(no subject)
Sep. 10th, 2007 11:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sechan19In going once more over the Panofsky readings for the Methods course, I cannot help but pause at the following quote for an amused pondering.
Panofsky states:
"Assuming the concept of artistic volition to be methodologically justified, the 'necessity' which it, too, determines in a particular historical process consists not in determining a causally dependent relationship between individual phenomena which succeed each other in time but in discovering in them (just as in an artistic phenomenon) a unified sense. The intention is not to justify the course of events genetically, as a progression of so-an-so many single happenings, but to undertake to explain the sense of historical meaning as an ideal unity. And if in this case such a transcendental/aesthetic mode of looking at things is being advocated, this is not done in any sense to supplant previous historically oriented writing of art history but merely to secure for this mode a right to stand side by side with it. Far from displacing purely historical work, the method which adopts the history of meaning is the only one competent to complement it..." (30-31) emphasis mine.
I keep conflating this statement with Christ's words, from the book of St. Matthew, wherein he claimed he had not come to abolish the law or the profits but to complete their teachings. And I keep giggling, too.
There's something wrong with me.
Panofsky states:
"Assuming the concept of artistic volition to be methodologically justified, the 'necessity' which it, too, determines in a particular historical process consists not in determining a causally dependent relationship between individual phenomena which succeed each other in time but in discovering in them (just as in an artistic phenomenon) a unified sense. The intention is not to justify the course of events genetically, as a progression of so-an-so many single happenings, but to undertake to explain the sense of historical meaning as an ideal unity. And if in this case such a transcendental/aesthetic mode of looking at things is being advocated, this is not done in any sense to supplant previous historically oriented writing of art history but merely to secure for this mode a right to stand side by side with it. Far from displacing purely historical work, the method which adopts the history of meaning is the only one competent to complement it..." (30-31) emphasis mine.
I keep conflating this statement with Christ's words, from the book of St. Matthew, wherein he claimed he had not come to abolish the law or the profits but to complete their teachings. And I keep giggling, too.
There's something wrong with me.
