Artcriticismcanbeprovisionallydefinedaswritingthatevaluatesart.

Yet
it has no formal definition or agreedupon meaning. The sense of the
conceptiscompromisedbytwofundamentallyantitheticalusages:onthe
onehand,artcriticism isunderstoodasanhistoricalpractice,embracing
writersfromPlinyorVasaritothepresent;andontheother,itistakentobe
a way of writing that is potentially independent of historical conditions.
Thereisnoreliablehistoryorphilosophyofartcriticism,andvirtuallyno
literature on its concept or nature. Some philosophers deny art criticism
existsassuch,andotherssayitsubsumesarthistorysothatthisentire
Dictionarywouldbeanexampleofcriticalwriting.Giventhatdisparity,itis
bestnottopresupposeartcriticismhasaconsensualmeaning,buttotakethe
alternatedefinitionsseriously.Thisentryisdividedintotwosections:
1.Artcriticismasakindofwriting
2.Artcriticismasanhistoricalpractice
1.Whenartcriticism hasbeentreatedasakindofwriting,ithas
normally been considered as evaluative or judgmental rather than
descriptive.Thetraditionsofjudicativeandphilodoxic(ostensiblyneutral,
knowledgeloving)discoursebegininancientGreektexts,andarestill
bothdistinctandmingledtoday(Trimpi,1983).Butthisdistinctionbetween
artcriticismandarthistoryhasbeencriticizedonatleastthreegrounds.

2
(a)Philosophically,eachdefinitionofartcriticismthatopposesitto
theostensiblymoreneutral,descriptiveworkofarthistoryrepressesboth
the inherent and continuous judgments in all historical writing, and the
philosophicargumentsthatdescriptionandevaluationareinevitablymixed
inallwriting.Muchofarthistorydependsonsucharefusal,andmaintains
itsphilodoxicpurposeinpartbyexcludingartcriticismanddefiningitas
judicative(Preziosi,1989).Thecomplementaryexclusioncanbeobserved
in art criticism. Lionello Venturis History of Art Criticism calls the
distinctionbetweenarthistoryandcriticismagraveerror,andaddsifa
factreferredtoisnotconsideredasafunctionofjudgment,itisperfectly
useless; butsuchobservationscouldnotbeconsistently carriedthrough
withoutmakingtheprojectofahistoryofartcriticismincoherent(Gilbert,
1962; Venturi, 1964, 20). Similarly Luigi Grassi and Mario Pepes
Dizionariodellacriticadartecontainsabriefentryonartcriticismnoting
itisinseparablefromhistoricalwriting(GrassiandPepe,1978,135).
(b)Artcriticismhasalsobeendistinguishedfromarthistorybynoting
that criticism has a different rhetorical purpose, since it is intended to
persuaderatherthaninform.Butthisdoesnotprovideastabledefinition
since no art historical text leaves its reader unaffected by its implicit
judgmentsregardingvalueandsignificance(Fried,1990).Someofthemost
eloquent art historians, such as Roberto Longhi, create persuasive
revaluations of past art at least as much as they produce authoritative
compilations of facts. Although Heinrich Wlfflin insists there is no
questionofjudgmentinhiswork,hisdescriptionsarepersuasiveprecisly
becausetheyaresuchstrongjudgments(Wlfflin,1914,1).
(c)Thehistoriographyofarthistoryprovidesevidencethatmanyof
the practices that gave rise to art history were conceived as critical

3
enterprises.Vasariisfrequentlycitedasanexampleofmixedcriticaland
factualnarrative(Alpers,1960),andthereisalsotheseventeenthcentury
practiceof ars critica, whichlaidthefoundationsfor thehigher biblical
criticism and furnished the example for classical, and later modern,
philology(Borkowski,1936;McKeon,1944,163)thatinturnprovedso
fruitfulforthedevelopingdisciplineofarthistory(Podro,1982).Forthese
reasonsitisphilosophically,rhetorically,andhistoriographicallyuntenable
to maintain the distinction between art history and art criticism on the
groundsthatoneevaluatesandtheotherdescribes.
Theproblemissymmetrical:likemostarthistory,someartcriticism
isconceivedasnonjudgmentalandphilodoxic.Inparticularcriticismcanbe
understoodasimaginativereenactmentofcreationorperception,withno
determinaterelationtoevaluation.Ekphrasiscanfunctionthisway,andhas
from Pliny, Callistratus and Philostratus through Vasari (Bertrand, 1893;
Alpers, 1960; Mitchell, 1994, 15181). In turnofthecentury German
aesthetics,thedoctrineofempathyprovidedafoundationforwritingthat
criticallyreimaginedthebodilyexperienceofartwork(LippsandVischer,
1994).IntheUnitedStates,JohnDeweyproposedthatcriticismshouldnot
appraiseorjudgebutthatwelayholdofthefullimportofaworkofart
onlyaswegothroughinourownvitalprocessestheprocessestheartist
wentthroughinproducingthework(Dewey,1934,325),andBenedetto
Croces slightly earlier concept of imaginative understanding is similar
(Croce, 1910, 42). Venturis History of Art Criticism can be read as a
secondorderworkofthiskind,sinceheaimsinparttoreliveoldercritical
experienceswithoutjudgingthem(Gilbert,1962,59;Venturi,1964,89).
Whenartcriticism isimaginedasanevaluativeactivity,itcanbe
conceivedeitheraspersonalresponsewithoutexplicitpurposeorthesis,or

4
elseasmeasuredjudgmentgovernedbypremeditatedprinciples.Thetwo
provide divergent genealogies for the juridical aspect of art criticism. In
general the second strategy derives from Enlightenment philosophy and
resultsintextsthataimtopresentanostensiblytrue,universal,orreliable
assessmentofthevalueofanartwork,andthefirstcomesfromromantic
poetry, confession, and reverie, and yields texts that can be read as the
potentiallyidiosyncraticexerciseofindividualsensibility.
(a)Asadefiningtraitofthemorepersonalsenseof artcriticism,
writershavepointedtotheintimacyofwritingaboutart,andtheyhave
emphasizeditsdependenceontheideaofsensibilityortaste(Grassi,1970,
47). Thus Charles Baudelaire called for criticism that would be partial,
passionate,andpolitical(Baudelaire,1923,87),andFriedrichNietzsche
practiced a personal and psychological criticism of philosophy and art
(Nietzsche,1989).Ultimatelythesetendencies couldbetracedtoPlatos
dialecticcriticism,wheredialogueandopinionsconstitutethemediumin
which critical judgments emerge, as opposed to Aristotles scientific
criticism, which is based on expository description and the rational
unfolding of knowledge (McKeon, 1944, 162); but contemporary art
criticismthatdependsonsensibility,personalreflectionandtasteismore
oftenunderstoodasafundamentallyromanticandpostromanticenterprise
(deMan,1983).
A limitation of this approach is that it restricts the history of art
criticism to certain strains of nineteenth and twentiethcentury writing,
excludingwriterssuch as Winckelmann(Potts, 1982),Diderot,andeven
Clement Greenberg, to the extent that each of them proposed to speak
according to explicit principles as much as from personal sensibility. In
addition,thiswayofconstruingartcriticismrisksblurringthelinebetween

5
artcriticismandanywritingwithstrongpersonalcontent.Inthetwentieth
centurytherehavebeenvariousattemptstoquestionthedistinctionbetween
philosophyandwriting,andmorespecificallytoproducehybridsofart
criticismthatarepartlyphilosophic,dependingontherationalunfolding
ofprinciples,andpartlyliteraryinthissense(Deleuze,1993;Deleuzeand
Guattari,1994).Butitcouldbeaskedwhetherthoseformsofwritingfailto
takeseriouslytheconventionalandinstitutionaldivisionsthatcontinueto
distinguishartcriticismfromarthistory.
(b)IntheEnlightenmentphilosophictradition,theword Kritik took
on a specific meaning: it denoted the principled negotiation between
destructive skepticism and constructive systematics (Schneiders, 1985;
Ricoeur,1992).Acritiqueinthissenseisneitherpurelycriticalnormerely
hortatory,butusesexplicitlydevelopedprinciplesandassumptionsinorder
toachieveamoderatedposition.Argumenttakestheplaceofassertion,and
dubietyreplacesdogma(Booth,1974).Thisorientationproducestextsthat
are governed by the philosophic principles assumed in the critical
judgments,theconceptionofartisticpurposeandofart,andtheselection
andapplicationofcriticalcriteriaandevidence(McKeon,1944,130):that
is,itproducestextswheretherationalexaminationofargumentcomprises
partofthestructureandmeaningofthetext.
This form of inquiry continues to be common in philosophy, but
relatively little art criticism makes important or consistent use of named
principles, though there are contemporary counterexamples (McEvilley,
1993; Danto, 1992). Nor is such writing usually a continuation of the
Enlightenment tradition of critiques as measured negotiations between
conflicting propositions, so that contemporary art criticism sometimes
becomes more dogmatic, excoriative, or symbuleutic (tending to give

6
advice) than exploratory, openended or elenctic (Socratic). Instead of
seekingtonavigatebetweenantinomiesorconflictingassumptionsinorder
to produce moderate solutions, such writing takes on the more rigid
rhetorical forms of dogmatic criticism (Kramer,1985). For both these
reasons evaluative art criticism that proceeds from named principles is
uncommon,andcriticismthatworksinamoreintimate,personalwayis
morefrequent.
2.Attemptstodefineartcriticismasakindofwritinghavetocontend
withhistoricaldefinitionsthatincludeavarietyofpracticesunderthename
artcriticism.IntheWest,artcriticismhasbeenconsideredasanhistorical
practiceintwopotentiallycontradictoryways:(a)ithasbeendescribedasa
collectionoftextsandpassageswithoutreferencetoanystrongorganizing
principle,and(b)ithasbeenrestrictedtotimesandplaceswhentheterm
artcriticismoritscognateswereinusebythewritersthemselves.
Indefinition(b),artcriticismisarelativelyrecentpractice,sincethe
distinction betweencriticismandhistorywas notmadeinmodernterms
untilearlyintheeighteenthcentury(Richardson,1715).Butmosthistories
ofartcriticismpayonlyintermittentattentiontothatcriterion,andinaccord
withdefinition(a),begininsteadbyassemblingawidevarietyofauthors
fromdifferentperiodsinWesternculture.Byreadingretrospectively,the
modern Western sense of art criticism can be partly or intermittently
discernedinancient,medieval,Renaissance,andnonWesterntexts.Thus
LuigiGrassiopenshishistoryofartcriticismwithPlato(Grassi,1970),and
Venturi begins his in the third c. BC with Xenocrates of Sikyon and
AntigonesofKarystos(Venturi,1964;Pliny,1896;Kalkmann,1898),and
continues through Roman authors including Vitruvius and Lucian, to St.

7
Augustine, Theophilus, the Polish student of optics Witelo, and Dantes
observationsaboutCimabueandGiotto.Adifficultywithsuchanapproach
isthatcriticalwritingaboutartcanbefoundpracticallyanywhere.TheLatin
author Heraclius wondered how the Romans incorporated goldintotheir
glassware,andVenturimentionshimalongwithmorephilosophicquestions
ofexpressionraised byTheophilus,andWitelospreferencefor almond
shapedeyes(Venturi,1964,6569).
Forlaterperiodsthismethodbecomesmorecogent,sincethereisa
continuity of preferences among Renaissance writers from Ghiberti and
FilaretetoVasari(Krautheimer,1956;Tigler,1963;Boase,1979).Afterthe
Renaissance,criticalliteraturebecomesrecognisableasagenre,especially
in the writings associated with the French Academy such as Le Brun,
Perrault, de Piles, and Denis Diderot (Mortier, 1982). In other words,
definition(a)becomesmorecoherentasitapproachesdefinition(b).
The criticism of the salons in Paris forms a large resource for
historians of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Parson, 1986;
McWilliam 1991a, 1991b), and the reception of Impressionism helped
consolidate the practice into a profession. But the definition begins to
weakenagainwhenwemoveawayfromthelaternineteenthcenturyand
intothetwentiethcentury(Dresdner,1915;dAnconaandWittgens,1927).
Evenasearlyasthebeginningofthenineteenthcentury,philosopherssuch
as Hegel and August Wilhelm von Schlegel had begun to challenge
distinctionsbetweenthecriticism,philosophy,andhistoryofart(Schlegel,
180102;Hegel,1844).ThespanfromJonathanRichardsonsdefinitionof
artcriticismtoSchlegelsrevaluationisonlyeightyyearsashortrangein
whichthetermartcriticismisbothexplicitandrelativelyunchallenged.

8
Theproblemisexacerbatedinthetwentiethcentury,notleastbecause
contemporary art criticism no longer takes place within the nationalist,
academicandantiacademicdiscursiveframesthatfirstgaveitmeaning,but
iscombinedwithculturalcriticismingeneralandwithpiecesofformerly
unrelated kinds of writing. A contemporary art critic might write about
journalismorshoppingasmuchasaboutart,anditcanbedifficulttosee
howsuchwritingcansensiblybedescribedasadescendentofeighteenth
ornineteenthcenturypractice.
Inadditiontothisproblemofhistoricalfocus,historicaldefinitionsof
artcriticismarealsodifficulttoapplytononWesternwritingaboutart.
Several cultures developed aesthetic discourses about their own art
independentofWesterninfluence,butnonehavetermsstrictlycomprableto
art criticism. Instead they present collections of critical practices. For
Africa,thereisalargeliteraturereportingthewaysthatsculptorsjudgetheir
work,butmuchofiteitherinvolvesnonverbaljudgments,asinastudyof
BaKwele preferences (Child and Siroto, 1971), or linguistically simple
assessmentsrequiringonlycomparativeadjectives(Crowley,1971).When
indigenous words are applied to the evaluation of art, as in the Yoruba
conceptofiwaortheFangconceptsofoppositionandvitality,theytendto
becommontovariousareasofnonartexperience,makingitdifficultto
assesswhethertheirmeaningsareadequatelyreportedbyresearcherswho
necessarily bring other concepts to their research (Fernandez, 1971;
Abiodun, 1983, 1991; Vogel, 1986). Because art criticism does not
constituteaseparatediscourseinAfricantraditions(Sieber,1971),itcan
onlybecalledartcriticismintherudimentarysenseofdiscourseaboutart
ratherthanforanymorecoherentcorrespondencetoWesternaestheticsand
criticism.

9
InChinatherehasbeenwritingaboutvisualartsincethefifthc.AD.
IntreatisesbyGuoHsiandGuoRuoxu(bothc.1050AD),termsthata
Western reader would call descriptive, critical, formal, and philosophic
coexist(Sirn,1936),sothatitwouldbenolessinappropriatetosaythat
theyarewritingamalgamsofarthistoryandcriticismthantosayVasariwas
writinginthosegenreswithoutbeingfullyawareofthefact.Severalkey
concepts,suchasspiritconsonanceorspiritualcommunion(shenhui)
havenoadequatecorrelatesinWesternlanguages,makingitdifficulttofind
commonground(GuoRuoxu,1951,15).TheLidaiminghuaji[Recordof
theFamousPaintersofalltheDynasties]byZhangYanyuan(c.847AD)
beginswithdescriptionsofpaintingspowertopromoteConfucianethical
values,anditsmagicalconnectionwiththedivinepermutationsofnature
(ZhangYanyuan,1954,61,82):adoubleoriginthatplacestheremainderof
theauthorscriticalterms,nomatterhowfamiliartheymightappear,outside
the domain of Western aestheticseven though Zhang distinguishes
betweencriticismandhistoryinaWesternmanner(ZhangYanyuan,1954,
143).
IntheIslamictradition,textssuchasQadiAhmads Calligraphers
andPainters(c.1606AD)alsomingletheologicalconceptswithgraphical,
historical,andcriticalterms.Theconceptofthe qalam (thecalligraphers
penandthepaintersbrush)isatonceadivinecreation,sinceitwasmade
byAllah;aterminhistoricalnarrative,sinceitwaspassedonfromonestyle
andoneartisttothenext;andacriticaltool,becauseitenablestheauthorto
speakabouttheparticularbeautiesofeachartistswork(Ahmad,1959,48
51).Ineachofthesecases,thespecificdifferencesbetweenthetextsand
traditionsmilitateagainstaparallelwithWesternartcriticism,andthetask

10
foramorereflectivehistoriographywouldbetofindothercategoriestoput
initsplace(Heidegger,1971).
Thereisnosingleaccountofartcriticismthatisnotcounterintuitive,
anachronistic, ethnocentric, artificial, or nave. The term exists in nearly
meaningless dispersion, and gains coherence as authors acknowledge the
disparateinfluencesofconflictingdefinitions,anddemonstratewherethey
harmonizeorchafewithoneanother.

11

REFERENCES
Pliny, TheElderPlinysChaptersontheHistoryofArt, transbyK.Jex
Blake(London,1896).
ZhangYanyuan,Lidaiminghuaji[ARecordoftheFamousPaintersofAll
theDynasties],abridgedtranslationbyWilliamAcker(Leiden,
1954[c.847AD]),pp.59382.
GuoHsi, AnEssayonLandscapePainting, translatedbyShioSakanishi
(London,1935[c.1050AD]).
GuoRuoxu, Tuhuachienwenchih [ExperiencesinPainting],translated
byAlexanderSoper(Washington,1951[c.1070AD]).
Qadi Ahmad, Calligraphers and Painters, trans. by V. Minorsky. Freer
GalleryofArtOccasionalPapersvol.3(Washington,1959[c.
1606AD]).
JonathanRichardson,AnEssayontheTheoryofPainting(London,1719).
August Wilhelm von Schlegel, Vorlesungen ber schne Literatur und
Kunst(Berlin,180102).
Georg Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel, Vorlesungen ber dieAesthetik (Mainz,
1844).
Friedrich Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, translated by Walter Kaufmann (New
York,1989).
EduardBertrand,Etudessurlapeintureetlacritiquedanslantiquit(Paris,
1893).
A.Kalkmann,DieQuellenderKunstgeschichtedesPlinius(Berlin,1898).
BenedettoCroce,Problemidiestetica(Bari,1910).
A.Dresdner,DieKunstkritik(Munich,1915).

12
Charles Baudelaire, Curiosits aesthtiques, in uvres compltes (Paris,
1923).
P. dAncona and Fernanda Wittgens, La moderna critica darte (Milan,
1927).
JohnDewey,ArtasExperience(NewYork,1934).
S.vonDuninBorkowski,Spinoza,vol.4,AusdenTagenSpinozas(Mnster,
1936).
OsvaldSirn,TheChineseontheArtofPainting(Beijing,1936).
Lionello Venturi, History of Art Criticism, trans. Charles Marriott (New
York:Dutton,1964[1945/1964]).
RichardMcKeon,ThePhilosophicBasesofArtandCriticism,parttwo,
ModernPhilology41(1944),pp.12971.
MartinHeidegger,ADialogueonLanguageBetweenaJapaneseandan
Inquirer,in OntheWaytoLanguage, trans.byPeterHertz
(SanFrancisco,1971).
RichardKrautheimer,LorenzoGhiberti(Princeton,1956).
Svetlana Alpers, Ekphrasis and Aesthetic Attitudes in Vasaris Lives,
JournaloftheWarburgandCourtauldInstitute23(1960),pp.
190215.
CreightonGilbert,LionelloVenturi,ArtsMagazine36no.5(1962).
PeterTigler,DieArchitekturtheoriedesFilarete(Berlin,1963).
Luigi Grassi, Teorici e storia della critica darte, prima parte,
DallAntichitatuttoilCinquecentoconduesaggiintroduttivi
(Rome,1970).
IrwinChildandLeonSirotto,BaKweleandAmericanAestheticEvaluation
Compared,inArtandAestheticsinPrimitiveSocieties,edited
byCarolF.Jopling(NewYork,1971),pp.27189.

13
DanielCrowley,AnAfricanAesthetic,inArtandAestheticsinPrimitive
Societies, edited by Carol F. Jopling (New York, 1971), pp.
31527.
James W. Fernandez, Principles of Opposition and Vitality in Fang
Aesthetics,inArtandAestheticsinPrimitiveSocieties,edited
byCarolF.Jopling(NewYork,1971),pp.35673.
Roy Sieber, The Aesthetics of Traditional Aftrican Art, in Art and
Aesthetics in Primitive Societies, edited by Carol F. Jopling
(NewYork,1971),pp.12731.
WayneBooth,ModernDogmaandtheRhetoricofAssent(Chicago,1974).
JeromeJordanPollitt, TheAncientViewofGreekArt:CriticismHistory,
andTerminology(NewHaven,1974).
Luigi Grassi and Mario Pepe, Dizionario della critica darte, 2 vols.
(Torino,1978),v.Criticadarte,vol.1,pp.13536.
T.S.R.Boase,GiorgioVasari:TheManandtheBook(Princeton,1979).
RolandMortier,Diderotandthegrandgut(Oxford,1982).
MichaelPodro,TheCriticalHistoriansofArt(NewHaven,1982).
AlexPotts,WinckelmannsConstructionofHistory, ArtHistory 5no.4
(1982),pp.377407.
Rowland Abiodun, Identity and the Artistic Process in the Yoruba
AestheticConceptofIwa,JournalofCulturesandIdeas1no.
1(1983).
Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight, Essays in the Rhetoric of
ContemporaryFiction.TheoryandHistoryofLiterature,edited
by Wlad Godzich and Jochen SchulteSasse, volume 7.
(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1983).

14
Hilton Kramer, Revenge of the Philistines: Art and Culture, 19721984
(NewYork,1985).
W.Schneiders,VennftigerZweifelundwahreEklektik.ZurEntstehung
des modernen Kritikbegriffes, Studia Leibnitiana 17 no. 2
(1985),pp.14361.
ChristopherParson, ABibliographyofSalonCriticisminSecondEmpire
Paris(Camnbridge,1986).
SusanVogel,AfricanAesthetics(NewYork,1986).
Michael Fried, Coubets Realism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1990).
Rowland Abiodun, Henry Drewal and John Pemberton, Yoruba Art and
Aesthetics(NewYork,1991).
NeilMcWilliam,ABibliographyofSalonCriticisminParisfromtheancien
rgimetotheRestoration,16991827(NewYork,1991a).
,ABibliographyofSalonCriticisminParisfromtheJulyMonarchyto
theSecondEmpire,18311851(NewYork,1991b).
ArthurDanto, BeyondtheBrilloBox:TheVisualArtsinPostHistorical
Perspective(NewYork,1992).
PaulRicoeur,OneselfasAnother,translatedbyKathleenBlamey(Chicago:
UniversityofChicagoPress,1992).
GillesDeleuze,Critiqueetclinique(Paris:Minuit,1993).
Theodor Lipps, in Empathy, Form, and Space: Problems in German
Aesthetics18731893, translatedbyHarryFrancisMallgrave
andEleftheriosIkonomu(SantaMonica,CA:GettyCenterfor
theHistoryofArtandHumanities,1994).
ThomasMcEvilley,TheExilesReturn:TowardaRefedinitionofPainting
forthePostModernEra(NewYork,1993).

15
W. J. T. Mitchell, Picture Theory, Essays on Verbal and Visual
Representation(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1994).
GillesDeleuzeandFlixGuattari,WhatisPhilosophy?translatedbyHugh
Tomlinson and Graham Burchell (New York: Columbia
UniversityPress,1994).
JAMESELKINS