nf0094: i rather abruptly [0.4] finished last week so you were deprived of the 
nice [0.5] formal analysis of Wölfflin's but i think you can really [0.2] read 
this up i mean Preziozi has actually an extract of his introduction which is 
quite [0.4] eloquent on those different categories he uses [0.4] but what i do 
want to do which i think is quite important in a lecture is to come to [0.2] 
good summary to recall for you what i've been doing so i'll try to do this and 
that nicely leads over i think [0.4] into what i'm going to do today [0.7] so 
last week i [0.5] kept hammering [0.4] down that er [0.2] in order to have art 
history you need some sense of development you need an understanding of [0.4] 
well you need a conceptualization [0.3] of a course which you hold responsible 
for you know what makes art [0.3] historically specific [0.3] but a course 
which is also sufficiently timeless so that you can compare the different [0.4] 
historical moments with each other [0.2] so one course which leads through the 
[0.5] the the different ages of the history of art [0.3] and yet is [0.2] 
specific 
enough to account for their differences as well [0.4] so in [0.4] in with Hegel 
with whom i started is it was this [0.2] funny category which nobody really 
quite [0.2] was able to grasp the world spirit [0.6] and with Riegl and 
Wölfflin it was [0.3] this diverse well it was really human perception they 
felt was an underlying stable [0.4] continuum er er an underlying course which 
changed historically specific [0.4] and [0.3] ve-, er Riegl had [0.3] the 
oppositional categories haptic-optic and Wölfflin had those five sets [0.4] 
like open and closed forms [0.2] plan and recessionary [1.0] the ones i [0.4] 
couldn't quite take you through entirely last week [0.7] now it's really only 
with such superhistorical categories [0.5] that i argued a systematic account 
of the history of art is possible one which gives you you know er sort of sense 
and er after r-, the Renaissance came the baroque and after the baroque came 
the rococo [0.3] those kind of accounts [0.7] and that was quite in contrast [0.
6] to [0.2] the connoisseurs [0.4] about whom i've [0.3] gave you a 
little bit last week [0.3] who really didn't have any such concept they had 
sort of implicitly but they were really [0.2] quite quiet about it and they 
really only looked into [0.3] digging out as much as they could about a 
specific artist or at most a specific context [0.3] but they couldn't really 
give you a sort of superhistorical account of the history of art [1.1] now then 
[0.3] fini-, or er halfway through i said well really Hegel's metaph-, er p-, 
the reason why they were silent was that Hegel's metaphysical account of the 
world spirit [0.3] really seemed very very [0.3] speculative nobody could 
really quite grasp what that meant let alone understand it it's very dense 
stuff [0.5] so [0.5] you know they [0.3] did away with that and said that's too 
metaphysical and along came Wölfflin and Riegl [0.3] and gave you [0.2] human 
perception as the underlying thing [0.5] but [0.5] what i then didn't say is [0.
2] they in turn were criticized and i come to that today the criticism of 
Wölfflin and Riegl [0.3] what they [0.3] said what people said shortly 
after Riegl and Wölfflin had published was [0.4] what about subject matter if 
you listen to those guys you [0.3] you think you you know there's er artists 
never have any thoughts in their brains they just work with forms [0.4] so [0.
2] shouldn't we take subject matter and what is depicted a little bit more 
serious [0.9] and that was the first criticism [0.2] and the first response [0.
3] was developed by someone [0.2] by a guy who ha-, i had here on the 
blackboard called Erwin Panofsky [0.9] and that approach is called iconography 
[0.3] that's the first one i will be talking about [1.0] Panofsky really 
resolutely restored subject matter [0.7] and thought content to the work of art 
nf0094: and then i come [0.3] to the second criticism [0.2] people of Wölfflin 
and Riegl and people said [0.3] look you know that's all very well and we have 
these sort of [0.2] again er categories and they're nice in helping us looking 
at art [0.3] but really we learn very very little about the [0.2] specific 
historical circumstances in which a work of art is produced [0.4] they said we 
really need a much much 
better conceptualization of how a work of art [0.2] is tied into [0.3] their 
particular societies [0.6] so you know i mean with human perception it's rather 
wa-, [0.2] vague i mean Wölfflin at the end of one of his books says [0.4] 
well you know if you look at the Renaissance it's all very clear and the 
baroque it's all you know quite convoluted [0.2] that really reflects [0.3] the 
feeling for life during those times people feel [0.2] clarity there's more 
democratic s-, [0.2] state in the Renaissance [0.4] then [0.2] on come all the 
absolute monarchies and it's much more obscure the workings of power [0.2] so 
it's vaguely related to society but really only vaguely [0.3] and the critics 
came along and said [0.5] no we can ground this much much better in social 
reality in sp-, and we really can [0.2] tie a work of art much much closer [0.
4] to [0.2] in particular the economic and social circumstances in a society [0.
5] and that's the Marx of course the Marxist appro-, er social history approach 
[0.2] to which i will come [0.4] which is the second one i introduce today 
nf0094: er and the 
third one is feminism [0.3] now as some of you have already encountered in the 
seminars er feminism really [0.2] isn't systematic in the sense that any of the 
others i will have been talking [0.2] about by then [0.3] are [0.2] all of the 
others have to a certain extent [0.4] an idea of a fundamental course which 
drives the history of art which [0.4] accounts for the changes in the history 
of art and er [0.6] er and give us some sort of continuity to through the times 
[0.3] now feminism really doesn't have a coherent sense of that [0.4] really 
they attach their particular question to a variety of approaches so you can 
have a Marxist feminist approach [0.3] you can [0.2] h-, even have an 
iconographical and er and a feminist approach [0.3] and a formalist [0.2] and 
feminist approach you can [0.2] can get combinations of those so i'll take you 
through those 
nf0094: you might now this is the third approach today you might now say [0.3] 
what what [0.2] what's the point er in [0.2] you know telling you all about 
those approaches you [0.3] really will encounter in much more depth again 
throughout this course [0.2] when the different modules start [0.4] now my 
argument here is that well there is something to be said for repeating things 
and again i eventually and you give them get them get them from different 
angles from different people [0.3] you'll have a much [0.4] surer f-, [0.2] 
footing in in those approaches [0.4] but also my argument here is that i will 
give them a kind of [0.8] context i will put them into a c-, a context of 
reaction to each other which i h-, [0.3] well hope will steer you through the 
jungle of those approaches [0.3] so as i've done today you know these are 
actually reaction the different approaches come about because they react to 
approaches which happened before [0.6] and i hope [0.4] by asking my guiding 
questions you remember that one the question about you know how do these 
approaches conceptualize [0.3] the relation of the work of art to the society 
in which it was produced [0.2] i hope that will give the kind give a conti-, 
continuum in in in those lectures [0.2] and will really tie them 
together 
nf0094: so [0.7] let me [0.3] come to iconography [0.4] now iconography [0.4] 
was advanced by this guy Erwin Panofsky [0.2] who really was a German 
intellectual working [0.2] in [0.2] you know er reworking this method [0.6] 
over many many years from the nineteen-thirties until nineteen-fifty-five 
really [0.8] and what happened during those years is if you think at the dates 
being a German he [0.8] had to emigrate he was Jewish he had to emigrate and 
really a lot of his [0.5] method developed then developed first in Germany and 
then he emigrated to the States and er there started writing in in in [0.4] in 
in English [0.2] and it is perhaps one could argue and people have argued [0.2] 
that it's because this German artist who had started to publish in English [0.
3] that this has become such a famous and really very very prevalent approach 
in the history of art [0.3] because it suddenly [0.2] arrived in America where 
there was hardly any systematic matic-, art history going [0.4] and really took 
the country by storm and England [0.3] at the same time [1.2] er [0.7] i will 
give you a really very 
schematic [0.3] description of what he meant by iconography and what he thought 
was to be gained from looking at a work of art [0.2] in such a systematic way 
[0.8] and i've already on the blackboard given you some indication do you r-, 
[0.3] you've taken down the words haven't you but i'll repeat them it just 
helps you [0.6] keep with me [1.6] Panofsky [0.2] said very clearly several 
times in order to st-, understand the meaning of the artwork [0.2] we first 
have to ask [0.2] or we we really have to ask three questions and we have to 
ask them in quite a systematic order [0.9] the first one is [0.6] what is 
depicted we first simply have to look [0.4] at the work of art [0.2] and 
describe what is there what do we see [1.2] just really looking carefully [0.2] 
and that he called the pre-iconographical d-, [0.3] description a pre-, [0.2] 
pre-iconographical description [2.7] after that follows a second [0.4] attempt 
[0.3] to get closer to the work of art and its meaning [0.6] and that is really 
asking the question [0.2] where does the subject matter come from [0.4] what is 
depicted we've seen what is depicted 
but where does it come from [1.4] and really here at that point you really need 
already quite a lot of knowledge you need a kind of knowledge of the history of 
art and you n-, m-, [0.6] it's supposed that you've seen quite a lot of works 
of art in in collections or elsewhere in books [0.3] so that you can actually 
say [0.3] oh well yes i've seen this figure before it [0.3] comes this er this 
nude f-, was in you know it's not a Manet invention it comes from [0.2] this 
Odalisque po-, pose comes from Titian [0.4] in the in the in the sixteenth 
century [0.4] Venetian sixteenth century artist [1.9] the third [0.3] after 
that follows the third approach in Panofsky's order [0.4] and that is [0.2] 
after all of that you really have to ask yourself [0.3] why is it depicted in 
the way is it what is specific in the way that the subject matter is taken up 
here and why did the artist choose to treat that subject matter [0.8] and that 
he calls iconological in-, interpretation [1.0] iconological interpretation so 
we have [0.4] pre-iconographical 
description [0.3] iconographical analysis [0.3] and iconological interpretation 
[1.6] let me give you an example [0.6] and [0.2] i have chosen quite 
deliberately to take you through [0.3] th-, probably one of the most famous [0.
2] works of art discussed by by er [3.3] discuss is that too dark 
om0095: no it's fine [0.2] 
nf0094: that's fine okay [0.8] this is probably yes er [0.3] whenever people 
think of Panofsky they immediately associate the German Renaissance artist 
Albrecht Dürer [0.2] with [0.2] Panofsky because Albrecht er because Panofsky 
[0.9] gave an analysis a compelling analysis of this [0.5] artwork here [0.4] 
by Dürer which is a print by Dürer Dürer was you know er a painter al-, but 
also [0.3] a very very versatile engraver who marketed his own engravings [0.6] 
in a fantastic way he engraved his subject matter [0.2] as you can see here [0.
2] and this [0.7] work this sheet of paper this engraving is called Melancholia 
One [0.5] and it's 
quite well if you look at it it's quite [0.5] it's quite mind-boggling what is 
depicted what's going on here [0.3] what [0.5] what did the artist want to do 
with this painting [0.7] and [0.2] Panofsky said okay well let's first look 
what we see [0.4] we see and you will start now [0.2] we see [0.4] a grumpy 
person [0.2] sitting there contem-, er surrounded by many tools and you can 
sort of recognize this is a [0.2] plane isn't it is it pronounced plane plane 
yes [0.4] and some other here here many sort of workmen tools [0.4] craftsmen's 
tools [0.3] there's a sleeping dog here and then you have these [0.3] funny 
geometric [0.4] elements the sphere and the truncated [0.2] polyhedron i think 
it is [0.3] this one [0.4] and you have a rainbow at the back and you have a 
building there with a with a bell [0.4] er a sort of magic [0.5] magic er [0.5] 
number [0.7] what do you call them number square [0.3] er on that building [1.
0] and a putto here [1.9] so that's what you get when you just look closely you 
sort of in-, try to enumerate what you really see [0.2] in this picture [3.4] 
but [0.7] Panofsky was quite clear that 
it's not really enough to just stop there or actually he also was clear enough 
that [0.3] even the pre-iconographical [0.3] description [0.5] with which you 
have to start [0.2] can't really function very well without any knowledge 
whatsoever [0.2] because if you i mean this is very clear here if you have no 
knowledge whatsoever in recognizing some of the features you see here and 
giving them a name to them [0.3] you will probably just end up saying [0.5] er 
a grumpy person in the midst of lots of rubbish or you know things like this 
and that [0.2] that's probably where you end [0.3] so you know you already need 
probably in your [0.2] pre-iconographical description to say [0.3] well this is 
really an angel isn't it it's not just a person because that figure has wings 
and we recognize it as an angel [0.2] and recognize that as a putto [0.5] and 
we recognize those as tools rather than just rubbish [0.4] and we see some sort 
of relation between the [0.6] er geo-, geometrical forms and the tools [0.3] 
perhaps [0.5] so [0.2] at the second step of interpretation [0.7] the 
iconographical analysis [0.8] one needs to know [0.4] he says [0.3] you know 
not just [0.3] to give a name to things but we need one needs to know 
contemporary writings one really needs to have a look in the archives to see [0.
3] why Dürer er [0.3] what [0.2] what is sorry what did i how [0.2] where does 
the subject matter come from you need to get a wider framework to depict er to 
get a clear idea of [0.7] you know where does h-, where have we seen these 
tools before where have we seen those geom-, geometric figures before [0.2] 
where have we seen such a figure before [0.6] and the first of course the first 
[1.1] instance or the first thing you look for [0.3] is some writing by the 
artist himself and that's very scant the i mean obviously the more you go back 
in time [0.3] towards the medieval ages or even beyond that the the m-, the 
less there is [0.3] but in Dürer's case we have one brief note which says [0.
4] key means power sex er sex means love [0.7] [laugh] [0.8] so this is [0.4] 
you know this is the one note we have [0.5] and then [0.6] you go from there 
and you look further into other contemporary writers [0.4] and because you say 
well this doesn't really get us where gets us very far er far and you really 
need to look into what er what what Panofsky calls [0.2] the history of types 
[1.7] subject matter really [0.4] and er [1.1] pan-, in Panofsky's own words he 
says [0.4] how under different historical circumstances are particular themes 
or ideas articulated [0.2] that's really the question at that stage [0.5] so [0.
2] in the during the stecon-, second step it's less interpretation still than 
still description you still m-, of m-, which goes beyond but in this case 
beyond the individual image before we just looked and described the individual 
image [0.3] but at that second stage we d-, we described [0.2] the surroundings 
of the image the texts which could have been available to the artist [0.3] or 
other images which he could have seen [0.3] he or she [0.3] in this case he [0.
6] now for Dürer's image [0.3] Panofsky recognized [0.3] that there were two 
pictorial traditions brought into one here [0.9] 
the first was [1.1] a kind of personification of the arts which stemmed from 
the medieval ages [0.2] which depicted the arts still in its [0.2] in the 
craftsman tradition [0.2] with tools craftsmen's tools and geo-, geometry [1.4] 
and the second [0.3] was a personification of the four temperaments another 
Renaissance concept [0.5] and i don't know if you're familiar with the four 
temperaments they were [0.2] characterized as the sanguine the phlegmatic [0.2] 
the choleric [0.3] and the melancholic [1.2] and particularly the melancholic 
was [0.4] characterized as being dark in moods as having mood swings and you 
can see in fact if you look at this figure [0.3] there it's quite dark in the 
face so it's already the colour [0.2] depicted as a melancholic figure a moody 
figure [4.3] really in order to get to that stage Panofsky had to identify 
texts and he saw that there was a German humanist who [0.2] it is very likely 
that Dürer knew about [0.3] called Agrippa of Nettesheim [0.3] actually i must 
[0.2] interrupt myself at that point because i do see you 
writing away fiercely [0.2] i want to make a point you get a lot of those 
approaches again throughout this course [0.3] really try to listen today don't 
take so many notes er [0.3] particularly those names are not important it's 
easy to find them in in texts again if you ever read up on Dürer they will f-, 
will come up there [0.3] so it's not important to [0.2] try to get those names 
down [0.2] try to see if you get the argument today that's much more important 
[0.9] so don't bother with Agrippa of Nettesheim [0.2] or indeed the other text 
which which Panofsky identified for the er [0.3] er f-, er er as a as a source 
for Dürer Dürer's image [0.3] and that's the Italian Renaissance humanist 
called Ficino [0.3] now both of them [0.2] talked about [0.3] the different 
temperaments [0.9] and Agrippa in particular said that [0.6] there are actually 
three ways the human mind works and they are related to the [0.3] to the to the 
temperaments [0.5] and the first is [0.2] the imagi-, er is a sort of way that 
er that you work [0.3] imaginatively [0.3] an imagination which operates in the 
sensory world [0.4] and [0.2] uses mechanical tools and geometry to understand 
[0.3] the world outside [0.4] and [0.2] he thinks [0.2] it's usually architects 
and artists who do that and who fall in that category [0.3] there's a second 
category where you use reason knowledge of the natural and social world in 
order to understand it [0.3] that's the scientists [0.4] or natural historians 
as they would have been called [0.2] during those times [0.6] and sort of 
scientists is really only a word which comes about in the nineteenth century [0.
9] and then there's a third approach to the world which [0.2] really uses the 
mind and that's you know in order to understand divine matter and those are of 
course the theologians [1.2] now Agrippa said it's the artist who use their 
mima-, imagination and it's artists who try to understand it by measuring the 
world [0.3] but it is actually quite a futile attempt because [0.2] however 
much you measure however much you try to order the world it always somehow 
escapes your un-, [0.2] order you never quite grasp it entirely in your 
understanding in your imagination [0.3] and therefore [0.3] it's related to [0.
2] a melancholic [0.4] personification a melancholic person [0.5] and [0.6] it 
is for that reason that Dürer called it Melancholia One because it is the 
first [0.4] melancholic type Agrippa [0.2] talked about [2.0] then further 
reading in those texts and around enabled Panofsky to say [0.2] ah well really 
the magic number square here [0.2] er is a protection against Saturn now Saturn 
is the [0.5] the the the [0.2] er primary example of a melancholic temperament 
[0.2] so [0.3] th-, er e-, er also the the the er [0.3] the badge which flies 
up which holds the [0.3] the title of the plate [0.2] is also [0.2] er aligned 
with Saturn and Melancholia [0.2] and all this [0.2] suddenly fell for Panofsky 
into one big piece it was melancholia and it comes from those texts and it is 
in this kind of [0.4] in in in [0.2] it is composed in this framework of of 
thoughts 
nf0094: but that still doesn't [0.2] that explains a little bit more about the 
circumstances and what people thought and er at 
the time and how people tried to understand the world at the time [0.3] but it 
doesn't really explain much why [0.2] Dürer has chosen this subject and has 
depicted it in the way that he has [0.5] so at that point [0.3] we come to the 
third step [0.4] in [0.3] in er Panofsky's order [0.4] and that is [1.7] to 
make sense of that knowledge we have now gained in the three stages the icono-, 
er the pre-iconographic description the [0.3] iconographic analysis [0.3] and 
so we come to the [0.4] iconological analysis or interpretation and er really 
it is at that point that interpretation sets in [0.9] why did Dürer depict it 
in this way [1.0] so we know from Dürer that key [0.3] and money [0.5] means 
[0.4] wealth [0.3] and power [0.5] and we do know that he has a tradition of [0.
2] melancholia worked in too [0.3] and that this melancholia was understood as 
being [0.3] er this person's melancholic [0.2] because the attempt to 
understand the world to measure it to use the tools to use geometry [0.5] is 
actually in the end quite futile [0.4] so [0.5] according to Panofsky what we 
really have here is a 
self-portrait of Dürer [0.7] because he says [1.2] the artist himself [0.2] at 
that time saw himself as quite a success he was quite a successful artist 
particularly with his prints [0.3] and he saw that h-, the rewards for his 
endeavours [0.2] were wealth [0.3] the money [0.5] and er [0.3] and the key and 
power [0.6] but in the end [0.7] according to Panofsky Dürer had to admit 
defeat he couldn't however much he measured and you probably are are you aware 
that Dürer had these most fantastic [0.3] attempts of [0.3] giving you 
treatises of perspective and measure human the human body and anatomy [0.6] 
however hard he worked to try to understand the rules and orders [0.3] er you 
know un-, [0.2] lying underneath the natural order [0.2] he he couldn't ever 
grasp it entirely [0.2] so [0.2] this is a melancholic picture and it is a self-
portrait because there is a sense of defeat here as well 
nf0094: now i think you have to admit that we really do very clearly ha-, get a 
sense here of an artist working intellectually and being engaged with [0.5] 
intellectual 
discussions at the time [0.3] so really i think one has to admit that with this 
analysis certainly Panofsky has achieved that and with all his other analysis 
[0.5] as well you really have the you always have the feeling when you read 
Panofsky [0.3] that [0.3] all the artists he ever worked on must have been 
incredibly learned [0.3] they must have known so many texts and all those texts 
and discussions filtered in beautifully into these images [0.6] so that 
certainly Panofsky restored to art history the the significance of subject 
matter and content [0.4] and artists [0.2] working [0.2] as intellectuals if 
you want [1.2] but [0.7] so far we really [0.5] haven't [0.3] gone much beyond 
what a connoisseur well we have gone much beyond in intellectual matters but 
not [0.4] er we haven't really [0.2] got to an art history with development we 
can't really write from the instance of this analysis a history of art of how 
art changed over time can we we really have only [0.4] only illuminated one or 
Panofsky has illuminated for us one image [0.8] but that 
would be unfair to Panofsky to say well really in that respect he doesn't 
really go much beyond the connoisseurs [0.5] Panofsky did and in fact Panofsky 
had a very clear idea of [0.2] superhistorical conceptions of the history of 
art [0.4] and that might strike you as as obscure as Hegel's was because his 
idea was [0.3] that there isn't [0.2] and i quote him now an essential tendency 
of the human mind [0.3] to make the world conform [0.3] to thought [0.3] so [0.
3] he said very clearly [0.2] we really don't have [0.3] and s-, [0.2] as 
another philosopher who comes in a Kantian position but i just mention that 
it's not important [0.3] he really says [0.3] very clearly we don't [0.3] 
whatever happens whatever we think is just what happens in our we order the 
world according to our mind [0.3] we never ever know entirely [0.2] what the 
world outside is [1.0] the object in itself remains [0.5] completely the world 
outside remains [0.4] obscure as such [0.2] what we know about it and that's 
all there is and that's sufficient and that's great is what the 
mind makes of it the mind has a tendency [0.3] to order it [0.6] so [0.8] this 
[0.3] thought takes according to Panofsky [0.2] this capacity of the human mind 
so really what you have and you can see it quite clearly an amalgamam of a bit 
of Hegel's world spirit here you have the m-, human mind [0.2] always trying to 
make sense [0.3] and of course Wölfflin and Riegl's [0.2] human perception [0.
2] although they capture they said this is just sensory perception [0.2] here 
[0.2] you have someone who says no it's not sensory perception it's thought [0.
3] which changes over time [0.3] and makes the world conform to it [0.4] which 
is [0.2] therefore historically specific because thought can take as we've seen 
here [0.2] quite a different form from the way that we think about the world 
nowadays [0.3] but it is always that same essential tendency and it is because 
there's always that same same essential tendency [0.2] that we can trace the 
history of art [0.3] our thought [0.2] has at different stages differently 
related to the world [1.1] does that sound Hegelian 
to a certain extent i'm sure it will ring a bell again [3.2] thus [0.2] for 
Panofsky there was really no problem in relating the works of art to society 
and you've seen this how he's done it [0.2] he really rel-, thought that a work 
of art was intricately related to the way that a particular society at any one 
time [0.2] thought about [0.3] the world and itself [0.4] and therefore he 
could [0.2] ad lim [0.3] lib [0.3] er connect texts all sorts of discussions at 
the time with a with an image because for them they were [0.3] similar [0.8] er 
examples of the way that [0.2] thought at that moment in history [0.4] had 
related to the outside world or made sense [0.2] to the outside world [1.0] so 
he could relate it to contemporary philosophical or theological writings 
whatever [0.4] really seemed appropriate at the time 
nf0094: now [0.8] for a Marxist of course such an approach [0.2] is [0.3] 
really not connecting art works very much to a society [0.7] all this talk 
about thought and tho-, thought processes [0.2] and in fact [0.2] Karl Marx 
who's who [0.2] was a m-, [0.2] writer on economy and well philosopher as 
well in the in the nineteenth century [0.4] Karl Marx himself reacted very 
strongly to Hegel er [0.2] and what Karl Marx proposed to do was [0.2] to put 
Hegel's [0.4] lofty buildings down from the [0.2] take it from the head onto 
its feet that's what he wanted to do from the thought processes down onto the 
feet of economical processes which go on in a society [0.3] really [0.4] the 
way what Marx discussed was the way that the means of production were 
distributed in a society [0.6] the way that [0.3] very basic [0.4] 
distributions of wealth structured a society [0.2] who was working who gained 
the surplus of that work who owned the land who owned the factories who owned 
the tools who [0.3] was to do the work with it [0.3] really those basic [0.2] 
economical [0.2] and er circumstances [0.3] were absolutely fundamental for 
Marx and he thought [0.2] they determined [0.2] the work of art [0.2] and they 
n-, well he actually was quite quiet about works of art [0.2] he said they de-, 
determined [0.3] all the intellectual going-ons in a society [0.3] so [0.2] 
Marx actually divided [0.4] his or in his 
analysis of societies he divided [0.6] societies into a base which is the 
economic [0.8] and social structure [0.4] and then a superstructure [0.3] which 
is all our intellectual f-, [0.2] you know ramblings er all our [0.4] 
intellectual justifications we produce in order to justify this economical base 
[0.4] and of course [0.2] Marx said [0.3] at the base [0.6] really er [0.2] the 
the economical base [0.3] is [0.2] throughout society so far [0.5] 
fundamentally injust [0.4] there are people who work with the tools and there 
are people who own the tools and the land and [0.2] own the means of production 
[0.4] and although it is the workers who produce the value in the [0.2] in [0.
2] in the piece in a piece it's really their handwork which produces it [0.3] 
it is someone else who simply has money has capital [0.3] who gets the surplus 
who gets that you know if you have a base material say a clump of earth [0.4] 
it is worth nothing [0.2] until someone works on it [0.3] and then [0.2] when 
it gets sold this [0.2] surplus this extra value is added by the person who 
works on it but Marx 
says [0.2] look [0.2] who actually gains that surplus [0.2] very rarely the 
worker they only get a you know a a very very trivial amount [0.2] back you 
know a w-, a fee a wage [0.4] and [0.2] real [0.2] the the value which is 
accrued to this object [0.3] that money which [0.3] comes with that that goes 
back into the pockets of the people who own the tools and and the land and he 
says that's [0.2] that's in capa-, in capitalism fundamentally injust [0.2] 
there's a fundamental [0.4] injustice underneath capitalist societies 
nf0094: now what did art historians do with that and bear in mind Marx was 
quite quiet about the work of art [0.3] now art historians er [0.3] actually i 
have to [6.6] art historians thought well this is actually quite a good concept 
to help us understand what [0.2] if you want to link a work o-, of art to 
society [0.3] to understand [0.4] how it really really what really determines 
it and Marx very clearly says it's the economical [0.2] conditions in a society 
which determine it [0.2] so let's [0.2] look and see if this is really what 
determines [0.3] the way a 
work of art looks [0.5] and on came people [0.2] like [0.3] Frederick Antal [0.
3] the other names here and Arnold Hauser [0.2] and they all gathered together 
also in the thirties when Panofsky started working [0.4] er [0.2] in a in a in 
a in a circle called er at Budapest where lots of Marxist er [0.3] 
intellectuals at the time gathered [0.5] and they sat down and developed [0.4] 
Antal and Hauser developed a history of art based on a Marxist analysis of 
society [1.3] what we get and i give you an example here [0.6] and i come to 
this image which has been on the [1.0] on the screen for quite some time now 
this beautiful [0.2] Madonna [1.1] which i [0.6] hope i can focus a little bit 
better [2.8] so Frederick Antal [0.4] for example [0.5] came up with an 
analysis and said [0.2] look we have these two works both produced in the early 
fifteenth century i-, in the Florence republic in the State Republic of 
Florence [0.4] they're almost contemporary [0.3] both produced w-, the the one 
here on the on on your left is produced in fourteen-twenty-five [0.4] and the 
other one on your right is produced in 
fourteen-twenty-six [0.9] the one here on the left is by an artist called er [0.
4] Gentile da Fabriano and the other one on the right is produced by Masaccio 
[0.2] they're both the same subject matter Madonnas with child [0.4] yet 
they're [0.3] really quite fundamentally different [0.5] and Antal said [0.6] 
we can't explain the difference if we just looked at the difference of style 
and just er you know er if you want a Wölfflian approach of you know some is a 
more open form another more closed one is more [0.4] more er [0.5] planned [0.
3] pla-, this would be a slightly more planned arrangement [0.2] this a more 
recessional pray-, er er [0.2] er er approach here [0.5] and [0.2] he says we 
don't understand anything at all if we just try to explain the difference in 
style [0.3] by looking at those [0.2] formal categories [0.4] what we really 
have to understand he said [0.4] was [0.3] that [0.5] they were [0.2] really [0.
2] both produced by very f-, for very different clienteles very different 
people with very different interests [0.3] who struggled for power at the time 
in the in the Florence 
republic [0.7] if you look at the da Fabriano here on the left [0.3] you see 
it's quite delicate you have a very delicate attitude of the Madonna and you 
have a h-, and and and er [0.3] Christ gives you [0.3] er [0.2] a grace here 
you know the divine grace of course raises his hand [0.3] and it's [0.2] very 
stylized in its in in its mannerisms and in its in in in in its movements [0.2] 
and you have of course [0.2] all this wealth of ornamentation and decoration 
very delicately done [0.9] now Antal related this [0.4] to the aristocracy in 
Florence at the time [0.3] and said [0.2] look really [0.3] in the way that [0.
3] Christ is depicted in a ritualistic function in the in the emphasis on 
decoration and and [0.2] and ornament [0.3] that really reflects the interests 
of the aristoc-, er [0.2] aristocratic culture at the time [0.3] now contrast 
that [0.3] with Masaccio and you very clearly see that the Madonna is put in a 
much [0.4] clearer sense of a sort of three-dimensional spatial [0.4] 
naturalistic [0.2] environment [0.4] and [0.5] the [0.3] Christ here is a real 
baby not sort of 
ritualistic [0.3] er [0.2] figure it's a real baby which sucks its fingers and 
er [0.4] and the Madonna is sort of turned in space and much and just simply 
much [0.3] much chunkier much three more three-dimensional these as [0.3] that 
[0.3] really [0.3] was [0.3] in the interests of the emerging mercantile 
classes of the Florence society at the heart of the Florence society were 
really was [0.3] really struggling for power at the time [0.3] and they didn't 
want to have anything to do [0.2] with all this ephemeral [0.3] you know 
decoration of the aristocratic course their sense of the world was very 
realistic very down to earth very grounded [0.3] and we can explain the 
difference [0.4] in those images [0.4] by looking at the different interests at 
the heart of the Florence society [1.5] i give you an [0.7] a more contemporary 
analy-, Marxist analysis [0.4] just to show you what it means for art history 
to take that approach [0.8] and that's er [1.3] i mean [0.3] of course [0.2] 
those are already er [0.2] produced at the beginning of what one would call the 
capita-, capitalist societies [0.5] 
fundamental to Marx's understanding of the world there are stages through which 
the world history has to go [0.5] through er so there are feudal states and 
then you know and er by the time you arrive at capitalism the injustice has 
become so great [0.3] that the last step in Marx's [0.2] understanding [0.2] 
would lead to a kind of sharing of all the means of productions in all the 
worlds [0.3] to [0.2] er societies which are communist in arrangement [0.2] so 
Marx had a very clear idea and you can see how that actually leads to history 
of art because there's a clear sense of the development of society [0.3] and as 
the societies develop and the means of productions change [0.2] the works of 
arts change accordingly [1.1] now [0.3] let me illuminate this again and its 
problems actually [0.2] by looking at this picture which very much comes from 
the really burgeoning er capitalist society of the nineteenth century in France 
[0.2] this is Claude Monet [0.7] La Grenouillère [0.4] one of his La 
Grenouillère [0.2] pieces [0.4] it was painted in 
eighteen-sixty-nine [0.3] now La gre-, Grenouillère [0.3] is a place in er er 
[0.2] at the Seine near Chatou [0.3] where all the Parisian folk would flock 
for leisure time pursuits for you know in the a-, in the afternoon or on 
Sundays when they weren't working it was a leisure [0.2] leisure [0.5] time 
destination [1.0] for and in fact what was significant about it [0.5] so 
Marxist art historians tell us is that [0.3] at that place all the different 
classes the different sexes mingle completely [0.4] er [0.2] er without any any 
sense of the of the divisions [0.3] which er structured their living together 
in the city during the day during the week and during work times [1.1] but 
really [0.3] you don't get much of that sense in the Monet [0.5] do you [0.2] i 
mean the reading goes here that there's no indication of such a potentially 
explosive social mix of all the you know working classes with the bourgeoisie 
and aristocracy [0.5] at best these divisions here [0.3] the divisions which 
are prevalent in the city [0.6] are only temporarily suspended during leisure 
hours they 
really are fundamentally there in the society [1.7] we don't really get a sense 
furthermore of [0.2] that this is actually quite a seedy ground this rather 
glamorous scene here [0.3] because prostitutes were rampantly plying their 
trade during this er er at that s-, at at at that place [0.3] and of course [0.
2] prostitutes were a big issue at that time in er in France in the late 
nineteenth century [0.2] and how one could [0.2] regulate them and how one 
could because there was a rapid spread of diseases at the time so people [0.3] 
were actually quite afraid of [0.4] rampant prosti-, you know pr-, prostitutes 
rampantly plying their trade and in places like this [1.0] so really what is 
remarkable [0.7] er [0.2] Marxist analyst er analysts will tell us about [0.2] 
La er Grenouillère [0.3] would be [0.3] that [0.2] the way [0.5] this 
environment this rather [0.4] conflict laden environment [0.3] appears [0.5] 
like a glamorous playground [0.8] really within the scene you just only have a 
had a feeling that people sort of casually meet each other sort of leisurely 
standing by [0.2] that even you as 
the spectator are asked to sort of casually walk by [0.2] take in just an 
instant of a scene it's not properly framed like a sort of [0.3] monumental 
scene it's really i see it [0.3] it's a snapshot you pass by [0.2] and that's 
of course supported [0.3] by the brushstroke this rather hastily [0.6] 
impressionist brushstroke which emphasizes the ephemerality [0.3] so Marxist 
analysts [0.3] would say [0.2] look and this really shows that [0.3] there 
there is this amazing conflict in the society [0.2] and art is just part [0.2] 
of the ideological superstructure [0.3] which works in the interests of the 
capitalists and the bourgeoisie [0.3] at the expense of the workers and 
conceals those [0.5] those conflicts underneath it [0.3] it's just a glamorous 
image which completely conceals all the conflicts in late nineteenth century 
French society [5.5] so here then in such accounts is a clear sense of [0.5] i 
think you would agree of how art relates to contemporary society and its 
problems [1.2] but [0.5] is it a systematic account as well well i tried to map 
out that if it was strictly speaking a Marxist account it would be very 
systematic because you would then would have an understanding of how one 
society changes to another [0.5] er and you have a teleology that would again 
something with direction something which goes from one point to another [0.5] 
and of course [0.3] therefore you would have a means of explaining the 
differences in the works of art [0.4] when a society changes [0.2] say from a 
capitalist society to a communist society accordingly [0.3] the outlook of the 
work of art will change [0.3] now that would be systematic [0.3] but of course 
[0.2] you know very few people hold to a such strict Marxist explanation [0.3] 
nobody particularly after the walls came down in in Berlin in nineteen-eighty-
nine [0.3] believes in you know in the in in this teleology that a communist 
sex-, er society necessarily has to replace a capitalist one [0.2] so there are 
very few and indeed i hardly know any art historian [0.2] who really holds 
tight and fast to a Marxist analysis of society [0.4] and 
therefore [0.2] what you get is a much more problematic account of art history 
[0.2] the weaker social art history [0.2] is actually quite unable to [0.2] you 
have to and you can see this already with the two examples i've given you you 
have two conflicting ideas of [0.4] you do you always have to ask [0.3] how do 
they see the artwork related to the society that's my guiding question [0.3] 
now [0.2] in one sense in this for example you have it clearly as a reflection 
of the society [0.9] and of course Marxists have been [0.3] vehemently 
criticized [0.3] as just understan-, or social art historians as just 
understanding artworks as being a reflection of the society and not being able 
to contribute [0.2] in any significant means [0.3] to the society in which it 
is produced [0.3] so it's simply a refl-, a mirror of that society and nothing 
more [0.2] and the artist appears as a sort of [0.3] agent completely at the 
mercy of [0.2] of all the economic forces [0.2] so that's one criticism which 
which Marxists have been approached with [0.3] but and and therefore some 
social art 
historians have reacted by saying [0.2] look it doesn't necessarily need to be 
this reflection model it can be much weaker it can [0.2] both be reflecting the 
society and contributing to it [0.4] but in any case it's not entirely clear 
how [0.2] er the artwork is really linked to society in the in in [0.3] in 
those accounts [0.3] there's always a s-, a slight ambiguity is it a reflection 
is it contributing [0.2] in which way [0.2] if it's contributing you have to 
prove [0.3] that the artwork [0.2] not only is there because the society is in 
the way it is [0.3] but also [0.2] that it is [0.3] there er that [0.2] er the 
society is there because the artwork looks this way and i don't know of any [0.
7] stringent art historical account [0.2] which can give me proof that say [0.
3] Turner er the the [0.2] industrial revolution in Britain happened in the 
early nineteenth century [0.3] because [0.2] Turner painted Rain Steam and 
Speed [1.2] but this is just [0.4] because it's become such a prevalent er er 
[0.2] approach in the history of art [0.3] i just wanted to give you some [0.2] 
idea of that there is criticism to 
this too [0.4] and this criticism has been approached [0.2] er has been has 
been advanced not only by me here and i'm really only [0.2] giving it to you in 
order to [0.5] make clear that there's always a criticism to all the 
approproaches which [0.2] we were just discussing about there's not one 
foolproof approach which you can just pick and choose [0.3] if you pick one [0.
2] you have to be aware of its weaknesses and its strengths and you pick it for 
its strengths 
nf0094: of course all the problems i've outlined with [0.2] with Hegel with 
Wölfflin with the connoisseurs now with the social history approach [0.4] they 
continue simply in the last approach i want to introduce here today in feminism 
[0.2] if it's true what i've said [0.3] that feminism [0.3] simply doesn't have 
a systematic account of its own how artworks are connected [0.2] in time [0.2] 
and develop over time [0.2] but append their specific [0.4] er its specific 
question [0.3] to other accounts other systematic accounts [0.2] so [0.3] the 
most [1.2] probably the most widespread feminist and the earliest 
feminist account which came about in the nineteen-seventies [0.3] was really 
one influenced by Marxist analysis of society or or or or art historians' [0.3] 
social history [1.3] and at that er and there the most famous name is one which 
you've seen here on the board but you've encountered in the seminars as well 
this is Linda Nochlin [0.9] and of course w-, [0.5] again with with her account 
you would simply als-, always have to ask how precisely does she see the 
artwork related to society so those all those problems although i'm not 
mentioning them any more [0.3] will continue with all the approaches i'm going 
through now [1.2] let me start with Linda Nochlin [0.2] now she in particular 
argued [0.2] that the reason why there are no great women artists known to us 
[0.2] is because [0.2] male supra-, supremacy [0.2] governs the superstructure 
at the exclusion of women [0.5] now [0.2] this is simply instead of asking i 
mean often they ask the class question as well [0.2] but this is simply [0.5] 
ask-, [0.4] er [0.2] adding to the questions of class and society the 
question of women and in no doubt it is true if you look into the history of 
art [0.3] that there aren't any women [0.4] art historians er er i mean art 
historians there are women artists or not very much we have to look very hard 
and fast [0.3] yet [0.3] women have always been [0.5] half of the population [0.
2] so why is that so Linda Nochlin says [0.2] it's institutions such as for 
example the French Academy [0.3] where women were simply excluded from artistic 
training [0.3] and even when they [0.3] the odd one managed to [0.4] get in er 
it er they weren't really allowed to make a mark on their own [0.6] and on 
their own grounds [0.6] and the remarkable thing is she says that and this is 
her particular area of expertise [0.3] fre-, er France in the eighteenth and 
nineteenth century [0.3] at the end of the French Revolution [0.2] in the er at 
the end of the eighteenth century [0.5] er [0.4] where there were huge advances 
made for you know representation for bourgeois representation in [0.2] m-, 
political structures [0.2] women were actually 
excluded women di-, [0.2] the case of women were was not advanced during the 
French Revolution [0.7] and Linda Nochlin and others then have set out [0.2] to 
see what happened to such women artists who actually did participate what 
happened to the such women artists who actually did feel [0.3] that [0.2] 
during [0.2] the time of the French Revolution [0.6] there [0.2] er er there 
was a call for f-, f-, m-, emancipation and people er wanted freedom and they m-
, and and they felt this included them [0.2] so what happened [0.2] when they 
emerged [0.3] and she [0.2] and i give you here an example of one of her 
discussions [0.6] on the right [0.3] she dis-, discusses for example [0.2] an 
artist you probably never have heard of and might not a-, even hear about any 
more for [0.3] reasons i will give you in a second [0.2] an artist called Marie 
Guillaume Benoist [0.4] who actually engaged very actively in the social 
struggles during the French Revolution [0.2] and painted this painting [0.4] 
called er [0.4] called er er A Female Black [0.2] er it was painted 
around eighteen-hundred and it's very clear that [0.2] she clearly meant it to 
link into with [0.3] contemporary appeals for the abolishment of slavery [0.3] 
and there was a a particular decree which was [0.2] er advanced in the er 
during the French Revolution [0.2] which wanted er which abolished slavery [0.
3] in nineteen-ninety-four [0.2] and this her painting here [0.2] is clearly 
managed to be er [0.2] in the way that she depicts this [0.2] the this black 
woman [0.3] in in the tradition of French art [0.3] in the dignified manner [0.
2] was [0.6] managed to participate in that struggle for er emancipation [0.2] 
but what happened to Benoist [0.2] as soon as she got married shortly after [0.
2] she was expected to disappear from the scene and retreat into the household 
[0.3] and that's precisely what she did and we [0.3] didn't hear won't hear 
anything or wouldn't didn't hear anything from her any more [0.3] she didn't 
paint [0.3] and Linda Nochlin says [0.2] that's characteristic of the 
fundamental [0.5] m-, of fundamental s-, [0.4] er chauvinist structures in 
society which make it impossible 
for women artists to make a mark [1.7] now such accounts look for social and 
economic explanations [0.2] like other Marxist and social art historians [0.5] 
to recover and explain a-, [0.2] are produced by the other half of the world's 
population [0.3] why why doesn't exist it tries to explain or when it exists [0.
2] why er [0.2] how does it [0.3] does it look differently [0.2] why does it 
look in the way it looks and here this is an example i'll come back to next 
week in a different context [0.5] er [0.7] no [0.3] oh [1.0] yep there we go [1.
5] yep [0.8] here are two pictures [0.5] again by French impressionists on the 
r-, on the right you have Renoir's La Loge of eighteen-seventy-four [0.5] and 
on the left you have a [0.6] have a female impressionist called Mary Cassatt 
who depicts Woman in Black at the Opera both are opera scenes [0.4] and both 
have again i mean this is five years later in seventy-ni in eighteen-ni er 
seventy-nine [0.6] and it's very clear to a f-, [0.3] to a feminist artist who 
instead of course what we have here is a typical image 
of a of a male artist [0.2] which although it is in the opera [0.2] can see [0.
2] a woman is [0.3] woman is made the object of the of the of the artwork [0.5] 
it is the woman we look at she's not the subject she isn't doing anything we 
look at the woman and in fact we see the man behind [0.2] scanning other women 
not looking at the stage but scanni-, scanning other women [0.2] in the lowest 
and in the theatre [0.2] to look at [0.4] like we look at a voyeuristic in a 
sense look at this woman here [0.3] when Mary Cassatt paints a scene like this 
[0.6] the account goes [0.3] we don't she actually shields herself from our 
view [0.2] and she actually looks herself she's active she's not she's not so 
much an object of our gaze of our stare any more she shields herself and she is 
actively looking onto the stage and into the theatre [0.6] so [0.2] feminist 
art historians try to explain those differences as well [1.4] there is however 
another feminist approach [0.4] which and this is quite neat for me to now come 
to the end of this lecture because i now go through [0.3] i've now taken 
a social historian's approach and showed you what a feminist angle on it would 
mean [0.4] i now quickly show you what an iconographical angle would mean in 
and there is such a thing in for feminist art historians [0.4] now feminist art 
historians would say [0.2] well if it's true that women have always been the 
object of male artists never and and been excluded as artists' subjects 
themselves [0.4] let's look at how artists have depicted them lek-, let's look 
at the history of types [0.3] and really what we can if we look carefully see 
is that women have always been [0.3] been depicted in two ways two camps [0.3] 
either [0.2] they are Madonnas saints or goddesses [0.3] or [0.2] they are Eves 
sinners and er witches [0.4] and there's very little ground so women as they 
are depicted by men are stereotyped into those categories into those histories 
[0.2] or and and then then you can give a history of types [1.2] two examples 
very briefly here [0.2] Lucas Cranach seven er sixteenth century [0.2] er 
German 
artist [0.7] painting Eve [0.4] and of course Eve is [0.2] Eve Eve is the the 
the the primary seductress in in this because of her tempta-, because she is 
tempted and she succumbs to it [0.3] it is because of that that humankind has 
fallen the fall from paradise [0.9] and [0.6] on [0.2] on the right i couldn't 
help putting this in this is this is by a nineteenth century German artist 
again [0.5] Franz von Stuck [0.3] late nineteenth century because really bad 
quality [0.4] er [0.4] and it's called [0.3] this er [0.2] Sensuality and again 
it's a it's a it's a [0.3] woman as can and you can see the the snake here 
again as a vamp a seductress as somehow evil she's pale and there are other 
pictures [0.3] where you have a sort of extreme co-, er contrast between the 
glowing gold of in this painting style [0.2] and the extreme [0.2] pil-, pale 
and [0.3] ill looking [0.4] er [0.3] depiction of the woman who is an evil 
seductress of course [0.9] obviously disease ridden as well [2.2] that is an 
iconographical approach [0.4] not as elaborate [0.2] as [0.2] as Panofsky's but 
it looks for a history of types it 
go-, goes into the history of whenever you look and whenever art historians 
look for [0.2] models of some particular depiction they in one sense or another 
[0.3] do link into the into Erwin Panofsky's iconography [1.3] but there is 
also and you might be surprised [0.2] a feminist formalist approach [0.4] 
'cause formalists are after all all th-, [0.2] all those people who have been 
heavily derided by contemporary [0.6] art historical approaches [0.8] and very 
quickly i give you examples of that [0.3] here on the on the left you have a 
minimalist artist of the nineteen-sixties [0.2] called Donald Judd and on the 
right [0.4] a female minimalist artist called Eva Hesse [0.4] er [0.4] and you 
[0.2] and er a formalist approach [0.2] as it has been advanced with regard to 
these objects [0.3] would say [0.2] look [0.2] here on the on the left [0.2] 
you have [0.4] industrial material clonky material rather macho in appearance 
[0.5] yet [0.2] Eva Eva Hesse takes it up a female artist [0.2] she still uses 
those geometric forms which minimalists in the nineteen-sixties 
used [0.3] but she uses it in a much more [0.2] biomorphic [0.3] way in a in a 
way which resembles much more body you can see those little things i mean 
they're metal [0.2] but it looks [0.3] much more like something which is bodily 
which is furry or you know [0.8] and and therefore the argument goes [0.3] it 
is because women are much more in touch with their body they are after all the 
people who [0.3] bear children who raise children who are often been because 
they have been [0.4] condemned to the home and the household they are much more 
in touch with those kind of aspects of the society rather than the [0.3] the 
sort of [0.4] mass produced clunky industrial worlds [0.4] and and it's because 
of that that their work looks in the way it does that's where the difference 
sets in [1.0] that's of course [0.5] really problematic i think as an approach 
because [0.3] if you want [0.3] you have something [0.2] y-, you have in many 
ways [0.2] a r-, [0.2] a recourse to Riegl and Wölfflin who say well it's 
human perception which changes over 
time [0.4] and it's but it's the constant as well [0.2] here the constant is a 
biological difference between men and women [0.5] if you think about it [0.4] 
and there's of course no way that that can if it if it is really gets down to 
such a determinism then it's obviously no way that this can ever change then 
you would always look at works of art as women as [0.2] what makes it [0.6] 
intrinsically different from men because it's a different s-, [0.2] different 
sex [1.0] and of course there's a as you can imagine a huge struggle within [0.
2] feminist art historian circle [0.3] between [0.3] who [0.2] because [0.2] a 
social history account would not quite square with an account which sees 
biological differences as determining [0.3] the differences of [0.2] women and 
me-, men artists' production [0.6] and so there's huge discussion going on 
there [1.3] now with this [0.3] last approach and i do have to come to the end 
and i do n-, [0.2] do not want to i mean to a certain extent i think i've given 
you a summary again because [0.3] with looking at [0.4] feminism we came back 
to some 
of the approaches [0.3] from the last lecture and this lecture iconography and 
formalism and social history of course as well [0.6] but with this [0.2] you 
know we have seen what is actually quite [0.4] quite significant for a lot of 
[0.2] very recent approaches is that they aren't systematic in the sense that 
nineteenth and early twentieth century art history was [0.3] that they don't 
aim that they [0.3] that they don't aim to have one underlying cause which [0.
4] remains consistent [0.6] throughout the ages er if you take [0.2] away the 
one the the feminist approach which says there are fundamental biological 
differences [0.5] all other approaches always say [0.2] well [0.6] you know we 
we don't we we can't actually hold to all these 
metaphysical or whatever [0.3] fundamental constants things have always changed 
and we certainly don't have any access to it [0.2] so all we can always give [0.
3] is a particular account at a particular time [0.4] but we can't give you a 
survey in the history of art [0.2] and i think this is where the lectures come 
in as well you don't get a survey of the history of art any more [0.4] and i 
will continue with more approaches which have [0.3] which still account for [0.
3] the w-, [0.2] differently in the way that the art object relates to society 
[0.5] but er [0.3] they don't give you a systematic [0.2] you know long term 
development account in the way that the approaches [0.3] until you know [0.2] 
th-, feminism today did [0.4] so [0.2] thank you