ART 70000 Horacio Ramos 000139984

On Wlfflins style
The privileged status of Heinrich Wlfflins Principles of Art History (1915) is proved
by its twenty-four translations into different languages. Contrasting a spread of the
original German edition (fig. 1) with a spread of its Hebrew translation (fig. 2) shows
the global extent of the book, but also allows a visual insight into the authors thought.
By reversing the images in relation to the original, the Hebrew version shows the viewer
the opposite ways of seeing of two different cultures. Critics had signaled the
metaphysical nature of Wlfflins pairs of concepts, and related to that, the lack of
social or political context in his analysis. However, were those pair of concepts
relevant by themselves, or were they instrumental to his style of analyzing through
visual comparison?
The book starts with a comparison between Sandro Boticellis Birth of Venus and
Lorenzo di Credis Venus. According to the author, the spread fingers in Boticellis
Venus radiate with activity, while in di Credis painting the fingers display a restful
appearance. Beyond their differences in personal style, both Florentine painters are
similar in contrast to a Flemish painter such as Peter Paul Rubens. They have a different
national style, in the same way that a female nude drawn by Drer differs in period
style from a nude drawn by Rembrandt.

Fig. 1. Two page spread of the original

German edition (Munich, 1915): 2-3.

Fig. 2. Two page spread of the Hebrew

translation (Jerusalem, 1963): 42-43.

09/21/2016

ART 70000 Horacio Ramos 000139984

Wlfflins analysis went beyond contextual considerations. Drawing on Katian
categories, which do not rely on the empirical word, he extracted five contrasting
pairs of concepts to oppose the classical art of the cinquecento and the baroque art
of the siecento: linear vs. painterly, plane vs. recession, closed vs. open, multiplicity vs.
unity, and clearness vs. unclearness. For instance, a cinquecento artist would search for
a clear linear delimitation of the figures, making the viewer feel that she could touch
them. By contrast, a baroque artist would show nothing but patches standing next to
each other, merely giving the painterly optical appearance of a thing.
Was Wllfflin free from nationalistic concerns? According to Martin Warnke (1989),
his restriction to formalism was a resistance to the politics his time. German scholars
published patriotic tirades against the cultural barbarism of the Franco-English
enemy. The defense of national art was used by other schollars as a political tool. It is
true that in the Principles there seems to be a sharp opposition between German and
Roman characters, and Wlfflin does makes an argument for national psychologies.
However, this claim seems more interested in indicating the difference between two
ways of seeing. As Evonne Levy (2015) argues, in 1912 Wlfflin decided to change his
aim from tracing transformations of style back to transformations in the perception of
things.
While the pairs of concepts are crucial for Wlfflins theoretical work, the fact
is that the forms of perceptionwhich he also refers to as modes of representation
or preexisting optical possibilitiesis the real principle of his method. His complex
and problematic set of concepts was develop in order to allow him and the reader to
compare tens of classical and baroque art reproductions, and to see their different
optical possibilities. As a method of comparison that allows visual insight, Wlfflins

2
09/21/2016

ART 70000 Horacio Ramos 000139984

style of argumentation stands pertinent for the discipline. Its clearness is such that it can
be translated from German to Hebrew without losing its logic (figs. 1-2).

3
09/21/2016