The Shape of Time

This reading was an excerpt from George Kubler's The Shape of Time, which introduces an entirely new method of approaching and studying art history.  Though difficult to understand at times, it is clear that this excerpt is attempting to impose on the reader an abstract view of the lives of artists and the history of art entirely.  Kubler begins by discussing "The Limitations of Biography", stating that biography is wrong in attempting to reconstruct the evolution of the person of the artist, to authenticate attributed works, and to discuss their meaning.  He says that while biography is an adequate means of scanning artistic substance, it should be able to answer the question of the artists relations to what has preceded and what will follow them.  My interpretation of this is that the Kubler is suggesting that rather than solely discussing and analyzing the works of an artist, biographies should make an attempt to relate the artist to the works which have influenced him/her and the the works which he/she had an influence on.  Kubler next makes the rather ambiguous comparison between artists and train tracks, saying that to study art in the context of one artist rather than as a whole, is to study the railroad of a country only in the perspective of one of its travelers.  In other words, one must relate the works of an artist to the genre as a whole, rather than trying to use his work to define the entire genre.  The next, most intriguing part of the passage concerned the means through which an artist is able to be successful.  He makes the very important point that the difference between artists is generally not a difference in talent, but a difference in time and opportunity.  For example, those who follow very famous artists generally do not achieve an equivalent success, but rather amplify the success of their predecessors.  Though talent. dedication, and persistence are definitely key to an artist's fame, success cannot be achieved if the time isn't right for it.  Next, Kubler compares art with biology, a comparison that even he admits is faulty.  He states that like the leaves of a plant, the style of art begins small and slowly evolves into something much greater.  And as there are different species of plant, there are different styles of art, all of which evolve differently and at their own pace.  He then briefly discusses the essentiality of communication between authors to exchange ideas and styles, but moves on to address the invisible chain, a tie between an artist and previous events which restricts the artist from deviating from prior events, limiting his creativity.  Fom my understanding, an example of this is biblical events, whose art cannot deviate far from the cultural norm while still being acceptable.  He also makes the argument that every artist has an obsession which is traceable in all her works, a statement which I either fail to understand or cannot agree with.  I believe that while each artist has his or her own style, they can at the same time choose to deviate from such and still achieve success, though potentially not as great.  I believe it would be smart of an artist to diversify in an attempt to see which style would be received the best.  All in all, this was a very interesting read, though confusing and ambiguous at times, which made some very difficult to argue points regarding the history of art as a whole.