The ideas of Alois Riegl have profoundly impacted the realms of Art History and art scholarship, particularly in the domains of art theory, aesthetics, and the study of artistic periods. His work has left an enduring mark, as evidenced by the ongoing engagement of contemporary art historians and scholars with his diverse writings. Notable figures such as David Freedberg, Michael Ann Holly, Peter N. Miller, Jeffrey Chipps Smith, Denis Dutton, Elizabeth Gilmore Holt, and Hans Belting have drawn inspiration from Riegl’s concepts, exploring various facets of art and visual culture.
Riegl’s influence is most notably associated with his pioneering concept of “Kunstwollen,” often translated as “the will to art.” This concept underscored the notion that artistic styles and movements are not arbitrary but are deeply rooted in their cultural and historical context. Every period in art history, according to Riegl, possesses a unique artistic will or attitude that shapes the creation of artworks. His emphasis on the historical and cultural context of art has significantly impacted the way we analyze and interpret art.
However, as we delve into the modern age, the concept of Kunstwollen has evolved in response to technological advancements and contemporary inventions. Contemporary architects like Matias Del Campo acknowledge that artistic perspectives now intertwine with personal art philosophies, experiences, and artistic preferences. Moreover, they emphasize the profound impact of innovation, technology, and digital tools on artistic creation, emphasizing the importance of experimentation and innovation in contemporary art.
This essay aims to recognize Riegl’s profound influence on the field of art history by delving into a range of critiques and perspectives offered by influential art historians, including Ernst Gombrich, Heinrich Wölfflin, Erwin Panofsky, T.J. Clark, Max Dvořák, and Michael Baxandall. While Kunstwollen has been praised for providing a solid foundation, it has also faced criticism for its lack of empirical evidence and objectivity, as well as its limited applicability across different historical and geographical contexts.
Furthermore, the essay will explore the contemporary paradigm shift in the age of artificially assisted design protocols, focusing on the interaction between human creativity and computational tools. While there may be some overlap in exploring artistic intent and creativity, Kunstwollen and artificially assisted design protocols belong to distinct historical and technological contexts. This shift raises profound questions about the nature of creativity and its relationship with technology, with some viewing AI-generated art as a reflection of human creativity, while others highlight the impact of postmodern theories on our artistic sensibility.
In essence, this research paper will examine the enduring influence of Alois Riegl’s concepts, the critiques and adaptations put forth by subsequent scholars, and the contemporary discussions surrounding the convergence of human creativity and technology in the realm of art.
Davis, The Work of Art in The Age of Digital Reproduction (An evolving Thesis), 1 and 7.
Davis, Art in the After-Culture : Capitalist Crisis and Cultural Strategy, 72–74.
McCorduck, Artificial Intelligence: An Aperçu 65–66.
Morbey, Portrait of the Young Machine as a Male Artist. 130–134.
Arendt, The Human Condition, 295–296 and Bergson, Creative Evolution, trans. Arthur Mitchell, 139.
See Ihde, Homo faber Revisited: Postphenomenology and Material Engagement Theory.
Gombrich, Ernst. “Symbolic Images: Studies in the Art of the Renaissance.” Phaidon, 1972.
Wolfflin, H., 2015. Principles of Art History: The Problem of the Development of Style in Early Modern Art: One Hundredth Anniversary Edition. Getty Publications. Page 12
Breaking the Curve. Big Data and Digital Design.” Artforum 52,6 (2014): 168-173
A{AI} 