In Defense of Art Historical Canons

Philosophical and rhetorical critiques of a canon (or canons) of art history typically interrogate "greatness" and "quality,” and are accompanied by legitimate complaints about exclusionary rationales for establishing canons that end up replicating oppressive social structures and silencing diverse voices. Yet in spite of harsh criticism and calls to completely abandon the whole notion of canonical works, a new, more broadly inclusive set of canons survives. Why is this the case, if they are so inevitably riddled with racism, sexism, and other socio-political problems? I would argue that the (justified) attempts to revise the canon have overlooked the long history and practical function of canons. Canons have never actually been the rigid, unchanging, monolithic institutions that they are accused of being; rather, canons are like living organisms, always growing and evolving over time in response to the social, technical, and esthetic environments that surround them. For example, Winckelmann's eighteenth-century establishment of a canon of classical art would be greatly modified only a few decades later. Artists' reputations have always waxed and waned, Rembrandt being only one example. The canonical status of Leonardo's Mona Lisa derived largely from the scandal of its infamous theft. In fact, canons survive because they serve an important function: to provide a common visual language for anyone engaged with visual culture. Canons enable us to make instantaneous verbal connections to esthetic, iconographic, and expressive qualities by reference to specific artists, monuments, or periods. Artistic discourse would be made much more difficult (if not impossible) without them.