Connoisseurship deeply out of fashion, sadly, though yes we can all do without the snobbery. For museums, it is important to have exhibits and holdings that appeal to a broader audience (says the marketer in me) but too often I see blockbuster exhibitions (hello Met Costume Institute, I'm talking about you) not integrated enough with the rest of the museum's holdings and exhibits, such that cross-pollination becomes even less likely. And the dire lack of arts education (at least in the US) means that multiple generations have now grown up with little sense of how to experience and think about art, its quality, or lack thereof. Thanks for this piece, Rufus.
Thanks Regina - things on the whole ARE better than they used to be. I always find it interesting to see how works are presented, either as triumphant, heroic works of art - or as part of a wider (often sociological) narrative. Either way, we learn something. Its just that I find in recent times the former has given way to the latter rather too much.
You are almost totally right in what you say, but one thing you could have mentioned is that the new art history that started training art historians in the 1980s has created a generation of scholars unable to see art as art, only from the societal, political, gendered, military, culturally relevant points of view. For these art historians connoisseurs and connoisseurship are suspect. Over the last year I have been endeavouring to get published a painting in a Danish collection in London and the peer reviewer at the Burlington did not address my arguments nor the associated drawing in Germany whose subject was unidentified by scholars from 1974 onwards. Apparently the peer reviewer dismissed the picture as they “didn’t believe in it.” I am of the belief this is a young curator at the National Gallery who hasn’t 45 years studying the artist or having read 30 feet of literature on the artist. The publication of a scholar’s work should not be considered improper if properly argued, and an attribution should published to allow discussion of that attribution. But then I offered the article to the Revue de l’Art and after three months was informed that the article was refused as there was no documentation for the picture! This flies in the face of all connoisseurship and the fact that pictures do sometimes appear without any documentation currently, which later comes to light to confirm the attribution as the scholarly community advances research. So my footnoted article sat for over a year without being seen more widely than peer reviewers. I have now found a publication willing to publish the article, and the editor has said that he thinks personally I am right; the only snag is that it will only appear in print in June 2026!
Thanks Stephen. Delighted to hear your piece has found a publisher and that you will be contributing to the advance of science (art) in that regard. That is important, as you say. How else did Bellori or Burckhardt or Berenson and others build up their critical body of knowledge other than by looking? Clearly there are issues with the different approaches (especially BB's), but we usually learn something from a publication, no matter how obscure, or even repetitive it might be. My article was written for The Critic - which has a word limit of 750, so I must reduce my argument to a short piece - which is a great discipline for me, but sometimes feels inadequate for the subject. The monthly column is generally focussed on the art market and its mechanisms, and not so much on the new art history (some of which I learned in the 1990s). I hope it starts some sort of a debate. We need a balance somewhere - but yes, you are right that some art historians have diverged from the connoisseurial approach of the art market (and there is snobbery in both directions there). Ultimately, both approaches are necessary and both rely on one another: for discoveries (like yours), the advancement of science from connoisseurs; and thought-provoking analysis and debate from art historians.
There are various problems with connoisseurship. One is that it is context-driven. So a painter such as El Greco, who was appreciated in his own time, then went unappreciated for centuries until late 19th and 20th century artists taught us to see differently and people began looking again at his works. Conversely, artists such as Quentin Metsys were very highly prized by the Victorians, but today not so much.
Connoisseurship also ignores subject matter. People such as Warburg, Panofsky, and Gombrich began to look at artworks, where the subject matter had often been long forgotten, to try to figure out what the works were about and why they were important to people.at the time of their creation.
For me, connoisseurship is an important element in appreciating art, but on its own it just makes for a Wöfflinesque history of styles which on its own is too limiting and sterile.
I agree. Connoisseurship is a valuable approach, but can be far too limiting. When I worked at an auction house, everything (paintings,furniture,carpets) were recorded on card indexes, and arranged according to country, style and date. An approach borrowed from the institutions. This made it reasonably easy to find what one was looking for (once one had learned the 'stylistic evolution of art history'), but made for a very limiting approach to the individual work. Consequently, those working with and around those works only ever saw the work in that narrow box-like setting - ie as part of a development. In fact a much more multi-disciplinary and broader approach to works would have been richer, more interesting and less limiting in appeal. As a consequence, collectors also felt that they too had to sign up to this linear approach to art history (in whichever collecting category they happened to buy in) which meant that the market for works of art was (and continues to be) very 'siloed'. Collectors will collect great works in lots of different categories - all using the same connoisseurial approach, and which often do not relate across categories (other than in pleasant interior decor) - a classic example is the recent sale of the late Aso Tavitian's collection which I also wrote about.
Recent attempts in auction houses to 'cross-market' great objects began in 2008 (I worked on Christie's first 'Exceptional Sale'). The iconological approach pioneered by Warburg & Panofsky works for figurative works, but does not work for abstract works like furniture and the other decorative arts where a sociological approach does help. I see the value more and more of an anthropological approach to the history of decorative arts as advancing interesting knowledge in this specialised area. This is being led by American art historians (not much liked by some) and can be enjoyed in a stimulating voume: Furnishing the 18th Century (https://search.worldcat.org/title/70158340).
Connoisseurship deeply out of fashion, sadly, though yes we can all do without the snobbery. For museums, it is important to have exhibits and holdings that appeal to a broader audience (says the marketer in me) but too often I see blockbuster exhibitions (hello Met Costume Institute, I'm talking about you) not integrated enough with the rest of the museum's holdings and exhibits, such that cross-pollination becomes even less likely. And the dire lack of arts education (at least in the US) means that multiple generations have now grown up with little sense of how to experience and think about art, its quality, or lack thereof. Thanks for this piece, Rufus.
Thanks Regina - things on the whole ARE better than they used to be. I always find it interesting to see how works are presented, either as triumphant, heroic works of art - or as part of a wider (often sociological) narrative. Either way, we learn something. Its just that I find in recent times the former has given way to the latter rather too much.
Hello Rufus
You are almost totally right in what you say, but one thing you could have mentioned is that the new art history that started training art historians in the 1980s has created a generation of scholars unable to see art as art, only from the societal, political, gendered, military, culturally relevant points of view. For these art historians connoisseurs and connoisseurship are suspect. Over the last year I have been endeavouring to get published a painting in a Danish collection in London and the peer reviewer at the Burlington did not address my arguments nor the associated drawing in Germany whose subject was unidentified by scholars from 1974 onwards. Apparently the peer reviewer dismissed the picture as they “didn’t believe in it.” I am of the belief this is a young curator at the National Gallery who hasn’t 45 years studying the artist or having read 30 feet of literature on the artist. The publication of a scholar’s work should not be considered improper if properly argued, and an attribution should published to allow discussion of that attribution. But then I offered the article to the Revue de l’Art and after three months was informed that the article was refused as there was no documentation for the picture! This flies in the face of all connoisseurship and the fact that pictures do sometimes appear without any documentation currently, which later comes to light to confirm the attribution as the scholarly community advances research. So my footnoted article sat for over a year without being seen more widely than peer reviewers. I have now found a publication willing to publish the article, and the editor has said that he thinks personally I am right; the only snag is that it will only appear in print in June 2026!
Thanks Stephen. Delighted to hear your piece has found a publisher and that you will be contributing to the advance of science (art) in that regard. That is important, as you say. How else did Bellori or Burckhardt or Berenson and others build up their critical body of knowledge other than by looking? Clearly there are issues with the different approaches (especially BB's), but we usually learn something from a publication, no matter how obscure, or even repetitive it might be. My article was written for The Critic - which has a word limit of 750, so I must reduce my argument to a short piece - which is a great discipline for me, but sometimes feels inadequate for the subject. The monthly column is generally focussed on the art market and its mechanisms, and not so much on the new art history (some of which I learned in the 1990s). I hope it starts some sort of a debate. We need a balance somewhere - but yes, you are right that some art historians have diverged from the connoisseurial approach of the art market (and there is snobbery in both directions there). Ultimately, both approaches are necessary and both rely on one another: for discoveries (like yours), the advancement of science from connoisseurs; and thought-provoking analysis and debate from art historians.
Good article.
There are various problems with connoisseurship. One is that it is context-driven. So a painter such as El Greco, who was appreciated in his own time, then went unappreciated for centuries until late 19th and 20th century artists taught us to see differently and people began looking again at his works. Conversely, artists such as Quentin Metsys were very highly prized by the Victorians, but today not so much.
Connoisseurship also ignores subject matter. People such as Warburg, Panofsky, and Gombrich began to look at artworks, where the subject matter had often been long forgotten, to try to figure out what the works were about and why they were important to people.at the time of their creation.
For me, connoisseurship is an important element in appreciating art, but on its own it just makes for a Wöfflinesque history of styles which on its own is too limiting and sterile.
I agree. Connoisseurship is a valuable approach, but can be far too limiting. When I worked at an auction house, everything (paintings,furniture,carpets) were recorded on card indexes, and arranged according to country, style and date. An approach borrowed from the institutions. This made it reasonably easy to find what one was looking for (once one had learned the 'stylistic evolution of art history'), but made for a very limiting approach to the individual work. Consequently, those working with and around those works only ever saw the work in that narrow box-like setting - ie as part of a development. In fact a much more multi-disciplinary and broader approach to works would have been richer, more interesting and less limiting in appeal. As a consequence, collectors also felt that they too had to sign up to this linear approach to art history (in whichever collecting category they happened to buy in) which meant that the market for works of art was (and continues to be) very 'siloed'. Collectors will collect great works in lots of different categories - all using the same connoisseurial approach, and which often do not relate across categories (other than in pleasant interior decor) - a classic example is the recent sale of the late Aso Tavitian's collection which I also wrote about.
Recent attempts in auction houses to 'cross-market' great objects began in 2008 (I worked on Christie's first 'Exceptional Sale'). The iconological approach pioneered by Warburg & Panofsky works for figurative works, but does not work for abstract works like furniture and the other decorative arts where a sociological approach does help. I see the value more and more of an anthropological approach to the history of decorative arts as advancing interesting knowledge in this specialised area. This is being led by American art historians (not much liked by some) and can be enjoyed in a stimulating voume: Furnishing the 18th Century (https://search.worldcat.org/title/70158340).