What is art history and where does it go?

Art history may seem like a relatively simple concept: “art” and “history” are subjects that most of us studied in elementary school. However, in practice, the idea of “art history” raises complex questions. What exactly do we mean by art and what kind of story (or stories) would we explore? Let's consider each term below.

Art versus artifact
The word “art” derives from the Latin ars, whose original meaning is “skill” or “craft”. Such meanings are still primary definitions in words derived from ars, such as “artifact” (a thing made with human skills) and “craftsman” (a person with the ability to make things). The meanings of “art” and “artist”, however, are not so simple. We understand art as involving more than just skilled craftsmanship. But what exactly distinguishes a work of art from an artifact, or an artist from a craftsman?

When students are asked this question, they typically suggest several ideas. One is beauty. Much art is visually striking, and in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries, the analysis of aesthetic qualities was central to art history. During this period, art that imitated ancient Greek and Roman art (the art of classical antiquity) was considered to embody timeless perfection. Art historians focused on the so-called fine arts—painting, sculpture, and architecture—analyzing the virtues of their forms. Over the past century and a half, however, both art and art history have evolved radically.
Left: Lysippos, Apoxyomenos (Scraper), Roman copy of a bronze statue from around 330 BC, 2m high (Vatican Museum); Right: Kiki Smith, unnamed male figure, 1990, 198.1 × 181.6 × 54 cm, beeswax and microcrystalline wax figures on metal stands (Whitney Museum of American Art)

Artists moved away from classical tradition, adopting new media and aesthetic ideals; Art historians have shifted their focus from analyzing the formal beauty of art to interpreting its cultural significance. Today we understand beauty as something subjective, a cultural construction that varies across time and space. Although art continues to be essentially visual, and visual analysis is still a fundamental tool used by art historians, beauty itself is no longer considered an essential attribute of art.
A second common answer to the question of what distinguishes art emphasizes originality, creativity, and imagination. This reflects the modern understanding of art as being a manifestation of the artist's ingenuity. This idea, however, originated five hundred years ago in Renaissance Europe and is not directly applicable to many of the works studied by art historians. For example, in the case of ancient Egyptian art or Byzantine icons, the preservation of tradition was valued more than innovation. While the idea of ingenuity is certainly important in art history, it is not a universal attribute of the works studied by art historians.
All of this may lead to the conclusion that definitions of art, like those of beauty, are subjective and unstable. One solution to this dilemma is to propose that art is distinguished primarily by its visual activity, that is, by its ability to captivate viewers. Artifacts can be interesting, but art, I think, has the potential to move us, emotionally, intellectually or in any other way. It can do this through its visual characteristics (scale, composition, color, etc.), the expression of ideas, skill, ingenuity, rarity or some combination of these or other qualities. The way art appeals may vary, but somehow, art takes us beyond the ordinary, everyday experience. The greatest examples attest to the extremes of human ambition, skill, imagination, perception and feeling. As such, art leads us to reflect on fundamental aspects of what it is to be human. Any artifact, as a product of human skill, could give insight into the human condition. But art, by moving beyond the commonplace, has the potential to do so in a more profound way. The art. So, it is perhaps best understood as a special class of artifact, exceptional in its ability to make us think and feel through visual experience.

Fuente