8/3/2019 Apollo's Own

1/10

Apollo's Own: Geoffrey Scott and the Lost Pleasures of Architectural HistoryAuthor(s): Branko MitroviSource: Journal of Architectural Education (1984-), Vol. 54, No. 2 (Nov., 2000), pp. 95-103Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, IncStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1425596 .

Accessed: 10/10/2011 07:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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.

Blackwell Publishing andAssociation of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR

to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of Architectural Education (1984-).

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=acsahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1425596?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1425596?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=acsahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

8/3/2019 Apollo's Own

2/10

esneigen ie WeisenOJi mEnde uSchonemich.(And fien n theend hewisewillbow o thebeautiful.)Friedricholderlin okratesndAlcibiadesThe intention of this paper is to analyze the view of architectural history for-mulated in Geoffrey Scott's The Architecture of Humanism.While Scott'sviews have commonly been placed in the tradition of empathy-based aes-thetics, this paper willargue that most of Scott's arguments are dominantlymotivatedmore by aesthetic formalism. Scott's book is thus an importantstatement regarding the application of the formalist program in architec-tural history. In order to present the full implications of this program, Scott'sviews will be compared withthe conception of art historyexposed by Hans-Georg Gadamer in his Truthand Method.

GEOFFREYCOTT THE ARCHITECTURE OF HUMANISM1914)HASpeculiarosition mong rchitecturalooksof the twentiethen-tury.While t presents finely tructured ebofargumentarget-ing awhole et of nineteenth-centuryestheticiews "fallacies,"as Scottcalled hem manyof these argetsweredestined o be-comethefundamentalogmas f the Modernmovementnly adecadeater.Yet nspiteof its oppositiono themainstreamrchi-tecturalheory f the decadeso come, he bookhasenjoyedhestatus f aclassic ver ince t waswritten.Becausef a referenceoTheodorLipps,manyauthors aveplaced he Architecture of HU-manism in the traditionf empathy-basedestheticheories.2 utempathy-basedestheticsccountsoronlya small egment f thebook. intend o show hatScott'smost ignificantrgumentsrerooted n the Germanormalistradition,whichplaces he maintopicofthepaper Scott's tatementsegardingheconstitutionfarchitecturalistory s a discipline within heirwiderheoreticalcontext.Formalistestheticiansaverarelyddressedhe applica-tionoftheirprogramo architecturalistory, ndScott'sreatmentof this opic s animportantontribution.

The "Fallacies"Scott'sbookhas womajor arts:he shorter necontainshe ap-plicationf TheodorLipps'smpathy-basedestheticheory o ar-chitecture, nd thelonger,a systematic ritique f a number fnineteenth-centuryrchitecturalheories whichScottreferredoJournal of Architectural Education, pp. 5- 03(C) 000 ACSA, Inc.

asromantic, echanical,thical, ndbiologicalallacies. henum-berof argumentationaltrategiescottemploysn the critique fthefallaciess limited.Theentirepectrumf argumentssalreadypresentn thecritique f whathe calls heromanticallacy thatis, a setof aestheticiewsderivedrom omanticistiteraryensibili-ties.Scott's ritique ere argetshe fact hatromanticismsmoreconcerned ith he"idea upposedo besuggested"hanwith hebeauty f individual lements rtheirbeautifulombinationp.52). In suchanapproach,ur udgments notbased n theappre-ciationof architecture,ut on the conceptswe associate ith it.Different ersions f thisargumentonstitutehe coreof Scott'scritique f the allacies. e defines hemechanicalallacy stheat-tempt o reduce esthetic roblemso structuralndconstructivones that s, theview hatourknowledge f structuremodifiesouraesthetic eaction p. 81, 93). However, formsmpose heirownaesthetic haractern a dully ensitive ttention, uite nde-pendentlyf whatwemayknow, rnotknowabout hem" p.96).Theethicalallacys a generalizedersionf Ruskin'sritiqueof theRenaissancep.100).Onemay ee n moraludgmentsboutarchitectureconfusionf aestheticndethicalvaluation.etScottcarefully arns hat t is notunreasonableo dismiss rchitecturefit offends urmoralense p. 101).Thebiologicalallacy efersothe tendencyo evaluaterchitecturalorks n the basisof theirposition n a line ofdevelopment.he terminologyf evolutionforces acts nto a preconceivedescription,eeing he birthof theRenaissance n the quattrocento,full development n thecinquecento,nd hedeclinen theBaroque.ut,Scott emarks,oBruneleschiherewasno Bramante;runcleschi'srchitectureasnot Bramante'snachieved,uthisown ulfilledp. 134).Thebio-logical pproacheglectshevalue f individualegments;t is con-cerned ithexplanation,otvalues.Renaissancerchitecturewhosedefenses oneofScott'smainobjectives)s an unfortunateield orthiskindof exercise,ince t was"an rchitecturef taste"p. 129).The startingointof almost ll of Scott's rgumentsgainstthe fallacies s the assumption hat aesthetic udgmentsarenonconceptual hat s, theydonot depend n meaningsndcon-ceptsassociated itharchitectureutrather rebased n theplea-surederivedrom hevisualontemplationf architecture'shapes.3Scott's tandardrocedures to pointout, foreach ndividualal-lacy, hat t relieson arlevaluation asedon concepts ssociatedwitharchitecturendthento argue hatsuchan approachs notimpartial,asno generalalidity,nddisregardshepurelyestheticappreciationf theform. n thecaseof romanticism,cott's rgu-ment s thatromantic ensibilityudgesarchitecturen termsofmeanings ssociated ith heperiodwhen he ndividualuilding

95 Mltrovic

Apollo's wn:Geoffreycott nd heLostPleasuresfArchitecturalistoryBRANKOITROVIC,nitec nstitute f Technolon

8/3/2019 Apollo's Own

3/10

was onstructed.iscritiquef theromanticistmphasisnnaturetargetshe romanticists'xpectationo recognizen architecturethose deaswhichone associates ith nature.Thecritique f themechanicalallacysdirectedgainsthebeliefhatourknowledgeaboutnonvisualspectsfaestheticbjectssuch sstructure)illnecessarilyodify uraestheticppreciation.hebiologicalallacyemphasizesheexplanationf theorigin fa certainhape whichis alwaysonceptual)nddisregardsonconceptualestheticppre-ciation.Thenonconceptualityf aestheticudgmentsstheprin-cipleof thecritiquemay eem o be abandonedn thediscussionftheethicalallacy, henScott ays hat t is appropriateocondemnarchitecturef it offends urmoral ense.ButevenhereScott m-plies hatdifferentinds f evaluationethicalndaestheticmongthem)are ndependentf eachother.Negativethical valuationdoesnot ogicallyrecludeositive estheticvaluation.Scott carefullydistinguishesbetweenconceptualandnonconceptualppreciationfworks fart."Everyxperiencefartcontains,rmay ontain,woelements,heonedirect,heotherndi-rect.Thedirect lementncludesur ensuousxperiencend impleperceptionsfform:he mmediatepprehensionf thework f art sitsvisible raudiblematerial,ithwhateveraluesmay,by the awsof ournature,e nherentlyonnectedith hat. econdly,ndbeyondthis, here re heassociationshichhework wakensn themind-ourconsciouseflectionspont, thesignificancee attacho it, thefanciestcallsup,andwhich,nconsequence,t is sometimesaid oexpress.his s the ndirect,rassociativelement"p.54).Scott everires fwarninggainstheconceptualvaluationfarchitectureasedn deasweassociateith tspurpose,rue onstruc-tion, materialst employs,nationalife,noble ife, theowner's,architect's,rcraftsman'semperament,nd o on (p.7).Sincean-guagendmeaningsaveuchremendousmpactnourdailyife, heresultsoften he otal uppressionf thesensuouslementpp.56-57).Scott'sssumptions thataestheticensationanaccompanyursensuousxperience,ithouthemediationf conceptsrmeanings.

EmpathyInchapterightof TheArchitecturefHumanism,ScottmentionsTheodor ipps soneof hismain ources. hischapterrovideshe"constructive"artof Scott's ook,where e isnotmerelyritiqu-ingotherviewsbutattemptingo provide is ownexplanationfthepleasure e deriveromarchitecture.ormalistndempathy-based estheticheoriesrenormallyegardedsopposing olesofnineteenth-centuryermanesthetics.inding oth inesofinflu-

ence nScottmay hus eem ontradictory.cott xplainsheplea-surewederiveromarchitecturalbjects y claiminghatwe un-consciouslyranscribeurselvesnto heshape f thebuilding. hisprocesss unconsciousnddoesnotrelyon theappreciationfbuildingsnthebasisof meanings eassociate iththeir hapes;it is thereforeully ompatibleith heprinciplehat udgmentsftaste renonconceptual.cott xplainshata "top-heavyuilding"is uglynot becauset suggestsheideaof instabilityrcollapse-these deas renotthemselvesisagreeable;n otherarts, uchaspoetry,heywouldnotbefoundunpleasant.ather,uchbuildingsawakenn ourmemoryheconditionhat nthepasthasbelongedto ouractualxperiencesf weaknessr ncipientollapsep.158).Theidea hatempathy-basedestheticss compatible iththenonconceptualityf aestheticudgmentsasalreadyresentnLipps.Lipps mphasizeshatouraestheticudgmentso notde-pendonour ntellectualeasoning,heyarenotconsciousr basedon knowledge.4 henhe talksabout ymbolism,esays hataes-thetically elevantymbols reunconscious.5 e introduceshetermSymbolistiko refero theconsciousscriptionf meaningsfor nstancehewayahalo efersoholiness.ymbolistiks irrelevanforaesthetics.nsomeperiods, ipps rgues, rtistsndeed xpecttheobservero add nterpretationso theworkof art:but hishap-pens n primitiveeriodsf artor n periods f decadence.he lessartistic roductsf such imesarerealworks f art, hemoreheyareexpectedo have"meaning."6Toformulateclear istinctionetweenormalismndem-pathy-basedestheticssbeyond hescope f thispaper.7What anbesaid s that he distinctions oneof scopeandemphasis:hileboth idesmaydeny hecontributionf theconsciousscriptionfmeaningso aestheticppreciation,heoristsf empathyremoreconcerned iththe descriptionf the subconsciousrocesseshatproduceestheticleasure,hile ormalistsullydevelophe mpli-cations f thedoctrinehataestheticudgmentsrenonconceptuaConsequently,eading cott's ritique f thefallaciesn thecontextof thenineteenth-centuryormalist estheticheories-wherehe mplicationsf nonconceptualismre ullydeveloped-is a moreruitfulnterprise.ippswould ertainlygreewithScott'scritique f thefallacies,ut,as weshall ee,Scott's ritiquemorecloselyollowsheworks f formalistestheticians.lso,Scott'ser-minologys closero theformalistraditionhan o thatof Lipps.8Scottagreed ith he ormalistiew hat hecriterionf beauty ndrules orthe productionf beautifulbjects re mpossible;ippswasvery mbivalentbouthis.')When t comesohistory,omeofLipps'statementsrecompatible ithScott's,buttheyarenotdevelopedothe evel hatScottdevelopshem.lO

November000 JAE54/2 96

8/3/2019 Apollo's Own

4/10

architecturehould xpresshe function f thebuilding, r reflectthe lifeof the historicaleriod) nd hencondemns very indofarchitecturehatdoesnotconform o the claim.l8 iedler'smajorconcernwas hat heeducationalystem,which s directedowarddevelopingheabilityO workwithconcepts,uppresseshedevel-opment f artistic erception.l9smentioned,cottwarns gainssuch uppressionf sensuousxperience.Thenonconceptualityf aestheticudgmentss a commontheme n a number f Fiedler's orks.The essaymentionedbovewarnshat heexpressionfthoughtssirrelevantora work f art;the interestnworks f artbeginswhere he interestn their on-tentstops.Whenwe perceivehings,here s a momentwhen heseperceptionsre ubsumednder concept; only e who s able oholdonto . . perceptualxperience. . proves isartisticalling."2This ormulationicely orrespondsoScott's istinctionetweendirectand ndirect xperience escribed bove. nanother ssay,"On heOrigin f Works fArt,"Fiedlerays hat anguages onlyone means hroughwhichwehaveaccessononlinguisticeality.2Throughanguage,e make heeffort omasterhereality,et theformulationf a linguisticxpressionadicallyhangeshecontentofconsciousness.heverymomentwe think ohavemasterede-alityusing inguisticorm, t becomes radicallylteredeality.2Fiedlermphasizeshedistinctionetween ames nd hewayweperceivehings.23e warns trongly gainsteliance n meaningandsymbolismn the arts. n aparagrapheminiscentf Scott'scritiquef romanticism,iedler ays hat f oneregardshevisibleonlyasa symbol f thespiritual,ndgivespriorityo the nvisiblecontent,whiledisregardinghat heeyeperceives,hen t is hardnot to go wrong n theappreciationfworks f art.24Scottalso ollows he ormalistraditionntheview hat t isnot possibleostateacriterion ywhich o judgebeautiful bjectsor a ruleby which o producehem.Thenonconceptualityf aes-thetic udgmentsmeant orKant hat t was mpossibleo statearule"accordingowhichanyonewouldbecompelledo recognizanything sbeautiful."25orkingwithrulesrequiresubsumingunder oncepts, hereasudgmentsftastedo not depend ncon-cepts.Scottuses heterm"theory"o designatettemptsoformu-late uch etsofrules pp. 19, 188);hismainconcerns to oppose"theoriesf artwhichhaveblunted ensitive erception ithoutachievingntellectualorce"p. 176).Scott's iew hat t isimpos-sible o laydown hefixedproportionsf a space sarchitecturacorrectollowsrom his.He argueshat pace alue saffected ydimensions, utalsoby light, hadow,olor, hecharacterf pre-dominatingines, he spacewe havemmediatelyeft,ourownex-pectations, ndso on. The architectmust maginehe spaceas it

97 Mitrovlc

Aesthetic FormalismAnattempto relate cott's iews o thoseofcontemporaryritishformalistssuch sCliveBell)would ieldmeager esults. ell'sArtcameoutwhileScottwaswritingTheArchitecturefHumanism,but Bell's iewsaresimilar o Scott's nly n whatone couldcallgeneralormalistoctrines,uchas theemphasis n the apprecia-tionofrelationshipsf parts nd hecritique f thepolitical valu-ation of works of art." Scott'semphasison generallyvalid,disinterested,ndnonconceptualudgmentsuggestsnsteadGer-man formalism ndKant'sCritique fJudgmentsthe ultimatebackgroundo hiscritique f the fallacies. he conceptualrame-workof thecritique f the fallaciesorrespondslosely o the for-malist rogramf the irstWO "Moments"f Kant'shirdCritique.Thesechapters ontaina formalist estheticystem n which hecore hesis s that udgmentsf tastedo notdepend n the mean-ingsweassociate ithobjects rthe waywe subsumebjects n-derconcepts.'2 ant rgueshatwhilemany f ourattitudesowardobjects iffer ecause fthedifferentoncepts nderwhichwe sub-sume hoseobjects, ne canexpectudgmentsf taste ohavegen-eralvalidity.'3Kantalso insists that judgmentsof taste aredisinterested-thats, theydo notdepend n interests e have nthe existence f aesthetic bjects.'4cottrepeatshe sameviewanumber f times,usingKant'serminology. e defines elight s"thedisinterested esire orbeauty" p. 17). Thejudgment fbeauty epends n"taste,hedisinterestednthusiasmorarchitec-tural orm";he allaciesf thecriticism fsentimentome rom ts"lack f knowledgenddisinterestedxperiencen theartof archi-tecture"pp.26, 124).Oneshouldbecareful,hough, ot tooveremphasizeant'sinfluence,ince he first woMoments f the CritiquefJudgmentpresent nlyoneaspect f Kant's estheticiews ndelsewheret iseasy o finddiscrepanciesetweenKant's iewsandScott's.'5 heopening haptersf theCritiquefJudgmentrealso hebirthplaceof nineteenth-centuryormalism.Parallels etweenScott andConradFiedler reparticularlytriking.'6nhis essayOnJudgingWorksfVisualArt iedler rovided thoroughpplicationf theformalist rogramn the visualarts.Similarly o Scott, Fiedlerwarns hat"the ontent f a workof art hatcanbegraspedon-ceptually ndexpressedn verbalermsdoesnotrepresenthe ar-tistic ubstance hich wes tsexistenceo thecreativeower f theartist.''l7iedler's arningsgainsthetendency f philosophersoimpose heir onstructsn theunderstandingf thearts esembleScott'sprotests gainsthe kindof criticismhatstartsby layingdown ome"law"f architecturalracticee.g., hatgooddesignn

8/3/2019 Apollo's Own

5/10

whoareprimarilynterestedn thestory r symbolismf anartist'swork."'8n a recent rticle,rvingLavin asdescribedow he en-dencies of (what he calls) "hypercontextualization"nd"devisualization"ecame ominantnlyduring he1960s.2('Scott'smportantoint s that f architectures judged n thebasis f associationsiththeperiodwhen t wasbuilt, hena newhistorical erspectiveayeasily hange hefeelingswe experience"Yetheconcretertswhich hese ifferenteriods roducedemainalwayshe same, tillcapable f addressinghe sameappeal o thephysicalenses"p. 50).Gothicarchitecture,hichwasonceseenas the "expression"f"ignorantndmonkish arbarians,"ame nthenineteenthenturyo suggesthe dealized othandhis"nobleaspirations."twasalso eenas "arecord frude ndunrestingn-ergy," evidencef dreamingiety," expressionf infinitymadeimaginable,"nd"the mbodimentf'inspired'emocracy"p. 50).Scottargues hat"acombinationf plasticormshasa sensuousvalue partrom nything emayknowabouthem.Romanticismallowswhat tknows, rconceivestself o know, bouthecircum-stances mongwhichhe ormswereproduced,o divertt from iv-ingunbiasedttentiono thepurelyestheticharacter,hesensuousvalue, f theconcreterts"p.51). Regardinghe nterpretationfGothicarchitectures,cottsays:"Any haracteristic,ealor imag-ined,of a mixed etof northernaces,during period f severahundredears,s discoveredtwill nthese athedralsf the welfthand hirteenthenturies,lthought is more handoubtful ow arsuchcharacteristicsrecapablef being mbodiedn architecturor, f embodied,ow arwe, withourmodern abits f mind,canextracthemunfalsified,r, fextracted,ow arare hey elevantothequalityofthework"p.51).Theargumenthatourmodern istoricalorizon reventssfromaccuratelynderstandinghe true haracteristicsfhistoricaperiods ascomplexmplications.o follow hem, t is necessaryto comparecott's ositionwith heviewofhistoryhatdominatedthe hermeneuticaltream f continental hilosophyater n thetwentieth entury. cott's kepticismbout he possibilityf his-torical econstructions equivalento the argumenteveloped yMartinHeideggern BeirlgrldTime,whichplays he centralolein Hans-Georg adamer'sruth rldMethod.3')comparisonfScottwith Gadamers very ruitful,inceGadamer'sook s theultimate tatement f romanticist istoriographygainstwhichScottprotestedo much,and s anexcellentoilforScott'sdeas.3In Scott'sime,historicalnderstandingas till eenasanattemptto enter he historicalorizon f individuals ho participatednevents.Nineteenth-centuryothicrevivalistselievedhat t waspossible otonly to grasp hehistorical orizon f medievalma-

resultsrom hecomplex onditions f eachparticularase,andfixed atios reoflittlehelp.Theorieshatprovideeady-madeestsforthe creation f architecturer criticismf designaredoomedfrom hestart p. 170). Scott's tatementslosely orrespondoAdolfHildebrand'sreatmentfthesameproblem.nhisProblemof Form,Hildebrandeniedhepossibilityf ageneralrescriptivetheory f proportions,ince henecessaryroportionsepend nthetotality f therelationshipsetween he parts f a givenworkof art.26 eneralrescriptiveheoriesre easiblenly n thecase fworks hatrepeathe general isposition f parts suchas Greektemples);nly denticalhapes anbeexpectedo sharehesameaestheticalue nthebasis f theirdentical roportions.

Aesthetics versus HermeneuticsScott's eliefn thenonconceptualityf aestheticudgmentsorre-lates loselywithhisbelief n theirgeneralalidity. ince he deasweassociate itharchitecturere ulturallyelative,fwejudge r-chitecturen thebasis fthemeaningssociatedith t, thenanewhistorical erspectiver fashionmayeasily hange hevalueas-cribed o it (p. 50).Relativismsa serious eproachn Scott's iew,sincehe believeshataestheticudgmentsavegeneralalidity p.158).Sucha belief ounds nusualoday,butthere re ewdefini-tiveargumentsgainstt. Onemayargue, or nstance,hatsincehuman rainsunctionimilarly,e canexpect ransculturalgree-mentabout he aestheticalueof works f artas ongasour udg-ments renot tainted ymeanings e are ulturallyonditionedoattributeo individual orksof art.Wheredisagreementsboutaestheticvaluationrise,t is becauseuch udgmentsrenotpurejudgmentsf form, nda conceptualizationfsome orthas nter-fered.Ourcontemporaryelief hatsuchagreements impossibleis asmucha culturalonstructf the ate wentiethentury swasthecasewiththeopposite iewearly n the same entury.Gener-allyvalidaestheticudgmentsmply he deaof a canon, nd tmaybearguedhat hecanon tandsora selection f objectsmadebypeoplewhowere ulturallyonditionedo suppress eanings henappreciatingorks f art. n response,tmaybe arguedhat odaypeople re ulturallyonditionedo suppressleasureerivedromthe contemplationf thepure hape f the object.ErnestMundt,whoin the late1950swrotea highly nfluentialrticleurveyingnineteenth-centuryermanestheticheories,till reatedhe deathat he interpretationf a workof art s relevantor ts aestheticappreciationsaredherring.27undtbegan hearticle y actuallydistinguishingetweenhe"modernritic"nd"thoseriends f art

November 000 JAE54/2 98

8/3/2019 Apollo's Own

6/10

ferent romhisor herown, hen he nterpreterught o be able ounderstandhehistorical erspectiveirectly.When t comes o aesthetics, adamer'siew s that here reno aestheticrartistic uestionshat annot ereducedo theproblem of the interpretationf works f art:"Aestheticss to be ab-sorbed nto hermeneutics."35e thus deniesthe autonomy faesthetics nd dismisses estheticormalism.36he powerof aes-thetic onsciousnessthe ermhe uses o refer o the nterestn theformal esthetic spects f works f art) s manifestedhroughtsabilityO "see" bjectsndependentlyf the context f theiroriginalcreation.37t relies n aestheticifferentiation;utasanabstraction, aesthetic ifferentiationannot upersedehe workof art'sbelongingo its world.38 he ideaof aesthetic ifferentiatione-pends n theassumptionhat here xists omeelementaryevelofpureperception,eforewe subsume hat s perceivedndermeanings; ollowingHeidegger,Gadamer enies his assumption ndclaims hat o perception is possiblewithoutmeanings.39Gadamerompletesisargumentgainstormalismydiscussing architecture.e says hatwhena work f architectures a workof art, t "isnotonly heartisticolutiono a building roblem osedbythecontexts f purposend ife o which t originallyelongs, utsomehow reserveshem, o that heyare isibly resentven houghthe building's resent ppearances completely lienatedrom tsoriginal urpose. omethingn it points ack o theoriginal.Whertheoriginalntention ecomesompletelynrecognizable,r tsunityis destroyedy too many ubsequentlternations,hen he buildinitselfbecomesncomprehensible.husarchitecture,hismost tatuaryof all art orms, howshowsecondar,vaestheticifferentiatioiS." 40 He furthertateshat hepurposef a buildingonnectst to itslife-context;hen t becomesheobject f aestheticonsciousnestremainsnly n thedegenerateorm f a tourist estination.4lConsequently,orGadamer,he nterpretationf a workofart, ikeanyother nterpretation,elies n the fusionof horizonsOnceagain,Gadamer ustmake reat fforts o avoid elativism"Anancient mage f the gods hatwasnot displayedn a templeasa workof art n order o giveaesthetic,eflectiveleasure,nd snowon show n a museum, etains, venas it stands efore s to-day, heworld f religiousxperienceromwhich t came; he m-portant onsequences that ts world till belongs o ours.Whatembraces oth is the hermeneutic niverse."42he hermeneutuniversehatembraceshemrelies n thefusion f horizons nd smeant o provide eneral greementbout he interpretationndaesthetic valuationf works f art.Thisnowmakes lear hestrength f Scott's osition.Hirschindicatedhat t is highly ebatablehat he usion f horizonsan e-

sons,butactuallyo reconstructt inthemodernworld.Scott's r-guments thatourhistoricalnderstandings always eterminedyourownhistoricalituationn a way hatmakes he possibility fsuchreconstructionmorehandoubtful."n philosophicalerme-neutics t is normallyHeidegger ho iscreditedorhaving evel-oped hiskindof argument.ForbothGadamerndHeidegger,heunderstandingf texts(and he sameapplies o any nterpretation,ncludinghe histori-cal nterpretationf events rworks fart) nvolves oingback ndforthbetween he anticipated eaning nd he text tself; hisgo-ing backand forth is normally alledthe hermeneutic ircle.Heidegger alls he process f anticipatinghe meaning f a text"projection,"nd n hisviewanticipated eanings redeterminedbythetraditionf the nterpreter.heyarenot random racciden-tal. Gadamerdopted ndfurther evelopedhisview.He pointsout thatour nterpretations always eterminedy ourprejudices,but prejudicesrenot randomly enerated;ather, he tradition,whichconstitutes ur historical orizon, upplies s with them.Interpretinghistoricalituation runderstandinghistoricalra-dition mpliesworkingrom historicalorizon nd t is impossibleto simply lace neselfntoa historicalituationn order o achieveinterpretation.32ather, ne mustwork romone'sown horizonandbe aware f it;a hermeneuticallyducatedeaders aware f hisor herhistorical osition.As critics avepointed ut, thisviewcanhardly voidrela-tivism.ForGadamer,heauthor'sntentions not normativen theinterpretationf a text.He says hat he meaning f a textalwaysexceedshe author'sntention.Consequently,e takes reatpainsto avoid n "anything-goes"heory finterpretationnd o explainhow a historiantartingromonehorizon an nterpretvents rtexts romdifferent istoricalorizons.n Gadamer'siew,relativ-ismcanbe avoided y assuminghat he process f interpretationconsists f the fusion f thehorizons fthe nterpreternd hetext.What he interpreternderstandss neither he interpreter'swnperspectiveor the original ne, but a fusionof the two.33Manycriticshave ound his solutionunconvincing. ccordingo EricHirsch,who s generallyegardedsoneof themost horough rit-ics of Gadamer,he fact hatGadamerefuseso considerhe in-tention of the authoras the mainregulatory rincipleof themeaning f thetextprecludeshepossibilityf judginghevalidityof an interpretation.34irsch sskeptical bout he fusionof hori-zons,becauseor ucha fusion o be possible,he nterpreterouldsomehow ave o appropriateheoriginal erspective. irsch sks,how canthis be possiblef the originalmeanings beyond each?On the otherhand, f the interpreteranadopta perspectiveif-

99 Mitrovic

8/3/2019 Apollo's Own

7/10

sult n generalgreement.hepoint snotonly hatScott nticipatedHeidegger'srgumentbout he imits f romanticististoriographybymore han decade, utmuchmoren thewayhis ormalistosi-tionavoids elativism. n theonehand,he cancomfortablyxpressskepticismbout he ability f romanticististoriographyo recon-structheGothicWeltanschauung.eadingheabove aragraphromGadamer,necanhardly elp hinkinghatScott's esponse ouldbe the sameas to the GothicRevivalists.e wouldwarn hat t ismore handoubtful ow ar uch ontextualropertiess"world freligiousxperience"re"capablef being mbodied"n a workofart,"or, f embodied, ow arwe,withourmodern abits f mind,can xtracthemunfalsified,r, f extracted,ow arare hey elevantto thequality f thework."On theother and, is ormalismllowshim o rely n the imilarityf humanmental pparatusesndassumegeneral greementbout estheticudgments.f thevalidity f aes-thetic udgments epended n the meanings f works f art(andsince hereconstructionf theoriginalorizon f thesemeaningssa dubious usiness),uraestheticvaluationouldnotescape elativ-ism.But ormalismenieshatmeaningsttachedo works f artplayanyrole n their ppreciation,hicheaves lenty f space orScottto attack omanticistheoristsor heir elativism.Scott's rgument bout he futilityof historicalnterpreta-tions i.e.,hisview hateven f Gothic evivalistsould econstructthe horizon f medievalmasons,hiswould aynothing bout hequality f Gothicbuildings) as ignificancen its own.Fora for-malist ike Scott, he quality f theworkhasto do with the wayspatial elationshipsontributeo the pleasure erived rom hecontemplationf the object and narrativesannot uccessfullyaccount or theserelationships. goodexamples the common-place nterpretationf Bernini'solonnadesn frontof St. Peter's,whichcompareshe colonnades iththe arms f the Church m-bracinghe faithful.Yetsuchan interpretation ven f it is con-temporaryith hedesign doesnotexplainheellipticalhape fthe piazza,Bernini's seof ornamentation,rders, ndso on. Thesymbolism f the arms ouldapply o piazzas f manydifferentshapes. heproblems thatan nterpretation-basedxplanationfthe context n whicha workof artwascreatedincludingymbol-ismand historicalnterpretation)s always erbal. uchan expla-nationmustalwaysnclude verbal escriptionf thoseaspects fthework f art hatarebeing xplained. erbal escriptionsf spa-tial objects realmost lwaysncompletend eavea greatmanyspatial ndvisual ropertiesnmentioned.This s whyarchitectsusedrawings.) nless ne s to claim hat patial elationshipsin-cluding olors, ight,andso on) makeno contributiono the aes-thetic alue f works f thevisual rts, nehas o admit hatverbal

explanationsbout hemeaning ndorigin f works f art ancoveronly omeestheticallyelevantroperties;hey annever xplainhespatialotality f a workof art.Everyworkof artwillhavea great(probablynfinite) umber f aestheticallyelevantropertieshatarenotaccountedorby historicalnterpretations.Scotthasanother rgumenthat eriouslyhallengeserme-neutichistoriography.n hisview,not only s ourability o judgeaestheticallyndependentromourknowledgebouthehistoricacontext f works f art,buttheproper istoricalnderstandingfsomeperiodss impossible ithoutnonconceptualudgments ftaste.Ourenjoymentf ItalianRenaissancendbaroque rchitec-turedefineshepapacy smuch s hepapacys there o explainhearchitecture.Itis common allacyo accountorartisticxpressiony ex-ternal onditionsorwhoseverybeing hatexpressions re-sponsible, ndwhich,but for thatexpression,ouldnever,perhaps, avebeen upposedo exist.... St.Peter's nd heVatican,nd hegreatmonumentsf restored ome, rewit-nesses o less o the power f architectureo create ndde-fine he maginativealue f theRenaissanceapacy,han othe encouragementnd nspiration hich he papacy on-tributedo art.... PiusII, LeoX, andJulius I, ... werecultivatednthusiasts,wake o the idealsof an artwhich,quite ndependentlyf themselves,adgiven vidence f itsnature,ndwhichwasalready,n theeyesof allmen,an en-ergy o vigorous ndsplendidhatpopes ouldconceive osecurermeansof adding o their ame hanby inviting tssupport.p. 31)Scottargueshatreligiousxplanationsufferrom he sameproblem: aroque rchitectureasencouragedytheJesuits, ut"the eryuccess f themovement asoccasionedy he act, owellappreciatedy theJesuits,hat hetastewasalreadyhere.... [the]delight [of seicento talians] n such qualities s thesebaroquechurchesmbodied,repre-existentacts"p. 32).Taste, orScott,predateshe Counter-Reformationndshapest. It is impossibleoaccountorthe actions f Jesuitsf one disregardsurely estheticmotivation, hich s crucialorthe understandingf manyRenais-sance ndbaroque istoricaligures. heshapes ndbeautyhatre-sulted from their patronage annotbe reduced ompletely oconceptualonsiderations.hehistoricallyrreduciblendaestheti-cally elevantropertiesf, say,Bernini's ork, onstitutehe uccessof UrbanVIII's atronage,nd uccessfulatronages an mportanaspect fourunderstandingf theBarberiniope sa historicalig-

November000 JAE54/2 1 00

8/3/2019 Apollo's Own

8/10

ure.Scott's oint snot only hataestheticudgments independentof historicalnterpretation,ut thathistoricalnterpretationftencannot e constitutedithoutt. NotonlyRenaissancerchitecture,but heRenaissancesaperiod,equiresakingntoaccount leasuresderivedrompure hapes,f it is to be understoodroperly.

ConclusionThere re hreewayswe canrelate o architecturalorks.First,wecanperceive buildingwith hesenses.Then,afterwe have een tfromdifferentides, ts interior ndfacades, r havestudied tsplans,we can maginet visuallynddrawtfrompoints f viewwehavenever bservedt frombefore.Cognitive sychologistsalk nthis ense bout urabilityo form patialisualmodels;uchmod-els,for nstance, nable rchitectso draw ections f buildingsf-terhaving tudied heirplans ndother ections.43inally,t somepointobjects et subsumed nder oncepts ndwe recognizenthemhomes, chools, r hospitals.ForScott andhis ormalistontemporariesndpredecessors)aestheticvaluation asbasedon the pleasureserived rom hecontemplationf objectsndependentlyf the way heycouldbesubsumednder oncepts. hecorrespondingpproacho thewrit-ingof architecturalistorynsistedn formal nalysis, ade ffortsto definevisualnorms, nd comparedifferent rchitecturalle-ments entablatures,or nstance);uchresearchasobviouslyn-tended orusebypracticingrchitectsf those imes.Theapproachcared ittleabout hemeaningshatcouldhavebeenascribedoarchitecturalhapes.Over hepast iftyyears uch ormalismascome ntodisre-pute.On theonehand,he nfluencef theGermanomanticistra-ditionof arthistorical riting,which preadhroughhe nfluenceofWittkower,anofsky,ndGombrich,ontributedo redirectingthe nterestf artandarchitecturalistoriansowards eaningsndsymbolism.44n theotherhand, herewas he nfluencef behav-iorism,whichdenied nypossibilityf nonverbalvisual)hinkingandwhosempact n Anglo-Saxonestheticshould ever e under-estimated.NelsonGoodman ncecomplainedhatthe "view fthought s exclusivelyerbal asbeen o widely cceptedhatanytalkof picturesn themindhasbecome ather isreputable."45Yet hesuppressionfvisualitymusthavea highpricen thevisual rts.A programhat ubsumesrchitecturalistory nderheexplorationf meanings rbitrarilyssociated ith architecturethroughhistorydisregardshe spatialaspectsof the discipline.Scott's ointwouldbe that t is notclear owarchitectureanac-

quiremeanings, orhowwe canreconstructhem.He wouldalsoarguehat"meanings,"sverbalescriptions,annot ccountor hetotality f spatial elationshipshatcontributeo thepleasure ederiveromarchitecture.heproponentsf meaningseednotbeimpressedith he atter rgument,ince heymaynotbe nterestedin pleasuretall,or theymaybe interestednly n thosepleasurethatcanbe derivedrommeanings.nanycase,without roof hatno pleasureanbe derivedrom he contemplationfpure hapes,theywillhave oadmit hat heir estheticheoryannot ccountorthisphenomenonndthat heirwriting f architecturalistoryscharacterizedy thesuppressionf formal nd patialssues.If all aesthetic ppreciationependednmeanings,t wouldalwayse relativeo interpretations;ince nterpretationsepend nthe nterpreter'sorizon,t wouldbe impossibleo agree n whichobjects rchitecturalart)historianshould tudy.A common ro-posal s to abandonheideaof art architectural)istory ased naesthetic ifferentiationltogetherndreplacet withthe studyof"materialulture."46et refusing o privilegehoseobjects romwhose ormwe derive leasureoesnot mean hat uchobjects onot exist.Unlesswe canprovehat o pleasureanbederivedromthe contemplationf pure orms,wecanneverbe sure hatsomeobjectswerenotmade uchastheyare orpurelyormal estheticreasons.n thatcase,materialulture annot esuccessfullytudiedwithout aking ntoaccount ormalaestheticmotivation. cottwould urtherrguehat n order o explainUrbanVIII's atronagwe not onlyneed o relyon formal estheticmotivationut mustalsoassumehatwe have he sameabilityO judge ormal esthetipropertiess he eicentotalians. therwise,eshould ever eableto explain hyUrbanVIIIchoseBerninindnotsomeotherminorartist.n otherwords,hestudyof materialulturewas ntroducein ordero avoid ostulatinghecanon ndrelying n thebelief hatweshare ithpeople romdifferentultureshesame bilityO judgeaesthetically.owever,t is quite ikely hat he shapes f materiaproductsromdifferentulturesreoftendeterminedyformales-theticmotifs.nordero explainheshapesf these roducts,chol-ars tudying aterialulturemust ssumehat hey hare ithpeoplefromother ultureshesame bilityO judge esthetically.Thequestiono askheres whetherhedebate f "beautyer-susmeaning"ustbeformulatedn such tronglyntitheticalermsIf thecontemporarypproacho architecturalistory mphasizemeanings,hile hedisciplineannot urviven suchadiet, s theresomeway o rescuet byputting oth adicaliewsGadamer'siew,thatarchitecturalistorys to be reducedo interpretations,ndScott's,hat uchnterpretationsre mpossible)ntoparentheses?sit notpossibleo preserveormal estheticudgmentsogether ith

1 01 Mitrovic

8/3/2019 Apollo's Own

9/10

thefact hatworks f artandarchitecturelaya significantulturalroleandacquiremeaningsn thatrole?After ll, t seems lausiblethat heyplay uchan importantultural oleprecisely ecause ftheir ormal esthetic roperties.heconcludingemarksf a paperlike hisare urely ot the place o develop ucha program,ut tshouldbe mentionedhat he deaclosely orrespondso what heBritish estheticianickZangwill as ecentlyalled moderateor-malism."47sZangwill efinest, this s theview hat omebutnotall)aesthetic ropertiesf a work f artdepend n itsformalpatialproperties, hileothers epend n meanings.Moderateormalismis opposedo both xtremeormalism,hich laimshatvllaestheticpropertiesf an artwork re ormal, ndto antiformalism,hichclaimshatnoneof them re.Such napproachould llow elianceon formal estheticvaluationstheconstitutiverinciplef archi-tectural istory determininghichobjects houldbestudied) ndalso or heexplanationf aestheticallyotivatedctions f histori-cal igures.Once hescopeof thefieldhasbeen ustified y formalaestheticvaluation,heculturaloleof works f art meaning)e-comes n mportantopic.Whetheruch programsfeasiblen ourpresentituations another uestion ltogether.TheArchitecturef Humanism aswrittenbya profoundthinker ndanauthor ithdeep ensitivityor hearts a rare om-bination.One maydisagree ith its premises, utits argumentsneverthelessossess triking onsistency.t hasmuch o teachus,yet t is far rom ertainhatwe arepreparedo learn rom t. Con-sideringhe prevailingendenciesn art-relatedcholarshipoday,Scott's rgumentsaneasily rouse oncern.We have een hat hesuppressionf visualityeavest unclear hatartandarchitecturalhistory reabout. t seems ertainhat heycannotbe constitutedby relying n interpretationsndmeanings, s is commonly onetoday.One needonlythinkof the consequencesorarchitecturaleducation f sucha narrow pproach,ne whichdiscouragestu-dents romconsideringhosevisual spects f design hatarenotreducibleo narratives.rewe facing period fartistic ecadenceas Lippsdescribed? t this stage, hereare oo manyworrisomequestionso ask and heyareworrisomeecauseheanswers aybe moredifficult o accept han o find.

NotesI owespecial ratitudeo ProfessorWilliamCarrollWestfall f the UniversityfNotreDame, or heencouragemento work n this tudy nd o Ms.KarenWiseof Auckland niversityf Technology, hose elpwith hewritten nglish f thepaperwas nvaluable.ome egmentsf thepaperwere ead t the1999SAHANZconferencen Launceston,asmania.

1. Geoffrey cott, TheArchitecturef HumanismLondon:Constable1914).All quotations ccordingo the 1974 edition NewYork:Norton).ForScott's iographyee DavidWatkin'sorewordo the 1980edition f TheArchitecturefHumanismLondon: heArchitecturalress) ndRichard unn,GeofeyScott nd heBerensonircleLewiston:dwinMellen, 998) SeealsoDiana uliaPenkiunas, Geoffreycott's fallacies'n TheArchitecturef Humanism"M.AThesis,Univerity f Virginia, 984).I am ndebtedo ProfessorWilliamCarroWestfall f the Universityf NotreDame, ordrawingmyattentiono thiswork2. Reyner anham,TheoryndDesignn theFirstMachine ge LondonTheArchitecturalress, 960),pp. 66-67; Hanno-Walter ruft,GeschichteerArchitekturtheorieMunich: .H. Beck,1995),p. 395.3. GavinMacrae-Gibsonn TheSecret ifeof BuildingsCambridge, A.MITPress, 985),pp. 172-73,warns bout paragraphhere cott ays hat"literary deas"onstitutehe"ultimate"alue f architectureScott,Architecture,57-5It is mportanto bearn mind hatScottdidnotclaim hatour xperiences reducible o themere eactiono materialorms. cott s muchmore nterestedn asserting that he main onsiderationhould e given o theaestheticnjoymenthat s"propernd pecial"o thegiven rt i.e., hat henucleus faestheticppreciatiof architecturehould ea right erceptionf the orm. Whetherrnot hatpeculiar njoymentanbe enrichednd urroundedithothers f a differentndmoregeneral aturemustbea secondaryuestion,newithwhich hecriticismf a givenart . . needhave o concern"Ibid., . 58-59).Butweshall ee hathe denied hatthemeanings hichwere riginallyscribedo artworksanbereconstructed.4. Theodor ipps,Asthetik.sychologieesSchonenndderKunstLeipzigTheodor oss,1923).See, orexample ol.1, pp.21, 118, 125,486;vol.2, p. 92.For heviews f other heoristsf empathy,ee he"Introduction"o Harry ranciMallgravendEleftherioskonomou,ds.,Empathy>orm ndSpace>roblemsnGerman esthetics873-1893 (SantaMonica:GettyCenter,1994), andMarkJarzombek,De-ScribingheLanguagef Looking," ssemblage231993),26-69.5. Lipps,Asthetik,ol. 1, p. 141.6. Ibid.,vol. 2, pp. 90, 95.7. See he ntroductiono Mallgravend konomou, mpathyora discussion of this problem nda thorough omparativeurvey f nineteenth-centuGermanormalistndempathy-basedestheticheories. ninspired aper boutthisproblems ErnestK. Mundt,"Three spects f German esthetic heory,The ournal fAestheticsndArtCriticism7 (1959):287-310. Mundtdescribethis distinction s equivalento Nietzsche's istinction etweenApolline ndDionysianpproacheso thearts.Theparallel orks urprisinglyelland t is easyto see hecorrespondenceetweenhe ormalistosition nd heApollinenclination towardshe cleardistinction f individualhapes, erenity,measuredimitation, ack f wildermpulses rpassions,heoptimisticrtofillusionwhich overlikea veil he deeper nguish f human xistence. ontraryo this, he Dionysiaviewrelieson feelings, ntoxication, assion, nd the lackof cleardistinctionsScott'sTheArchitecturefHumanismanbeseen sa fine xpressionf theApollintendency. utLipps's erivationf beauty rom he unconsciousecognitionfstrength, rowth, ndhappinessn artistic hapesmakes imhard o qualify s aproperDionysianLipps, sthetik>ol. 1, pp. 149, 156).8. We shall eethatScott poke boutdisinterestednessf aestheticudg-ments n a wayequivalento that n Kant;Lippsused he term"interest"athedifferentlyLipps, sthetik,ol. 1, p. 33).9. Ibid.,vol. 1, p. 2.10. Forexample, ipps's iew hat aste,as the human bility f aesthetijudgment,oesnotchangehrough istoryibid., ol. 1, p. 94),thatby nsistingnhistoricalnterpretationnesteps utof aestheticsibid, ol.2, p. 90), and hat he

November2UOU AE 54/2 1 02

8/3/2019 Apollo's Own

10/10

aestheticontemplationr examinationr observationBetrachtung]f anartworkhasnothingo do with hehistoricalndividualityf theartist ibid., ol.2, p.100)11. CliveBell,Art Oxford:OxfordUniversity ress, 987),pp. 11, 51,121. Scottdoesnot mention"significantorm,"which s the central oncept fBell's estheticheory ndBelluses he erm"beauty"ifferentlyromScott ibid.,pp. 12-13). Scottwouldhavehad ittle ympathyorBell's ttacks n Renaissanceartand urely id notshare he atter'snthusiasmorRuskin ibid.,p. 205). Bellsays ery ittleabout rchitecture,utwhathe sayswouldbe qualified y Scottasmechanicalallacyibid.,p. 221). Bellbelievedhatworks f artmoveus becausethey xpressheemotion f thecreatoribid.,p.49) whileScottwasdeeply kepti-calabout rchitecture'sbilityo provideuch nsights.12.Immanuel ant,CritiquefJudgment,.H.Bernard,rans. NewYork:Hafner, 972),pp. 37-54.13. Ibid.,pp. 45-51.14. Disinterestednesss a technicalermplays n importantoleboth nKant's estheticsnd nScott's ritique f the allacies. good ntroductoryxpla-nationof the concept s in DianeCollinson Aesthetic xperience,"n OswaldHanfling, d. Philosophicalesthetics:nIntroductionOxford: lackwell ublish-ers,1992)pp.111-78. Seeespeciallyhapterix,"Disinterestedness,"p.134-44.Collinson ives goodexample f disinterestednesshen hesays: Kant oesnotmeanby this hat omeonewho udges hat, or nstance, particularriental ugis beautifuls wholly ndifferento the real xistence f the rugbutsimply hat njudging ts beauty ne'sattentions directedo its visualqualities r appearanceratherhan o theexistencef whatmakesuchperceptionsossible. he udgmentof tastemaywellbe succeededyan nterestn thereal xistencef therugandbya desire o possesst but hat nterest nd hatdesire renot elementsn the udg-mentof taste, he pleasuref which ccruesn the contemplationf beauty nd sunaffectedy the reality r unrealityf what t contemplates"p. 136).15. Cf. for instanceKant'sdistinctionbetweenpulchritudo agaandpulchritudodhaeransibid.,pp. 65-68). Kant xpressedhe view hat he beautyof architecturalorksdepends n the way heir unction etermineshem; hiswouldbe an example fpuchritudodhaerans.ontraryo this,Scott's ormalistprogram ould egard rchitecturaleauty san examplef puchritudoaga.16. ForFiedler,ee he ntroductiono Malgravend konomou, mpathy,pp. 29-39.17. ConradFiedler,OnJudgingWorks f VisualArt,HenrySchaefer-SimmernndFulmerMood, rans. Berkeley:niversityf Californiaress,1949),p. 11. (Alsoknown s Konrad iedlern some ources.)18. Ibid.,p. 26;andScott,Architecture,. 18.19. Fiedler,On udging,. 39.20. Ibid.,pp. 11, 37.21. Konrad iedler, Uber enUrsprungerKunstlerischenatigkeit,"nSchrif nzurKunstMunich: . Piper 913),pp. 187-33722. Ibid.,p. 196.23. Ibid.,p. 262.24. Ibid.,p. 292.25. Kant,CritiquefJudgmeng. 68.26. Adolf Hildebrand, TheProblemof Form n the Fine Arts," nMallgravendIkonomou, mpathy,. 237.27. Mundt, Three,". 289.28. Ibid.,p. 287.29. Irving avin, TheCrisis f 'ArtHistory,"' heArtBulletin8 (1996):13-16.

30. MartinHeidegger, eing nd Time, oanStambaugh,rans. AlbanyStateUniversityf New YorkPress, 996),pp. 134-144. Fora remarkablylearsummary f Heidegger's iew on interpretation, ee DavidCouzensHoy,"Heideggernd he Hermeneuticurn,"n Charles . Guignon, d., CambridgCompanionoMartinHeideggerCambridge:ambridge niversity ress 996),pp. 170-195.Hans-Georg adamer, ruth ndMethod,oelWeinsheimerndDonaldG. Marshall,rans. New York:Continuum1989). Fora clearexposition fGadamer'shilosophicaliews,eeDavidE.Linge, Introduction,"n Hans-GeorGadamer, hilosophicalermeneuticsBerkeley: niversity f California ress,1977),pp.xi-lxi.31. In the ntroductiono the second ditionGadamerimself elated iswork o romanticistradition. adamer, ruth ndMethod,. xviii.

32. Ibid.,pp. 269-285,304-305.33. Ibid.,p. 306.34. EricDonaldHirsch,Validityn InterpretationNewHaven:YaleUni-versity ress, 967).See he first hapter, In he Defence f theAuthor," p. 1-14 andhis review f Truth ndMethodn "Gadamer'sheory f Interpretationpp. 245-64.35. Gadamer, ruth ndMethod>. 157.36. Ibid.,pp. 128-151.37. Ibid.,p. 85. An importantideof Gadamer'sritique f formalismshis attempto downplayhe formalistspects f Kant'sCritiquefJudgment. eactually ays hat Kant'sdistinction etween ulchritudoaga ndpulchritudadhaeransas"highlyatal"or heunderstandingf thearts ince t suggestedhatonlypulchritudoagawasrealbeautyorKant seenote19).Gadamers very on-cernedo show hat his s amisinterpretationf Kant's iew; n hisview, ormalismwhichwould eek heunity f thework f artonly romts form s wrong ndhasno right o base tself n Kant's uthority.Truth ndMethod>p.44, 92.)38. Gadamer, ruth ndMethod, . 165.39. Ibid.,pp. 91-92.40. Ibid.,p. 15641. Ibid.42. Ibid.,p. xxxi.43. Seemy "Objectivelypeaking,"ournal f theSociety fArchitecturHistorians2 (1993):59-67 and"Paduan ristotelianismndDanieleBarbaroCommentaryn Vitruvius' e architectura>"ixteenth enturyournal 9 (1998):667-88, seeespeciallyp. 668-74fora discussionf thisproblem.44. Scott'smentor,Bernarderenson,eferredo the nterestn meaningas"German-mindedness."ernard erenson, estheticsndHistoryLondon: on-stable, 950),pp. 98, 100. In SirKennethClark'sudgment,t wasWittkowerArchitecturalrincipleshatdisposed once nd orall, of the hedonist, r purelyaesthetic,heory f Renaissancerchitecture."udolfWittkower, rchitecturPrinciplesn theAge fHumanismNewYork: orton,1971),p. 1. Fora comparisonbetweenWittkower'srchitecturalrinciplesndScott's rchitecturefHumanism, eeAlinaPayne, RudolfWittkowerndArchitecturalrinciplesn theAgeof Modernism,"ournal ftheSocietyfArchitecturalistorians3(1994):322-4245. Nelson Goodman,"On ThoughtswithoutWords,"Cognitzon2(1982):p. 213.46. Lavin, TheCrisis f 'ArtHistory,"' p. 13-16; andNatalieBoymeKampen,OnNot WritingheHistory f Roman rt,"TheArtBulletin7 (1995):375-78.47. NickZangwill,FeasibleAestheticormalism,"ous33 1999): 10-29.

1 03 Mitrovlc