ally is har!ly ackno)le!ge! as a specific Renaissance )hich )as starte! as a !ou#le fiel! of action' ;his has certainly to !o )ith file recor! system on a er #efore" in the the specific “resistance1 of material o#$ects 1AB0s, it un!er)ent a !igital transformation against formaliFation"[14] #ut also )ith a lack )ith the hel of the 4etty Institute'[9] of initiative from the !isci line itself'[15] ;hus 0or a long time" the fiel! of the a - the most com rehensive conce ts for !e- lication of com uter technology )as seen scri#ing artifacts" the ,i!oc,R7" even if it mainly in terms of classifying )orks of art #y )as create! #y an I,57 grou " largely )as form" iconogra hy, an! function G these are !evelo e! #y non-art historians.[16] As the #asic cognitive o erations