International Conference hosted by the Kunsthistorisches Institut at the University of Cologne and the Academy of Media Arts Cologne, in cooperation with the Kölnischer Kunstverein and the Centre for Postcolonial und Gender Studies (CePoG) at the University of Trier.
In 1962, the American art historian George Kubler (1912-1996) published his theoretical essay The Shape of Time: Remarks on the History of Things. In his book Kubler developed a structuralist model for a historiography of art in which he challenged and promised to overcome the cultural, chronological, and object-related restrictions and hierarchizations having prevailed in art history so far. From an epistemological perspective, the essay is an innovative methodological-theoretical document of art history attempting to overcome the Eurocentric view and following an explicitly transcultural approach. Not only have the methodological questions that Kubler once faced remained valid today-they have even become topical, with art history expanding to embrace issues of cultural sciences, media sciences, and postcolonial studies. Given these circumstances, it seems worthwhile to review Kubler’s theoretical model in order to lend methodological debates new impetus, especially in art history but also in related disciplines.
The Shape of Time makes it clear that Kubler’s research follows an explicitly interdisciplinary strategy by adapting not only genuine art-historical methods like shape analysis but also approaches from the humanities (historical studies), information theory, and cultural anthropology. His theoretical model is based on three major assumptions: firstly, Kubler broadens the spectrum of art-historical objects of study and interprets art history as a history of things, meaning the whole range of man-made things in the sense of artifacts.
Secondly, he simultaneously considers this history of art as a history of problem solving in which every object represents the formal solution of an artistic-technical problem that has already seen other solutions and will see more in the future. These chains of solutions, called sequences by Kubler, are discontinuous, that is, are disrupted and have no temporal or spatial boundaries. Relevant for the analysis of artwork is, in the model of sequences, not so much the chronological age of things but rather their systematic age, meaning their position (early or late) within a sequence.
By this view, Kubler introduces a second, diachronic temporal level in addition to chronological time. Thirdly, he reverses the ratio of history and object using information-theoretical concepts: here historic eras are no longer natural entities-instead, historicity first arises from the signals (things) transmitted from a past time. Historical knowledge always depends on transmissions, with the sender, signal, and receiver being variable elements. Special emphasis is therefore placed on the mediality of historicization-all things have been transmitted and are hence the result of a translation and interpretation process.
Kubler’s approach always starts from a concrete object and thus reflects work-immanent, formally aesthetic analysis. Then, in a second step, cross-linkages are created with other objects, therefore engendering multifaceted (sociocultural) contextualizations.
By suspending the dichotomy between aesthetic and contextual strategies and by expanding the realm of discourse, Kubler unites various trajectories in art history research: a shape-analysis approach subsequently pursued by Heinrich Wölfflin and similar scholars, a hermeneutic approach based on the reconstruction of meaning according to Erwin Panofsky, and a cultural-studies approach in the tradition of Jacob Burckhardt, Aby Warburg, and Julius von Schlosser. Kubler elevates all objects of culture to aesthetic artifacts, underlining the fact that art and its history is independent and not to be subsumed under the history of culture. This shows that Kubler’s basic concern is art history, differentiating him from anthropological and cultural-studies perspectives, two fields he cleverly associates to serve art history.
Kubler’s approach offers innovative potential to art history beyond a new conception of temporality that has been received so far almost completely irrespective of the broader implications presented by his concept. It is the aim of the conference to pursue this potential. Moreover, Kubler’s theoretical model will be critically challenged on an interdisciplinary basis, further refined methodologically, and applied by example. The conference will be divided into three thematic sections, very closely interlinked, with focus being placed on their correlations and structural analogies.
Section 1: Temporality and Models of History
Instead of adopting the linear concept of history on which the art-historical concept of style is based, Kubler introduces a new diachronic form of temporality by applying the sequence model. We have to consider that an important contribution to discourse on temporality and historicization was especially made by artistic discussions on Kubler’s writings in the 1960s. This perspectival shift has become even more significant in light of technological and social changes due to globalization, for temporal equality or inequality are experienced more intensely as a result of the increasingly digitalized media and the World Wide Web. This section will both examine the way media art (as time art par excellence) and media art history deal with the issue of temporality today and reflect about concepts of time in art history.
Section 2: Material Culture Studies and Postcolonial Studies
Kubler’s renunciation of the artist as subject and his focus on the shape and materiality of objects corresponds with the view prevailing in material culture studies by which objects are elevated to the role of agents, a conception that currently enjoys popularity among scholars of cultural studies. A theoretical conceptualization of objects according to Kubler’s concept of things remains unexplored, especially in German-speaking countries. In addition to covering these topics, the conference will forward a stronger level of consideration for and application of material culture studies in the field of art history.
Of particular interest from a postcolonial studies perspective-with Kubler’s approach being, for the first time at this conference, localized from this angle-is his early exploration of non-European art. In this context, Kubler’s essay appear to be an attempt at generating a kind of universal methodology for analyzing cultural productions by the basal category of shape. This makes it necessary to further develop Kubler’s approach with a view to the mass-media image cultures of the globalized world and to enable an intensified dialogue between media art history and postcolonial perspectives. Consequently, Kubler’s universal method must be subjected to critical examination. This section primarily aims to contribute to a revision of Kubler’s theory in view of the current discussion of a possible transcultural historiography of art.
Section 3: Specific Applications
Kubler’s sequence model, representing a new form of systematic temporality, not only helps to bring about a consideration of non-European art histories but moreover offers an opportunity for revising our own European art histories. Beginning with the problem-solving concept, new threads of meaning emerge in lieu of linear development. Fields in art history that have been marginal so far will thus attain a different status and become accessible for new approaches in research. Applying Kubler’s sequence model could create a new methodological foundation in the discussion of those artistic phenomena that do not comply with distinct requirements of style-often regarded as works produced by ingenious individuals without tying into time and space, or as marginal phenomena expelled from art history that are of inferior quality and do not appeal to the respective sense of style. The sequence model allows for a new comparative approach: as the sequences leap and may be continued at different places and times, the phenomena can be compared across all disciplines and without regard to media-related and cultural limits.
Accordingly, the sequence model allows for a non-hierarchical linking of European and non-European art productions.
After a critical examination of Kubler’s research work, which reveals that his innovative theoretical approach and its somewhat conventional implementation in his writings do not seamlessly mesh, the question arises as to which possibilities and limits are presented by Kubler’s methods and how they can be transferred into the concrete practice of art history.
Therefore, this section aims to reassess, actualize, and extend the application of Kubler’s theoretical model.
Proposals for papers from all fields are welcome, even those covering sections deviating from the above. Publication of the conference papers is planned. The conference languages are German and English.
Please submit an abstract of no more than one page outlining your talk plus a short CV detailing your research interests in abbreviated form to:
kubler_tagung@web.de (or send it by post to: Universität zu Köln, Kunsthistorisches Institut, z. Hd. Kerstin Schankweiler, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D-50923 Köln).
Conception and Organization:
Dr. des. Kerstin Schankweiler (University of Cologne)
Stefanie Stallschus, M.A. (Academy of Media Arts Cologne)
Sarah Maupeu, M.A. (recipient of a scholarship from the a.r.t.e.s.
Research School Cologne)
Date: May 07–09, 2010
Location: Kölnischer Kunstverein, Hahnenstraße 6, 50667 Cologne, Germany
Deadline for proposals: October 02, 2009