With the impact of feminism and other liberationist movements of the 1960s and beyond, academic disciplines have faced intensive scrutiny, and re-examination of many of their basic premises and methodologies. Art history is one such discipline. By the 1970s, feminist critique of art history and practices in the art world had brought about the feminist art movement. This movement continues today and has developed and grown in many directions. Artwriting by feminists has proliferated and the literature includes research on female artists, studies on representation of women in art, critiques of texts and other previous artwriting, and discussion on biases, omissions, inadequacies, and the nature of the discipline itself. Attempts at an overview of the movement have focused on discrete issues, events, or histories of developments. Review articles and anthologies have not adequately studied the underlying philosophical and ethical motivations of the movement as a whole. This study considers the over-arching philosophical elements implicit in feminist artwriting. Through a review of the literature, and aspects of general feminist studies and feminist philosophy, particularly ethics, I examine how they contribute to the feminist art movement, and how the movement has changed thinking, teaching and learning about the history of art.

The reception of deconstruction in recent art historiography The aim of the presented master thesis is to outline the reception of deconstruction in the contemporary art historiography and the introduction of its effects on the discipline of art history. The work deals with the term deconstruction in the sense of (1) the original philisophical and critical writing of Jacques Derrida, and (2) the method, which was implemented to literary studies at the end of the 70s and later on to other humanities, including the art history. First, theoretical part of the thesis introduces Derrida's thoughts, epistemology and the strategy of deconstruction. Second part reflects the epistemological changes a implementation of the deconstructive criticism into the art history. After imbedding the "deconstructive" current into the broader development of art history and reading of some methodological handbooks, we turn to concrete works of some art historians and their individual uses of the deconstructive implulses, namely Donald Preziosi, Norman Bryson, Michael Ann Holly, Keith Moxey, and to a lesser extend also W. J. T. Mitchell, Craig Owens, Rosalind Krauss, Stephen Melville, Donald Crimp, David Carrier and Victor Burgin. As opposed to the original derridian deconstruction, in its aplied form (art history,...

Au XXe siècle, le problème de l’illusionnisme perspectif a posé d’importantes difficultés théoriques aux historien d’arts. En effet, la compréhension de la perspective induit une conception de l’histoire de l’art. Si la perspective est conforme à la perception, alors l’art peut être objectif et son histoire participe de l’histoire des sciences. En revanche, si la perspective n’est pas conforme à la perception, alors l’art, dans son histoire, ne peut être compris comme une quête de l’objectivité. Dans ce cas, deux autres questions se posent : comment penser le rapport entre art et rationalité, et comment définir la visée de l’art? Le premier problème appelle une réflexion sur le concept de schématisme, le second une réflexion sur le rapport entre l’art et les conceptions du monde. La Perspective comme forme symbolique, d’Erwin Panofsky, est le premier texte à avoir proposé une réponse générale à ces questions. Le concept de forme symbolique, emprunté à Ernst Cassirer, lui a permis de considérer la perspective comme une forme culturelle, et de mettre au second plan la question de l’objectivité. Cette position est à l’origine d’intenses polémiques, que les débats historiographiques ne sont pas parvenus à résoudre. En confrontant les travaux de Panofsky à ceux de Philippe Descola et de Ernst Cassirer, cette thèse explicite d’abord les attendus théoriques inhérents au rapport entre forme symbolique, schématisme et conceptions du monde. Elle propose ensuite une analyse des controverses liées à la perspective et met en valeur la pensée de Robert Klein. Cette pensée travaille la phénoménologie et amène à une conception de l’histoire différente de celle proposée par Panofsky. / During the 20th century, perspective illusionism caused significant theoretical issues to art historians. That is because an understanding of perspective leads to a conception of art history. If perspective is true to visual perception, then art can be objective and its history is related to the history of sciences. On the other hand, if perspective is not true to visual perception, then art, in its own historical development, cannot be understood as a quest for objectivity. In this case, two further issues arise: how to conceive the relationship between art and rationality, and how to define the purpose of art? The first problem requires a reflection on the concept of schematism, the second a reflection on the relationship between art and different worldviews. Erwin Panofsky’s essay, Perspective as a Symbolic Form, was the first text to provide a comprehensive answer to these questions. The concept of symbolic form, borrowed from Ernst Cassirer philosophy, allowed him to consider perspective mainly as a cultural form, thus overlooking the issue of objectivity. This position has led to numerous controversies, which have not been overcome by historiographical discussions. By comparing Panofsky’s work with those of Philippe Descola and Ernst Cassirer, this thesis first clarifies the theoretical prerequisites for the relationship between symbolic form, schematism and worldviews. It then provides an analysis of several historiographical controversies and underscores the thinking of Robert Klein. His approach tackles phenomenology and leads to a different conception of history than the one proposed by Panofsky to overcome the issues raised by perspective.