Abstract EN:

The purpose of this study is to elucidate the evolution of the scientific approaches to "kunstwissenschaft". Mainly, it is based on the theoretical reflections of T. S. Kuhn. According to this philosopher the development of any science is marked by phases of establishment of certain paradigms alternating with revolutionary phases during which theses paradigms are called in question, entailing the restructuration of the discipline. Now, if this kuhn scheme is applied to "kunstwissenschaft", it should be revised to a certain extent. Nevertheless, it allows to distinguish in the scientific approaches made by the latter, certain phases where paradigms are developped, interrupted, however, by phases of discontinuity. Three paradigms can be pointed out: the first is the paradigm of science of style (such as represented by riegl, wolfflin, panofsky), which constructs a "systematical edifice of doctrines" (das lehrgebaude) in order to show the autonomic development of the history of art, which is put on a rational basis by the discerning of different styles. This paradigm was then followed by a second one, characterized as science of structures, which either considers the individual piece of art as a microcosmic unit (after sedlmayr), or which studies the general structures of artistic evolution (after kaschnitz von weinberg). The third paradigm, that of hermeneutic (interpretative) science (after Badt, Boehm, Batschmann) proceeds from the outward appearance of the piece of art trying to answer the question of "what it is and the way this is". This hypostasis of the individual piece of art is considered by the "critical kunstwissenschaft" to entail an isolation of the work in an almost mystical sphere of inaccessibility. Therefore, today there is the tendency to unsettle the paradigm of hermeneutic science and to put the whole discipline on a new basis.