17 Month Year
Archeology and Art History
It is vital to note that Max Loehr was a distinguished art historian, especially of Chinese art. His 1953 paper was specifically focused on the historical study of Chinese bronzes. The study reflected on the fact that archeology pointed out the fact that the style of an object is not its property. What Robert Bagley set out to do in his book, Max Loehr and the Study of Chinese
Bronzes: Style and Classification in the History of Art, was to point out to all art historians, that style and classification is of great concern to all dealing with art (Bagley et al 8).
His answers follow the fact that Loehr established a “history for the [Chinese] bronzes.” In terms of the question, whether archeology has made art historians an dart history unnecessary, could be answered by the fact that Loehr established a chronology in light of the changing patterns of the constructed bronzes. This created the essence that art historians could have been right in establishing the chronology (Bagley et al 124). However, this is a fact that Loehr agreed with, but parted company with the art historians in that he did not agree with “style” being the catalyst for establishing the history of an object. What he further found to be a problem is the fact that many historians regarded “style” as a movement driven by, for example, a worldview or zeitgeist. This is what they regarded when placing an object – in this instance of the Chinese bronzes – in a specific art historical period (Bagley et al 125).
In terms of the style of the bronzes, Loehr established that there is not only an isolated aspect to be seen as the style. In his opinion, he established that the entirety of the bronze object was the style and from the period – for example the bronze styles from the Anyang Period. Should the entire object be placed into a specific period, the archeologist as well as the art historian should look at: the decoration that consists of the motifs; the motifs should be seen in its form, and its arrangement. Furthermore, the shape of the vessel as well as its materials, and its technical characteristics should also be taken into consideration. The outcome of this is that the archeologist would then be able to us a small shard of the vessel and be able to identify it as for a certain period (Loehr 42).
In light of the discussion thus far, one can see that there is no need for the two disciplines to work as separate entities. This means that the reality of it is that the art historian could obtain information from what the archeologist has established, and vice versa. Both of the disciplines are able to find the answers to their questions in the product in its entirety. Both would need to look at the descriptive given above, in order to established the period, the style, as well as the origin. It is in the analysis of the objects that the art historian as well as the archeologist can find common grounds. In his paper, Loehr refers to the fact that previous studies were already in place with regard to certain bronzes, thus, all he needed to do was to divide the period – for example, the Shang period – into its various discriminative styles (Loehr 43).
It is important to see that the two disciplines could disagree with the way in which to establish a style or a period, however, the one cannot truly exist without the other. One could, therefore, not see the two as working separately or as doing the same thing either. In most instances, one could suggest that the art historians could gain more insight in the studies of the archeologist. As noted, the archeologist has indicated that one should look at the entire object in terms of its shape, its decoration, the motifs, the form of the motifs, and its arrangement on the objects, its technical characteristics, and the materials used to construct it. The information is as valuable to the art historian, as it is to the archeologist. One can, therefore, not clearly state that the two disciplines are doing the same thing or not. As said before, Loehr referred to the fact that there was already information available regarding the Shang period, and only needed to be extended into the various discriminative styles. The existing information could have been made available by an art historian and, thus Loehr could further his analysis and studies on that foundation.
Works Cited
Bagley, Robert W., Max Loehr, and Bernhard Karlgren. Max Loehr and the Study of Chinese
Bronzes: Style and Classification in the History of Art. Ithaca: East Asia Program, Cornell U, 2008. Print.
Loehr, Max. “The Bronze Styles of the Anyang Period (1300-1028 B.C.).” Archives of the
Chinese Art Society of America 7 (1953): 42-53. Web.
