What do you think?
The History of Ancient Art, Vol. 1
Volume: 1 Publisher: Boston, Little, Brown
547 pages, Paperback
First published October 30, 2001
About the author
Johann Joachim Winckelmann
480 books58 followersJohann Joachim Winckelmann was a German art historian and archaeologist. He was a pioneering Hellenist who first articulated the difference between Greek, Greco-Roman and Roman art. "The prophet and founding hero of modern archaeology", Winckelmann was one of the founders of scientific archaeology and first applied the categories of style on a large, systematic basis to the history of art. Many consider him the father of the discipline of art history. His would be the decisive influence on the rise of the neoclassical movement during the late 18th century. His writings influenced not only a new science of archaeology and art history but Western painting, sculpture, literature and even philosophy. Winckelmann's History of Ancient Art (1764) was one of the first books written in German to become a classic of European literature. His subsequent influence on Lessing, Herder, Goethe, Hölderlin, Heine, Nietzsche, George, and Spengler has been provocatively called "the Tyranny of Greece over Germany."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
February 14, 2022
Anyone who wishes to appreciate German literary culture during the period of its greatest flourishing, from the mid-eighteenth to the mid-nineteenth centuries, will have to become familiar with the figure of Johann Joachim Winckelmann and his pioneering history of the art of antiquity. It should go without saying that knowing who he was entails more than just the details of his biography and a synopsis of his major works; it means having a vivid sense of the import of the ideas for which he stood, and in particular for the lasting nobility and beauty of the art and literature of the ancient Greeks and how these have been handed down and welcomed as influences on our own, European culture. This recensionist fears, when Winckelmann is remembered these days, it is becoming more and more a dead letter, a mere sampling of a scholarly curiosity than a full and heartfelt identification with the artistic tradition in which he stands—which was very much alive in the Germany of his day, during the heyday of Weimar classicism under the guiding star of Goethe and Schiller. For those who have read his opus magnum, the celebrated history of art, in case they haven’t seen it or don’t remember it very well, one could also recommend Winckelmann’s famous essay entitled ‘Gedanken über die Nachahmung der griechischen Werke in der Malerei und Bildhauerkunst’. Along with Winckelmann, two other leading authors from the period who share a kindred spirit and whom one ought to know, in case missed, are W.H. Wackenroder and Ludwig Tieck, who collaborated on two pieces, Herzensergießungen eines kunstliebenden Klosterbruders and Phantasien über die Kunst (Tieck published these after Wackenroder’s death, and critics don’t agree on the extent of revision to which he subjected his friend’s literary remains). All of these opuscula are available in inexpensive reprintings under the yellow Reclam label.
Winckelmann is to be read as much for atmosphere as for content. His was a leisurely age in which one in his position could give vent to an aestheticizing tendency, accustomed to dwell over costly collections in aristocratic houses where he probably spent days or more visiting, received personal tours and the opportunity to examine items up close and discuss individually etc. Moreover, from his writing, besides immense erudition, it jumps out how much time he had to pore over travel journals and to reflect on customs in foreign lands etc. All of which is very different from today’s tourist hordes who spend seven seconds on average in front of the Mona Lisa before snapping a photo and moving on!
Winckelmann’s text itself starts out with an amazing methodological Vorrede, composed in Rome in 1763. Here, he cites his sources and engages in some back and forth with contemporary, i.e., eighteenth-century authors on the subject of art. What must impress the casual reader is the sheer breadth of his erudition, embracing pretty much every classical primary source over the entire span of the recorded history down to the onset of the early Middle Ages. One catches a glimpse, moreover, of how Winckelmann derives his views from an exhaustive examination of detail in named artifacts at named sites and subsequent inductive contemplation upon all the details he has amassed. Enough to engender a half-wish to become a classical scholar oneself! From here on, Winckelmann proceeds directly to a subdivision of the history of art into four periods, dominated respectively by the archaic style, the high style [hohe], the beautiful or manneristic [schöne] and lastly, the decadent:
Die Künste, welche von der Zeichnung abhängen, haben, wie alle Erfindungen, mit dem Notwendigen angefangen; nachdem suchte man die Schönheit, and zuletzt folgte das Überflüssige: dieses sind die drei vornehmsten Stufen der Kunst. Die ältesten Nachrichten lehren uns, daß die ersten Figuren vorgestellt, was ein Mensch ist, nicht wie er uns erscheint, dessen Umkreis, nicht dessen Ansicht. Von der Einfalt der Gestalt ging man zur Untersuchung der Verhältnisse, welche Richtigkeit lehrte, und diese machte sicher, sich in das Große zu wagen, wodurch die Kunst zur Großheit und endlich unter den Griechen stufenweise zur höchste Schönheit gelangte. Nachdem alle Teile derselben vereinigt waren und ihre Ausschmückung gesucht wurde, geriet man in das Überflüssige, wodurch sich die Großheit der Kunst verlor, und endlich folgte der völlige Untergang derselben. [p. 25]
And so, with these prefatory declarations, he launches into interesting and fascinating sketches of the origins of the plastic arts and their development, starting with Egypt. A good illustration of his modus operandi may be found [p. 210] passim where, turning to Greece, he engages in deriving the archaic style from the ground up not just by citing proof texts the way a modern textbook would. Hence, his style is discursive as he debates provenance, attribution, implications of inscriptions and so forth making for a meditative though digressive flavor of his writing. Again, [p. 218] on the high style exhibited in sculpture groups of the Pallas Athena and of Niobe and her daughters, [pp. 219-221] on gracefulness [Grazie] as the characteristic [Kennzeichen] of the following style. To wade one’s way through Winckelmann’s circumstantial periods invites a thought experiment: what if, instead of merely passively accepting what one reads in the textbooks, one were to rederive everything for oneself from a minute knowledge of particulars such as Wincklemann has?
Starting [p. 225], decline enters. Nevertheless, even to the end, antique art remained better than ours [p. 234]. After lengthy treatment of the Egyptians, the Etruscans, the Persians and the Greeks, the Romans receive short shrift – for in Winckelmann’s view, they have no proper style of their own [p. 275], why? See p. 276ff. For this reason, the chapter on the Romans comes across as not very interesting, being primarily devoted to anecdotes and, in section ii, Roman clothing, a fairly minor topic for most anyone.
After setting forth his main theses in Part I [pp. 25-294] for which he is remembered today, Winckelmann circles back in Part II [pp. 295-404] and recapitulates everything in the history from the viewpoint of how external events impinge upon the production of art [nach den äußern Umständen der Zeit unter den Griechen betrachtet]. One gets a volley of unassimilated detail showing disorganization. The main point: Greek art could have grown up only under conditions of political freedom. Winckelmann considers it too obvious to stand in need of justification, no theory backs it up such as one finds in the other direction in Plato’s Republic.
The following passage is worth quoting at length as a specimen of Winckelmann’s typical procedure in analyzing a work of art:
Der ohne Grund sogennante Antinous im Belvedere wird insgemein als das schönste Denkmal der Kunst unter dem Hadrian angegeben, aus dem Irrtume, daß es die Statue seines Lieblings sei; es stellt dieselbe vielmehr einen Meleager oder einen andern jungen Helden vor. Sie wird unter die Statuen der ersten Klasse gesetzt, wie sie es verdient, mehr wegen der Schönheit einzelner Teile, als wegen der Vollkommenheit des Ganzen: denn die Beine und Füße nebst dem Unterleibe sind weit geringer in der Form und in der Arbeit als das übrige der Figur. Der Kopf ist unstreitig einer der schönsten jugendlichen Köpfe aus dem Altertume. In dem Geschichte des Apollo herrscht die Majestät und der Stolz; hier aber ist ein Bild der Grazie holder Jugend und der Schönheit blühende Jahre, mit gefälliger Unschuld und sanfter Reizung gesellt, ohne Andeutung irgendeiner Leidenschaft, welche die Übereinstimmung der Teile und die jugendliche Stille der Seele, die sich hier bildet, stören könnte. In dieser Ruhe, und gleichsam in dem Genusse seiner selbst, mit gesammelten und vol allen äußern Vorwürfen zurückgerufenen Sinnen, ist der ganze Stand dieser edlen Figur gesetzt. Das Auge, welches, wie an der Göttin der Liebe, aber ohne Begierde, mäßig gewölbt ist, redet mit einnehmender Unschuld; der völlige Mund im kleinen Umfange häuft Regungen, ohne sie zu fühlen zu scheinen; die mit lieblicher Fülle genährten Wangen beschrieben, mit der gewölbten Rundung des sanft erhobenen Kinnes, den völligen und edlen Umriß des Haupts dieses edlen Jünglings. In der Stirn zeigt sich aber schon mehr als der Jüngling; sie kündigt den Held an in der ehabenen Pracht, mit welcher sie zuwächst, wie die Stirn des Hercules. Die Brust ist mächtig erhaben, und die Schultern, Seiten und Hüften sind wunderbar schön. Aber die Beine haben nicht die schöne Form, die ein solcher Körper erfordert; die Füße sind grob gearbeitet, und der Nabel ist kaum angedeutet: bei dem allen ist der Stil verschieden von dem zu Hadrians Zeiten. [p. 378]
Let us close our review by posing two questions for the thoughtful reader’s reflection:
1) Must there be a single possible standard of beauty, as Winckelmann presupposes? For him, the Greeks were favored with a temperate physical geography, average among climes. Their physique, then, was free of extremes such as might facilitate existence at far northern latitudes, in the tropics or at high elevations. There may indeed be a biological basis for his contention that the result was a Greek civilization characterized by an awareness of greater beauty of figure than prevailed elsewhere, say in Egypt. Psychological studies have shown that, when one averages features across a large sample of faces (in a systematic way, based upon a decomposition into eigenfunctions), the outcome will be more symmetrical than the typical real face and perceived as most aesthetically pleasing. From an evolutionary point of view, bodily symmetry may be a good, that is, honest signal of underlying health and fecundity. All true enough, but one can scarcely avoid the impression when paging through Winckelmann that he goes too far in stressing the unique excellence of the Greek model of beauty. On theoretical grounds, one ought to strive for catholicity. Shouldn’t there be multiple ways to be beautiful, just as there are multiple ways to be a good athlete (sprinter, marathon runner etc.), to play chess well (adventuresome, positional etc.), to be a musician (soloist, chamber music, operatic etc.) and to do mathematics (intuitive versus logical-analytical, say)?
2) Can anything comparable to Winckelmann’s classicistic ideal survive in an age of mass democracy? To a certain extent, yes, through a college curriculum that maintains a core liberal arts component, but is this by itself enough to nourish a vibrant literary culture? The liberal arts in our day are imperiled as never before, on the one hand, by the fact that business-oriented degrees are regarded as more practical and a better preparation in critical thinking and interpersonal teamwork skills needed to get ahead in a career, and, on the other, by the fact that a liberal education by its nature does not lend itself particularly well to being co-opted as a propaganda vehicle by the left-wing cultural elites who have come to dominate academia. Up to now, a remnant with enough of a critical mass to support literary culture has continued to exist, but the outlook going forward is uncertain, if not grim.
Winckelmann is to be read as much for atmosphere as for content. His was a leisurely age in which one in his position could give vent to an aestheticizing tendency, accustomed to dwell over costly collections in aristocratic houses where he probably spent days or more visiting, received personal tours and the opportunity to examine items up close and discuss individually etc. Moreover, from his writing, besides immense erudition, it jumps out how much time he had to pore over travel journals and to reflect on customs in foreign lands etc. All of which is very different from today’s tourist hordes who spend seven seconds on average in front of the Mona Lisa before snapping a photo and moving on!
Winckelmann’s text itself starts out with an amazing methodological Vorrede, composed in Rome in 1763. Here, he cites his sources and engages in some back and forth with contemporary, i.e., eighteenth-century authors on the subject of art. What must impress the casual reader is the sheer breadth of his erudition, embracing pretty much every classical primary source over the entire span of the recorded history down to the onset of the early Middle Ages. One catches a glimpse, moreover, of how Winckelmann derives his views from an exhaustive examination of detail in named artifacts at named sites and subsequent inductive contemplation upon all the details he has amassed. Enough to engender a half-wish to become a classical scholar oneself! From here on, Winckelmann proceeds directly to a subdivision of the history of art into four periods, dominated respectively by the archaic style, the high style [hohe], the beautiful or manneristic [schöne] and lastly, the decadent:
Die Künste, welche von der Zeichnung abhängen, haben, wie alle Erfindungen, mit dem Notwendigen angefangen; nachdem suchte man die Schönheit, and zuletzt folgte das Überflüssige: dieses sind die drei vornehmsten Stufen der Kunst. Die ältesten Nachrichten lehren uns, daß die ersten Figuren vorgestellt, was ein Mensch ist, nicht wie er uns erscheint, dessen Umkreis, nicht dessen Ansicht. Von der Einfalt der Gestalt ging man zur Untersuchung der Verhältnisse, welche Richtigkeit lehrte, und diese machte sicher, sich in das Große zu wagen, wodurch die Kunst zur Großheit und endlich unter den Griechen stufenweise zur höchste Schönheit gelangte. Nachdem alle Teile derselben vereinigt waren und ihre Ausschmückung gesucht wurde, geriet man in das Überflüssige, wodurch sich die Großheit der Kunst verlor, und endlich folgte der völlige Untergang derselben. [p. 25]
And so, with these prefatory declarations, he launches into interesting and fascinating sketches of the origins of the plastic arts and their development, starting with Egypt. A good illustration of his modus operandi may be found [p. 210] passim where, turning to Greece, he engages in deriving the archaic style from the ground up not just by citing proof texts the way a modern textbook would. Hence, his style is discursive as he debates provenance, attribution, implications of inscriptions and so forth making for a meditative though digressive flavor of his writing. Again, [p. 218] on the high style exhibited in sculpture groups of the Pallas Athena and of Niobe and her daughters, [pp. 219-221] on gracefulness [Grazie] as the characteristic [Kennzeichen] of the following style. To wade one’s way through Winckelmann’s circumstantial periods invites a thought experiment: what if, instead of merely passively accepting what one reads in the textbooks, one were to rederive everything for oneself from a minute knowledge of particulars such as Wincklemann has?
Starting [p. 225], decline enters. Nevertheless, even to the end, antique art remained better than ours [p. 234]. After lengthy treatment of the Egyptians, the Etruscans, the Persians and the Greeks, the Romans receive short shrift – for in Winckelmann’s view, they have no proper style of their own [p. 275], why? See p. 276ff. For this reason, the chapter on the Romans comes across as not very interesting, being primarily devoted to anecdotes and, in section ii, Roman clothing, a fairly minor topic for most anyone.
After setting forth his main theses in Part I [pp. 25-294] for which he is remembered today, Winckelmann circles back in Part II [pp. 295-404] and recapitulates everything in the history from the viewpoint of how external events impinge upon the production of art [nach den äußern Umständen der Zeit unter den Griechen betrachtet]. One gets a volley of unassimilated detail showing disorganization. The main point: Greek art could have grown up only under conditions of political freedom. Winckelmann considers it too obvious to stand in need of justification, no theory backs it up such as one finds in the other direction in Plato’s Republic.
The following passage is worth quoting at length as a specimen of Winckelmann’s typical procedure in analyzing a work of art:
Der ohne Grund sogennante Antinous im Belvedere wird insgemein als das schönste Denkmal der Kunst unter dem Hadrian angegeben, aus dem Irrtume, daß es die Statue seines Lieblings sei; es stellt dieselbe vielmehr einen Meleager oder einen andern jungen Helden vor. Sie wird unter die Statuen der ersten Klasse gesetzt, wie sie es verdient, mehr wegen der Schönheit einzelner Teile, als wegen der Vollkommenheit des Ganzen: denn die Beine und Füße nebst dem Unterleibe sind weit geringer in der Form und in der Arbeit als das übrige der Figur. Der Kopf ist unstreitig einer der schönsten jugendlichen Köpfe aus dem Altertume. In dem Geschichte des Apollo herrscht die Majestät und der Stolz; hier aber ist ein Bild der Grazie holder Jugend und der Schönheit blühende Jahre, mit gefälliger Unschuld und sanfter Reizung gesellt, ohne Andeutung irgendeiner Leidenschaft, welche die Übereinstimmung der Teile und die jugendliche Stille der Seele, die sich hier bildet, stören könnte. In dieser Ruhe, und gleichsam in dem Genusse seiner selbst, mit gesammelten und vol allen äußern Vorwürfen zurückgerufenen Sinnen, ist der ganze Stand dieser edlen Figur gesetzt. Das Auge, welches, wie an der Göttin der Liebe, aber ohne Begierde, mäßig gewölbt ist, redet mit einnehmender Unschuld; der völlige Mund im kleinen Umfange häuft Regungen, ohne sie zu fühlen zu scheinen; die mit lieblicher Fülle genährten Wangen beschrieben, mit der gewölbten Rundung des sanft erhobenen Kinnes, den völligen und edlen Umriß des Haupts dieses edlen Jünglings. In der Stirn zeigt sich aber schon mehr als der Jüngling; sie kündigt den Held an in der ehabenen Pracht, mit welcher sie zuwächst, wie die Stirn des Hercules. Die Brust ist mächtig erhaben, und die Schultern, Seiten und Hüften sind wunderbar schön. Aber die Beine haben nicht die schöne Form, die ein solcher Körper erfordert; die Füße sind grob gearbeitet, und der Nabel ist kaum angedeutet: bei dem allen ist der Stil verschieden von dem zu Hadrians Zeiten. [p. 378]
Let us close our review by posing two questions for the thoughtful reader’s reflection:
1) Must there be a single possible standard of beauty, as Winckelmann presupposes? For him, the Greeks were favored with a temperate physical geography, average among climes. Their physique, then, was free of extremes such as might facilitate existence at far northern latitudes, in the tropics or at high elevations. There may indeed be a biological basis for his contention that the result was a Greek civilization characterized by an awareness of greater beauty of figure than prevailed elsewhere, say in Egypt. Psychological studies have shown that, when one averages features across a large sample of faces (in a systematic way, based upon a decomposition into eigenfunctions), the outcome will be more symmetrical than the typical real face and perceived as most aesthetically pleasing. From an evolutionary point of view, bodily symmetry may be a good, that is, honest signal of underlying health and fecundity. All true enough, but one can scarcely avoid the impression when paging through Winckelmann that he goes too far in stressing the unique excellence of the Greek model of beauty. On theoretical grounds, one ought to strive for catholicity. Shouldn’t there be multiple ways to be beautiful, just as there are multiple ways to be a good athlete (sprinter, marathon runner etc.), to play chess well (adventuresome, positional etc.), to be a musician (soloist, chamber music, operatic etc.) and to do mathematics (intuitive versus logical-analytical, say)?
2) Can anything comparable to Winckelmann’s classicistic ideal survive in an age of mass democracy? To a certain extent, yes, through a college curriculum that maintains a core liberal arts component, but is this by itself enough to nourish a vibrant literary culture? The liberal arts in our day are imperiled as never before, on the one hand, by the fact that business-oriented degrees are regarded as more practical and a better preparation in critical thinking and interpersonal teamwork skills needed to get ahead in a career, and, on the other, by the fact that a liberal education by its nature does not lend itself particularly well to being co-opted as a propaganda vehicle by the left-wing cultural elites who have come to dominate academia. Up to now, a remnant with enough of a critical mass to support literary culture has continued to exist, but the outlook going forward is uncertain, if not grim.
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review