VISUAL TIME

VISUAL TIME
THE IMAGE IN HISTORY

KEITH MOXEY

Duke University Press | Durham and London | 2013

© 2013 Duke University Press
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America on
acid-free paper ♾
Designed by Heather Hensley
Typeset in Arno Pro by Tseng Information
Systems, Inc.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Moxey, Keith P. F., 1943–
Visual time : the image in history / Keith Moxey.
p. cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-8223-5354-6 (cloth : alk. paper)
ISBN 978-0-8223-5369-0 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Art—Historiography. 2. Time and art. I. Title.
N7480.M69 2013
707.2′2—dc2312012048671

DUKE UNIVERSITY PRESS GRATEFULLY

ACKNOWLEDGES THE SUPPORT OF THE DUKE
UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL
STUDIES ’ GLOBALIZATION AND THE ARTIST
PROJECT, WHICH PROVIDED FUNDS TOWARD
THE PRODUCTION OF THIS BOOK.
 CONTENTS

ix List of Illustrations
xi Acknowledgments

1 Introduction

PART I!TIME
1. Is Modernity Multiple? 11
2. Do We Still Need a Renaissance? 23
3. Contemporaneity’s Heterochronicity 37

PART II!HISTORY
4. Visual Studies and the Iconic Turn 53
5. Bruegel’s Crows 77
6. Mimesis and Iconoclasm 107
7. Impossible Distance 139

173 Conclusion
177 Bibliography
199 Index
 CHAPTER 7

IMPOSSIBLE DISTANCE

If it is too close, the object runs the risk of being no more than a peg to
hang phantasms on; if it is too distant, it is in danger of being no more
than a positive, posthumous residue, put to death in its very “objectivity”
(another phantasm). What is required is neither to fix nor to try to elimi-
nate this distance, but to make it work within the differential tempo of
the moments of empathic, unexpected, and unverifiable juxtapositions,
with the reverse moments of scrupulous critique and verification.
GEORGES DIDI- HUBERMAN, “BEFORE THE IMAGE, BEFORE TIME:
THE SOVEREIGNTY OF ANACHRONISM”

The role played by the object that is the focus of art historical
speculation cannot be ignored. The aesthetic power of works
of art, the fascination of images and their capacity to shape our
response in the present, argues against treating them as if they
were simply documents of particular historical horizons. Works
of art can appear so present, so immediately accessible, that it
is often difficult to keep in mind that they are as opaque as any
other historical trace. The very appeal of the artifacts we call
“art,” images that seem to enhance and enrich the human condi-
tion as aesthetic experience, can blind us to the alienating power
of time. Can we think dispassionately about objects that compel
a phenomenological reaction? Is not the intensity of our con-
frontation with the art of the past such that we cannot easily
articulate the nature of our relation to it?1 The present imperative of the
objects of art historical fascination inevitably conditions the way we think
about their roles in their own historical horizons. This reminder is not to
suggest that art historians can do without a concept of temporal distance—
far from it—but to propose that every attempt at definition betrays our in-
capacity to stabilize its meaning.
By way of a case study of the changing historiographic fortunes of
Albrecht Dürer and Matthias Grünewald, this chapter reflects on an impor-
tant assumption underlying the disciplinary activities of art history—the
idea of historical distance.2 The rich literature on this subject in the philoso-
phy of history has prompted this consideration as to whether, and to what
extent, the special circumstances of specifically art historical writing de-
mand a different approach to its analysis. Art historical literature offers a
number of ways in which the distance between the historical horizon under
consideration and the interpreting historian might be conceived, and these
ideas in turn have offered the discipline enduring models of methodological
procedure.3 My purpose here is not to evaluate these paradigms of histori-
cal distance, but rather to consider their function. What is their nature, what
purpose do they serve, and how do they change over time?
My argument depends for its force on remembering the historiography
of German Renaissance art during the 1930s and 1940s. Because the period is
justifiably regarded as an aberration, a reprehensible occasion when the his-
tory of art was distorted by ideologues, this chapter in intellectual history has
been obliterated from the consciousness of contemporary art historians, and
thus tends to be forgotten. The use of the German past by the National Social-
ists, the conflation of historical horizons in the interest of nationalist propa-
ganda, is an extreme example of the rejection of an objectifying distance be-
tween past and present. As a necessary reaction to the way the art of German
Renaissance artists, such as Dürer and Grünewald, had been identified with
the nationalist and racist doctrines of National Socialism, postwar historians
emphasized the distance that separated the past from the present. The history
of art had to be purged of its relation to the present so as to ensure an “un-
tainted” view of the past. The success of this distancing project allowed many
postwar historians to imagine that they were separated from the historical
horizons they studied by an absolute and unbridgeable gulf, and that as a con-
sequence the “truths” of history were available for definitive representation.
The question of historical distance is made more complex in light of re-

1401—1Chapter 7
cent work on Dürer and Grünewald that reflects the increasingly varied con-
ceptions of historical time now subscribed to by art historians. Whereas the
discipline once largely accepted a Hegelian philosophy of history, accord-
ing to which something meaningful made its way through time following a
necessary teleological progression, contemporary contributions to the lit-
erature have attempted to escape this model by insisting on the immediacy
of phenomenological response. What happens to the idea of historical dis-
tance in these circumstances? How can a response that appears to escape
time be related to an overarching temporal system? How can historical dis-
tance be reconciled with the anachronic demands of works of art?
But I am getting ahead of myself here. Before we delve into the histori-
ography of Dürer and Grünewald, I want to frame the argument in terms of
the role of memory in historical writing. Changing conceptions of histori-
cal distance are related to the function of remembering and forgetting. How
do we keep the objects of the past at bay while simultaneously insisting on
their contemporary relevance? An insistence on access to the past is as im-
portant a feature of historical writing as an acknowledgment of its absence,
especially if it is to be a cultural medium for enabling the present to come
to terms with the past. Like remembering and forgetting, historical writing
appears to depend on the paradox of asserting the presence of meaning in
the past while simultaneously recognizing that its articulation by the con-
temporary historian transforms that meaning beyond recognition.
Since the work of Pierre Nora, Patrick Hutton, and others—especially
those interested in the history of the Holocaust—the concept of memory
has seemed to offer historians a notion more flexible than that of history,
yet it is just as capable of suggesting the meaning of the events of the past.4
Because memory depends on the informality of oral tradition and because it
has a continuing life among ordinary people, the living power of memory has
been preferred to the dead textuality of history. Memory’s capacity to gesture
toward the effects of presence that lie outside the normative conventions of
historical writing, as well as its capacity to do justice to a greater diversity of
experience, accounts for its fascination among contemporary historians. The
appeal to memory, as Gabrielle Spiegel argues, has often resulted from a re-
luctance to conceive of the truths of history as beyond our reach:
I believe that the turn to memory so pervasive in academic circles today
forms part of an attempt to recuperate presence in history—a form of

Impossible Distance1—1141
 backlash against postmodernist/poststructuralist thought, with its in-
sistence on the mediated, indeed constructed, nature of all knowledge,
and most especially knowledge of the past. In a sense, I am tempted to
claim that memory has displaced deconstruction as a lingua franca of cul-
tural studies. Memory, by becoming virtually hypostatized as a historical
agent . . . makes it possible to essentialize and hypostatize the “reality”
which it narrates.5
As Freud suggested long ago, however, memories are themselves recast
every time they are called to mind. Memory, like history, cannot escape the
effects of the context in which it is rehearsed. Both memory and history
can be characterized as acts of will, impositions on the chaos of the past of
an order and significance that cannot be found in so-called reality. Just as
the meaning of a text depends on a Derridean “supplement” to convince
us of its absent presence, both memories and histories depend on the illu-
sion of being found rather than made in order to repress the creative role of
agency in their construction.6 Freud’s purpose in attacking the Aristotelian
theory of memory as the imprint of experience on the mind is not to suggest
that experience leaves no traces, but to argue that far from being mechani-
cally summoned to consciousness in its original condition, memory actually
transforms experience in the process of recreating it. Rather than a memory
cure—rather than simply enabling the patient to recall the traumas of child-
hood—psychoanalysis offers the patient a means of making those traumas
accessible to consciousness, thus encouraging the formation of narratives
that can enable him or her to come to terms with the past. In this manner,
traumas can lose their debilitating, indeed paralyzing, hold on the present.
The purpose of remembering is to offer the patient the capacity to forget.7
Yet memory will not leave us alone. However much we may be aware of
the vagaries and the uncertainties of its testimony, it continues to afford us a
disconcerting awareness that the past is different from the present. In what
follows I want to draw an analogy between the haunting role of memory and
the function of works of art in the art historical imagination. Despite our
appreciation of the presentness of the task of interpretation and our con-
sciousness of the fleeting validity of even the most persuasive historical ana-
lyses, we continue to try to grasp what cannot and will not be pinned down.
Perhaps it is the knowledge that something escapes our understanding that
makes both memories and works of art so fascinating. How can historians of

1421—1Chapter 7
art ignore objects that are so patently tangible and immediate, so apparently
available to our powers of understanding, even when they have proven to be
so elusive and distant? While engaging with their contemporary presence, to
what extent should we acknowledge that the nature of their difference lies
in the realm of the imagination, that it is malleable, and that it is constantly
subject to redefinition?
The continuing urge to construct historical distance in the face of the
impossibility of ever keeping past and present wholly distinct is clearly ex-
emplified in the historiography of German Renaissance art, particularly the
writing on the two canonical artists of the period, Dürer and Grünewald.
The literature on these artists is so immense, however, that it will be sampled
rather than systematically reviewed. The political implications of the fol-
lowing story cannot be overlooked. This reflection on the impossibility
of achieving any sense of historical distance necessary to distinguish ade-
quately past from present in historical narratives is meant to enhance, not
diminish, the task of the historian. The excesses of the nationalist historiog-
raphy that I am about to review suggest the political dangers of approaching
the past as if it can be reduced to the political interests of our own day. They
indicate not just the continuing need to insist on the difference between past
and present but also that both memories and works escape a full account-
ing in any particular moment in time. This chapter, therefore, is not about
the relativity of historical writing, the inevitable conclusion that this literary
genre can never offer us a conclusive account of the past (that goes with-
out saying); it is rather a reflection on our need to treat the past as different
in the full awareness that that very difference is constructed in the present.
During the Weimar Republic and the period of National Socialism, Dürer
and Grünewald were often compared and contrasted as a means of articu-
lating the competing agendas of different nationalist groups. Whereas Dürer
had been appreciated and studied since the sixteenth century, an interest in
the art of Grünewald only surfaced in the late nineteenth. This neglect obvi-
ously had something to do with the fact that nothing was known about the
artist of the Isenheim Altarpiece beyond a name. All knowledge of Grüne-
wald’s identity had been lost by the seventeenth century. When Joachim
von Sandrart, himself a leading German painter, published his two-volume
history on the history of German art in 1675, he confessed that he had little
to convey about this painter but hearsay. Indeed the name he bestowed
on him, “Mattheus Grünewald,” or “Mattheus von Asschaffenburg,” has

Impossible Distance1—1143
never been documented in archival sources.8 A more telling reason for this
oblivion, however, may have been the fact that the Isenheim Altarpiece was
located in Alsace, a German-speaking province of France that only became
part of Germany following the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71.9 It was thus
in the context of the nationalist movement that led to the foundation of
Germany as a nation-state that German scholars turned their attention to
this little-known artist.
Wilhelm Worringer claimed that there was an essential quality of Ger-
man art that distinguished it from that of all other countries, a quality he
discerned in the expressive linearity of German art of the Middle Ages.10
Similarly, the first monograph on the artist, Heinrich Schmid’s two-volume
work of 1911, argued that Grünewald was a quintessentially German spirit.
His work supposedly united late-Gothic art with the Baroque, thus ignoring
or circumventing the “foreign” (i.e., Italian) Renaissance.11 Yet in contrast
to Worringer, who had regarded Dürer and Hans Holbein as the supreme
artists of the German Renaissance, Schmid insisted that Grünewald was a
more fitting example of the German spirit because he had evaded the influ-
ence of Italy.
In the nationalist tradition of art writing that followed, the historical dis-
tance separating the age of Dürer and Grünewald from the present was in-
voked only to collapse it in the interest of a political ideology. The difference
between the Germany of the sixteenth century and that of the early twenti-
eth was brought to mind only to be sacrificed on the altar of an alleged con-
tinuity of national identity. The alterity of the past was elided in the inter-
est of a transhistorical narrative that dramatized the essential nature, the
inalterable constancy of the German spirit. This new reading of Grünewald
opened the doors to a flood of nationalist criticism that ultimately made his
reputation equal, if not superior, to Dürer’s. Heinrich Wölfflin, for example,
was caught up in the desire to compare the two artists in terms of their Ger-
manness. Writing in 1905, Wölfflin insinuated that Dürer’s concern with the
theory and practice of Italian art constituted a betrayal of his Germanic
heritage, for Wölfflin believed that Dürer’s art was riven by conflicting im-
pulses arising from the clash of his native training with his cosmopolitan-
ism: “After so many basic objections one hardly dares ask the question: can
Dürer be extolled by us as the German painter? Rather must it not finally
be admitted that a great talent has erred and lost its instincts by imitating
foreign characteristics? Without doubt there is much in Dürer’s art, and

1441—1Chapter 7
not only in his early art, that is original and delicious. But his work is inter-
spersed with things which are alien to us. Samson lost his locks in the lap
of the Italian seductress.”12 Comparing Dürer to Grünewald, Wölfflin engi-
neered an art historical hydraulics. As one rose in his esteem, the other fell,
according to a scale of values that depended on the relative intensity of their
Germanic spirit:
New conceptions of the nature of German art have been formed and
Grünewald has moved from the periphery to the center. He has indeed
become the mirror in which the majority of Germans recognize them-
selves and his isolation has ended. . . . Now it is rather Dürer who ap-
pears to be the exception. His fame seems to have been made possible
only by the coincidence of Grünewald’s disappearance for centuries from
the nation’s view. Beside Grünewald’s abundances and elemental force
Dürer’s artistry appears to be one-sided, sometimes almost scholarly and
academic, and his cult of Italianate form seems to have undermined his
inborn German character in a fatal way. We demand living colour. Not
the rational but the irrational. Not structure but free rhythm. Not the
fabricated object but one that has grown as if by chance.13
This binary opposition depends on the formal characteristics of the two
artists: on the opposition, say, of Dürer’s concern for the clarity of two-
dimensional form, a feature of his work particularly evident in the graphic
media for which he is most famous, and Grünewald’s use of a palette that
often exceeds the limits of the naturalistic artistic traditions of his time.
Dürer’s interest in the Italian revival of ancient theories of human propor-
tion, as well as in Albertian perspective, marks his works not only as foreign-
inspired but as more careful, rational, and theoretical than the bolder, more
colorful, and flagrantly fantastic nature of the creations of his contemporary.
Critical attention to Grünewald increased during the First World War,
when Franco-German hostilities threatened the city of Colmar. In 1917,
against the wishes of the city’s government, the German military authorities
had the Isenheim Altarpiece transported to Munich for safekeeping.14 Once
there, it was restored and cleaned before being put on exhibition, when it
immediately became the object of pilgrimage. According to Ann Stieglitz,
“Special tours to see the altar were arranged for those coming from out of
town, and wounded soldiers, many limbless, were wheeled in front of it,
where religious services were held.”15 At war’s end, the Isenheim Altarpiece’s

Impossible Distance1—1145
return to France was accompanied by effusions of nationalist outrage on the
part of the German press and by self-congratulatory cheer on the part of the
Allies. An anonymous article in a Munich newspaper, dated September 28,
1919, captured the emotional intensity of the scene of impending loss:
Schoolboys of ten or twelve with colored caps, or bare heads; workers;
citizens; . . . painters; old people; children. Like a procession, a stream
flowed regularly passed [sic] the back of the altar, where St. Anthony’s
visit to the Hermit and the Temptation were to be seen—and the awe-
some drama of the split Golgotha picture: the one arm of the Crucified
Christ detached from the crossbeam into the air. . . . The red removal
van stood below. A wretched reality: like a coffin and grave. The lost war.
One cannot keep back this thought; and it is neither unobjective nor
sentimental. A piece of Germany is being cut away, the most noble part:
Alsace, Alemmania. Grünewald.16
The opening of the outer panels of the altarpiece (fig. 7.1), in which
Christ’s body appears to be torn apart, his arm rent from his torso—a fea-
ture that had caught the attention of many earlier (and later) commenta-
tors—was here invested with new meaning. A formal quality of the image,
Grünewald’s portrayal of Christ’s figure, was the catalyst of emotional re-
sponse. This rare reference to the structure of the image, as well as to the ob-
server’s phenomenological response, affords us insight into the psychologi-
cal background to much of this criticism. The identification of Grünewald
as a German artist, an anachronistic projection back into the past of the idea
of the nation-state that did not exist in the sixteenth century, allowed this
material vestige of the past, the Isenheim Altarpiece, to be invested with par-
ticular poignancy in the wake of the German defeat in the First World War.
Rather than being the object of antiquarian interest, the image had become
a means by which national identity could be crystallized and defined in the
present. Grünewald’s Crucifixion became a symbol of Germany’s agony,
the Passion the country suffered as a consequence of its defeat in the First
World War.
Just as the altar was capable of being used for nationalist purposes, it also
proved amenable to those who rejected German militarism. In 1928 George
Grosz was prosecuted for blasphemy for his published drawing of a cruci-
fied Christ wearing a gas mask and boots (fig. 7.2). The illustration, cap-
tioned “Shut Up and Do Your Duty,” played off the national obsession with

1461—1Chapter 7
FIGURE 7.1 MATTHIAS GRÜNEWALD, CRUCIFIXION (EXTERIOR OF THE ISENHEIM ALTARPIECE ), CA. 1512.
Oil on panel. Musée Unterlinden, Colmar, Inv. 88.RP.139. © Musée Unterlinden, Colmar

the Isenheim Altarpiece in order to mock the Catholic Church for support
of the military. In this drawing, and in the photolithograph “Silence!,” from
1935–36 (fig. 7.3), the emaciated body, the nail-torn hands, the twisted legs,
and the ripped loincloth of the Isenheim Altarpiece are juxtaposed with the
gas mask and boots of trench warfare to produce a devastating commentary
on the function of the clergy in times of war. Grosz’s trial, which dragged
on until 1931, eventuated in his unexpected acquittal, though the German
Supreme Court vented its frustration at the outcome by decreeing that the
artist’s illustrations for the series, along with the photolithographic plates
from which they had been printed, be confiscated and destroyed.17
These sensational events indicate that the nationalist rhetoric of German
art historians is far more than a purely textual phenomenon. The social and
cultural circumstances in which the rediscovery of Grünewald took place
are part and parcel of the attitudes manifested in art historical criticism. In
fact, they are inextricably meshed into a coherent worldview. Anyone writ-

Impossible Distance1—1147
 FIGURE 7.2 GEORGE
GROSZ, “SHUT UP AND
DO YOUR DUTY,” 1927.
Drawing. Stiftung Archiv
der Akademie der Künste,
Berlin. Art © Estate of
George Grosz#/#Licensed by
VAGA, New York, NY

FIGURE 7.3 GEORGE GROSZ, “SILENCE!,” 1935–36. Photolithograph. Stiftung Archiv der Akademie der
Künste, Berlin. Art © Estate of George Grosz#/#Licensed by VAGA, New York, NY
ing on this subject in Germany at this time would have found it difficult to
avoid the nationalist rhetoric with which discussions of German culture had
been invested. The counter-example provided by the works of Grosz, which
cast an ironic glance at the nationalist appropriation of Grünewald, proves
the power of the dominant tradition.
One of the few dissenting voices in the art historical apotheosis of
Grünewald as the most German of German artists was predictably that of a
French scholar, Louis Réau. In his monograph of 1920 on the artist, he ac-
knowledged the role ascribed to Grünewald by German art historians but
argued that his importance transcends national borders. Far from involv-
ing himself in the controversy as to whether or not Grünewald could be
claimed to represent any one national identity, a debate he called puerile,
Réau argued that Grünewald’s true significance lay in his status as a “mod-
ern” artist, that is, as a precursor to the modernist movement of Réau’s own
times. Having been cast into oblivion as a consequence of art history’s Italo-
centrism, Grünewald now ran the risk of being misunderstood because of
art history’s “Germanocentrism.”18 Réau refused to allow his artist to be
trapped within the confines of what he clearly regarded as an art historical
dead end, namely the debate regarding the virtues of northern art in rela-
tion to those of Mediterranean. Instead, Réau argued that the very qualities
that make Grünewald’s art the antipode of that of Dürer—the freedom of
his drawing, his flouting of the rules of perspective, his willful distortion of
color—all marked him as an artist who transcended the boundaries of space
and time. Réau’s national sympathies were, nevertheless, apparent: his book
is dedicated to both his wife and “French Alsace,” and he welcomed the re-
turn of the Isenheim Altarpiece to French soil after what he regarded as a re-
grettable sojourn in Germany.19
According to Réau, Grünewald properly belonged neither to the Middle
Ages nor to the Renaissance, but rather to the Baroque period. In Grüne-
wald’s art Réau claimed to see the plasticity and movement that Wölfflin had
asserted were the hallmarks of that age, as well as the conscious use of dis-
sonance and asymmetry.20 In his conclusion, he accuses the nationalist crit-
ics of a blindness that serves to diminish the true grandeur of Grünewald:
“These blind men do not realize that their praises diminish the idol they
intend to exalt because it is in the nature of a really great artist to address
the intelligence and sensibility of the people of all nations and all races.”21
This cosmopolitan voice was ignored or perhaps drowned in the nation-

Impossible Distance1—1149
alist rhetoric that characterized German writing on the artist in the years
that followed. Perhaps the most outspoken of the nationalist writers of the
times was Oskar Hagen. Deeply resentful at the return of the Isenheim Altar-
piece in 1918, he claimed that in neglecting Grünewald art historians dis-
torted the history of German painting. While Dürer represented objectivity,
Grünewald stood for intuition, a distinctively German characteristic. His
art represented the uniquely German power responsible for the outbreak
of the Reformation. Far from being a mere epigone of Dürer, Grünewald
was identified with what was most vitally and quintessentially German in
this period: “If today the history of art should be revised, one should above
all be clear about the error that needs correction: the established history of
German painting has been an account that left what is German out of con-
sideration as if it were something insignificant!”22
Unlike the Italian masters who had been content to pursue a natural-
istic art based in part on ancient models and theories, Dürer and Grüne-
wald understood that the point of naturalism was to penetrate the surface
of appearances in order to find the reality that lay beneath. In Grünewald’s
case, his grasp of reality served the religious ideas of his time. Far from his
being a devout Catholic, as most have assumed, Hagen claimed that Grüne-
wald’s work embodied the spirit of the Reformation that was yet to come.
Luther’s language and Grünewald’s imagery registered the realities of the
spiritual life in the same way.23 Whereas Dürer’s mature work was dedicated
to the concept of beauty, Grünewald’s art was never limited by a desire to
be faithful to appearances. Echoing Worringer’s claim that the basic char-
acteristic of German art was its dedication to line, Hagen suggested that
Grünewald’s line should be regarded as a metaphor. The artist exploited the
hidden potential of line’s power to invest even the smallest silhouette with
the expressive and poetic power of fantasy.24 If Dürer’s art was one of rep-
resentation, in which the role of mimesis is paramount, Grünewald’s was an
expressive art akin to poetry or music.
Friedrich Haak’s 1928 book on Dürer: Deutschlands grösster Künstler spe-
cifically invoked Grünewald as the patron saint of Expressionism, the most
important German modernist movement of the period: “The present mo-
ment always reaches back into the deep well of the past in order to draw out
that which corresponds with its own demands and requirements as well as
its desires and ambitions. This modern Expressionism has chosen a relatively
unknown German painter, a contemporary of Albrecht Dürer, the great and

1501—1Chapter 7
mighty Matthias Grünewald, to be both its sworn companion and patron
saint.”25 The Expressionists, according to Haak, found their inspiration in
Grünewald, for he bequeathed them a model of immediacy, rapture, and
delirium, as well as a “glowing, scintillating, orgasmic, symphony of color.”26
The expressive quality of Grünewald’s color and the artist’s willingness to
bend the rules of mimesis—the spiritual freedom and the inner necessity
that fueled this fantasy—were revived by contemporary artists as metaphors
of national identity.
Nationalist criticism during the 1920s had favored Grünewald over Dürer
as the most genuine representative of the German tradition in art, but
nevertheless there were many authors who continued to plead Dürer’s case
in the nationalist cause. The fervor with which his candidacy was pursued
intensified in the years preceding the Second World War, when the Expres-
sionist movement came under fire from theorists within National Socialism.
Until 1933–34, the party by and large subscribed to the view that the Ger-
man Expressionists constituted a manifestation of eternal German values.
After that date, however, the party turned its back on all aspects of modern-
ism, a development that led to the infamous Degenerate Art exhibition held
in Munich in 1937, at which both Expressionist art and artists were held up
to ridicule.27 Because Grünewald’s status depended on the fate of Expres-
sionism, both hung in the balance of National Socialist party politics. The
revival of interest in Dürer in the late 1930s and during the war, therefore,
represented a rejection of Grünewald, an artist too intimately associated
with degenerate modernism.
Many authors of this period approached Dürer’s iconography with an
eye to its nationalist potential. A striking feature of German writing on
Dürer in the years before and during the Second World War was the promi-
nence ascribed to his famous engraving Knight, Death, and the Devil (fig.
7.4). Although the work had already been associated with German national
identity in the nineteenth century, it had also been identified as a represen-
tation of the Christian Knight.28 Wilhem Waetzold, the author of an influ-
ential book on Dürer, delivered a lecture on this image in 1936 in which he
made it an icon of nationalist sentiment:
True, Knight, Death and Devil does not speak equally loud and clear to
all times and all persons. Dürer’s high-thinking epoch perceived the tri-
umphant organ sound of the print. Fainthearted generations on the other

Impossible Distance1—1151
FIGURE 7.4 ALBRECHT DÜRER, KNIG HT, DEATH, AND THE DEVIL, 1513. Engraving on paper; image:
95⁄8 × 73⁄8 in. (24.4 × 18.7 cm). Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Massachusetts,
USA, 1978.18. Image © Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Massachusetts (photo by
Michael Agee)
 hand heard more the harmonies of memento mori. Heroic souls love this
engraving as Nietzsche did and as Adolf Hitler does today. They love it
because it personifies victory. It is of course true that death will one day
conquer us all, but it is equally true that a heroic man wins a moral vic-
tory over death. This is the eternal message of this print, the spiritual
bond that unites Dürer’s time and ours. Dürer’s clarion call sounds to us
across the centuries and finds once more an echo in our German hearts.29
The role of the past in this kind of rhetoric was to justify and validate the
present. It was only “fainthearted generations” that failed to see the print’s
reference to the victory of the German cause. The print was ascribed a trans-
historical essence whose “truth” proscribed interpretive disagreement.
In 1937 the racial theorist Hans Günther, a National Socialist party favor-
ite and friend of Hitler’s who had been appointed to a chair of social anthro-
pology at the University of Jena, dedicated an entire book to the topic of
heroism in German culture, using Dürer’s Knight, Death, and the Devil as its
frontispiece. Günther was not an art historian, but he offers an example of
the kind of writing with which Dürer’s images were associated in these sinis-
ter years, as well as insight into their cultural function. In his eccentric book,
the nineteenth century was condemned as an era that saw the rise of liberal
democracies, socialist ideas, and evolutionary theories of human develop-
ment. That retrograde culture was to be swept away by a heroic conception
of the fate of the individual, an ordered society, and a belief in national des-
tiny. In terms of art, Impressionism was rejected in favor of Rembrandt and
the art of the German Middle Ages. Needless to say, Expressionism was dis-
missed as a manifestation of the degenerate life of the metropolis, and it was
Dürer rather than Grünewald who was granted pride of place in a pantheon
of German heroes that included Luther, Leibniz, Bismarck, and Kant.30
Rather than dwell on this sorry moment in the history of scholarship of
the German Renaissance—rather than add further examples of its service
in the cause of a racist nationalism—I want now to reflect on what we can
learn from this historiographic review. To what extent has the fate of sub-
sequent interpretation in this field depended on forgetting that this epi-
sode ever took place? How does postwar writing on this subject differ from
that of the preceding period? What ideological purposes have the figures
of Dürer and Grünewald subsequently served? What has happened to the
binary opposition that animated the evaluation of Dürer and Grünewald in

Impossible Distance1—1153
nationalist criticism? How can we characterize the approaches to these art-
ists taken by art historians working today?
The extremism of the nationalist moment, the unconscionable brutality
of its excess, led to a disavowal of the values and concerns of the present in
accounts of the past. The postwar historiography of the German Renaissance
deliberately turns its back on politics, and the historical significance of Dürer
and Grünewald is no longer assessed in nationalist terms. The goal of these
historians has been to insist that historical distance, the difference between
the past and the present, is a safeguard to the infection of the past by the
present. The past had proven too powerful a tool in the hands of the present
and needed once more to be banished to its proper historical horizon.
The great architect of the new order is Erwin Panofsky. Having lost his
professorship at the University of Hamburg because he was Jewish, Panof-
sky made his home in the United States. This exiled scholar is responsible
for developing the most influential and lasting theory of historical distance
in postwar art historical writing. According to Panofsky, the concept of his-
torical distance only appeared in the Renaissance, because earlier periods
had been incapable of fully integrating the visual forms and literary tra-
ditions of antiquity into the stylistic vocabularies of their own times. This
integration is the great achievement of the later age: “the two medieval re-
nascences were limited and transitory; the Renaissance was total and per-
manent.”31 A powerful metaphor for the ability of the Renaissance to “see”
the past correctly is, of course, linear perspective. It is no accident that
Panofsky also argues that one of the greatest achievements of the Renais-
sance was to have established the principles of the most persuasive system
for representing space illusionistically: “In the Italian Renaissance the clas-
sical past began to be looked upon from a fixed distance, quite comparable
to the distance ‘between the eye and the object’ in that most characteristic
invention of this very Renaissance, focused perspective. As in focused per-
spective, this distance prohibited direct contact—owing to the interposi-
tion of an ideal ‘projection plane’—but permitted a total and rationalized
view.”32 In fusing the capacity of Renaissance culture to build a distance be-
tween itself and the past, with its development of a geometric system that
enabled a convincing depiction of space, Panofsky gives this historical mo-
ment an unusually privileged place in European history. Both the claim to
an “objective” notion of historical distance and the claim that Renaissance

1541—1Chapter 7
perspective corresponds with the perception of space, serves to endow this
period with an ideal quality that is ideologically motivated. According to
Stephen Melville:
The way to Panofsky’s understanding of the objectivity of art history lies
through the Renaissance because the Renaissance provides the means to
elide questions of the becoming historical of art; his valorization of per-
spective forges an apparently nonproblematic access of the rationalized
space of the past. We are freed then to imagine ourselves henceforth as
scientists of a certain kind, and within this imagination the grounds of
privilege become invisible and profoundly naturalized.33
The spatial rationality of the Renaissance thus becomes a metaphor of objec-
tivity. The new paradigm of art historical method achieved by these means
is no less powerful because its metaphoric status is more often ignored than
acknowledged.
Though Panofsky could not consciously have recognized this investment,
his notion of historical distance is a defense of humanist culture and a means
of keeping history safe from “ideologues.” The need to keep civilization out
of the hands of barbarians made him view his scholarship in the United
States as a means of ensuring the survival of values that had been threatened
with obliteration in fascist Europe.34 Whereas for the nationalist historians
the conflation of historical horizons was a way of claiming the continuity
of national identity, for Panofsky historical distance is a means of validat-
ing the purportedly universal values of the humanist tradition. If nationalist
critics working in a Hegelian tradition had exploited Hegel’s view that the
unfolding of the “Spirit” was best observed in the art of different peoples
or nations, Panofsky’s debt to this philosopher may be discerned in exalting
the Renaissance as a decisive moment in the self-realization of humanity.35
Investing the past with meaning by means of a teleological theory of history
allows him to ennoble modernity as the fulfillment of the humanist ideals
of Renaissance culture.
Panofsky’s book on Dürer, The Life and Art of Albrecht Dürer, has fun-
damentally structured the course of postwar studies on this artist.36 The
nationalist epic of Dürer’s encounter with Italy, the tragedy of the adultera-
tion of his Germanic spirit with the imported values of Italian culture, is in-
verted and replaced with a more personal dichotomy. Rather than abandon

Impossible Distance1—1155
his own artistic tradition in light of foreign models, Dürer is now seen as
torn between the artisanal naturalism of his Nuremberg training, with its
dedication to empirical observation, and an interest in Italian theory as a
way of producing forms whose aesthetic guarantee lies in the realm of ideas
rather than experience. The role of Italy in Panofsky’s account of Dürer’s
work not only ruptures the alleged continuity of the German national spirit
but also symbolizes the enlightened tradition of humanist rationality.
Panofsky rejects and recasts the binary opposition of the nationalist ac-
count so as to offer a different narrative altogether. The moral to be drawn
from the life of the artist is not about the German essence of Dürer’s person-
ality but the agonizing conflict between two aspects of his artistic genius.
Instead of Knight, Death, and the Devil, once again interpreted as an allegory
of the Christian life, Panofsky’s emblem for Dürer becomes Melencolia I (fig.
7.5). The émigré art historian reads the print as an allegory not only of the
emerging Renaissance consciousness of the artist as an exceptionally gifted
individual but also of Dürer’s own struggle with competing dimensions of
his personality.37 The conflict between tradition and theory in Dürer’s art is
analogous to the clash of ideologies in Panofsky’s own day. Dürer’s inability
to reconcile theory and mimesis, characterized by Panofsky as a failure, may
be regarded as a metaphor of the art historian’s own alienation from Ger-
man culture, and Dürer’s defeat at the hands of tradition an emblem of the
rout of Enlightenment values in Nazi Germany. Panofsky’s tale is thus sup-
ported by a double “supplement”: on the one hand, its implicit criticism
of the nationalist historiography—its insistence on historical distance—
represents a political alternative to what had gone before; on the other, its
expression of his melancholy at the loss of the ideals that inspired the Ger-
man culture of his youth affords us access to the motives that inspired his
narrative.38
Panofsky’s views on historical distance have not gone unchallenged in
an age that has called Enlightenment humanism into question. Taking issue
with the objectivist and quasi-scientific tradition of art historical writing that
has its origins in Panofsky’s work, Georges Didi-Huberman argues that art
history is necessarily an “anachronistic” discipline. While purporting to be
about the past, it cannot escape its involvement with objects in the present:
“It is better to recognize the necessity of anachronism as something posi-
tive: it seems to be internal to the objects themselves—the images—whose

1561—1Chapter 7
FIGURE 7.5 ALBRECHT DÜRER, MELENCOLIA I, 1514. Engraving on paper; image: 91⁄2 × 75⁄16 in. (24.1 ×
18.6 cm). Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Massachusetts, USA, 1968.88. Image
© Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Massachusetts (photo by Michael Agee)
history we are trying to reconstruct. In a first approximation, then, anachro-
nism would be the temporal way of expressing the exuberance, complexity,
and overdetermination of images.”39 Far from denying the possibility of
historical distance, Didi-Huberman recognizes that art history fundamen-
tally depends on it. This distance, however, cannot be fixed, for it is forever
subject to a negotiation between past and present.40 Didi-Huberman’s com-
ments recognize the tension between the lure of the object—the aesthetic
demands of the work of art in the present—and the need to register the
alterity of the past. In his attempt to do justice to the past, Panofsky fails to
acknowledge the inherent anachronism of the discipline to which he con-
tributed so much.
Postwar German scholars follow Panofsky in regarding Dürer’s art as
a biographical rather than a national allegory. The relation of the artist’s
life to his work, the Vasarian paradigm in which art history was born, is
resuscitated as the most effective means to combat the ideological forces
that had employed these works as part of a sinister narrative of national
identity. Both Peter Strieder and Fedja Anzelewsky, for example, who have
produced learned contributions to the Dürer literature, emphasize the art-
ist’s life as the driving force behind his art. While affording the reader a
great amount of information and insight into the social and cultural cir-
cumstances in which he lived, this material becomes a means of dramatizing
Dürer’s artistic achievements. These accomplishments are characterized as
personal and timeless rather than historical and collective.41 By emphasiz-
ing the role of the individual, by stressing Dürer’s incomparable gifts—gifts
that set him apart from mere mortals—these authors, consciously or uncon-
sciously, supported the political agenda of a democratic and capitalist West
Germany. Dürer’s power of agency, his capacity to transform the artistic
conventions of his time, becomes an allegory of the value of the individual
over the collective, while simultaneously justifying the commodity status
of the aesthetic constituents of the canon. Anzelewsky’s debt to Panofsky
may also be traced in his insistence on Dürer’s interest in Neoplatonism.
Just as Panofsky’s interpretation of Melencolia I depends on Dürer’s access
to the new concept of melancholy that had been forged in the philosophical
context of Renaissance Florence, Anzelewsky’s contributions to our under-
standing of Dürer’s iconography depend on the claim that Dürer was aware
of the ideas of Marsilio Ficino.42 The suggestion that Dürer’s works are to
be approached as learned allegories characterizes them as spiritual achieve-

1581—1Chapter 7
ments. It removes them from the context of communal life so as to embed
them more deeply in his personal consciousness.
Panofsky’s theory of historical distance, so effective a means of con-
taining the political and ideological in the unconscious of historical texts,
however, could not prevent Dürer from being appropriated once again for
political purposes. The eruption of political interests into the historical ap-
preciation of Dürer is most evident in the context of the celebrations in
1971 that marked the four-hundredth anniversary of his birth.43 Both East
and West Germany felt a compulsion to celebrate Dürer as a great Ger-
man artist. In West Germany the government supported an extensive exhi-
bition under the patronage of the nation’s president, its chancellor, the vice
president of the Bundestag, and the mayor of Nuremberg.44 The location of
the exhibition was certainly no accident. Nuremberg was not only Dürer’s
native city but it had long been associated with the Holy Roman Empire,
having housed the Hapsburg crown jewels until the eighteenth century,
when they were transferred to Vienna. While Nuremberg’s prestige as the
city linked with medieval German majesty had been tarnished by the events
of the Third Reich (Hitler had held some of his major rallies there, and it
was, of course, the site of the war-crimes tribunal), its history was clearly
important to the creation of a new sense of national identity.45 Flattened
by Allied bombing at the end of the Second World War, the city had been
lovingly restored in the postwar years. In contrast to the national purpose
discernible in the nature and location of West Germany’s celebration of the
anniversary of Dürer’s birth, the exhibition’s catalogue offers an encyclope-
dic account of Dürer’s life and times in which empirical information some-
times appears to outweigh an interpretative agenda. Because of its moral
force, the basic outlines of Panofsky’s interpretation remain unchallenged.
His treatment of Dürer’s life as an allegory of the struggle between reason
and unreason, blind tradition and enlightened innovation, coincided with
the political need to provide West German national life with an ideology
that was both progressive and inspiring.
Panofsky’s thesis, however, did not coincide with the motives of the East
German celebration. Beginning in the 1960s, both Dürer and Grünewald
became increasingly identified with what came to be known as “the early
bourgeois revolution.” Marxist theorists argued that the German Peasants’
War of 1525 had been an important precursor of class war, which they con-
sidered the inevitable outcome of the capitalist system of their own time.

Impossible Distance1—1159
Because of the intimate connection between the demands of the serfs for
both spiritual and economic freedom, it was possible to suggest that the
Reformation and the peasant movement were one, and that there was unity
between the spiritual transformations of the age and theories of historical
materialism.46 Both the German Democratic Republic’s major exhibition,
which took place in Berlin, and its official publications fêted Dürer as an art-
ist with a social conscience. The preface to a collection of essays published
by the Karl Marx University in Leipzig claims that Dürer’s genius stems
from his consciousness of the artist’s responsibility for social progress and
his utopian vision of the future of humanity.47 According to Ernst Ullmann,
Dürer identified with the progressive forces that were responsible for the
religious and social transformations of his time:
For Dürer the beautiful also included the true and the good, a proper
understanding, and an educational and uplifting effect on the viewer. Thus
Dürer, himself one of the heroes of his age, did not just passively mir-
ror one of the greatest revolutionary processes in the transition from the
Middle Ages to Modernity, but through his work he took an active role
in it—in freeing the individual from the chains of class that characterized
the old feudal society and in the formation of autonomous individuals.48
Comparing and contrasting Dürer and Grünewald in the manner to which
we have become accustomed, Wolfgang Hütt argues that while both artists
identified with the peasant cause, Dürer followed the humanist tradition of
Italy, but Grünewald rejected all things Italian because of his opposition to
the Catholic Church.49 Grünewald’s image of the Crucifixion represents his
belief in the ideals for which the peasants struggled: “For Gothardt Neit-
hardt [Grünewald], the crucified Christ embodied a belief in the justice for
which the peasants of 1525 had fought against the powerful of this world.
The peasants, the proletariat, the intellectuals, and the artists, proved too
weak, and the historical situation not yet ready, for them to realize the jus-
tice for which they strove.”50 Finally, Peter Feist hails Dürer as a forerunner
of socialist realism, an artistic policy adopted by the East German Commu-
nist Party after 1945 and only abandoned in the course of the 1960s. Feist
argues that Dürer represents a synthesis of naturalism and idealism that
offers an example to contemporary artists.51
These scholars trade Panofsky’s interpretation for another of the “mas-

1601—1Chapter 7
ter narratives” of their own time. Rather than see Dürer as engaged in a
personal struggle of reason and unreason, virtue and vice, he becomes a
hero of the class struggle. Once more historical distance is sacrificed in the
interest of a transhistorical principle. Dürer’s role in asserting the value of
the individual, as well his prescience in choosing the style best suited to the
demands of a socialist culture, allow him to be identified with the values of
the Marxist narrative. Not only did the teleology of this narrative promise
a utopian future to those who recognized and supported its message, but it
also served to enhance the national prestige of the East German state that
sponsored it.
This brief analysis of the cultural function of the concept of historical dis-
tance in the historiography of German Renaissance art in the twentieth cen-
tury cannot close without a look at the texts that could be said to define the
critical situation in which the literature on Dürer and Grünewald currently
finds itself (at least in the English-speaking world). What methodological
tools do contemporary authors deploy in their writing, and how do these
differ from those of the past? What is the relation between the immediacy
of aesthetic response and the objectifying impulse of the historian?
Among the most influential recent studies on Albrecht Dürer is that by
Joseph Koerner.52 In an ambitious analysis of Dürer’s self-portrait of 1500
(fig. 2.2), Koerner claims that Dürer consciously asserts the unique status
of the artist as a divinely gifted creator. The artist emerges as the architect
of a new age, one who calls into being a new era of art. Grounding himself
in a phenomenological approach to his subject, Koerner self- consciously
hints that he is as incapable of articulating the philosophical motivation of
his narrative any more than Dürer was capable of articulating his. In other
words, Koerner explicitly acknowledges the problem with which we have
been grappling, namely, the necessity of historical blindness in the pursuit
of historical insight. He offers us an argument for the idea that it is the
power of the image, the immediacy of our response, that prevents us from
ever fully articulating the grounds that animate the narratives we choose to
spin around them: “Dürer proposes himself as origin; and in placing him
at the start, indeed in arguing that he has already prefaced what I shall say
about him, I underwrite his proposal.”53
Koerner’s answer to the problem of historical distance is thus the an-
tithesis of Panofsky’s. Instead of emphasizing the gulf that separates his-

Impossible Distance1—1161
torical horizons—one that can only be surmounted by a Kantian “symbolic
form” (in this case the metaphor of Renaissance perspective)—he collapses
the distinction.54 Art historical access to the past is not to be accomplished
by eliminating all traces of the present that might possibly affect our en-
counter with the past, but rather, scholars can afford us access by allowing
a phenomenological experience of the work to prompt their own represen-
tations about its meaning. Koerner responds to the representations created
by a lost world as if they were presentations that demanded an unmediated
response. Engaging the past becomes the means of asserting the role of the
present in the process of interpretation. In affirming personal aesthetic re-
sponse as the basis of interpretation, Koerner’s gesture could not be further
from that of the German historians of the prewar era. Far from suggesting
a reductive similarity between present and past—that ethnic continuities,
for example, might elide the differences that mark distinct historical mo-
ments—he uses experience as the grounds on which to attempt to capture
that which must necessarily escape definition—the unique nature of the
work of art. It is the work’s protean capacity to solicit different reactions as
it travels through time that imbues it with lasting aesthetic appeal.
Koerner’s perspective introduces a new basis for art historical writing.
Rather than share Panofsky’s belief in the objective power of reason to dis-
cern the nature of what happened in the past, Koerner collapses the subject/
object distinction in order to make the works speak for “themselves.” An En-
lightenment trust in rational objectivity is abandoned in favor of subjective
engagement. Like Panofsky’s, Koerner’s strategy tends to elide the philo-
sophical, cultural, and political stakes of interpretation. Rather than being
explicitly articulated, these remain, perhaps necessarily, embedded in the
act of interpretation. This approach need not prevent us from speculating
about the values that may inform the writing. Koerner writes at a historical
moment that has witnessed a challenge to the positivistic idea that scholarly
objectivity can be guaranteed by a unified and autonomous subjectivity.55 It
seems only appropriate that Koerner should have written a paean of praise
to the creation of this mythic subject of the humanist tradition at the mo-
ment of its dissolution. His invocation of theorists of reception history and
reception aesthetics, such as Hans Robert Jauss and Wolfgang Iser, who
emphasize the ever-changing nature of aesthetic response between the mo-
ment of the work’s inception and its reception, is crucial to the idea of the
“fusion” of historical horizons.56

1621—1Chapter 7
 Koerner’s attitude serves to sabotage the biographical paradigm on
which so much of the postwar scholarship has been based. The epoch-
making quality he finds in Dürer’s art is located as much in the work as in
the figure of the artist. In Dürer’s Self-Portrait of 1500, both artist and work
merge as they call the age of art into being. While Koerner’s book could be
(and probably has been) used to support the value ascribed to Dürer’s work
in the marketplace, Koerner is more interested in the philosophical stakes
of characterizing art history as a transpersonal process in which the role
played by the aesthetic object is at least as important as that played by its
scholarly author.
As a methodological foil to Koerner’s Dürer book, we might refer to
Andrée Hayum’s on Grünewald. Citing Michael Baxandall’s celebrated
work on Florentine art of the fifteenth century, Hayum indicates that her
concern is to develop an anthropological approach to the interpretation
of Grünewald’s Isenheim Altarpiece.57 Baxandall envisions the social history
of art as a way of understanding a work of art within the full complexity of
its cultural and social relations. In doing so he emphasizes the alterity of
the past, the way in which it exceeds our powers of comprehension. Fully
aware that the visual nature of works of art means that they escape capture
by the power of language, Baxandall nevertheless creates a critical distance
between the historical horizon in question and the interpreting historian
in order to legitimate the validity of historical interpretation.58 If the past
could be encountered in its totality, undistorted by the values of the present,
then the essential “truth” of history might be established. Like Panofsky,
Baxandall’s vision of the relation between the horizon of the past and the
horizon of interpretation is meant to ensure that historical accounts are un-
tainted by values extraneous to it.
Hayum’s debt to Baxandall is principally evident in her discussion of the
possible function of the altarpiece as part of the healing program of the
Anthonite order. She suggests that the work’s graphic depiction of pain was
the focus of an empathetic identification. According to Hayum, the altar-
piece permitted those afflicted with skin diseases (St. Anthony’s fire) to re-
late their own suffering to that of Christ in a way that enhanced its promise
of salvation (fig. 7.1). Her discussion of the altar’s subject matter emphasizes
the sacramental and therefore the Catholic program of the image, a conclu-
sion that contradicts some of the earlier nationalist literature claiming that
Grünewald was the pictorial equivalent of Martin Luther. Hayum’s inter-

Impossible Distance1—1163
pretation attempts to offer us an objective account of the role of the altar in
its original cultural circumstances, one that focuses on the content of the
work and its effects on the sixteenth-century viewer rather than on its con-
tinuing impact on the spectator in the present. Unlike Koerner, who fore-
grounds the importance of the historian’s response to the image, Hayum
does not draw attention to her own role in the creation of her narrative.
The contemporary literature on Dürer and Grünewald therefore presents
us with two distinct ways of dealing with the issue of historical distance. At-
tempting to characterize the difference between their approaches in the full
realization that the enterprise must necessarily be reductive, we might say
the following: if Koerner fuses the temporal location of the historian with
that of the past by responding to the presence of the image rather than fit
the work into a pre-established historical context, then Hayum focuses on
the historical circumstances that led to the work’s creation in a manner that
emphasizes the distance that separates the historical horizon under con-
sideration from the altar’s aesthetic reception in the present. One gesture
offers us a historically informed response to the work as a presentation, as an
artifact with a continuing life in the present, while the other approaches it as
a representation in order to analyze its historical cultural and social function,
putting aside issues of aesthetic response in the interests of “objectivity.”
The gesture that naturalizes our access to Dürer’s image and that elides his-
torical distance also calls attention to the work of interpretation by demon-
strating that the response in question is that of a particular historian work-
ing at a specific moment in time. Paradoxically enough, by insisting on the
personal nature of his response to Dürer’s compelling self-portrait, Koerner
locates himself in time. His text draws attention as much to the age of his
own response as it does to the time of the creation of the image. Hayum’s
method tends, on the other hand, to efface the identity of the interpreting
historian. In an effort to be “true” to the historical horizon under investiga-
tion, the individuality of her own critical response is elided.
Whereas in one case (Koerner) the moment of response is dramatized,
in the other (Hayum) it is unremarked. In one (Hayum), an appeal to rea-
son, objectivity, and a notion of subjectivity as something distinct and au-
tonomous is used to locate a moment of the past in a historical narrative
that transcends the personality of the interpreting historian. In the other
(Koerner), an appeal to the aesthetic power of the work of art is used to dis-
turb an enlightened concept of history by negating the autonomy of the in-

1641—1Chapter 7
terpreter’s subjectivity and to insist on the role of the object in calling forth
its own historical response. In this case the past overflows its boundaries
and replaces a continuous and intelligible vision of history with one that is
characterized by unfathomable caesuras.
One conclusion to this chapter might be that in the history of art the
power of its objects of interpretation significantly affects the historian’s
notion of historical distance. Rather than depend on documentary traces
located in archives, the art historian confronts images that have been in-
vested with power both in the past and the present. If the religious and
magical functions they once served are no longer with us—if the power
they once possessed for the cultures that created them has been diluted and
obliterated by the passage of time—they now possess the power invested
in them by the idea of the aesthetic.59 The relation between the art historian
and the art of the past appears to be one of mutual attraction. Undoubtedly
there is something about the art of the past that calls for the attention of the
present. The art historian’s evidence is at once more engaging and more de-
manding than that of documents in an archive, or even the literary histori-
ans’ books on the shelf. Insofar as they encounter images at a glance, rather
than images mediated through the distancing devices of language and nar-
rative, they meet the intellectual character and the imaginative quality of the
past with particular force.
The demands of past art—the continuing need for interpretation and re-
interpretation—returns us to the question of memory. Regardless of how
much we may detest the uses to which historical writing was put by histo-
rians of the Nazi era, we should recall the episode in order to reflect on the
role of the concept of historical distance in our accounts of the past. Art
history’s hermeneutic enterprise must somehow do justice to the work’s
appeal—its apparently transcendental quality as art—as well as to its status
as a historical artifact. Can this double agenda be served by the same disci-
pline? Is it possible to relativize the intensity of aesthetic experience by
locating its historical context without losing the immediacy of its appeal?
Like the patient in psychoanalysis, the historian must remember in order
to forget and forget in order to remember. New meaning can only be made
of the past if the patterns discerned there can be reworked in the context
of the present. Yet the value of the current patterns will only be revealed if
those earlier traces can still be brought to mind. In the writing of art history,
the tension brought about by the past’s power to shape us and our power

Impossible Distance1—1165
to shape the past—the power of the work and our need to tame it (so as to
constitute the narratives by which we organize our lives)—finds one of its
most fascinating manifestations.

NOTES
1. See, for example, Michael Baxandall, “Introduction: Language and Explanation,” in
Patterns of Intention: On the Historical Explanation of Pictures, 1–11 (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1985); and, more recently, David Carrier, Writing about Visual Art
(New York: Allworth Press, 2003).
2. The issue of historical distance became especially important for historical writing
during the “linguistic turn.” The view that language constitutes a mediating filter
that separates an author from the object of study dramatizes the opacity of the his-
torical record and emphasizes the constructive role of historical writing in its ac-
counts of the past. See, for example, Roland Barthes, “The Discourse of History”
(1968), in The Rustle of Language, translated by Richard Howard, 127–41 (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1989); Michel Foucault, The Order of Things: An Ar-
chaeology of the Human Sciences (New York: Vintage Books, 1973); Hayden White,
Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity Press, 1978); Hayden White, The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and
Historical Representation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987); Domi-
nick LaCapra, Rethinking Intellectual History: Texts, Contexts, Language (Ithaca: Cor-
nell University Press, 1983); Dominick LaCapra, History and Criticism (Ithaca: Cor-
nell University Press, 1985); Frank Ankersmit, Narrative Logic: A Semantic Analysis of
the Historian’s Language (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1983); Lionel Gossman, Be-
tween History and Literature (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990); Stephen
Bann, The Inventions of History: Essays on the Representation of the Past (Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1990); Phillipe Carrard, Poetics of the New History:
French Historical Discourse from Braudel to Chartier (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity Press, 1992); Robert Berkhofer Jr., Beyond the Great Story: History as Text
and Discourse (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995); Michael Roth, The
Ironist’s Cage: Memory, Trauma, and the Construction of History (New York: Colum-
bia University Press, 1995); Michel-Rolph Trouillot, Silencing the Past: Power and the
Production of History (Boston: Beacon Press, 1995); Carlo Ginzburg, Wooden Eyes:
Nine Reflections on Distance (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002); Mark
Phillips, “Distance and Historical Representation,” History Workshop Journal 57, no. 1
(2004): 123–41; Mark Phillips, “Rethinking Historical Distance: From Doctrine to
Heuristic,” History and Theory 50 (December 2011): 11–23; and the essays included
in the special issue of History and Theory 50 (December 2011), edited by Jaap den
Hollander, Herman Paul, and Rik Peters, dedicated to the metaphor of historical
distance. The linguistic turn has, perhaps predictably, been followed by a tendency
to insist on historical presence to affirm that it is possible for the historian to tran-

1661—1Chapter 7
 scend language in order to have an unmediated experience of the past. See, for ex-
ample, Frank Ankersmit, Sublime Historical Experience (Stanford: Stanford Univer-
sity Press, 2005); Eelco Runia, “Presence,” History and Theory, no. 45 (2006): 1–29;
Eelco Runia, “Spots of Time,” History and Theory, no. 45 (2006): 305–16.
3. The most influential theory of historical distance in art history is that proposed
by Erwin Panofsky; see his Perspective as Symbolic Form, trans. Christopher Wood
(New York: Zone Books, 1991); and Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art
(New York: Harper and Row, 1969). Panofsky’s crucial role in building art history’s
model of temporal objectivity is discussed by Margaret Iversen and Stephen Mel-
ville in Writing Art History: Disciplinary Departures (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2010), 15–26. Influential approaches to historical distance are implicit in the
work of Michael Baxandall; see his Painting and Experience in Fifteenth Century Italy:
A Primer in the Social History of Pictorial Style (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972); and Pat-
terns of Intention: On the Historical Explanation of Pictures (New Haven: Yale Univer-
sity Press, 1985). See also the work of T. J. Clark: Image of the People: Gustave Cour-
bet and the 1848 Revolution (London: Thames and Hudson, 1973); and The Painting
of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and His Followers (London: Thames and
Hudson, 1985). For approaches that argue the essential “anachronism” of art his-
tory, see Georges Didi-Huberman, Fra Angelico: Dissemblance and Figuration, trans-
lated by Jane Marie Todd (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995); Georges
Didi-Huberman Confronting Images: Questioning the Ends of a Certain History of Art,
translated by John Goodman (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press,
2005); Georges Didi-Huberman, “Has the Epistemological Transformation Taken
Place?,” translated by Vivian Rehberg, in The Art Historian: National Traditions and
Institutional Practices, edited by Michael Zimmermann, 128–43 (Williamstown,
Mass.: Clark Art Institute, 2003); Hubert Damisch, The Judgment of Paris (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1996); Mieke Bal, Quoting Caravaggio: Preposterous His-
tory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999); Alexander Nagel and Christo-
pher Wood, Anachronic Renaissance (New York: Zone Books, 2010). For efforts to
think about the nature of the “agency” of images, see Alfred Gell, Art and Agency: An
Anthropological Theory (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998); W. J. T. Mitchell, Picture Theory:
Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1994); W. J. T. Mitchell, What Do Pictures Want? The Lives and Loves of Images (Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press, 2005).
4. Pierre Nora, “Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de mémoire,” Representa-
tions, no. 26 (1989): 7–24; Patrick Hutton, History as an Art of Memory (Hanover,
N.H.: University Press of New England, 1993); Jacques Le Goff, History and Mem-
ory, translated by Steven Rendall and Elizabeth Claman (New York: Columbia Uni-
versity Press, 1992). For accounts of the memory moment in historical studies, see
Kerwin Klein, “On the Emergence of Memory in Historical Discourse,” Representa-
tions, no. 69 (2000): 127–50.

Impossible Distance1—1167
 5. Gabrielle Spiegel, “Memory and History: Liturgical Time and Historical Time,”
History and Theory, no. 41 (2002): 149–50.
6. Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, translated by Gayatri Spivak (Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1976).
7. See, among others, Edward Casey, Remembering: A Phenomenological Study (Bloom-
ington: Indiana University Press, 1987); Edward Casey, “Forgetting Remembered,”
Man and World 25, nos. 3–4 (1992): 281–311; Umberto Eco and Marilyn Migiel, “An
Ars Oblivionalis? Forget It!,” Publications of the Modern Language Association 103
(1988): 254–60; Suzanne Küchler and Walter Melion, eds., Images of Memory: On Re-
membering and Representation (Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1991); Adrian
Forty and Suzanne Küchler, eds., The Art of Forgetting (Oxford: Berg, 1999); Gary
Smith and Hinderk Emrich, eds., Vom Nutzen des Vergessens (Berlin: Akademie,
1996); Robert Scheller, “Concluding Remarks: Some Reflections on Tribal Gossip
and Other Metaphors,” in Memory and Oblivion: Proceedings of the 29th International
Congress of the History of Art, edited by Wessel Reinink and Jeroen Stumpel, 19–23
(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1999); Daniel Schacter, Searching for Memory: The
Brain, the Mind, and the Past (New York: Basic Books, 1996); Daniel Schacter, The
Seven Sins of Memory: How the Mind Forgets and Remembers (New York: Hough-
ton Mifflin, 2001); Marita Sturken, “The Remembering of Forgetting: Recovered
Memory and the Question of Experience,” Social Text, no. 57 (1998): 103–25. For
an analysis of trauma’s relation to historical writing, see Cathy Caruth, Unclaimed
Experience: Trauma, Narrative, and History (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1996); Dominick LaCapra, History and Memory after Auschwitz (Ithaca: Cor-
nell University Press, 1998); Dominick LaCapra, Writing History, Writing Trauma
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001).
8. Joachim von Sandrart, Teutsche Academie der Bau- Bild- und Mahlerey-Kunste, edited
by Christian Klemm, 2 vols. (Nordlingen: Dr. Alfons Uhl, 1994), vol. 2, 236–37.
9. For accounts of German art history in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries,
see Hans Belting, Identität im Zweifel: Ansichten der deutschen Kunst (Cologne:
DuMont, 1999); Hans Belting, The Germans and Their Art: A Troublesome Relation-
ship, translated by Scott Kleager (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998). For
the history of art and art production in Germany under National Socialism, see
Hildegard Brenner, Die Kunstpolitik des Nationalsozialismus (Rembeck bei Ham-
burg: Rohwolt, 1963); Reinhard Merker, Die bildende Kunste im Nationalsozialis-
mus: Kulturideologie–Kulturpolitik–Kulturproduktion (Cologne: DuMont, 1983);
Heinrich Dilly, Deutscher Kunsthistoriker, 1933–1945 (Munich: Deutscher Kunst-
verlag, 1988); Bettina Preiss, “Eine Wissenschaft wird zur Dienstleistung: Kunst-
geschichte im Nationalsozialismus,” in Kunst auf Befehl?, edited by Bazon Brock
and Achim Preiss, 41–58 (Munich: Klinckhardt and Biermann, 1990); Jonathan
Petropoulos, Art as Politics in the Third Reich (Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, 1996); Jonathan Petropoulos, The Faustian Bargain: The Art World
in Nazi Germany (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). For the Dürer historiog-

1681—1Chapter 7
 raphy during this period, see Jan Białostocki, Dürer and His Critics (Baden-Baden,
Germany: Valentin Koerner, 1986); Jane Campbell Hutchison, Albrecht Dürer: A
Biography (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990); Paul Munch, “Changing
German Perceptions of the Historical Role of Albrecht Dürer,” in Dürer and His
Culture, edited by Dagmar Eichberger and Charles Zika, 181–99 (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1998). For Grünewald, see Andrée Hayum, The Isenheim
Altarpiece: God’s Medicine and the Painter’s Vision (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1989), 118–49; Ingrid Schulze, Die Erschütterung der Moderne: Grünewald in
20. Jahrhundert (Leipzig: E. A. Seemann, 1991); Brigitte Schad and Thomas Ratzka,
Grünewald in der Moderne: Die Rezeption Matthias Grünewald im 20. Jahrhundert
(Cologne: Wienand, 2003).
10. Wilhelm Worringer, Form in Gothic, translated by Herbert Read (New York:
Schocken Books, 1957). For the racist dimension of Worringer’s ideas, see Carlo
Ginzburg, “Style as Inclusion, Style as Exclusion,” in Picturing Science, Producing Art,
edited by Caroline Jones and Peter Galison, 27–54 (New York: Routledge, 1998),
41–42.
11. Heinrich Schmid, Die Gemälde und Zeichnungen von Matthias Grünewald, 2 vols.
(Strasbourg: Heinrich, 1907–1911). Schmid was a student of Jacob Burckhardt and
a classmate of Heinrich Wölfflin, whose chair at the University of Basel he inherited
when Wölfflin was called to Berlin in 1901. See Hayum, The Isenheim Altarpiece, 120–22.
12. Heinrich Wölfflin, The Art of Albrecht Dürer, translated by Alastair and Heide Grieve
(London: Phaidon, 1971), 18. In his later, racially inflected account of Italian and
German art, Wölfflin nuanced this position by arguing that Dürer had borrowed
what he needed from Italian art, while never abandoning the quintessentially Ger-
man nature of his work. See Heinrich Wölfflin, Italien und das deutsche Formgefühl
(Munich: F. Bruckmann, 1931), 6.
13. Wölfflin, The Art of Albrecht Dürer, 10.
14. For an account of the Isenheim Altarpiece’s stay in Munich, see Ann Stieglitz, “The Re-
production of Agony: Toward a Reception-History of Grünewald’s Isenheim Altar
after the First World War,” Oxford Art Journal 12, no. 2 (1989): 87–103; see also Hayum,
The Isenheim Altarpiece, 140–41. For Grünewald’s reputation in German art historical
writing during these years, see Margarethe Hausenberg, Matthias Grünewald im Wan-
del der deutschen Kunstanschauung (Leipzig, Germany: J. J. Weber, 1927), 103.
15. Stieglitz, “The Reproduction of Agony,” 93.
16. Quoted in Stieglitz, “The Reproduction of Agony,” 99.
17. Stieglitz, “The Reproduction of Agony,” 99. See also Beth Irwin Lewis, George Grosz:
Art and Politics in the Weimar Republic (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991),
219–25; Ralph Jentsch, George Grosz: The Berlin Years (Milan: Editori Associati,
1997), 167–73.
18. Louis Réau, Mathias Grünewald et le retable de Colmar (Nancy, France: Berger-
Levrault, 1920), xli. The translations are my own.
19. Réau, Mathias Grünewald et le retable de Colmar, xv.

Impossible Distance1—1169
20. Réau, Mathias Grünewald et le retable de Colmar, 320.
21. Réau, Mathias Grünewald et le retable de Colmar, 337.
22. Oskar Hagen, Matthias Grünewald (Munich: R. Piper, 1923), 17.
23. Hagen, Matthias Grünewald, 23.
24. Hagen, Matthias Grünewald, 27.
25. Friedrich Haak, Albrecht Dürer: Deutschlands grosster Kunstler (Leipzig: Quelle and
Meyer, 1928), 11. Grünewald’s role in the history of expressionism has been acknowl-
edged by, for example, Peter Selz: “Grünewald . . . became the ideal of the new gen-
eration, which saw in his Isenheim altarpiece a freedom of creation following the
intrinsic logic of content and composition rather than nature. Grünewald, it was
felt, penetrated to the core of human emotion and created a truth that went far be-
yond the doubtful truth of reality. Young artists recognized in Grünewald the fer-
vent religious faith for which many of them had been searching” (German Expres-
sionist Painting [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1957], 17).
26. Haak, Albrecht Dürer, 12.
27. For the fate of Expressionism in National Socialist party politics, see Brenner, Die
Kunstpolitik des Nationalsozialismus, 63–86; Stephanie Barron, “1937: Modern Art
and Politics in Prewar Germany,” in “Degenerate Art”: The Fate of the Avant-Garde
in Nazi Germany, 9–23 (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum, 1991); Katha-
rina Heinemann, “Entdeckung und Vereinahmung: Zur Grünewald-Rezeption
in Deutschland bis 1945,” in Grünewald in der Moderne: Die Rezeption Matthias
Grünewald im 20. Jahrhundert, edited by Brigitte Schad and Thomas Ratzka, 8–17
(Cologne: Wienand, 2003); and Peter Paret, An Artist against the Third Reich: Ernst
Barlach, 1933–1938 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003). I am grateful to
Lionel Gossman for the Paret reference.
28. Hans Schwerte, Faust und das Faustische: Ein Kapitel deutscher Ideologie (Stuttgart:
Ernst Klett Verlag, 1962), 243–78. For a review of the literature on this print, see
Pierre Vaisse, Reître ou chevalier? Dürer et l’idéologie allemande (Paris: Maison des
sciences de l’homme, 2006); and Martin Ruehl, “A Master from Germany: Thomas
Mann, Albrecht Dürer, and the Making of a National Icon,” Oxford German Studies
38, no. 1 (2009): 61–106. The methodologies used by art historians in the print’s
interpretation, particularly those of Wölfflin and Panofsky, are illuminatingly dis-
cussed by Whitney Davis in “Visuality and Pictoriality,” in A General Theory of Visual
Culture, 230–74 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011).
29. Quoted in Białostocki, Dürer and His Critics, 240.
30. Hans F. K. Günther, Ritter, Tod, und Teufel: Der Heldische Gedanken (Munich: J. F.
Lehmann, 1937).
31. Panofsky, Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art, 106. See also his Perspective as
Symbolic Form.
32. Panofsky, Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art, 108.
33. Stephen Melville, “The Temptation of New Perspectives,” October 52 (1990): 11. See
also Iversen and Melville, Writing Art History, 15–26.

1701—1Chapter 7
34. Erwin Panofsky, “The History of Art as a Humanistic Discipline,” in Meaning in the
Visual Arts, 1–25 (Garden City, N.J.: Doubleday, 1955), 2.
35. For Panofsky’s Hegelianism, see Ernst Gombrich, In Search of Cultural History
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1969), 28.
36. Erwin Panofsky, The Life and Art of Albrecht Dürer, 2 vols. (Princeton: Princeton Uni-
versity Press, 1955).
37. Panofsky, The Life and Art of Albrecht Dürer, 171.
38. See Keith Moxey, “Panofsky’s Melancolia,” in The Practice of Theory: Poststructural-
ism, Cultural Politics, and Art History, 65–78 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994).
39. Georges Didi-Huberman, “Before the Image, Before Time: The Sovereignty of
Anachronism,” translated by Peter Mason, in Compelling Visuality: The Work of Art
in and out of History, edited by Claire Farago and Robert Zwijnenberg, 31–44 (Min-
neapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003), 37.
40. Didi-Huberman, “Before the Image, Before Time,” 41–42.
41. Peter Strieder, The Hidden Dürer, translated by Vivienne Menkes (Chicago: Rand
McNally, 1978); Peter Strieder, Albrecht Dürer: Paintings, Prints, Drawings (New
York: Abaris Books, 1982); Fedja Anzelewsky, Albrecht Dürer: Das malerische Werk
(Berlin: Deutscher Verlag für Kunstwissenschaft, 1971); Fedja Anzelewsky, Dürer:
His Art and Life, translated by Heide Grieve (New York: Alpine Fine Arts Collec-
tion, 1981); Fedja Anzelewsky, Dürer-Studien: Untersuchungen zu den ikonographi-
schen und geistesgeschichtlichen Grundlagen seiner Werk zwischen beiden Italienreisen
(Berlin: Deutscher Verlag für Kunstwissenschaft, 1983).
42. Anzelewsky, Dürer-Studien.
43. An overview of the events with which this anniversary was commemorated in both
West and East Germany is included in Günther Bräutigam and Matthias Mende,
“‘Mähen mit Durer’: Literatur und Ereignisse im Umkreis des Dürer-Jahres 1971;
Teil 1,” Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 61 (1974): 204–82.
44. Albrecht Dürer, 1471–1971, exhibition catalogue, Germanisches Nationalmuseum,
Nuremberg (Munich: Prestel, 1971).
45. Ines Bach et al., eds., Ausstellungsdidaktik im Albrecht Dürer-Jahr 1971 (Berlin: Lehr-
stuhl für Kunstgeschichte, Technische Universität Berlin, 1972); Dieter Wuttke,
Nuremberg: Focal Point of German Culture and History; A Lecture (Bamberg, Ger-
many: H. Kaiser, 1987).
46. Rudolph Kober and Gerd Lindner, “Paradigma Grünewald: Zur Erbe-Rezeption in
der bildende Kunst der DDR,” in Grünewald in der Moderne: Die Rezeption Matthias
Grünewald im 20. Jahrhundert, edited by Brigitte Schad and Thomas Ratzka, 32–43
(Cologne: Wienand, 2003), 35.
47. Ernst Ullmann, Günter Grau, and Rainer Behrends, eds., Albrecht Dürer: Zeit und
Werk (Leipzig: Karl Marx Universität, 1971), vii.
48. Ernst Ullmann, “Albrecht Dürer und die frühbürgerliche Revolution in Deutsch-
land,” in Albrecht Dürer: Zeit und Werk, edited by Ernst Ullmann et al., 55–90
(Leipzig, Germany: Karl Marx Universität, 1971), 82.

Impossible Distance1—1171
49. Wolfgang Hütt, Deutsche Malerei und Graphik der frühbürgerlichen Revolution
(Leipzig: E. A. Seemann, 1973), 334.
50. Mathis Hütt, Gothardt-Neithardt gennant “Grünewald”: Leben und Werk im Spiegel
der Forschung (Leipzig: E. A. Seemann, 1968), 89–90.
51. Peter Feist, “Albrecht Dürer: Seine Bedeutung fur die sozialistische Nationalkultur
in der DDR,” in Albrecht Dürer: Zeit und Werk, edited by Ernst Ullmann, Günther
Grau, and Rainer Behrends, 173–78 (Leipzig, Germany: Karl Marx Universität,
1971), 178.
52. Joseph Koerner, The Moment of Self-Portraiture in German Renaissance Art (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1993).
53. Koerner, The Moment of Self-Portraiture in German Renaissance Art, xix.
54. For Panofsky’s use of Cassirer’s concept of “symbolic forms,” see Michael Ann
Holly, Panofsky and the Foundations of Art History (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1984), chapter 5.
55. For a history of the concept of objectivity see Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison,
Objectivity (New York: Zone Books, 2007).
56. Koerner, The Moment of Self-Portraiture in German Renaissance Art, xvi, fn. 4.
57. Hayum, The Isenheim Altarpiece, 1–12. For Baxandall’s approach to a “social history
of art,” see Painting and Experience in Fifteenth Century Italy, and Patterns of Inten-
tion. Baxandall self-reflexively addresses the strengths and limitations of his method
in “Art, Society, and the Bouguer Principle,” Representations 12 (1985): 32–43. His
notion of the “period eye” is discussed by Allan Langdale in “Aspects of the Criti-
cal Reception and Intellectual History of Baxandall’s Concept of the Period Eye,” in
About Michael Baxandall, edited by Adrian Rifkin, 17–35 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999).
58. See Michael Ann Holly, “Patterns in the Shadows: Attention in/to the Writings
of Michael Baxandall,” in About Michael Baxandall, edited by Adrian Rifkin, 5–16
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1999).
59. Hans Belting, Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art, trans-
lated by Edmund Jephcott (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994). Belting’s
ideas are extended and developed by Nagel and Wood in Anachronic Renaissance.
For the argument that works of art determine their own reception, see Michael
Ann Holly, Past Looking: Historical Imagination and the Rhetoric of the Image (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1996). The philosophical foundation for the claim that
works create their own histories can be traced to Martin Heidegger’s “The Origin
of the Work of Art,” in Poetry, Language, Thought, translated by Albert Hofstadter,
15–86 (New York: Harper and Row, 1971). See also Iversen and Melville, Writing Art
History.

1721—1Chapter 7
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Parveen. “Out of Sight, Out of Body: The Sugimoto/Demand Effect.” Grey
Room, no. 22 (2006): 86–104.
Agamben, Giorgio. “What Is Contemporary?” In What Is an Apparatus? And Other
Essays, translated by David Kishik and Stefan Pedatella, 39–54. Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 2009.
Ainsworth, Maryan. “‘Paternes for Phiosioneamyes’: Holbein’s Portraiture Reconsid-
ered.” Burlington Magazine 132 (1990): 173–86.
Alberro, Alexander. “Periodizing Contemporary Art.” In Crossing Cultures: Conflict,
Migration and Convergence; The Proceedings of the 32nd International Congress of the
History of Art, edited by Jaynie Anderson, 935–39. Melbourne: Melbourne Univer-
sity Publishing, 2009.
Albrecht Dürer, 1471–1971. Exhibition catalogue. Germanisches Nationalmuseum,
Nuremberg. Munich: Prestel, 1971.
Aleci, Linda Klinger. “Images of Identity: Italian Portrait Collections of the Fifteenth
and Sixteenth Centuries.” In The Image of the Individual: Portraits of the Renaissance,
edited by Nicholas Mann and Luke Syson, 67–79. London: Trustees of the British
Museum, 1998.
Alpers, Svetlana. “Is Art History?” Daedalus 6, no. 3 (1977): 1–13.
Andermann, Kerstin. “Malerei im Spannungsfeld von Phanomenologie und Im-
manenzphilosophie.” In Kulturen des Bildes, edited by Birgit Mersmann and Martin
Schulz, 249–63. Munich: Fink, 2006.
Ankersmit, Frank. Narrative Logic: A Semantic Analysis of the Historian’s Language. The
Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1983.
———. Sublime Historical Experience. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005.
Anzelewsky, Fedja. Albrecht Dürer: Das malerische Werk. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag für
Kunstwissenschaft, 1971.
———. Dürer: His Art and Life, translated by Heide Grieve. New York: Alpine Fine
Arts Collection, 1981.
———. Dürer-Studien: Untersuchungen zu den ikonographischen und geistesgeschicht-
lichen Grundlagen seiner Werk zwischen beiden Italienreisen. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag
für Kunstwissenschaft, 1983.
Appadurai, Arjun. “Introduction: Commodities and the Politics of Value.” In The
Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, edited by Arjun Appadurai,
3–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Araeen, Rasheed, Sean Cubitt, and Ziauddin Sardar, eds. The Third Text Reader on Art,
Culture and Theory. London: Continuum, 2002.
Aston, Margaret. England’s Iconoclasts, vol. 1, Laws against Images. Oxford: Clarendon,
1988.
———. Faith and Fire: Popular and Unpopular Religion 1350–1600. London: Hamble-
don, 1993.
Augé, Marc. Non-places: An Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity, trans-
lated by John Howe. London: Verso, 1995.
Bach, Ines, et al., eds. Ausstellungsdidaktik im Albrecht Dürer-Jahr 1971. Berlin: Lehr-
stuhl für Kunstgeschichte, Technische Universität Berlin, 1972.
Badiou, Alain. Handbook on Inaesthetics, translated by Alberto Toscano. Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 2005.
Bakhtin, Mikhail. “Forms of Time and the Chronotope in the Novel” (1930s). In The
Dialogic Imagination, translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, 84–258.
Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981.
Bal, Mieke. Quoting Caravaggio: Contemporary Art, Preposterous History. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1999.
———. “Heterochrony in the Act: The Migratory Politics of Time.” In Art and Visi-
bility in Migratory Culture: Enacting Conflict and Resistance, Aesthetically, edited by
Mieke Bal and Miguel Angel Hernandez-Navarro, 211–38. Amsterdam: Rodopi,
2011.
Baltrusaitis, Jurgis. Anamorphic Art, translated by W. J. Strachan. Cambridge:
Chadwyck-Healey, 1977; 1st ed. 1955.
Bann, Stephen. The Inventions of History: Essays on the Representation of the Past.
Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990.
———. Romanticism and the Rise of History. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1995.
Barringer, Tim, and Tom Flynn, eds. Colonialism and the Object: Empire, Material
Culture and the Museum. London: Routledge, 1998.
Barron, Stephanie. “1937: Modern Art and Politics in Prewar Germany.” In “Degener-
ate Art”: The Fate of the Avant-Garde in Nazi Germany, edited by Stephanie Barron,
9–23. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum, 1991.
Barthes, Roland. Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography, translated by Richard
Howard. New York: Hill and Wang, 1981.
———. “The Reality Effect.” In French Literary Theory Today: A Reader, edited by
Tzvetan Todorov, translated by R. Carter, 11–17. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1982.

1781—1Bibliography
———. “The Discourse of History” (1968). In The Rustle of Language, translated by
Richard Howard, 127–41. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.
Bätschmann, Oskar, and Pascal Griener. “Holbein-Apelles: Wettbewerb und Defini-
tion des Kunstlers.” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 57 (1994): 625–50.
———. Hans Holbein, translated by Cecilia Hurley and Pascal Griener. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1997.
Baxandall, Michael. Painting and Experience in Fifteenth Century Italy: A Primer in the
Social History of Pictorial Style. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972.
———. “Art, Society, and the Bouguer Principle.” Representations 12 (1985): 32–43.
———. Patterns of Intention: On the Historical Explanation of Pictures. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1985.
Belting, Hans. The End of the History of Art, translated by Christopher Wood. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1987.
———. Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art, translated
by Edmund Jephcott. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994; 1st ed. 1990.
———. Das Ende der Kunstgeschichte: Eine Revision nach zehn Jahren. Munich: Beck,
1995.
———. The Germans and Their Art: A Troublesome Relationship, translated by Scott
Kleager. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998.
———. Identität im Zweifel: Ansichten der deutschen Kunst. Cologne: DuMont, 1999.
———. An Anthropology of Images: Picture, Medium, Body, translated by Thomas
Dunlap. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011; 1st ed. 2001.
———. Hieronymus Bosch: Garden of Earthly Delights, translated by Ishbel Flett.
Munich: Prestel, 2002.
———. Das echte Bild: Bildfragen als Glaubensfragen. Munich: C. H. Beck, 2005.
———. “Image, Medium, Body: A New Approach to Iconology.” Critical Inquiry 31,
no. 2 (2005): 302–19.
———. “Blickwechsel mit Bildern: Die Bildfrage als Körperfrage.” In Bilderfragen:
Die Bildwissenschaften im Aufbruch, edited by Hans Belting, 49–75. Munich:
W. Fink, 2007.
———. “Contemporary Art as Global Art: A Critical Estimate.” In The Global Art
World, edited by Hans Belting and Andrea Buddensieg, 38–73. Ostfildern: Hatje
Cantz, 2009.
Benjamin, Walter. “On the Mimetic Faculty” (1933). In Walter Benjamin: Selected Writ-
ings, vol. 2, 1927–1934, edited by Michael Jennings, 720–22. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1999.
———. “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility” (1936).
In Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings, vol. 3, 1935–1938, edited by Michael Jennings,
101–33. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002.
———. “On Some Motifs in Baudelaire” (1939). In Walter Benjamin: Selected Writ-
ings, vol. 4, 1938–1940, edited by Michael Jennings, 313–55. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 2005.

Bibliography1—1179
Bennett, Jill. Empathetic Vision: Affect, Trauma, and Contemporary Art. Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 2005.
Berger, Harry, Jr. Fictions of the Pose: Rembrandt against the Italian Renaissance. Stan-
ford: Stanford University Press, 2000.
Berkhofer, Robert, Jr. Beyond the Great Story: History as Text and Discourse. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1995.
Białostocki, Jan. Dürer and His Critics, 1500–1971: Chapters in the History of Ideas, In-
cluding a Collection of Texts. Baden-Baden, Germany: Valentin Koerner, 1986.
Bloch, Ernst. “Non-contemporaneity and Contemporaneity, Philosophically.” In Heri-
tage of Our Times, translated by Neville and Stephen Plaice, 104–16. Cambridge:
Polity Press, 1991.
Boehm, Gottfried. “Die Wiederkehr der Bilder.” In Was ist ein Bild?, edited by Gott-
fried Boehm, 11–38. Munich: W. Fink, 1994.
———, ed. Was ist ein Bild? Munich: W. Fink, 1994.
———. “Bildbeschreibung: Über die Grenzen von Bild und Sprache.” In Be-
schreibungskunst—Kunstbeschreibung: Ekphrasis von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart,
edited by Gottfried Boehm, 23–40. Munich: W. Fink, 1995.
———. Wie Bilder Sinn erzeugen: Die Macht des Zeigens. Berlin: Berlin University
Press, 2007.
Boehm, Gottfried, and W. J. T. Mitchell. “Pictorial versus Iconic Turn: Two Letters.”
In The Pictorial Turn, edited by Neil Curtis, 8–17. London: Routledge, 2010.
Bogen, Steffen. “Kunstgeschichte/Kunstwissenschaft.” In Bildwissenschaft: Disziplinen,
Themen, Methoden, edited by Klaus Sachs-Hombach, 52–67. Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp, 2005.
Boucher, Bruce. “Jacob Burckhardt and the ‘Renaissance’ North of the Alps.” In Time
and Place: The Geohistory of Art, edited by Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann and Eliza-
beth Pilliod, 21–35. London: Ashgate, 2005.
Bourriaud, Nicolas. “Altermodern.” In Altermodern, edited by Nicolas Bourriaud.
Exhibition catalogue. London: Tate Publishing, 2009.
Boym, Svetlana. The Future of Nostalgia. New York: Basic Books, 2001.
Bräutigam, Günther, and Matthias Mende. “‘Mähen mit Durer’: Literatur und
Ereignisse im Umkreis des Dürer-Jahres 1971; Teil 1.” Mitteilungen des Vereins für
Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 61 (1974): 204–82.
Bredekamp, Horst. “Editorial.” Bilder in Prozessen: Bildwelten des Wissens; Kunsthisto-
risches Jahrbuch fur Bildkritik 1, no. 1 (2003): 7–8.
———. “Drehmomente—Merkmale und Ansprüche des Iconic Turn.” In Iconic
Turn: Die Neue Macht der Bilder, edited by Christa Maar and Hubert Burda, 15–26.
Cologne: Du Mont, 2004.
———. Darwins Korallen: Die frühen Evolutionsdiagramme und die Tradition der
Naturgeschichte. Berlin: Wagenbach, 2005.
———. Theorie des Bildakts. Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2010.

1801—1Bibliography
Brenner, Hildegard. Die Kunstpolitik des Nationalsozialismus. Rembeck bei Hamburg:
Rohwolt, 1963.
Brinker, Helmut, and Hiroshi Kanazawa. Zen Masters of Meditation in Images and Writ-
ings, translated by Andreas Leisinger. Zurich: Artibus Asiae, 1996.
Brotton, Jerry. The Renaissance Bazaar: From the Silk Road to Michelangelo. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2002.
Brougher, Kerry, and David Elliott. Hiroshi Sugimoto. Washington: Hirshhorn
Museum, 2006.
Brown, Marshall. “Periods and Resistances.” Modern Language Quarterly 62, no. 4
(2001): 309–16.
Bryson, Norman. Vision and Painting: The Logic of the Gaze. New Haven: Yale Univer-
sity Press, 1983.
———. “House of Wax.” In Cindy Sherman, 1975–1993, by Rosalind Krauss, 216–23.
New York: Rizzoli, 1993.
———. “Hiroshi Sugimoto’s Metabolic Photography.” Parkett, no. 46 (1996): 120–31.
———. “Visual Culture and the Dearth of Images.” Journal of Visual Culture 2, no. 2
(2003): 229–32.
Buchanan, Ian. “The Collection of Niclaes Jonghelinck: II. The ‘Months’ by Pieter
Bruegel the Elder.” Burlington Magazine 132 (1990): 541–50.
Buck-Morss, Susan. The Dialectics of Seeing: Walter Benjamin and the Arcades Project.
Cambridge: MIT Press, 1989.
Bullen, J. B. The Myth of the Renaissance in Nineteenth-Century Writing. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1994.
Burke, Peter. The Renaissance. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press Interna-
tional, 1987.
———, ed. The Writing of World Histories. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1989.
Burckhardt, Jacob. The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy: An Essay. London: Phai-
don, 1965; 1st ed. Leipzig, 1869.
Carrard, Phillipe. Poetics of the New History: French Historical Discourse from Braudel to
Chartier. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.
Carrier, David. Writing about Visual Art. New York: Allworth Press, 2003.
———. A World Art History and Its Objects. University Park: Pennsylvania State Uni-
versity Press, 2008.
Caruth, Cathy. Unclaimed Experience: Trauma, Narrative, and History. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1996.
Casey, Edward. Remembering: A Phenomenological Study. Bloomington: Indiana Uni-
versity Press, 1987.
———. “Forgetting Remembered.” Man and World 25, nos. 3–4 (1992): 281–311.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Differ-
ence. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.
Christensen, Carl. Art and the Reformation in Germany. Athens: Ohio University Press,
1979.

Bibliography1—1181
Clark, John. Modern Asian Art. Sydney: Craftsman House; Honolulu: University of
Hawai‘i Press, 1998.
———. “Modernities in Art: How Are They Other?” In World Art Studies: Exploring
Concepts and Approaches, edited by Kitty Zijlmans and Wilfried van Damme, 401–
18. Amsterdam: Valiz, 2008.
Clark, T. J. Image of the People: Gustave Courbet and the 1848 Revolution. London:
Thames and Hudson, 1973.
———. The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and His Followers.
London: Thames and Hudson, 1985.
Costello, Diarmuid. “Aura, Face, and Photography: Re-reading Benjamin Today.”
In Walter Benjamin and Art, edited by Andrew Benjamin, 164–84. London: Con-
tinuum, 2005.
Crow, Thomas. “The Practice of Art History in the United States.” Daedalus 135, no. 2
(2006): 7–91.
D’Amico, Robert. Historicism and Knowledge. London: Routledge, 1989.
Damisch, Hubert. A Theory of /Cloud/: Toward a History of Painting, translated by
Janet Lloyd. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002; 1st ed. 1972.
———. The Judgment of Paris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996; 1st ed. 1992.
Danto, Arthur. Cindy Sherman: History Portraits. New York: Rizzoli, 1991.
———. “Introduction: Modern, Postmodern, and Contemporary.” In After the End of
Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History, 3–19. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1997.
Daston, Lorraine. “Introduction: The Coming into Being of Scientific Objects.” In
Biographies of Scientific Objects, edited by Lorraine Daston, 1–14. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 2000.
Daston, Lorraine, and Peter Galison, “The Image of Objectivity.” Representations, no.
40 (1992): 81–128.
———. Objectivity. New York: Zone Books, 2007.
Davis, Whitney. “The Subject in the Scene of Representation.” Art Bulletin 76 (1994):
570–95.
———. “Visuality and Pictoriality.” In A General Theory of Visual Culture, 230–74.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011.
de Certeau, Michel. The Writing of History, translated by Tom Conley. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1988.
———. The Mystic Fable: The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, translated by
Michael Smith. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
Deleuze, Gilles, and Felix Guattari. What Is Philosophy?, translated by Hugh Tomlin-
son and Graham Burchell. New York: Columbia University Press, 1991.
Delumeau, Jean. Sin and Fear: The Emergence of a Western Guilt Culture, 13th–18th
Centuries, translated by Eric Nicholson. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1983.
Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology, translated by Gayatri Spivak. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1976; 1st ed. 1967.

1821—1Bibliography
Didi-Huberman, Georges. Confronting Images: Questioning the Ends of a Certain History
of Art, translated by John Goodman. University Park: Pennsylvania State University
Press, 2005; 1st ed. 1990.
———. Ce que nous voyons, ce qui nous regarde. Paris: Minuit, 1992.
———. Fra Angelico: Dissemblance and Figuration, translated by Jane Marie Todd.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
———. “The Portrait, the Individual, and the Singular: Remarks on the Legacy of
Aby Warburg.” In The Image of the Individual: Portraits in the Renaissance, edited by
Nicholas Mann and Luke Syson, 165–85. London: British Museum Press, 1998.
———. “Obscures survivances, petits retours et grande Renaissance: Remarque sue
les modèles de temps chez Warburg et Panofsky.” In The Italian Renaissance in the
Twentieth Century: Acts of an International Conference, Florence, Villa I Tatti, June 9–11,
1999, edited by Allen Grieco et al., 207–22. Florence: Olschki, 1999.
———. L’image survivante: Histoire de l’art et temps des fantômes selon Aby Warburg.
Paris: Minuit, 2002.
———. “Before the Image, Before Time: The Sovereignty of Anachronism,” trans-
lated by Peter Mason. In Compelling Visuality: The Work of Art in and out of History,
edited by Claire Farago and Robert Zwijnenberg, 31–44. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 2003.
———. “History and Image: Has the ‘Epistemological Transformation’ Taken
Place?” Translated by Vivian Rehberg. In The Art Historian: National Traditions
and Institutional Practices, edited by Michael Zimmermann, 128–43. Williamstown,
Mass.: Clark Art Institute, 2003.
Dikovitskaya, Margaret. Visual Culture: The Study of the Visual after the Cultural Turn.
Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005.
Dilly, Heinrich. Deutscher Kunsthistoriker, 1933–1945. Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag,
1988.
Duffy, Eamonn. The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England ca. 1400–ca.
1580. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.
Dülberg, Angelica. Privatporträts: Geschichte und Ikonologie einer Gattung im 15. und 16.
Jahrhundert. Berlin: Mann, 1990.
Dumoulin, Olivier, and Raphaël Valéry, eds. Periodes: La construction du temps histo-
rique. Paris: Histoire au Present, 1991.
Eco, Umberto, and Marilyn Migiel. “An Ars Oblivionalis? Forget It!” Publications of the
Modern Language Association 103, no. 3 (1988): 254–61.
Elkins, James. “Art History without Theory.” Critical Inquiry 14, no. 2 (1988): 354–78.
———. “Art History and Images That Are Not Art.” Art Bulletin 77, no. 4 (1995):
533–71.
———. On Pictures and the Words That Fail Them. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1998.
———. The Domain of Images. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999.
———. Visual Studies: A Skeptical Introduction. New York: Routledge, 2003.

Bibliography1—1183
———. “Art History as a Global Discipline.” In Is Art History Global?, edited by
James Elkins, 3–23. New York: Routledge, 2007.
———. “Introduction.” In Visual Practices across the University, edited by James
Elkins, 9–57. Munich: W. Fink, 2007.
———. “On David Summers’s Real Spaces.” In Is Art History Global?, edited by James
Elkins, 41–71. New York: Routledge, 2007.
———, ed. Visual Practices across the University. Munich: Fink, 2007.
———. “Introduction to an Abandoned Book.” In Renaissance Theory, edited by
James Elkins and Robert Williams, 29–46. New York: Routledge, 2008.
Elkins, James, and Maja Naef, eds. What Is an Image? College Park: Pennsylvania State
University Press, 2011.
Elsner, Jaś. “Art History as Ekphrasis.” Art History 33, no. 1 (2010): 10–27.
Enwezor, Okwui, ed. The Short Century: Independence and Liberation Movements in
Africa, 1945–1994. Munich: Prestel, 2001.
———. “Modernity and Postcolonial Ambivalence.” In Altermodern, edited by
Nicolas Bourriaud. Exhibition catalogue. London: Tate Publishing, 2009.
Errington, Shelly. The Death of Authentic Primitive Art and Other Tales of Progress.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.
Eyene, Christine. “Sekoto and Negritude: The Ante-room of French Culture.” Third
Text 24 (2010): 423–35.
Fabian, Johannes. Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1983.
Falkenburg, Reindert. “Pieter Bruegels Kruisdraging: Een proeve van ‘close reading.’”
Oud Holland 107, no. 1 (1993): 17–33.
———. “Pieter Bruegel’s Series of the Seasons: On the Perception of Divine Order.”
In Liber Amicorum Raphaël de Smedt, vol. 2, Artium Historia, edited by Joost van der
Auwera, 253–76. Louvain, Belgium: Peeters, 2001.
Farago, Claire, ed. Reframing the Renaissance: Visual Culture in Europe and Latin
America, 1450–1650. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.
Faure, Bernard. The Rhetoric of Immediacy: A Cultural Critique of Chan/Zen Buddhism.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991.
———. Visions of Power: Imagining Medieval Japanese Buddhism, translated by Phyllis
Brooks. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996.
Feist, Peter. “Albrecht Dürer: Seine Bedeutung fur die sozialistische Nationalkultur
in der DDR.” In Albrecht Dürer: Zeit und Werk, edited by Ernst Ullmann, Günther
Grau, and Rainer Behrends, 173–78. Leipzig, Germany: Karl Marx Universität, 1971.
Ferguson, Wallace. The Renaissance in Historical Thought: Five Centuries of Interpreta-
tion. Cambridge, Mass.: Riverside Press, 1948.
Foister, Susan. Holbein in England. London: Tate Publishing, 2006.
Forty, Adrian, and Suzanne Küchler, eds. The Art of Forgetting. Oxford: Berg, 1999.
Foster, Hal, Rosalind Krauss, Yve-Alain Bois, and Benjamin Buchloh, eds. Art since

1841—1Bibliography
 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism. New York: Thames and Hudson,
2004.
———. “Roundtable: The Predicament of Contemporary Art.” In Art since 1900:
Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism, edited by Hal Foster, Rosalind Krauss,
Yve-Alain Bois, and Benjamin Buchloh, 671–79. New York: Thames and Hudson,
2004.
Foucault, Michel. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New
York: Vintage Books, 1971; 1st ed. 1966.
Foulk, T. Griffith, and Robert H. Sharf. “On the Ritual Use of Ch’an Portraiture in
Medieval China.” Cahiers d’Extreme Asie, no. 7 (1993): 149–219.
———. “Religious Functions of Buddhist Art in China.” In Cultural Intersections in
Later Chinese Buddhism, edited by Marsha Weidner, 13–29. Honolulu: University of
Hawai‘i Press, 2001.
Freedberg, David. The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of Response.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.
Freedberg, David, and Vittorio Gallese. “Motion, Emotion and Empathy in Esthetic
Experience.” Trends in Cognitive Science 11, no. 5 (2007): 197–203.
Fried, Michael. Absorption and Theatricality: Painting and the Beholder in the Age of
Diderot. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980.
———. Courbet’s Realism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.
———. “Without a Trace.” Artforum, March 2005, 199–203.
Galison, Peter. Einstein’s Clocks, Poincare’s Maps: Empires of Time. New York: Norton,
2003.
Geiger, Jason. “Hegel’s Contested Legacy: Rethinking the Relation between Art His-
tory and Philosophy.” Art Bulletin 93, no. 2 (2011): 178–94.
Gelfand, Laura, and Walter Gibson. “Surrogate Selves: The Rolin Madonna and the
Late-Medieval Devotional Portrait.” Simiolus 29 (2002): 119–38.
Gell, Alfred. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998.
———. “The Technology of Enchantment and the Enchantment of Technology.”
In Anthropology, Art, and Aesthetics, edited by Jeremy Coote and Anthony Shelton,
40–63. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992.
———. “Vogel’s Net: Traps as Artworks and Artworks as Traps.” In The Anthropology
of Art: A Reader, edited by Howard Morphy and Morgan Perkins, 219–35. Oxford:
Blackwell, 2006.
Gerlo, Aloïs. Erasme et ses portraitistes: Metsijs, Dürer, Holbein. Brussels: Cercle d’Art,
1950.
Gilbert, Felix. History or Culture? Reflections on Ranke and Burckhardt. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1990.
Ginzburg, Carlo. “Style as Inclusion, Style as Exclusion.” In Picturing Science, Producing
Art, edited by Caroline Jones and Peter Galison, 27–54. New York: Routledge, 1998.
———. Wooden Eyes: Nine Reflections on Distance. New York: Columbia University
Press, 2002.

Bibliography1—1185
Gombrich, Ernst. “Vogue for Abstract Art.” In Meditations on a Hobby Horse, 143–50.
London: Phaidon, 1965.
———. Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation. Prince-
ton: Princeton University Press, 1969.
———. In Search of Cultural History. Oxford: Clarendon, 1969.
———. “Norm and Form: The Stylistic Categories of Art History and Their Ori-
gins in Renaissance Ideals.” In Norm and Form: Studies in the Art of the Renaissance,
81–98. London: Phaidon, 1971.
———. “The Father of Art History: A Reading of the Lectures on Aesthetics of GWF
Hegel (1770–1831).” In Tributes: Interpreters of Our Cultural Tradition, 51–69. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1984.
Goodman, Nelson. Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Indianapolis,
Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill, 1968.
Gossman, Lionel. Basel in the Age of Burckhardt. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2000.
———. Between History and Literature. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990.
Greenberg, Clement. Art and Culture: Critical Essays. Boston: Beacon, 1989.
Gregory, Joseph. “Towards the Contextualization of Pieter Bruegel’s Procession to
Calvary: Constructing the Beholder from within the Eyckian Tradition.” Nederlands
Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 47 (1996): 207–21.
Gross, Kenneth. The Dream of the Moving Statue. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992.
Grosz, Elizabeth. Chaos, Territory, Art: Deleuze and the Framing of the Earth. New York:
Columbia University Press, 2008.
Guha, Ranajit. History at the Limits of World History. New York: Columbia University
Press, 2002.
Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich, and Ursula Link-Heer, eds. Epochenschwellen und Epochen-
strukturen im Diskurs der Literatur- und Sprachhistorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhr-
kamp, 1985.
———. Production of Presence: What Meaning Cannot Convey. Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 2004.
Günther, Hans F. K. Ritter, Tod, und Teufel: Der Heldische Gedanken. Munich: J. F. Leh-
mann, 1937.
Haak, Friedrich. Albrecht Dürer: Deutschlands grösster Künstler. Leipzig, Germany:
Quelle and Meyer, 1928.
Hagen, Oskar. Matthias Grünewald. Munich: R. Piper, 1923.
Hallward, Peter. Badiou: A Subject to Truth. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 2003.
Hamilton, Paul. Historicism. London: Routledge, 1996.
Hand, John, and Ron Spronk, eds. Essays in Context: Unfolding the Netherlandish Dip-
tych. Cambridge: Harvard University Art Museums, 2006.
Haraway, Donna. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the
Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14, no. 3 (1988): 575–99.

1861—1Bibliography
———. “The Persistence of Vision.” In The Visual Culture Reader, edited by Nicho-
laus Mirzoeff, 191–98. London: Routledge, 2002.
Harootunian, Harry. “Some Thoughts on Comparability and the Space-Time Prob-
lem.” boundary 2 32, no. 2 (2005): 23–52.
———. “Remembering the Historical Present.” Critical Inquiry 33, no. 3 (2007):
471–94.
Harris, Jonathan, ed. Globalization and Contemporary Art. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell,
2011.
Hartog, Francois. Régimes d’historicité: Présentisme et expériences du temps. Paris: Seuil,
2003.
Haskell, Francis. History and Its Images. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.
Hassan, Salah. “The Modernist Experience in African Art: Visual Expressions of the
Self and Cross-Cultural Aesthetics.” In Reading the Contemporary: African Art from
Theory to the Marketplace, edited by Olu Oguibe and Okwui Enwezor, 215–35. Cam-
bridge: MIT Press, 1999.
Hausenberg, Margarethe. Matthias Grünewald im Wandel der deutschen Kunstan-
schauung. Leipzig, Germany: J. J. Weber, 1927.
Hayum, Andrée. The Isenheim Altarpiece: God’s Medicine and the Painter’s Vision.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989.
Heffernan, James. “Ekphrasis and Representation.” New Literary History 22 (1991):
297–316.
———. Museum of Words: The Poetry of Ekphrasis from Homer to Ashbery. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1993.
———. “Speaking for Pictures: The Rhetoric of Art Criticism.” In Cultivating Pictu-
racy: Visual Art and Verbal Interventions, 39–68. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press,
2006.
Heidegger, Martin. “The Origin of the Work of Art.” In Poetry, Language, Thought,
translated by Albert Hofstadter, 15–86. New York: Harper and Row, 1971.
Heinemann, Katharina. “Entdeckung und Vereinahmung: Zur Grünewald-Rezeption
in Deutschland bis 1945.” In Grünewald in der Moderne: Die Rezeption Matthias
Grünewald im 20. Jahrhundert, edited by Brigitte Schad and Thomas Ratzka, 8–17.
Cologne: Wienand, 2003.
Henare, Amiria, Martin Holbraad, and Sari Wastell. “Introduction.” In Thinking
through Things: Theorizing Artefacts Ethnographically, 1–31. London: Routledge, 2007.
Hernandez Navarro, Miguel Angel. “Presentacion: Antagonismos temporales.” In
Heterocronias: Tiempo, arte y arqueologias del presente, edited by Miguel Angel
Hernandez Navarro, 9–16. Murcia: CEDEAC, 2008.
———. “Contradictions in Time-Space: Spanish Art and Global Discourse.” In The
Global Art World: Audiences, Markets, and Museums, edited by Hans Belting and
Andrea Buddensieg, 136–53. Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz, 2009.
———. “Out of Synch: Visualizing Migratory Times through Video Art.” In Art and
Visibility in Migratory Culture: Enacting Conflict and Resistance, Aesthetically, edited

Bibliography1—1187
 by Mieke Bal and Miguel Angel Hernandez Navarro, 191–208. Amsterdam: Rodopi,
2011.
Hoffmann, Konrad. “Panofskys ‘Renaissance.’” In Erwin Panofsky: Beiträge des Sym-
posions Hamburg 1992, edited by Bruno Reudenbach, 139–44. Berlin: Akademie
Verlag, 1994.
Hollander, Jaap den, Herman Paul, and Rik Peters. “Historical Distance: Reflections
on a Metaphor.” Special issue, History and Theory 50 (December 2011).
Holly, Michael Ann. Panofsky and the Foundations of Art History. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1984.
———. Past Looking: Historical Imagination and the Rhetoric of the Image. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1996.
———. “Patterns in the Shadows: Attention in/to the Writings of Michael Baxan-
dall.” In About Michael Baxandall, edited by Adrian Rifkin, 5–16. Oxford: Blackwell,
1999.
Hutchison, Jane Campbell. Albrecht Dürer: A Biography. Princeton: Princeton Univer-
sity Press, 1990.
Hütt, Mathis. Gothardt-Neithardt gennant “Grünewald”: Leben und Werk im Spiegel der
Forschung. Leipzig, Germany: E. A. Seemann, 1968.
Hütt, Wolfgang. Deutsche Malerei und Graphik der frühbürgerlichen Revolution. Leipzig,
Germany: E. A. Seemann, 1973.
Hutton, Patrick. History as an Art of Memory. Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New
England, 1993.
Iggers, George. The German Conception of History: The National Tradition of Historical
Thought from Herder to the Present. Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press,
1968.
Iversen, Margaret, and Stephen Melville. Writing Art History: Disciplinary Departures.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010.
Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham:
Duke University Press, 1991.
———. “The End of Temporality.” Critical Inquiry 29, no. 4 (2003): 695–718.
———. A Singular Modernity: Essay on the Ontology of the Present. London: Verso, 2002.
Jardine, Lisa, and Jerry Brotton. Global Interests: Renaissance Art between East and West.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000.
Jarzombek, Mark. “De-scribing the Language of Looking: Wölfflin and the History of
Aesthetic Experientialism.” Assemblage 23 (1994): 28–69.
Jauss, Hans Robert. “Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory.” In Toward an
Aesthetic of Reception, translated by Timothy Bahti, 3–45. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 1982.
Jay, Martin. Songs of Experience: Modern American and European Variations on a Univer-
sal Theme. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005.
Jentsch, Ralph. George Grosz: The Berlin Years. Milan: Editori Associati, 1997.
Kahane, Catharina. “Das Kreuz mit der Distanz: Passion und Landschaft in Pieter

1881—1Bibliography
 Bruegels Wiener Kreuztragung.” In Gesichter der Haut, edited by Christoph
Geissmar-Brandi, Irmela Hijiya-Kirschnereit, and Satô Naoki, 189–211. Frankfurt:
Stroemfeld, 2002.
Kapur, Geeta. “When Was Modernism in Indian Art?” In When Was Modernism: Essays
on Contemporary Cultural Practice in India, 297–324. New Delhi: Tulika Books, 2000.
Karlholm, Dan. “Surveying Contemporary Art: Post-war, Postmodern, and Then
What?” Art History 32, no. 4 (2009): 712–33.
Kaufmann, Thomas DaCosta. “Periodization and Its Discontents.” Journal of Historiog-
raphy, no. 2 (2010): 1–6.
Kemp, Wolfgang, ed. Der Betrachter ist im Bild: Kunstwissenschaft und Rezeptions-
ästhetik. Cologne: DuMont, 1985.
Kerrigan, William, and Gordon Braden. The Idea of the Renaissance. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1989.
Killein, Thomas. Hiroshi Sugimoto: Time Exposed. London: Thames and Hudson, 1995.
Klein, Kerwin. “On the Emergence of Memory in Historical Discourse.” Representa-
tions 69 (2000): 127–50.
Kober, Rudolph, and Gerd Lindner. “Paradigma Grünewald: Zur Erbe-Rezeption in
der bildende Kunst der DDR.” In Grünewald in der Moderne: Die Rezeption Matthias
Grünewald im 20. Jahrhundert, edited by Brigitte Schad and Thomas Ratzka, 32–43.
Cologne: Wienand, 2003.
Koerner, Joseph. The Moment of Self-Portraiture in German Renaissance Art. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1993.
———. “The Icon as Iconoclash.” In Iconoclash: Beyond the Image Wars in Science,
Religion, and Art, edited by Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel, 164–213. Karlsruhe,
Germany: Center for Art and Media, 2002.
———. “Impossible Objects: Bosch’s Realism.” RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 46
(2004): 73–97.
———. The Reformation of the Image. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.
———. “Unmasking the World: Bruegel’s Ethnography.” Common Knowledge 10,
no. 2 (2004): 220–51.
———. “Wirklichkeit bei Hieronymus Bosch.” In Realität und Projektion in Antike
und Mittelalter, edited by Peter Schmidt and Martin Büchsel, 227–38. Berlin: Mann,
2005.
Koselleck, Reinhart. Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time. Cambridge:
MIT Press, 1985; 1st ed. Frankfurt, 1979.
Kracauer, Siegfried. History: The Last Things before the Last. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 1969.
Krauss, Rosalind, ed. Cindy Sherman, 1975–1993. New York: Rizzoli, 1993.
Krieger, Murray. Ekphrasis: The Illusion of the Natural Sign. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1992.
Kubler, George. The Shape of Time: Remarks on the History of Things. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1963.

Bibliography1—1189
Küchler, Suzanne, and Walter Melion, eds. Images of Memory: On Remembering and
Representation. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1991.
Lacan, Jacques. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, edited by Jacques-
Alain Miller, translated by Alan Sheridan. New York: Norton, 1981; 1st ed. 1973.
LaCapra, Dominick. Rethinking Intellectual History: Texts, Contexts, Language. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1983.
———. History and Criticism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985.
———. “History and Psychoanalysis.” In Soundings in Critical Theory, 30–66. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1989.
———. History and Memory after Auschwitz. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998.
———. Writing History, Writing Trauma. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
2001.
Landauer, Carl. “Erwin Panofsky and the Renascence of the Renaissance.” Renaissance
Quarterly 47, no. 2 (1994): 255–81.
Langdale, Allan. “Aspects of the Critical Reception and Intellectual History of Baxan-
dall’s Concept of the Period Eye.” In About Michael Baxandall, edited by Adrian
Rifkin, 17–35. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999.
Latour, Bruno. “Opening One Eye while Closing the Other . . . a Note on Some Reli-
gious Paintings.” In Picturing Power: Visual Depictions and Social Relations, edited by
Gordon Fyfe and John Law, 15–38. London: Routledge, 1988.
———. The Pasteurization of France, translated by Alan Sheridan and John Law.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988.
———. “What Is Iconoclash? Or Is There a World beyond the Image Wars?” In
Iconoclash: Beyond the Image Wars in Science, Religion, and Art, edited by Bruno
Latour and Peter Weibel, 14–38. Exhibition catalogue. Karlsruhe: Center for Art and
Media, 2002.
———. “Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of
Concern.” In Things, edited by Bill Brown, 151–73. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2004.
Lee, Pamela. Chronophobia: On Time in the Art of the 1960s. Cambridge: MIT Press,
2004.
Le Goff, Jacques. The Birth of Purgatory, translated by Arthur Goldhammer. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1984.
———. History and Memory, translated by Steven Rendall and Elizabeth Claman.
New York: Columbia University Press, 1992.
Legro, Michelle. “Wanted Dead or Alive: How We Experience Sugimoto’s Portraits.”
BA thesis, Barnard College, 2005.
Lenoir, Timothy. “Inscription Practices and Materialities of Communication.” In
Inscribing Science: Scientific Texts and the Materiality of Communication, edited by
Timothy Lenoir, 1–19. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998.
Levine, Gregory. Daitokuji: The Visual Cultures of a Zen Monastery. Seattle: University
of Washington Press, 2005.

1901—1Bibliography
Lewis, Beth Irwin. George Grosz: Art and Politics in the Weimar Republic. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1991.
Lindop, Barbara. Sekoto. London: Pavilion, 1995.
Lindsay, Kenneth, and Bernard Huppé. “Meaning and Method in Bruegel’s Painting.”
Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 14, no. 4 (1956): 376–86.
Lippit, Yukio. “Negative Verisimilitude: The Zen Portrait in Medieval Japan.” In Asian
Art History in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Vishaka Desai, 64–95. Williams-
town, Mass.: Clark Art Institute, 2007.
Liu, Lydia. Tokens of Exchange: The Problem of Translation in Global Circulations.
Durham: Duke University Press, 1999.
Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, translated
by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 1984.
Mangani, N. Chabani. A Black Man Called Sekoto. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand
University Press, 1996.
Marcoci, Roxana. Thomas Demand. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2005.
Marin, Louis. “La description de l’image.” Communications 15 (1970): 186–209.
———. On Representation, translated by Catherine Porter. Stanford: Stanford Uni-
versity Press, 2001.
Massey, Doreen. For Space. London: Sage, 2005.
McEvilley, Thomas. “Art History or Sacred History?” In Art and Discontent: Theory at
the Millennium, 133–67. New York: McPherson, 1991.
Meadow, Mark. “Bruegel’s Procession to Calvary, Aemulatio and the Space of Ver-
nacular Style.” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 47 (1996): 181–205.
———. Pieter Bruegel the Elder’s Netherlandish Proverbs and the Practice of Rhetoric.
Zwolle, Netherlands: Waanders, 2002.
Meinecke, Friedrich. Historicism: The Rise of a New Historical Outlook, translated by
J. Anderson. New York: Herder and Herder, 1972.
Melville, Stephen. “The Temptation of New Perspectives.” October 52 (1990): 3–15.
Mercer, Kobena, ed. Cosmopolitan Modernisms. Cambridge: MIT Press; London:
Institute of International Visual Arts, 2005.
———, ed. Exiles, Diasporas and Strangers. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2008.
Merker, Reinhard. Die bildende Kunste im Nationalsozialismus: Kulturideologie–
Kulturpolitik–Kulturproduktion. Cologne: DuMont, 1983.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. “Eye and Mind.” In The Primacy of Perception and Other
Essays on Phenomenological Psychology and Philosophy of Art, History and Politics,
edited by James Edie and translated by Carleton Dallery, 159–90. Evanston, Ill.:
Northwestern University Press, 1964.
Mignolo, Walter. The Darker Side of the Renaissance. Ann Arbor: University of Michi-
gan Press, 1995.
Miller, Daniel. Material Culture and Mass Consumption. Oxford: Blackwell, 1987.
Mirzoeff, Nicholas. An Introduction to Visual Culture. London: Routledge, 1999.

Bibliography1—1191
Mitchell, W. J. T. Iconology: Image, Text, Ideology. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1986.
———. “‘Ut Pictura Theoria’: Abstract Painting and the Repression of Language.”
Critical Inquiry 15, no. 2 (1989): 348–71.
———. Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 1994.
———. “Showing Seeing: A Critique of Visual Culture.” In Art History, Aesthetics,
Visual Studies, edited by Michael Ann Holly and Keith Moxey, 231–50. Williams-
town, Mass.: Clark Art Institute, 2002.
———. What Do Pictures Want? The Lives and Loves of Images. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 2005.
———. Cloning Terror: The War of Images; 9/11 to the Present. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2011.
Mitter, Partha. Much Maligned Monsters: A History of European Reactions to Indian Art.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1977.
———. “Can We Ever Understand Alien Cultures? Some Epistemological Concerns
Relating to the Perception and Understanding of the Other.” Comparative Criticism
9 (1987): 3–34.
———. The Triumph of Modernism: India’s Artists and the Avant-Garde 1922–1947.
London: Reaktion, 2007.
———. “Decentering Modernism: Art History and Avant-Garde Art from the
Periphery.” Art Bulletin 90 (2008): 531–48.
Molho, Anthony. “The Italian Renaissance, Made in America.” In Imagined Histories:
American Historians Interpret the Past, edited by Anthony Molho and Gordon S.
Wood, 263–94. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998.
Mosquera, Gerardo. “Some Problems in Transcultural Curating.” In Global Visions:
Towards a New Internationalism in the Visual Arts, edited by Jean Fisher, 133–39.
London: Kala Press and the Institute of International Visual Arts, 1994.
Moxey, Keith. “Art History’s Hegelian Unconscious: Naturalism as Nationalism in the
Study of Early Netherlandish Painting.” In The Practice of Persuasion: Paradox and
Power in Art History, 8–41. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001.
———. “Making Genius.” In The Practice of Theory: Poststructuralism, Cultural Politics,
and Art History, 111–47. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994.
———. “Panofsky’s Melancolia.” In The Practice of Theory: Poststructuralism, Cultural
Politics, and Art History, 65–78. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994.
Munch, Paul. “Changing German Perceptions of the Historical Role of Albrecht
Dürer.” In Dürer and His Culture, edited by Dagmar Eichberger and Charles Zika,
181–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Nagel, Alexander, and Christopher Wood. Anachronic Renaissance. New York: Zone
Books, 2010.
Navarro, Miguel Angel Hernandez. “Presentación: Antagonismos temporales.” In

1921—1Bibliography
 Heterocronías: Tiempo, arte y arqueologías del presente, edited by Miguel Angel Her-
nandez Navarro, 9–35. Murcia, Spain: CEDEAC, 2008.
———. “Contradictions in Time-Space: Spanish Art and Global Discourse.” In The
Global Art World: Audiences, Markets, and Museums, edited by Hans Belting and
Andrea Buddensieg, 136–53. Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz, 2009.
———. “Out of Synch: Visualizing Migratory Times through Video Art.” In Art and
Visibility in Migratory Culture: Enacting Conflict and Resistance, Aesthetically, edited
by Mieke Bal and Miguel Angel Hernandez Navarro, 191–208. Amsterdam: Rodopi,
2011.
Newman, Jane. “Periodization, Modernity, Nation: Benjamin between Renaissance
and Baroque.” Journal of the Northern Renaissance, no. 1 (2009): 19–34.
Nicodemus, Everlyn. “Inside. Outside.” In Seven Stories about Modern Art in Africa,
29–36. London: Whitechapel Art Gallery, 1995.
Nora, Pierre. “Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de mémoire,” translated by
Marc Roudenbush. Representations, no. 26 (1989): 7–24.
Oguibe, Olu. “Reverse Appropriation as Nationalism in Modern African Art.” In
The Third Text Reader on Art, Culture and Theory, edited by Rasheed Araeen, Sean
Cubitt, and Ziauddin Sardar, 35–47, 351–53. London: Continuum, 2002.
Olkowski, Dorothea. Gilles Deleuze and the Ruin of Representation. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1998.
Onians, John. Art, Culture and Nature: From Art History to World Art Studies. London:
Pindar Press, 2006.
O’Sullivan, Simon. Art Encounters Deleuze and Guattari: Thought beyond Representa-
tion. London: Palgrave, 2006.
Pächt, Otto. “Design Principles of Fifteenth-Century Northern Painting” (1933),
translated by Jacqueline Jung. In The Vienna School Reader: Politics and Art Historical
Method in the 1930s, edited by Christopher Wood, 243–321. New York: Zone Books,
2003.
Pagden, Anthony. European Encounters with the New World: From the Renaissance to
Romanticism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.
Panofsky, Erwin. Perspective as Symbolic Form, translated by Christopher Wood. New
York: Zone Books, 1991; 1st ed. 1927.
———. Early Netherlandish Painting. 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1953.
———. “The History of Art as a Humanistic Discipline.” In Meaning in the Visual
Arts, 1–25. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1955.
———. The Life and Art of Albrecht Dürer. 2 vols. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1955.
———. Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art. New York: Harper and Row, 1969;
1st ed. 1960.
Paret, Peter. An Artist against the Third Reich: Ernst Barlach, 1933–1938. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Bibliography1—1193
Petropoulos, Jonathan. Art as Politics in the Third Reich. Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press, 1996.
———. The Faustian Bargain: The Art World in Nazi Germany. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 2000.
Phillips, John. The Reformation of Images: Destruction of Art in England, 1535–1660.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973.
Phillips, Mark. “Distance and Historical Representation.” History Workshop Journal 57,
no. 1 (2004): 123–41.
———. “Rethinking Historical Distance: From Doctrine to Heuristic.” History and
Theory 50 (December 2011): 11–23.
Piotrowski, Piotr. “On the Spatial Turn, or Horizontal Art History.” Umeni, no. 5
(2008): 378–83.
Podro, Michael. The Critical Historians of Art. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982.
Pollock, Griselda. Vision and Difference: Femininity, Feminism, and Histories of Art. Lon-
don: Routledge, 1987.
Poulsen, Hanne Kolind, ed. Cranach. Exhibition catalogue. Copenhagen: Statens
Museum for Kunst, 2002.
Preiss, Bettina. “Eine Wissenschaft wird zur Dienstleistung: Kunstgeschichte im
Nationalsozialismus.” In Kunst auf Befehl?, edited by Bazon Brock and Achim
Preiss, 41–58. München: Klinckhardt and Biermann, 1990.
Preziosi, Donald. Rethinking Art History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.
Quemin, Alain. “The Illusion of the Elimination of Borders in the Contemporary Art
World: The Role of the Different Countries in the ‘Era of Globalization and Metis-
sage.’” In Artwork through the Market: The Past and the Present, edited by Jan Bakos,
275–300. Bratislava, Slovakia: Center for Contemporary Art, 2004.
Rampley, Matthew. “Art History and Cultural Difference: Alfred Gell’s Anthropology
of Art.” Art History 28, no. 4 (2005): 524–51.
Rancière, Jacques. “Le concept d’anachronisme et la vérité de l’historien.” In L’inac-
tuel: Psychanalyse et culture, 53–68. Paris: Calmann-Levy, 1994.
Réau, Louis. Mathias Grünewald et le retable de Colmar. Nancy, France: Berger-
Levrault, 1920.
Renda, Gerhard. “Studien zur Gotikrezeption im deutschen Expressionismus.” In-
augural dissertation, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, 1990.
Ricoeur, Paul. Time and Narrative, translated by Kathleen Blamey and David Pellauer.
3 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984–88.
Riegl, Alois. The Group Portraiture of Holland, translated by Evelyn Kain and David
Britt. Los Angeles: Getty Research Center, 1999; 1st ed. 1931.
Riera, Gabriel, ed. Alain Badiou: Philosophy and Its Conditions. Albany: State Univer-
sity of New York Press, 2005.
Rogoff, Irit. “Studying Visual Culture.” In The Visual Culture Reader, edited by
Nicholas Mirzoeff, 14–26. London: Routledge, 1998.

1941—1Bibliography
Roskill, Mark, and Craig Harbison. “On the Nature of Holbein’s Portraits.” Word and
Image 3, no. 1 (1987): 1–26.
Ross, Christine. “The Suspension of History in Contemporary Media Arts.” Inter-
médialités, no. 11 (2008): 125–48.
Roth, Michael. The Ironist’s Cage: Memory, Trauma, and the Construction of History.
New York: Columbia University Press, 1995.
Ruehl, Martin. “A Master from Germany: Thomas Mann, Albrecht Dürer, and the
Making of a National Icon.” Oxford German Studies 38, no. 1 (2009): 61–106.
Runia, Eelco. “Presence.” History and Theory, no. 45 (2006): 1–29.
———. “Spots of Time.” History and Theory, no. 45 (2006): 305–16.
Rüsen, Jörn, ed. Western Historical Thinking: An Intercultural Debate. New York: Berg-
hahn Books, 2002.
Sandrart, Joachim von. Teutsche Academie der Bau- Bild- und Mahlerey-Kunste, edited
by Christian Klemm. 2 vols. Nordlingen: Dr. Alfons Uhl, 1994.
Sauerländer, Willibald. “Barbari ad portas: Panofsky in den funfziger Jahren.” In Erwin
Panofsky: Beiträge des Symposions Hamburg 1992, edited by Bruno Reudenbach, 123–
37. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1994.
Schacter, Daniel. Searching for Memory: The Brain, the Mind, and the Past. New York:
Basic Books, 1996.
———. The Seven Sins of Memory: How the Mind Forgets and Remembers. New York:
Houghton Mifflin, 2001.
Schad, Brigitte, and Thomas Ratzka. Grünewald in der Moderne: Die Rezeption Matthias
Grünewald im 20. Jahrhundert. Cologne: Wienand, 2003.
Schapiro, Meyer, H. W. Janson, and Ernst Gombrich. “Criteria of Periodization in the
History of European Art.” New Literary History 1, no. 2 (1970): 113–25.
Scheller, Robert. “Concluding Remarks: Some Reflections on Tribal Gossip and Other
Metaphors.” In Memory and Oblivion: Proceedings of the 29th International Congress of
the History of Art, edited by Wessel Reinink and Jeroen Stumpel, 19–23. Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic, 1999.
Schmid, Heinrich. Die Gemälde und Zeichnungen von Matthias Grünewald. 2 vols.
Strasbourg: Heinrich, 1907–11.
Schneider, Norbert. “W.J.T. Mitchell und der ‘Iconic Turn.’” Kunst und Politik 10
(2008): 29–37.
Schulze, Ingrid. Die Erschütterung der Moderne: Grünewald in 20. Jahrhundert. Leipzig,
Germany: E. A. Seemann, 1991.
Schwerte, Hans. Faust und das Faustische: Ein Kapitel deutscher Ideologie. Stuttgart,
Germany: Ernst Klett Verlag, 1962.
Scott, Joan. “The Evidence of Experience.” Critical Inquiry 17, no. 4 (1991): 773–97.
Sedlmayr, Hans. “Bruegel’s Macchia” (1934), translated by Frederic Schwartz. In
The Vienna School Reader: Politics and Art Historical Method in the 1930s, edited by
Christopher Wood, 323–76. New York: Zone Books, 2000.

Bibliography1—1195
Selz, Peter. German Expressionist Painting. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1957.
Shapiro, Gary. “The Absent Image: Ekphrasis and the ‘Infinite Relation.’” Journal of
Visual Culture 6, no. 1 (2007): 13–24.
Smith, Gary, and Hinderk Emrich, eds. Vom Nutzen des Vergessens. Berlin: Akademie
Verlag, 1996.
Smith, Terry. “Introduction: The Contemporaneity Question.” In Antinomies of Art
and Culture, edited by Terry Smith, Okwui Enwesor, and Nancy Condee, 9. Dur-
ham: Duke University Press, 2008.
———. What Is Contemporary Art? Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009.
Snow, Edward. Inside Bruegel: The Play of Images in Children’s Games. New York: Farrar,
Straus and Giroux, 1997.
Spiegel, Gabrielle. “Memory and History: Liturgical Time and Historical Time.” His-
tory and Theory, no. 41 (2002): 149–62.
Spiro, Lesley, ed. Gerard Sekoto: Unsevered Ties. Exhibition catalogue. Johannesburg:
Johannesburg Art Gallery, 1989.
Steiner, Wendy. The Colors of Rhetoric: Problems in the Relation between Modern Litera-
ture and Painting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.
Stieglitz, Ann. “The Reproduction of Agony: Toward a Reception-History of Grüne-
wald’s Isenheim Altar after the First World War.” Oxford Art Journal 12, no. 2 (1989):
87–103.
Stierle, Karlheinz. “Renaissance: Die Entstehung eines Epochenbegriffs aus dem Geist
des 19. Jahrhunderts.” Poetik und Hermeneutik 12 (1987): 453–92.
Stokes, Adrian. The Critical Writings of Adrian Stokes, vol. 2, edited by Lawrence
Gowing. London: Thames and Hudson, 1978; 1st ed. 1937.
Stridbeck, Carl. “‘Combat between Carnival and Lent,’ by Pieter Bruegel the Elder:
An Allegorical Picture of the Sixteenth Century.” Journal of the Warburg and Cour-
tauld Institutes 19, nos. 1–2 (1956): 96–109.
Strieder, Peter. The Hidden Dürer, translated by Vivienne Menkes. Chicago: Rand
McNally, 1978.
———. Albrecht Dürer: Paintings, Prints, Drawings, translated by Nancy M. Gordon
and Walter L. Strauss. New York: Abaris Books, 1982.
Sturken, Marita. “The Remembering of Forgetting: Recovered Memory and the
Question of Experience.” Social Text, no. 57 (1998): 103–25.
Summers, David. Real Spaces: World Art History and the Rise of Western Modernism.
London: Phaidon, 2003.
Talbot, Charles. “An Interpretation of Two Paintings by Cranach in the Artist’s Late
Style.” In Report and Studies in the History of Art, 67–88. Washington: National Gal-
lery of Art, 1967.
Taussig, Michael. Mimesis and Alterity: A Particular History of the Senses. New York:
Routledge, 1993.
Thomas, Nicholas. Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture, and Colonialism in
the Pacific. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991.

1961—1Bibliography
Tollebeek, Jo. “Renaissance and ‘Fossilization’: Michelet, Burckhardt, and Huizinga.”
Renaissance Studies 15, no. 3 (2001): 354–66.
Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History. Boston:
Beacon, 1995.
Troy, Nancy, Geoffrey Batchen, Amelia Jones, Pamela Lee, Romy Golan, Robert
Storr, Jodi Hauptman, and Dario Gamboni. “Interventions Reviews.” Review of Art
since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism. Art Bulletin 88, no. 2 (2006):
373–89.
Ullmann, Ernst. “Albrecht Dürer und die frühbürgerliche Revolution in Deutschland.”
In Albrecht Dürer: Zeit und Werk, edited by Ernst Ullmann et al., 55–90. Leipzig:
Karl Marx Universität, 1971.
Ullmann, Ernst, Günter Grau, and Rainer Behrends, eds. Albrecht Dürer: Zeit und
Werk. Leipzig: Karl Marx Universität, 1971.
Unverfehrt, Gerd. Hieronymus Bosch: Die Rezeption seiner Kunst im frühen 16. Jahrhun-
dert. Berlin, Mann, 1980.
Vaisse, Pierre. Reître ou chevalier? Dürer et l’idéologie allemande. Paris: Maison des sci-
ences de l’homme, 2006.
Velden, Hugo van der. “Medici Votive Images and the Scope and Limits of Likeness.”
In The Image of the Individual: Portraits of the Renaissance, edited by Nicholas Mann
and Luke Syson, 126–37. London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1998.
Venuti, Lawrence. “Ekphrasis, Translation, Critique.” Art in Translation 2 (2010): 131–52.
Warburg, Aby. “The Art of Portraiture and the Florentine Bourgeoisie.” In The Renewal
of Pagan Antiquity: Contributions to the Cultural History of the European Renaissance,
translated by David Britt, 185–221. Los Angeles: Getty Research Center, 1999.
White, Hayden. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974.
———. Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1978.
———. The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987.
Wölfflin, Heinrich. Principles of Art History: The Problem of the Development of Style in
Later Art, translated by M. D. Hottinger. London: Bell, 1932; 1st ed. 1918.
———. The Art of Albrecht Dürer, translated by Alastair and Heide Grieve. London:
Phaidon, 1971; 1st ed. 1919.
———. Italien und das deutsche Formgefühl. Munich: F. Bruckmann, 1931.
Wollheim, Richard. Art and Its Objects: An Introduction to Aesthetics. New York: Harper
and Row, 1971.
Wood, Christopher. “Art History’s Normative Renaissance.” In The Italian Renaissance
in the Twentieth Century: Acts of an International Conference, Florence, Villa I Tatti,
June 9–11, 1999, edited by Allen Grieco et al., 65–92. Florence: Olschki, 1999.
The World of Tycho Brahe. Exhibition Catalogue. Copenhagen: National Museum of
Denmark, 2006.

Bibliography1—1197
Worringer, Wilhelm. Form in Gothic, translated by Herbert Read. New York: Schocken
Books, 1957.
Wuttke, Dieter. Nuremberg: Focal Point of German Culture and History; A Lecture. Bam-
berg: H. Kaiser, 1987.
Wyss, Beat. “Ein Druckfehler.” In Erwin Panofsky: Beiträge des Symposions Hamburg
1992, edited by Bruno Reudenbach, 191–99. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1994.
Zijlmans, Kitty, and Wilfried van Damme, eds. World Art Studies: Exploring Concepts
and Approaches. Amsterdam: Valiz, 2008.

1981—1Bibliography
 INDEX

Note: Page numbers in italics indicate illustrations. Texts are annotated with the date of
publication to distinguish them from works of art.

Abstract Expressionism, 12 Alpers, Svetlana, 60

abstraction, 2, 11–12, 24, 38, 127 altermodern, the, 42
achronicity, 42 anachrony, 1, 3, 31–32, 45, 61, 174; aesthetic
aesthetics: Kantian, 59, 60; reception, 162, time and, 1; art history as, 156, 158, 173;
164, 174. See also neuroaesthetics chronology and, 45–47, 55, 61; historical
affect, 45, 56, 78, 96, 174; informational time and, 141, 174–75; periodization and,
imagery and, 62–63; language and, 55, 59, 31, 42, 46
63; portraiture and, 108; power and, 3 Angelico, Fra, 28, 61; Annunciation with
Africa, art of, 11–14 Saint Peter Martyr, 28, 30
agency of the image, 57, 165; as allegory, Ankersmit, Frank, 57–58
158; concept of, 39, 53, 59, 60, 66, 101, 142; Anthonite order (Order of Saint Anthony
gaze and, 64, 87, 93, 122, 124; meaning the Great), 163
and, 4, 5–6, 101; mimesis and, 108, 117, 133; Anthony, Saint. See Anthonite order
in photography, 134n10; in portraiture, anthropology, and the status of objects, 57,
17; poststructuralism and, 39; as power- 114, 163
ful, 62, 114, 117, 122, 126, 158; presence and, Anzelewsky, Fedja, 158
63–65; presentation as, 55, 63, 68; second- Apelles, 113, 115
ary, 78, 114, 117; specular, 55–56, 108, 133; Appadurai, Arjun, 57
time and, 7, 8 Aristotle, and the theory of memory, 142
agenda: cultural, 55; ideological, 4, 44, 55, art: concept of, 38–39; contemporary, 37–38,
69, 89; moralizing, 89; political, 143, 158, 40, 43–44, 48n8; German Renaissance,
159–61; social, 57. See also Marxism, his- historiography of, 140, 143–53, 154–61;
toriography and; National Socialism, and history (see history of art); legitimation
historiography of, in translation, 14; non-Western, 3, 12,
allegory: in Bruegel, 80, 82, 86; in Cranach, 16–18, 43; posthistorical, 40, 48n48; pres-
127, 129; in Dürer, 27, 156, 158–59; image ence of (see presence); response to (see
as, 7, 61; narrative and, 127 viewer); social function of, 3–4, 54, 59,
allusion, and portraiture, 113 60, 114, 120, 124, 163, 164
artifact, aesthetic potential of, 62 Chakrabarty, Dipesh, 25
art markets, 19–20 Christensen, Carl, 125–26
Asschaffenburg, Mattheus von. See Grüne- chronology, 5, 32, 45–47
wald, Matthias Clark, T. J., 59
asynchrony, contemporaneity and, 41–42 coat of arms, as emblematic, 117, 120
Augé, Marc, 41, 42 colonial project, and modernism, 2, 14–15,
18–19
Badiou, Alain, 55 composition, and meaning, 83–84, 90–91
Baroque, the, Grünewald and, 144, 149 conceptualism, Latin American, 15
Barthes, Roland, 39, 58, 100, 110, 122, 134n10 contemporaneity, 16–19, 39, 41; as apoca-
Bätschmann, Oskar, 113, 122 lyptic, 41; asynchrony and, 41–42; as
Baudrillard, Jean, 64–65 featureless, 44; heterochrony and, 6, 42,
Baxandall, Michael, 59, 60, 61, 79, 94, 163 47, 49n16; historicism and, 38–44; multi-
Belting, Hans, 64–65, 66, 69, 70, 78, 87, 120, plicity and, 17–18
132; An Anthropology of Images (2001), 64 content, form and, 58–59, 64, 66
Benjamin, Walter: on mimesis, 114, 117, 122, context, and memory, 141
124, 133; on translation, 2 Cranach, Lucas, the Elder, 126–27, 128, 132;
Bild, concept of as autonomous, 63–64 Lamentation under the Cross, 127, 128;
Bildanthropologie, 63, 67–68 Martin Luther, 129–31, 130; and Lucas
Bildwissenschaft (image science), 65–66, Cranach the Younger, Crucifixion and
67–68, 78 Allegory of Redemption, 127–29, 128
Bismarck, Otto von, 153 Cranach, Lucas, the Younger, 126–29
Boehm, Gottfried, 63, 66, 78, 94, 95–96; Was crows, Bruegel’s, 99, 100, 101
ist ein Bild? (1994), 63 culture: disparate, and time, 2–3, 6, 13–14,
Born, Derich, 115, 116 16–18, 20, 25, 39, 41–46, 173; represen-
Bosch, Hieronymus, 84, 102n14; The Garden tation and, 66; visual, 67; visual studies
of Earthly Delights, 84–86, 85 and, 54, 66–68
Bourriaud, Nicolas, 42, 43
Bredekamp, Horst, 64, 66, 70, 78 Damisch, Hubert, 60
Bruegel, Pieter, the Elder: historiography Danto, Arthur, 16, 40
of, 6, 78–79. Works: Christ Carrying the Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 65
Cross, 87–89, 88; The Battle between Car- Daston, Lorraine, 56, 69
nival and Lent, 80–84, 81, 86–87, 93; The de Certeau, Michel, 24, 84
Return of the Hunters, 96–101, 97; The Tri- Deleuze, Gilles, 55
umph of Death, 91–94, 92 Demand, Thomas: mimesis and, 7, 108–9,
Burckhardt, Jacob, 24, 169n11 122, 133. Works: Glass, 108, 111, 125; Win-
dow, 108, 110
Campin, Robert, Merode Altarpiece, 27, 27 Denmark, the Renaissance in, 26
capitalism, and cultural criticism, 40 Derrida, Jacques, 39, 59, 60, 69, 142
Catholic Church: and German militarism, diachrony, 8, 28–29, 120
147; Grünewald and, 150, 160; and the Didi-Huberman, Georges, 66, 68, 70; on
Reformation, 80–81, 125, 129; and the anachronism, 25, 28, 29, 31, 156, 158;
subject matter of the Isenheim Altarpiece, on the experience of the work, 60–61;
163–64. See also iconoclasm, 16th-century on synchrony, 28
Cézanne, Paul, 101 difference: iconic, 96; idea of, in art history,

2001—1Index
 4–5, 84, 174; as identity politics, 4, 162; experientalism, aesthetic, 100
imagery and, 84, 93; metaphysical, be- Expressionism, German: Grünewald and,
tween image and language, 94–95; tem- 150–51, 170n25; National Socialism and,
poral, 3, 4–5, 31, 44–47, 143, 175. See also 151, 153. See also Abstract Expressionism
distance, historical
Dinteville, Jean de, 122, 123 Fabian, Johannes, 2
distance, historical: and analysis, 79–80, facticity, and the invisible, 82–83, 87, 96
140, 174; concept of, 140–41, 143, 154–56, facture, as significant, 82–83, 87
161, 162, 165; elision of, 7, 140, 161–62; Falkenberg, Reindert, 89, 91
historiography and, 7–8, 45, 59, 156, 158, Farago, Claire, Reframing the Renaissance
161, 164; ideology and, 144–45; between (1995), 25
image and text, 99–100; between image Feist, Peter, 160
and viewer, 59, 79, 139; memory and, Ficino, Marsilio, 158
141–43, 165–66; objectivity and, 154–55, Flanders, late-medieval art in, 26–27, 84
162–64; Panofsky on, 7–8, 154–56, 158, flatness (absence of perspective): in Brue-
159, 161; representation and, 140; teleol- gel, 83, 84, 87, 93, 98–99; in Cranach,
ogy and, 2 129, 131; in Holbein, 121. See also two-
Dürer, Albrecht, 115, 131, 140; four- dimensionality
hundredth anniversary celebration for, form, as intelligent, 91
159; historiography of, 7, 27–28, 140, 143, formalism, 64, 66, 82
150–53, 159–61; iconography of, and in- Foucault, Michel, 24, 39, 59
terpretation, 151–53, 158–59; Koener on, Freedberg, David, 60
27–28; literature on, 161–63, 164; Panof- Freud, Sigmund, 142
sky on, 27, 155–56, 158; as paragon of Ger- Fried, Michael, 60
man art, 144–45, 159; social conscience
of, 160. Works: Knight, Death, and the Galison, Peter, 56
Devil, 151–53, 152, 156; Melencolia I, 27, 156, Gauguin, Paul, 12
157, 158; Self-Portrait, 28, 29, 115, 161, 163 gaze, and the agency of the image, 64, 87,
93, 122, 124
East Germany, Dürer and the political Gell, Alfred, 57, 114
agenda, 159–61 genealogy, portraiture and, 120
ekphrasis: limitations of, 98, 100, 175; as German Democratic Republic. See East
translation, 94–96 Germany, Dürer and the political agenda
Elkins, James, 62–63, 66, 68, 70, 78; Visual Germany, art in: 15th-century religious, 121;
Practices across the University (2007), nationalism and, 7, 140, 143–51, 149–53,
62–63 155, 156, 163; naturalism and, 150, 156; the
emblems, in devotional portraiture, 117 Renaissance and, 140, 143–47, 149–53,
Enwezor, Okwui, 11 154–61
Erasmus, Desiderius, 129, 130, 131, 137n45 Ghirlandaio, Domenico, The Confirmation of
exhibitions: Altermodern: Tate Triennial the Franciscan Rule, 120
(2009), 42; Degenerate Art (1937), 151; Gilbert, Felix, 24
Iconoclash: Beyond the Image Wars in Sci- Gogh, Vincent van, 12
ence, Religion, and Art (2002), 126; The Gossaert, Jan: Carondelet Diptych: Jean
Short Century (2001–2), 11, 14, 20; The Carondelet, 117, 119; Carondelet Diptych:
World of Tycho Brahe (2006), 25–26 Virgin and Child, 117, 119

Index1—1201
Gossman, Lionel, 24 analogous to astronomy, 31; end of, 40,
Gothardt-Neithardt, Matthis. See Grüne- 44; language in the interpretation of, 24;
wald, Matthias narrative of, 1, 2, 16, 38–44; periodization
Greenberg, Clement, 16 in, 37; philosophy of, 23–25; reception,
Greenwich Mean Time, 17 162, 164, 174; teleology and, 24–25, 141,
Griener, Pascal, 113, 122 155, 161
Grosz, George, 146; “Shut Up and Do Your history of art: agenda for, 165–66; alterna-
Duty,” 146–47, 148; “Silence!,” 147, 148 tive analyses in, 78–79; and anachrony,
Grünewald, Matthias (Matthis Gothardt- 61, 146, 156, 158, 173; and the concept of
Neithardt), 140; art of, as expressive, difference, 4–5, 84, 174; Hegelian histori-
150–51; historiography of, 7, 140, 143–44, cism and, 16, 24, 59, 60, 141, 155; ideol-
149–50; literature on, 161, 163–64; as para- ogy and, 140, 143–54; periodization and,
gon of German art, 144–46, 149, 160; reli- 5–6, 17–18, 23–25, 39, 43–47, 174; phe-
gion espoused by, 163. Works: Isenheim nomenology and, 45; poststructuralism
Altarpiece, 143, 144, 145–47, 147, 163–64 and, 60; the presence of the object and,
Guattari, Felix, 55 58–61; social, 3–4, 59, 147, 158, 163; time
Guha, Ranajit, 25 and, as Western, 1–3. See also historicism,
Gumbrecht, Hans-Ulrich, 54 Hegelian; visual studies
Günther, Hans, Ritter Tod und Teufel: Der Hitler, Adolf, 153, 159
heldische Gedanke (1937), 153 Holbein, Hans, the Younger, 126, 137n45,
144; mimesis in portraiture by, 108,
Haak, Friedrich, Albrecht Dürer: Deutsch- 110, 111, 115, 120–22, 125, 129, 131–33; and
lands grösster Künstler (1928), 150–51 photography, 109–10; presence in portrai-
Hagen, Oskar, 150 ture by, 108, 120–25. Works: The Ambassa-
Harbison, Craig, 113 dors, 7, 108, 122–24, 123, 132, 133; Erasmus
Hassan, Salah, 19 of Rotterdam, 129, 130; Portrait of Derich
Hayum, Andrée, on Grünewald, 163–64 Born, 115, 116
Hegel, G. W. F. See historicism, Hegelian Holbein, Hans, the Younger, circle of, Por-
Heidegger, Martin, 60 trait of Henry VIII of England, 112
Henry VIII, king of England, 112, 122, 132 Holocaust, the, and the concept of mem-
heterochrony, 8; as anachrony, 42–43, ory, 141
174–75; art history and, 2, 173–75; con- Holy Roman Empire, 159
temporaneity and, 6, 42, 47, 49n16; cul- humanism, 24, 100, 156
tural difference and, 13–16, 42–43, 47, Hütt, Wolfgang, 160
174–75; defined, 2–3; historical time and, Hutton Patrick, 141
1, 2, 20; meaning and, 3–4; periodiza-
tion and, 23; postcolonialism and, 5, 6, iconic turn, the, 54; concept of, 63, 66,
11–12, 20 69–71; implications of, for visual studies,
historicism, Hegelian, 2, 25; history of art 68, 77–78; ontology and, 54. See also pic-
and, 16, 24, 59, 60, 141, 155; rejection of, 31, torial turn
38, 44, 173–74 iconoclasm, 16th-century, 91, 107, 125–26,
historiography: of Bruegel, 6; of Dürer, 7, 131–32
27–28; and the existential presence of ob- iconography: of illuminated manuscripts,
jects, 57–58; of Grünewald, 7 96–97; and meaning, 82–83; as theologi-
history: and the agency of the image, 7; as cal exposition, 127–29, 131, 132

2021—1Index
ideology: cultural, 68; modernism as, 38; Koselleck, Reinhart, 40–41
political, 20, 68, 144–47, 159 Kratzer, Nicholas, 122
illusionism: Flemish, 26; and meaning, Krauss, Rosalind, 60
82–83, 96, 132 Kreiger, Murray, 95
illustration, scientific, as form of thought, Kubler, George, 31, 45, 46
65–66
image: agency of (see agency of the image); Lacan, Jacques, 39, 59, 63, 124; The Four
anachrony and, 25, 141; existential status Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis
of, 55, 61, 63–67, 69–70, 77, 78, 132; infor- (1981), 100–101
mational, 62–63; nonart, 62; opacity in, language: affect and, 55, 59, 63; as an agent
79, 103n17; as presentation (see presen- of being, 56, 57, 60–61; experience and,
tation, image as); as representation (see 54; as paralleled in the figure and ground
representation); role of, 59, 69, 78, 114; of imagery, 95–96; role of, 69–71, 77–80,
significance and, 84; time of the, 1, 3–4, 98–99; scientific research and, 56–57;
12, 39, 61, 89–90, 99, 124, 164 vis-à-vis the visual, 3, 5, 6–7, 45, 63, 69–71,
imagery: creating by ekphrasis, 95; idolatry 79–80, 91–96, 100, 175
and, 125–26; Lutheran, 126–31; medieval Latour, Bruno, 56, 69, 126
devotional, 89, 91, 117–20, 126; transpar- Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, 153
ency in, 127, 129 Leonardo da Vinci, 115
Image-Worlds of Knowledge (periodical), 66 line, the: in German art, 144, 150; as meta-
indifference, ekphrastic, 95 phor, 150–51
intentionality, 54, 79 linguistic turn, the, 54, 166n2
interpretation: as contingent, 68–69, 79–80; Liu, Lydia, 46
iconography and, 151–53, 158–59; inten- Lollards, 131
tionality and, 54; language and, 24; mem- Luther, Martin, 125–29, 128, 130, 137n45, 153,
ory and, 142–43; need for, 165; personal 163
aesthetic response and, 162; pictorial Lutheranism, imagery and, 12, 126–31
opacity and, 90, 99, 100–101, 103n17; poli- Lyotard, Jean-Francois, 39
tics of, 4, 68, 70, 143–47; significance and,
4; transparency and, 79 macchia (splotch, blot), 82–83, 87
Iser, Wolfgang, 162 Madam Tussauds, London, 109
Italy, art of, 84; as privileged, 25–27, 154–55, manipulation, and photography, 109
156 Marin, Louis, 103n17
Marxism, historiography and, 159–61
Jameson, Frederic, 39–40 mask, portraiture as, 129–31, 130
Jarzombek, Mark, 100 Massys, Quentin, 131
Jauss, Hans Robert, 162 meaning, 63, 100–101; abstraction and, 2, 24;
affect and, 56, 174; agency of the image
Kant, Immanuel, 153. See also aesthetics: and, 4, 5–6; composition and, 83–84,
Kantian 90–91; ekphrasis as creating, 95–96; ex-
Karlstadt, Andreas, On the Abolition of perience and, 55, 58, 162; heterochrony
Images (1522), 125, 126 and, 3–4; hidden, 86; iconography and,
Kemp, Wolfgang, 60 82–83; illusionism and, 82–83, 96, 132;
Koerner, Joseph, 94, 127; on Dürer, 27–28, metaphor and, 58, 63, 79, 86–87; me-
115, 161–63, 164 tonymy and, 58; representation and, 54,

Index1—1203
meaning (continued) history and, 40–41; ideology and, 38, 151;
79, 91; style and, 25–27; teleology and, 2, teleology and, 2–3, 11–12, 15, 38, 155; as
24; of time, 39–44, 46; translation and, Western, 14. See also abstraction
5–6, 46 modernity: as multiple, 11–12, 13–16, 43; as
medium, as metaphor, 64–65 privileged, 38, 48n3
Melville, Stephen, 155 moralization: in Bosch, 84, 85; in Bruegel,
memory: concept of, 141–43; historical dis- 80, 89, 91
tance and, 141–43, 165–66; as reality, 142 More, Sir Thomas, 131
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, 60, 63, 100–101 multiplicity: contemporaneity and, 17–18;
metaphor: the line as, 150–51; linguistic, modernity as, 11–12, 13–16, 43; narrative
78, 86; meaning and, 58, 63, 79, 86–87; and, 3, 93–96; ontological, and human
medium as, 64–65; mimesis and, 125; experience, 55–56; of time, 2–3, 8, 13, 42,
Panofsky on, 154–55, 156; perspective as, 46, 65, 173
1, 154–55, 162; religious art and, 131; trans-
lation as, 1–2, 5–7, 14, 46, 175; visual, 63, Nachleben (afterlife), 61
65–66, 79, 87, 125 narrative: and allegory, 127; diachronic, 120;
metapicture, 87, 90–91 multiplicity in, 3, 93–96; subverted, 84,
metonymy, and meaning, 58 85, 87, 89; suppressed, for non-Western
Mignolo, Walter, 25 art, 43. See also historicism, Hegelian
Miller, Daniel, 57 nationalism: and German art, 140, 143–51,
mimesis, 132–33; agency and, 108, 117, 133; 155, 156, 163; in non-Western art, 12
anachrony and, 31; behavior as, 114; National Museum, Copenhagen, 25
Benjamin on, 114, 117, 122, 124, 133; con- National Socialism, and historiography, 140,
temporary art and, 108–13; Cranach and, 143, 151, 165
132; as creative, 7; Demand and, 7, 108–9, naturalism; deviant, in Bosch, 86; in Ger-
122, 133; Dürer and, 150; Grünewald and, man painting, 150, 156; late-medieval, 126,
151, 156; iconoclasm and, 125–26; lure of, 127, 129; pictorial verisimilitude as, 26–27,
107–10, 114–15, 122; metaphor and, 125; 98, 115, 120, 126, 127, 129; in religious
production of, 107–8, 122; reality and, painting, 121
107–8; reception of, 108, 122, 124, 132; re- Nazism. See National Socialism, and histo-
jection of, in Lutheran painting, 6, 131; riography
and representation, 59, 91, 109, 131–33, 150; Neoplatonism, 158
and symbolism, 117, 124–25, 132, 133. See Netherlands, art in late-medieval, 121
also under Holbein, Hans, the Younger neuroaesthetics, 122, 136n31
mirror, art as: and agency of the image, Nietzsche, Friedrich, 63, 153
55–56, 108, 133; Bosch and, 84, 86; Brue- nonsynchronicity, 5
gel and, 91 Nora, Pierre, 141
Mirzoeff, Nicholas, 66, 68 Northern Renaissance, the, 26
Mitchell, W. J. T., 61–62, 66, 68, 70, 78, 94, Nuremberg, Dürer and, 159
99–100, 114; on metapictures, 87, 90–91;
What Do Pictures Want? (2005), 62 object, the: aesthetic potential of, and the
modernism, 12, 39, 83; as capitalism, 40; pictorial turn, 62; as distinct from subject
colonial project and, 2, 14–15, 18–19; (see subject/object distinction); existen-
demise of, 16, 39; as exclusionary, 12–15; tial status of, 53, 63–64, 78; presence of
Grünewald as precursor to, 149, 150–51; (see presence); role of, 139–40, 143, 163

2041—1Index
objectivity, and historical distance, 154–55, Pleydenwurff, Hans: Georg Graf von Löwen-
162–64 stein, 117, 118; Man of Sorrows, 117, 135n19
Oguibe, Olu, 12 Pliny the Elder, Natural History, 113, 115
opacity, 77; the linguistic turn and, 166n2; politics: identity, 4, 54, 162; of interpreta-
pictorial, and interpretation, 90, 99, tion, 4, 68, 70, 143–47. See also ideology
100–101, 103n17; surface, 87, 124; of the Pollock, Jackson, 14
visual, 79, 139 portraiture: affect and, 108; allusion and, 113;
bourgeois, 120; medieval, 117–20; pres-
Pächt, Otto, 121 ence in, 17, 108, 120–25; religious, 28, 115,
Pagden, Anthony, 25 117–20; role of, 108, 115–20, 129–31, 132;
Panofsky, Erwin: historical distance and, Zen Buddhist, 115, 117
7–8, 154–56, 158, 159, 161; iconology and, postcolonialism, 24–25, 39
59, 60, 61; on the ideology of the Renais- posthistorical, the, 16, 17, 40, 48n8
sance, 24, 26–27. Works: Early Nether- postmodernism, 16, 17, 39, 42, 56; reaction
landish Painting (1953), 26; The Life and against, 142
Art of Albrecht Dürer (1955), 155–56; poststructuralism, 39, 57–60
Perspective as Symbolic Form (1927), 26; Poulsen, Hanna Kolind, 131
Renaissance and Renascences in Western presence: existential, 57–58; historical, 58;
Art (1960), 26 Holbein and, 108, 120–25, 131, 132; iconic,
Pathosformeln (emotional formulae), 61 64–65, 115; images and, 3, 4, 6, 53, 55–65,
pattern, pictorial, 121 78, 79, 82, 83, 99–101, 139; memory and,
pause, interchronic, 46–47, 50n25 142; in portraiture, 17, 108, 120–25; sup-
“period eye,” 59 pression of, in Lutheran imagery, 129, 131
periodization, 23; anachrony and, 32, 42, 46; presence effects, 54
contemporary art and, 43–44; hetero- presentation, image as, 71n3, 77–78, 90–91,
chrony and, 23; history and, 37; in the 164; and agency, 55, 63, 67–69; natural-
history of art, 5–6, 17–18, 23–25, 39, 43–47, ism and, 115
174
perspective: absence of (see flatness; two- Quemin, Alain, 19
dimensionality); Albertian (see perspec-
tive: one-point); atmospheric, 87, 93, 98; reality, and mimesis, 107–8
contemporary photography and, 109; as reality effect, 58, 122, 127, 133
metaphor, 7, 154–55, 162; one-point (lin- Réau, Louis, 149
ear), 7, 26, 27, 84, 131, 145, 154–55, 162; reception: history, 162, 164, 174; viewer’s,
Renaissance (see perspective: one-point) and mimesis, 83, 108, 122, 124, 132
phenomenology, 95; art history and, 45; art Reformation, the, 125–26, 131–32, 150, 160
objects and, 25, 55–56, 60, 68, 79, 100, 122, Renaissance, the: as concept, 6, 7, 23–27,
129; ontology and, 68, 100; response to 31; Danish, 26; German, historiography
imagery and, 82, 99–100, 134n10, 139, 141, of, 140, 143–47, 149–53, 154–61; historical
146, 161–63 distance and, 154–55, 162; marginalization
photography, 109–10, 134n10 of, 38, 48n3, 144; role of, 37
pictorial turn, the, 54, 61–62, 63. See also representation, 82, 107, 115; in Bruegel, 80,
iconic turn, the 91–92, 99; culture and, 66; as fabricated,
Piotrowski, Piotr, 43 109–10; historical distance and, 140; ide-
planarity (pictorial pattern), 121 ology and, 55; illusionism and, 26, 121;

Index1—1205
representation (continued) Sugimoto, Hiroshi, 109–11; Henry VIII, 112
imagery and, 55, 63, 66, 68, 69, 90–91, supermodernity, 41
103n17, 131, 164; linguistic, 56, 79; meaning supplement, ideological, 55, 142, 156
and, 54, 79, 91; mediation and, 107, 124; synchrony, 28, 42
mimetic, 59, 91, 109, 131–32, 133, 150; objec-
tivity and, 164; and the projection plane, tapestry, as analogy, 93
121, 154. See also presentation, image as technique, as representation, 82
response, affective, 174 teleology, 2; and history, 24–25, 141, 155, 161
Riegl, Alois, 25, 59 text. See language
Rogoff, Irit, 66–67 Thomas, Nicholas, 57
Roskill, Mark, 113 thought, scientific illustration as, 65–66
Runia, Eelco, 58 time: acceleration of, 41; aesthetic, 1, 5, 6,
175; as alienating, 139–40; anachronic (see
Sandrart, Joachim von, 143 anachrony); as asynchronous, 41; catego-
Sassetti family, portraits of, 120 rization of (see periodization); concepts
scale, in imagery, 87, 89 of, and works of art, 1; contemporary
Schmid, Heinrich, 144, 169n11 art, 16–17, 39; cultures and, 2–3, 6, 13–14,
science, imagery in, and visualization, 62–63 16–18, 20, 25, 39, 41–46, 173; definition
science studies, 56–57 of art and, 16–17; as an eternal present,
Sedlmayr, Hans, 82, 87 41, 43, 89; heterochronic (see hetero-
Sekoto, Gerard, 12–14, 18, 20; Two Friends, chrony); historical, 1, 2, 20, 141, 174–75;
12, 13 of the image, 1, 3–4, 12, 39, 61, 89–90, 99,
Selve, Georges de, 122, 123 124, 164; meaning and, 39–44, 46; media-
Selz, Peter, 170n25 tion across, 124; as multiple (see hetero-
Sherman, Cindy, History Portraits, 110, 111; chrony); teleology and, 24; of the work
Untitled # 213, 113 (see image: time of the)
skull, symbolism of, and mimesis, 117, 124– transference and counter-transference, 31
25, 132, 133 translation: ekphrasis and, 94–96; limita-
Smith, Terry, What Is Contemporary Art? tions of, 79; meaning and, 5–6, 46; as
(2009), 43–44 metaphor, 1–2, 5–7, 14, 46, 175
socialism, 57, 153, 160, 161 transparency, 77; ekphrasis and, 94; as
socialist realism, Dürer as forerunner of, 160 goal of interpretation, 79; narrative and,
sociology: art history and, 147, 158, 163; and 103n17; in religious imagery, 127, 129
the status of objects, 57; visual studies turn, philosophical. See iconic turn, the; lin-
and, 66, 67, 68 guistic turn, the; pictorial turn, the
space, hierarchy and, 25–28 two-dimensionality: in Dürer, 145; in Flem-
Spiegel, Gabrielle, 141–42 ish painting, 84, 87, 98–99; in Holbein,
Stieglitz, Ann, 145 121–22; in late-medieval Netherlandish
Stridbeck, Carl, 80, 82, 86, 102n15 art, 121; in Lutheran painting, 12, 129–31
Strieder, Peter, 158
style: identifiability of, in contemporary art, Ullmann, Ernst, 160
40, 48n8; meaning and, 25–27; pictorial,
in Flemish painting, 84 Venuti, Lawrence, 95
subject/object distinction, 45–47, 54, 56, 58, Vera Icon, the, and portraiture, 28, 115
95, 162, 164–65 verisimilitude: as illusionary, 124; and natu-

2061—1Index
 ralism, 26–27, 98, 115, 120, 126, 127, 129; War, 144; German Peasants’ War (1525),
power of, 7, 113–15, 117 159–60; Second World War, 151
Veronica, Saint, 115 Warburg, Aby, 59, 61, 120
viewer: engagement with the image and, 55, Warhol, Andy, Brillo Boxes, 16
68, 82–84, 89, 99, 121, 132, 160, 174–75; in- waxworks, and the mimetic impulse, 109–10
terpretation of the visual and, 6, 44–45, Weimar Republic, political agenda of and
66–69, 82–84, 90–91, 127–29, 164; per- history of art, 143
sonal response and, 28–31, 60–61; role Werner, Gabriel, 66
of, 67 White, Hayden, 24, 57
visual culture, 67. See also history of art; Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 63
visual studies Wölfflin, Heinrich, 59, 169n11; on Dürer and
visual studies: and culture, 54, 66–68; de- Grünewald, 144–45, 169n12; on style, 25,
velopment of, 78; and the iconic turn, 68, 149
77–78; ideology and, 66; nonart images work, time of the. See image: time of the
as field for, 62–63; ontology and, 54; Worringer, Wilhelm, 144, 150
theory in, 61–71 Wycliffe, John, 131

Waetzold, Wilhelm, 151–52 Zen Buddhism, role of 13th-century portrai-

war: First World War, and German his- ture in, 115, 117
toriography, 145–46; Franco-Prussian Zwingli, Ulrich, 125

Index1—1207