Panofsky begins his essay by putting humanity into a concept of a frail man that was

visited by his physician. The brief story of Immanuel Kant will give you a prior understanding of
the duality of the word humanitas. It was a metaphor because Kant himself embodies the
contrasting meanings of what it is to be more than a man and also subject to the limitations of
humanity, its susceptibility to death and decay. One may seem that Kant is simply being polite
and respectful to his visitor, but by unfolding this, we will further see the meanings of the word.
Panofsky defines the different concepts of humanity in different periods showing how it evolved
to what we know today as humanism. One may think that humanity means the attributes or
qualities of being human, but as Panofsky further explains, I realized it is more than that. In
ancient times, humanity means a value, distinguishing the contrast between man and what is less
than man. But with the rise of middle age, humanity means limitation because man began
comparing himself to a divine being. The two different concepts of humanities formulated in the
ancient and medieval periods are combined in the renaissance age resulting in the creation of
humanism. He defines it as maintaining our rationality and freedom but still keeping in our
minds the limitations that we have: fallibility and frailty. Thus, the responsibility for ourselves
and tolerance to others. By learning this, I realized the importance of reflecting upon the values
and limitations that we have and what we can do to create compassion and tolerance for one
another.

With the rise of humanism in middle age, the humanists learned and accepted whatever
they could find in the past. In studying or observing art, the essay further differentiates
humanities from natural sciences. From the humanistic point of view, it is important to
distinguish between the one of nature and the one of culture because all things are either found in
nature or are man-made. He further explains the difference between man and animal, for man is
the only one to leave records behind him. The records left by man can help in the improvement
of the ideas, being conducted by either historian or scientist, which gets guidance from the one
who studied before them. The old ideas must maintain validity, for it can lead to new and
improved thought and serves as a stepping stone to our current knowledge. On the side of the
historian, they make the past historical records come to life by re-creating it to understand its
intended meaning while, the scientist deals with the natural phenomena to give objective
explanations, and also uses human records as an instrument which helps him investigate the
works of his predecessor. I realized how important it was to leave evidence or records so that the
future generation will have something to depend on, that it is not a mere record but a significant
trail our predecessors left behind.

Thus, the records, whatever they may imply, have to be dated and located. Panofsky used
painting as an example. He said that even if we know when it is dated, it is still useless, not
unless we know culturally and historically where it was painted. I agree with what he said. Art
holds clues to the past, and by studying and looking at the art`s symbolism, we can learn about
the history and culture that produced it. Indeed, it is impossible to know something fully without
understanding its history, both scientifically and culturally. He then further explains the work of
art. Although a work of art is not always created exclusively for the purpose of being enjoyed, it
still has aesthetic significance. It is possible to experience every object, natural or manmade,
aesthetically. But in order for us to fully appreciate it, we must abandon our own desires,
conceptions, and knowledge about the subject we view. However, a man-made object either
demands or does not demand to be experienced, for it has always the creators` intention
embedded within. Our interpretation of intentions is biased by our attitude, which is based on our
individual experiences and historical situation. And something called practicality that does not
demand any aesthetic praise and is generally vehicles of communication and tools or
apparatuses. Works of art are indeed vehicles of communication. Candlesticks are apparatuses,
and tombs are either or both.

Therefore, the difference between the humanist and scientist is that the scientist can
immediately proceed to analyze the natural phenomena while the humanist has to re-enact and
re-create actions and creations mentally. The scientist reads and interprets the book. The
humanist has to realize the thoughts that are expressed in the books, and the artistic conceptions
that manifest in the statues. In understanding work of art, it may be said that most of the time the
people who view it may not recognize its full capacity, and they are considered as naive. There is
no such thing as an entirely naive beholder because he appreciates a work of art without realizing
that his cultural equipment can affect his interpretation of the art thus, interpreting it subjectively.
This leads to “appreciationism”, which is the studying of art without reference to the information
or history of the art, which is the opposite of connoisseurship, who really studies the history
behind the art to be able to understand the intended meaning of the art objectively. The art
historian, however, differs from the naive beholder. He is conscious of the situation and tries to
understand as much as he possibly can of the circumstances under which the objects of his
studies were created.