Tipoloģiskās interpretācijas iespējas un robežas mākslas vēsturē
The Possibilities and Limits of Typological Interpretation in Art History

Summary/Abstract: Typology, as a universal method of interpreration, is not used in art history to the same degree as in some other branches of science (biology, archaeology, psychology, linguistics et al.). It is hard to imagine the theory of art history encompassing a kind of taxonomy - general principles of classification which could also include typology. Nevertheless, typological inferences and issues are widely used, albeit not always theorerically defined. Typology is unavoidable when it is necessary to classify archaeological marerial that could be interpreted as artefacts. Typology is also a specific part of Chrisrian iconography (the comparison of images in the New and Old Testaments as "types" and "antitypes"). Typology is less formalized in other realms of art history, notwithstanding its pragmatic use. First of all, typology in art history is concerned with the connections between artefacts or other items of art historical research. Ir is used to investigate and describe groups of artworks or other objects relevant to art history. Typology can also be used to interpret a particular artwork if it is examined in the context of other art pieces. The objective of typology is to save an artwork from isolation (Heinrich Lutzeler). What is the difference between "typological" and "nontypological" generalizations? The reference-point could be the notion of "type". The concept of a theoretical model with fixed or substantial traits (attributes) seems the most appropriate in this case. Attributes are important only from the aspect of the aim of a particular work of research. This does not mean that typological models are arbitrary mental constructs or an ideal generalisation of metaphysics. On the contrary, "types" should be tied to the concrete phenomena of research. World art history, as well as Latvian art history, is full of generalisations that could be regarded as the products of typological research. Their verbal exposition can be supplemented by graphic schemes (more common in texts on architecture). We can recollect the typology of classical orders that have been described and shown in drawings in countless reference books, the typology of the kuroi and korai statues in the Ancient Greece, or the medieval type of the "beautiful Madonna" and many others. Two different examples from Latvian art history can also be mentioned: Paul Kampe's "central type of church building in Vidzeme" and Tatjana Kačalova's examination of the types of compositional structure in the landscapes of Vilhelms Purvītis. These and many similar examples represent typology related to closed groups of artefacts with a set of strictly defined characteristics. Is it possible to use typology to interpret the innumerable phenomena more commonly united by notions and the terms of"style", "school" or "trend"? In theory it is possible because a set of attributes is an integral part of each of their general characteristics. l

• Details
• Contents