What Is the Use of Art History? Seyed Reza Hashemi
The nations of the world that possess art sometimes have a codified, written art history and sometimes do not. Is there a need for art history to be formally codified and written? Can we not have art and artists without having an art history? What is the use of art history? Have we, who still lack a complete codified art history, encountered a problem?
What is art history? The art history of any nation is the account of artistic works produced throughout that nation's historical life, arranged in the order of their creation. The hypothetical history of Iranian architectural art, for instance, is the account of thousands of buildings constructed since the inception of architecture in Iran. What makes this history meaningful? The similarities between works or the differences? The likenesses or unlikenesses? Certainly, the historical line connecting these numerous works is neither pure difference nor mere similarity; rather, what makes this historical sequence meaningful is similarities accompanied by differences, or differences accompanied by similarities. The similarities of works from successive periods indicate the singular origin and lineage of art, while their differences reflect the transformation of circumstances and the turning of time. Being contemporary is a requirement of art in all ages and is not exclusive to the modern period. Art is the historical twin of humanity and, like humanity itself, belongs to a single race and lineage. But it undergoes the transformations and upheavals of its time, sometimes falling into the decline of distortion and decay, sometimes rising to the heights of authenticity and elevation.
Art history does not change art's reality: it neither diminishes nor adds to it. There have been arts upon which centuries and millennia have passed without any written account being prepared about them. Our traditional architecture, too, is among the great arts of an ancient nation that throughout its entire life has lacked a codified written history. But modern architecture, whether in Iran or anywhere else, cannot endure, propagate, or advance without a written history compiled according to modern standards of art historiography.
The reason modern architecture cannot progress without art history is that today's architectural education is based more on theoretical learning than on practical apprenticeship. Day by day, the gap between theoretical education and practical work widens, and the notion gains currency that theory can live independently, without need of practice, in an environment devoid of work, relying on purely intellectual and mental discourse, and can even be fertile ground for artistic creativity. There are those who, without any familiarity with artistic work, claim expertise in art criticism and substitute theory — which is nothing but a reflection of artistic work in intellectual discourse — for the artwork itself.
If art theory distances itself from artistic work and feels independent and self-sufficient, it gradually becomes hollow itself and renders theoretical education hollow as well. If theory does not grow from the substance of works, like a weed with no nutritional value — it may even be toxic and harmful — it corrupts and devalues artistic education. What can protect theory from becoming corrupt and hollow is art history, or the documentation of the evolution of works.
Theory elucidates the artwork so that it can be taught and disseminated. Through theoretical elucidation, the path opens for the artwork's historical elevation. Art is constantly in transformation, and what remains constant in this perpetual transformation — and by virtue of remaining constant can become a foundation for theory — is the singular origin and lineage of art. In other words, the role of theory is to address the element of transformation, but transformation only acquires meaning in the light of a singular origin, and the reconciliation of authenticity and transformation can only be realized in the artwork itself.
Modern art has placed excessive emphasis on the element of transformation, although it has not denied the fixed principle either. In reality, the essence of modernity and the contradiction concealed within it is the intensity of its inclination toward transformation — to the extent that it seems to want to free itself from the constraint of the fixed principle. It is precisely this excessive emphasis on transformation that has caused the unprecedented importance of art history and art theory in the modern period — an emphasis that, while helping theory grow, places it in danger of falling into the trap of self-worship and theory-worship.
Architectural education in our country, in the sixty years of its existence, has not only failed to fill the great void of the art history of architecture in the past hundred years — the era of Iran's architectural modernity — but has not even taught Western modern architectural theory on the basis of its historical documentation.
In the next issue of Memar, we will present to our readers a plan for compiling one hundred works of contemporary Iranian architecture for documenting the evolution of modern Iranian architecture.
