Between the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century art history arises as a scientific discipline, taking part in the process of systematization of the human sciences in their relationship to the natural sciences. From the perspective of the history of science this period can be seen as the most productive for art history, as it is confronted with a fundamental rethinking of its tools, aims and methodologies. Kunstwissenschaft (‘science of art’) emerges at that time as a counterpart to the well-established connoisseurship. If the latter looks at the work of art in its singularity, studying its material and technical aspects, with an attributionist aim, Kunstwissenschaft deals with analyzing the work of art within its broader cultural context, in reconstructing its social, cultural and political dimensions, and in the dialogue with other disciplines. Both groups of art historians want to legitimate their methodologies on a “scientific” basis, the former grounded in the direct observation of the work of art, the latter developing a series of general concepts (Grundbegriffe) and formal laws, which should be valid for interpreting works coming from different cultural contexts. This paper aims to discuss the methodological gap between different approaches to art history in the epoch in which there was a more intensive aim to build its disciplinary identity, and to follow its development in the actual art historical practices.
