Whose history 3
My own position?
I find myself drawing from a number of histories.
Art as a commodity interests me. The changing market for art (formal and informal) goes some way in explaining why certain styles or subjects gained prominence when they did. Art is never created in a vacuum. An artist produces a work because s/he feels it will sell, or because they are excited by a new technique or material, or because they have something to say. For example, the huge expansion in genre painting in the Low Countries during the 15th and 16th century was the result of a growth in mercantile trade and consequent disposable incomes. So I often find myself thinking of art in those terms.
At the same time, I recognise that there are clear ways in which artistic technique has developed. Single-point perspective is a good example. Giotto's half trees peeping out over a hill would have been sensational to his first viewers, creating a real sense of depth in his murals (right, Entry into Jerusalem (detail) 1305, Scrovegni Chapel).
But Giotto might have struggled even to understand what he was seeing if confronted with Paolo Uccello's command of perspective (right, Rout of San Romano (detail), 1440, National Gallery London).
These technical developments and influences can be tracked and dated, but their progress is rarely linear or straight forward. The flow charts which used to appear in textbooks were neat, but oversimplified.
For example, there is good evidence that the woodblock prints from 19th century Edo Japan had a strong influence on cartoon styles which developed in 20th century western art. But the route from, say, Hokusai to Roy Lichtenstein had a lot of twists and turns.
I am also interested in the histories of how we communicate and discern meaning through artworks. Artists have always sought to convey something through their art - from ideas about beauty to political polemic. Frustratingly, artists are often some way ahead of the public's ability to read their work, which creates a disconnect with art*. Some of us write articles and populate websites in an attempt to bridge that gap ...
So, there is no one history of art, but many histories. They are produced by who we are, and become part of us.
* The discussion about whether advertising is or could be art needs to be had elsewhere, but it is an area which often exploits that disconnect. Advertising is entirely in the business of communicating messages which will make us buy. If it can do that without us realising it, then all the better (for the vendors).
Actual subliminal messaging is illegal, but many messages about what is normal or desirable are conveyed by advertising without us realising it's happening.