The Problem of Classicism: Ideology and Power

Author(s): David Freedberg

Source: Art Journal , Spring, 1988, Vol. 47, No. 1, The Problem of Classicism: Ideology
and Power (Spring, 1988), pp. 7-9
Published by: CAA

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/776898

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

CAA is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Art Journal

This content downloaded from

147.91.1.43 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 13:44:12 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Editor's Statement:
The Problem of Classicism:
Ideology and Power

By David Freedberg

For all the justifiable attacks on the most superior degree in the canon or nature. By concentrating on particular
use of stylistic labels like "manner- hierarchy. The problem of assessing the examples, Natalie Boymel Kampen and
ist" and "baroque," art historians, likeconnections between formal qualitites Martin Powers demonstrate the ideolog-
architects, continue to use the term called "classical" and the authoritative ical dimension and the political uses of
"classicism" abundantly. But they have or normative aspect of what we call what is taken to be classic or classical or
ceased to try to define it quite as desper-"classic" will emerge with some acute- both. Powers makes an eloquent case for
ately as they once did. This set of ness in the essays presented here.2 There the social and political purposes of clas-
essays-and the symposium on which it are, of course, some art historians who sical revivals in China, while Kampen
is based'-did not set out to define it persist in seeking the classical, or even in develops a view that makes the ideologi-
either. They were not planned as an attempting to define it, and who do so cal point most trenchantly of all: the
effort of revival (although in architec- unreflectively and unaware of the ideo- view that classical modes are used to
tural circles the subject may have logical burdens both of the descriptive reinforce masculinist norms of moralit
seemed to be fashionable or prescient). attempt and of the very forms they wish and to persuade the Other, notably the
Rather, they were conceived as an to describe. The symposium now pre- female Other, to become like Self. Hay,
attempt to assess what the residual sented in the pages of this issue of Art in demonstrating the difficulty of asses
interest and the ideological implications Journal was conceived in the hope that ing the problem of classicism in non-
of the term might be-however ex- such pitfalls might be avoided, and that Western traditions, concludes that "the
hausted it may have seemed. ideology might be more plain than dialectic of order and nature is quintes-
The issue, of course, also involves theobscure. sentially Western and lies at the root of
related notions of "classic" and "classi- For all this, there seems to have been many of our greatest achievements"; but
cal" ("classicizing" seems less problem- some recognition of the advantages of a William Childs's analysis of the sculp-
atic). As soon as one tries to define the less radical and more complaisant posi- ture of what is unanimously regarded as
relations-or the distinctions-between tion. Say one simply admitted the the quintessentially classic period in
them, the ground turns out to be even hypostatized status of classicism, on the Western art subverts even this seem-
swampier than expected. Every field has grounds that it served useful terminolog- ingly unexceptionable view. He asserts
a host of writers who have sought to find ical and classificatory possibilities. Such that what we now conventionally
the classical, or to define it; but their a position-in other words, the heuristic assume to be the characteristic features
interests have rarely been interrogated. one-would justify a rather coarser use of classical sculpture can by no means be
There are even classic texts-the funda- of the term than one might otherwise be taken for granted, and should be criti-
mental ones-which are generally ac- inclined to allow. Of all the papers cally reconsidered; in short, instead of
knowledged to have refined the term printed here, Jean-Claude Lebensztejn's the qualities of idealism and abstraction
"classicism" most effectively or to have most strongly exemplifies the benefitsgenerally of associated with it, Childs
provided the most definitive and thor- this stance, although most of the others insists on its descriptiveness and its emi-
oughgoing evaluations of classic periods, share it to a somewhat lesser degree. nent realism.
classic ages, and classic styles. John Hay remains the skeptic in the We seem, once more, to be on the
No one, any longer, can doubt the group, at any rate with regard to his brink of reopening the box of definitions;
laxity of the conventional and tradi- insistence on the fundamental cosmolog- but at the same time Childs's revelation
tional usage of terms like "classic," ical differences between Western values of the straitjacket of the traditional view
"classical," and "classicism." Everyone based on morphologies of order and Chi-of fifth-century Phidian art poses the
acknowledges some sort of link between nese ones based on change and becom- ideological question yet again. By the
the two forms of usage-that is, ing. Henri Zerner insists most strongly time the reader has done with this set of
between the qualitative use and theon the ideological basis of classicism and essays he or she may feel that at least
hier-
archical use, where "classic" is used as proposes the extent to which the power one question has been settled: and that is
somehow equivalent to the highest or attributed to it is and has to be rooted in that any transhistorical view (and by

Spring 1988 7
This content downloaded from
147.91.1.43 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 13:44:12 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 implication any transcultural view) is
neither possible nor decently libertarian.
We may smile in approval, for example,
when Zerner reflects on the apparent
bizarreness of the coupling of archaism
with classicism and then goes on to show
that when archaism or primitivism is, in
some sense, "dominant," such a cou-
pling is altogether possible.3 It produces by those who behold and use
forms that are considered both classical
and authoritative, "classic," in other
words. Indeed, both Hay and Powers
illustrate quite precisely the ways in
which the archaic serves the classical.
The same, of course, may go for any
other quality held to be classical or to be
an ingredient of the classic, classical, or
classicizing object.
B ut perhaps the pendulum has swung the arresting effects of what we
too far in favor of ideology. At the
time the symposium was devised, it
seemed that there was another area to
explore-or at least to broach-with
regard to the problem of classicism: that
of psychology, and cognitive psychology
in particular. To do so need not imply-
as critics of such explorations usually
insist-the independence of cognition;
my aim was to bring to the fore an issue
that art historians in their recent, most
contextual modes seem to have forgot-
ten-perhaps willingly and deliberately.
In any event this particular possibility
remained entirely unexamined. I still
believe it deserves more.
This is how the final prospectus for
the 1986 Symposium ran:
The history of art in its traditional
mode has been much concerned
with the varieties of classicism. It
has applied the term classical in a
loose and generalized way, but it
has been unable to achieve any
kind of consensus about its
description and meaning.
The aim of this symposium is to
develop new approaches to the
complex of problems subsumed
under the heading of "classicism."
It will not primarily be concerned
with stylistic labelling, nor with
the identification of classic peri-
ods.4 It will address the problems
of the relationship beween what is
regarded as the classical on the
one hand, and prevailing ideolgies
on the other; it will assess the
usefulness of stylistic and dialecti-
cal approaches; and it will recon-
sider the relevance of canons, ide-
als, and the analytic worth of the
identification of classic traditions
and revivals.
When we speak of classicism, or of
the classical, do we speak of ways
of describing the qualities of
8 Art Journal
147.91.1.43 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 13:44:12 +00:00
objects; or are we talking about prospectus required, with respect to
relational matters, about the rela- ideological load and to the relations
tions of objects to past ideals, and between contexts of production and
to forms perceived through the reception. The matter became clear-
veils of nostalgia? Or do we speak est-as it does in these essays-when
of the very opposite-in other classicism is most closely related to the
words, of the ways in which forms classic, to rules and to models: rules that
are defined for ideological motives are governed, as the proponents of clas-
sicism allege, by reason; and models that
them? By those who use them for are-by definition and deservedly-to
immediate political aims, or who be followed. But it may be that the
place them in self-justifying his- combined force of the papers-with the
torical relations? exception of Childs's-has the effect of
somewhat exaggerating the degree to
Still further questions arise when
which such terms are ideologically bur-
the problem is seen in terms of
dened; the question of degree is precisely
stylistic issues. One might, for
what the symposium left open. Indeed, it
example, identify any number of
was not even raised; whereas the ques-
artists or works, over wide chrono-
tion of the relations between canonicity
logical spans, in which we sense
and classicism received constant atten-
tion, and may be said to have been
term hieratic, stylized, formal,
treated with conviction.
severe, or austere qualities; of
Little attempt, therefore, was made to
firmly grouped and clearly dis-
arrive more closely at a means of speak-
posed arrangements of figures; of
ing about the relationship between par-
the bleak and underexpressive
ticular styles (however named; but in
gaze; of frontality, profilarity and
this case under the rubric Westerners
isocephaly-for example. But do
call "classical") and particular kinds of
we need such terms at all, and are
response. There was no effort to plot the
they significantly comprehensive?
interlocking data that mark the dialectic
Are these appropriate categories,
that arises, but is also implicit, between
and how are they to be grouped in
specific works and beholder; and then to
terms of both style and effect?
probe beneath that surface-plotting to
Finally one might ask what ideo-
achieve a theoretical basis for a neuro-
logical burdens they carry, and
physiology of visual and psychological
what the consequences are for the
responses to particular forms-and to
relationship between the contexts
the kinds of forms that seem to be more
of production and reception.
closely related to each other than to
The intention is to address prob- other kinds (as we assume, for example,
lems like these over as wide a in the case of classicism). With the
range as possible. At this sympo-neurophysiological reduction at stake
sium the issues will be approached one has to make the assumption of a
certain invariance and a certain recur-
by two speakers from each of three
backgrounds: from Ancient rence across ages and across cultures.
Greece and Rome, from China, This is not to make any claim for the
and from the modern period in the priority of cognition over context; but to
West. say that no style is unideological is not,
In the earlier version of the prospec- in the end, to say a great deal.
It may perhaps be felt that such
tus-in the 1985/86 "Call for Pa-
expectations are pitched too high. One
pers"-I declared more explicitly that
the mention of stylistic qualities often cannot, after all, expect art historians to
associated with classicism was abso- undertake tasks of which they are not
lutely not to hypostatize it; but at capable
the (say, neurophysiology). But to
pose the cognitive question is, in the first
same time I more strongly suggested
instance, to insist on full theoretical
that the kinds of qualities broadly
reflexiveness; and, in the second, to sug-
described by the terms above might be
gest one way in which students of the
recurrent, and have loosely recurrent
history of images may enter into the
effects. The suggestion had no reso-
dialogue with a field from which it has
nance. Instead, the speakers-all of
perhaps wrongly alienated itself. Even if
whose papers are reproduced here-
the latter hope is too ambitious, the
chose to concentrate on qualities that
depended more obviously on the behold- former is simply to reclaim the potential
of psychological analysis-mutatis mu-
er's context, more specifically on the
tandis-for the historical endeavor.
beholder's social and political context.
They were the kinds of qualities
described by terms like purity, order, In any event, a more rigorous insis-
rationality, idealization, abstraction, tence on both the conscious and the
simplicity. They were assessed, as the unconscious political implications of
This content downloaded from
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
classical and classicizing styles may help Notes
to purify art history of loose talk about 1 "The Problem of Classicism," 1986 Annual
classicism. Since Wolfflin there has not Meeting of the College Art Association, New
been much progress. Talk of classicism York.

has been mixed promiscuously with talk 2 I do not here refer specifically to the crudely
of classical epochs and classical mentali- generalizing way in which "classic" is used to
ties. Rationality and classicism have refer to the notional epitome of a period taken
become uncritically tautologous. When in the broadest sense, as when people speak or
rational epochs-as they are called- write of the classic moments within particular
are deemed classical, and the seeminglyperiods or cultures. They speak of "the classic
unclassical works they are said to con- eighteenth century" or "classic eighteenth-
tain are called "unclassical" (or even, century sntiffboxes"; but obviously such use is
say,"baroque"), then the confusions related to the authoritative canonical senses of
become clear, as in any number of sur- the term, as when one refers to classic snuff-
veys, including many volumes of the boxes (or, indeed, the classic snuffbox). It
Pelican History of Art series. There may may be possible to codify the chief character-
istics of snuffboxes and then determine which
be apologists who more rigorously claim
that the only way to deal with the untidi- particular one (or group) partakes of most of
ness of history is to see the stylistic them; and then call that one (or group) clas-
manifestations of a particular period or sic. But by and large this adjectival use of
"classic" betrays more clearly than most other
area binomially, but in such cases one
usages the ideological and contextually
has again to raise the problem of cogni-
skewed dimensions of the term. Judgments
tion, since some claim is also being made
like these also clearly betray the ways in
for binary operations of mind. These
which they depend on notional agreements
days this may be moot; but the problem between the form of groups of objects; and
is for other fields to delineate.
with the attribution of a common spirit to a
In the papers presented here, there- particular period or culture (or to a large
fore, the reader will not find definitions enough segment of one or the other).
of the classical, since each writer knew
3 One doesn't have to think very long before one
that it might be defined in different
generates the methodological and historio-
ways; they also knew that there was no
graphic ironies. "Primitive" art forms are
one such thing at all. Instead, readers
often taken, in the West at least, to precede
will find a consistent search for the
classic art; but with the passage of time what
relations between style and ideology in a
is regarded as primitive easily becomes an
variety of different cultures, and for ingredient of the classical-and so on.
adequate ways of viewing those rela-
tions, usually from outside. The dialec- 4 I omitted as self-evident the problem of the
tic of classicism and power emerged as dictionary meanings and the semantic differ-
ences between terms like "classic," "classiciz-
the main theme of the symposium.
What did not emerge, and what will not, ing," "classical" (cf., also n. 2 above). One
might, of course, have asked about the degree
therefore, be found in these pages is any
to which such terms are loosely synonymous
attempt to examine the relations
and the extent to which they preserve catego-
between style and cognition. Of course
rial differences; but the parameters of this
such relations are implicit throughout;
particular kind of problem emerge, I think,
but for any sketch of the possibilitieswith
of sufficient clarity in the contributions
the study of the relations between social
printed here.
and aesthetic style (on the one hand)
and the structures of mind and behavior
David Freedberg is Professor of Art
(on the other), the history of artHistory
still at Columbia University.
remains unprepared.

Photographic Credits: p. 16 (Fig. 4),

Rome, Fototeca Unione; p. 17 (Fig. 6),
p. 18 (Fig. 8), Paris, Lauros-Giraudon;
p. 18 (Fig. 9), Joseph Szaszfai; p. 41
(Fig. 12), Be'atrice Hatala.

Spring 1988 9
This content downloaded from
147.91.1.43 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 13:44:12 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms