Abstract

In a recent series of lectures delivered at the Institute of Fine Arts and the Frick Collection, Michael Ann Holly highlighted a moment in the 1950s when, she argues, art history made a pivotal choice, opting to follow Erwin Panofsky’s iconographic system of interpretation, based in a neo-Kantian historical distance, rather than Hans-Georg Gadamer’s theory of immediacy of experience.1 The dichotomy between visual experience and contextualization that Holly implicitly posits in her lecture suggests a long-standing tension in the historiography of art history. Holly’s argument that Gadamer is a forgotten founder figure for the discipline of art history is a compelling one, not only for art history but, as I...