You are on page 1of 18

This article was downloaded by: [George Mason University]

On: 04 January 2015, At: 09:52


Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Architectural Theory Review


Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ratr20

Architecture as Bodily and Spatial


Art: The Idea of Einfühlung in Early
Theoretical Contributions by Heinrich
Wölfflin and August Schmarsow
Rainer Schützeichel
Published online: 06 May 2014.

To cite this article: Rainer Schützeichel (2013) Architecture as Bodily and Spatial Art: The Idea
of Einfühlung in Early Theoretical Contributions by Heinrich Wölfflin and August Schmarsow,
Architectural Theory Review, 18:3, 293-309, DOI: 10.1080/13264826.2014.890007

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13264826.2014.890007

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Architectural Theory Review, 2013
Vol. 18, No. 3, 293–309, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13264826.2014.890007

RAINER
SCHÜTZEICHEL
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 09:52 04 January 2015

ARCHITECTURE AS BODILY AND SPATIAL


ART: The Idea of Einfühlung in Early
Theoretical Contributions by Heinrich Wölfflin
and August Schmarsow

The concept of Einfühlung (empathy), a term


coined in 1872 by the German philosopher,
Robert Vischer, was highly influential in
architectural theory from the last years of
the nineteenth century until at least the first
two decades of the twentieth. Heinrich
Wölfflin and August Schmarsow, two import-
ant figures of art history, developed their
respective concepts of architectural recep-
tion in a strong correlation to the idea of
empathy. In their investigations into architec-
tural creation, the idea of the human capacity
to empathise with objects and works of art
led both art historians to an understanding of
art history as a discipline that was dedicated
to retracing the dominant ideas of different
epochs on a psychological basis.

Q 2014 Taylor & Francis


SCHÜTZEICHEL

Introduction Early Empathy Theory and the Doric Column


as Architectural Example
During the second half of the nineteenth
century, scholars of natural sciences and The German philosopher, Robert Vischer
philosophy were increasingly interested in (1847 – 1933), coined the term Einfühlung
examining processes of reception. While the (empathy) in his dissertation, “Über das optische
natural sciences focused primarily on sensory Formgefühl” (“On the Optical Sense of Form”)
aspects, 1 philosophers extended investi- in 1872.4 With this title, Vischer emphasised his
gations to the psychological interpretation of central assumption that optical impressions
perceived impressions. In that context, were connected with certain feelings. On the
physiological psychology evolved as a new, other hand, he anticipated the impact of
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 09:52 04 January 2015

empirically-guided discipline.2 Since both the empathy theory on later art theory, which
natural sciences and physiological psychology would focus on aspects of optical perception.
were dealing with optical reception, by the Two main influences show up in his disser-
end of the nineteenth century, this research tation. Firstly, discoveries of the nascent
had an immediate effect on art history and on discipline of physiological psychology had an
ar t theory. 3 Not least because of the immediate effect on Vischer. Secondly, his
influence of natural science surveys and argument rested on philosophical aesthetics in
philosophical hypotheses, the work of art— general, and on his father’s theory of the
as an object—was confronted with a symbol in particular.5 Friedrich Theodor
perceptual subject. Vischer (1807 –1887) had, in his writings on
the subject, formulated central suppositions of
Against the background of German philos- empathy theory avant la lettre.
ophy and art history, particularly of the late
nineteenth century, this essay will analyse In his Ästhetik, published in 1851, Friedrich
the influence of empathy theor y on Theodor Vischer introduced architecture as a
architectural theory during that period. The “symbolic art” that was not capable of
analysis will focus on early works by expressing its inner function or use directly,
Heinrich Wölfflin and August Schmarsow, but with the help of codified exterior
which were highly important for architec- elements.6 He compared the immediate
tural theory, especially in the German- expression of the idea with the “body”
speaking countries during the first decades (Leib), using an analogy to the human body,
of the twentieth century. The essay will first and the idea itself he compared with the
examine writings on empathy by Robert “mind” (Geist). Since architecture, because of
Vischer and Theodor Lipps with regard to its allusiveness, could not act as “body” of the
their references to architectural elements “mind”, it, as a symbolic art, should be seen to
and then proceed to an analysis of Wölfflin’s act like the “dress to the body of the mind”.7 In
and Schmarsow’s specific systems of archi- this case, the analogy served to illustrate the
tectural theory. The aim is to reveal the indirect, symbolic nature of architecture. Even
effect of empathy theory on their respective so, the idea that his son would later accord a
idea of architectural and art history and, central place in his own theory, namely that of
furthermore, on their methods of interpret- an unconscious comparison of works of art
ing architecture as bodily or as spatial art. with both subjective feelings and human

294
ATR 18:3-13 ARCHITECTURE AS BODILY AND SPATIAL ART

disposition, had already been sketched in the [ . . . ] The comparison is drawn so


father’s work. unconsciously and instinctively that we,
far removed from thinking of it as a mere
Robert Vischer and the Origin of Einfühlung in “resemblance”, attribute emotional states
His Father’s Theory of the Symbol as predicates to inanimate objects. Thus
we say, for example, these skies, the colour
The idea of a “symbol”, defined by Friedrich of the whole, is cheerful, is melancholy, and
Theodor Vischer as a projection of an so forth. We do not for a moment
unreflected phantasy,8 was only possible in seriously believe that there is a living soul in
the presence of a perceptual subject that these objects [ . . . ]. We could clearly say
projected a notion into the object—the human to ourselves that we are simply carrying
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 09:52 04 January 2015

subject hence became the “creator of beauty”.9 out an act of comparison with our
In a nutshell, an object per se could not be the imagination—but we do not say this, we
bearer of beauty, but the recognition of beauty tarry in a state of illusion, and it is this
was necessarily bound to a perceptual which I term withholding. The awareness
subject.10 With this, the main point at issue that we are merely drawing a comparison
between a formal aesthetics that assumed remains undeveloped, unformulated—we
beauty as a quality of the object and an idealistic give ourselves up to the illusion and allow
aesthetics was well defined. the confusion to take place. This I term a
profound, dark, certain, inner, yet free,
Friedrich Theodor Vischer in 1866 published a emotional identification of the unity
critique of his own Ästhetik. Regarding empathy [Zusammenfühlen] and interconnection of
theory, his revision of the paragraph on image and content.12
architecture as symbolic art is of particular
interest. Vischer now defined the act of Even in the course of a reflected perception,
symbolisation carried out during the examin- Vischer assumed an interconnection between
ation of works of art as “intimating interjection” subject and object. However, he did not throw
and “unconscious ascription of one’s deepest light on the physiological and psychological
emotions”.11 In discussing these definitions, reasons for that assumption—a task that his
Vischer prepared a crucial starting point for his son would undertake in his dissertation.
son’s theory of empathy: his terms “with-
holding” (Vorbehalt) and, even more, its Robert Vischer strove in “Über das optische
synonym “interconnection” (Ineinsfühlen) Formgefühl” to deliver a philosophical study on
came close to what Robert Vischer would call perception. By quoting his father, he insisted
Einfühlung six years later. that the interactions between feeling and
sensory stimuli were a “mystery that has to
This act, whereby we believe that we be explained by physiology in conjunction with
encounter our own interior life in what is psychology”.13 But unlike his father, he explicitly
inanimate, rests quite simply on a underpinned his theses on optical perception
comparison. What is physically bright is and unconscious symbolisation with findings
compared to what is spiritually or taken from these two sciences.14 In his initial
emotionally bright, the dark and gloomy definition of the term Einfühlung, he did not
to dark and gloomy moods, and so forth. reveal the duality of philosophical aesthetics

295
SCHÜTZEICHEL

and physiological psychology that was funda- static form of the phenomenon
mental for his theory. He described the process physiognomic or emotional. We see this
of empathy by explaining that the subject as a pure condition, an involuntary
“unconsciously projects its own bodily form— inclination and habitus. It contrasts with
and with this also the soul—into the form of the mimicking, acting, or affective empathy
the object”,15 a formulation in which his father’s of a truly or apparently moved object.21
theory of the symbol, with its “unconscious
ascription of one’s deepest emotions”, reap- Vischer understood empathy as a process of
peared only slightly modified.16 Robert Vischer, “central projection, exchange, and return”
however, followed the suggestions of physi- between subject and object.22 In this way, the
ology and psychology by taking optical percep- subject, that is, the observer, achieves the
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 09:52 04 January 2015

tion as the starting point of his study. most intense aesthetic identification with the
object. Less intense forms of an aesthetically
With regard to optical perception, Vischer motivated perception are: firstly, the “immedi-
distinguished between an unconscious “seeing” ate feeling” (Zufühlung), which Vischer used to
(Sehen) and a conscious “scanning” (Schauen). describe the projection of subjective feelings
He saw the basis for aesthetic perception and, into, for instance, colours during a motionless
hence, for empathy in the latter.17 According to perception, and secondly, the “responsive
Vischer, a conscious movement of the eyes with feeling” (Nachfühlung), by which the observer
the help of muscular activity characterises projects his or her own imaginary movement
“scanning” and, furthermore, this is typified by a into objects such as a mountain range.23
successive reception of impressions joined According to Vischer, both immediate and
together into an overall image.18 The mode responsive feeling can be preparatory steps
of “scanning” could be differentiated into two for empathy.24
processes—the first being related to “drawing”
and the second what Vischer described as In the context of this essay, it is remarkable that
“plastic-painterly attitude”.19 He spoke of the Robert Vischer strove not least for a theory of
first process as “linear, whereby I define the aesthetic perception through which he might
contours with my fingertips”; the second one influence the process of making art.25 In his
he compared to “mapping of the masses, “similarity or dissimilarity of the object, first
whereby I run my hand, as it were, over the with regard to the structure of the eye and
planes, convexities, and concavities of an object, second with regard to the structure of the
the paths of light, the slopes, ridges, and whole body”,26 Vischer found an explanation
hollows of the mountain”.20 Vischer used the for the appraisal of some forms as beautiful and
movement that, according to his definition, is others as ugly. Through this accentuation of the
immanent in “scanning” for a distinction subject’s role in aesthetic perception, he
between a moved and a motionless empathy: defined beauty much as his father had done:
beauty itself could only result from an
When I observe a stationary object, I can interaction between subject and object.27
without difficulty place myself within its Robert Vischer recognised this subjective
inner structure, at its center of gravity. foundation as important not only for the
[ . . . ] We wish to call this lingering, process of reception, but also for the
motionless empathy [Einfühlen] with the production of art; he described the latter as

296
ATR 18:3-13 ARCHITECTURE AS BODILY AND SPATIAL ART

the “product of an inner, dynamically emulating 1891) and the second, Raumästhetik und
process”.28 geometrisch-optische Täuschungen (Aesthetics of
Space and Geometric-Optical Illusions, 1897). In
With regard to architecture, an essay published these texts, Lipps examined the phenomenon
in 1874 is enlightening. In it, Vischer referred to of optical illusions. In his later work, especially
this discipline as proof of our ability to the two-volume Ästhetik published in 1903 and
empathise with inorganic forms, and not only 1906, he would make important contributions
with organic ones similar to humankind: to a theoretical and terminological widening of
empathy theory.30 Yet, despite the fact that he
The content of a work of art is simply the did not use the term Einfühlung anywhere in
artist. The genius is the soul of his object, these earlier treatises, they are fundamental for
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 09:52 04 January 2015

everywhere. Even the conditions and the context of empathy and architectural
forms of architecture do not deny this, theory.31
although their practical and geometric
purposes seem to be justified by reason Starting from his surveys on aesthetic percep-
alone. They seize our feeling of space tion of geometric forms, Lipps aimed in both
[Raumgefühl], and they touch us like a texts to analyse the process of empathising with
festive expansion, like a consolidation, a spatial forms. In Ästhetische Faktoren der
raising or an increase of our own Raumanschauung, an essay that was published
individual being. Thus architecture seems in a festschrift for Hermann von Helmholtz,
to me the best proof that the whole Lipps described optical illusions as the result of
world of phenomena, that everything can an involuntary reading of forms and objects as
be felt as projection of the human self.29 animate, and this because of a perception of
inherent forces.32 Such an understanding of
Conversely, architecture served as proof to animate objects, according to Lipps, explains
Vischer of the possibility of empathy with the impressions that a line “stretches itself ”, a
abstract forms. At this point, he formulated a vertical rectangle “contracts itself ”, or that a
comprehensive claim about the applicability of horizontal rectangle “expands its width”.33 His
empathy theory to every conceivable kind of idea of an aesthetic mechanics marks Lipps’
art form. Moreover, with the help of the linkage between his concept and empathy
analogy of subject and object, Vischer found theory and necessitates a subject that projects
empathy theory well suited as a general his or her idea of animating forces into the
explanatory model for aesthetic perception object. Similar to Robert Vischer’s definition of
itself. empathy, Lipps understood the act of attribut-
ing forces to objects as an unconscious process:
Theodor Lipps’ Studies on Optical Illusions
Aesthetic perception is to a great extent
With regard to the ability of the subject to mechanical perception. But only the effect
empathise with abstract forms, two texts of mechanical forces can be noticed
published in the 1890s by Theodor Lipps consciously, since in aesthetic perception
(1851 – 1914) are instructive. The first was these forces only exist in phantasy, and
“Ästhetische Faktoren der Raumanschauung” the thought of them mostly occurs
(“Aesthetic Factors in Spatial Perception”, unconsciously.34

297
SCHÜTZEICHEL

Although Lipps examined optical illusions prominently used to illustrate Lipps’ under-
exclusively in two-dimensional geometric lying idea of space.
forms, he first saw in architecture the actual
scope of the detected aesthetic laws.35 Thus, The geometric form [Gebilde] is space,
he took the Doric column as an example to not actual space, but formed space,
demonstrate the possibility of interpreting consisting of one, two or three
architectural forms according to his theory: dimensions. With that we have found
due to the entasis of its shaft and the the bearer of aesthetic activity
constriction underneath its capital, a column [Verhaltungsweise]. It is not the column,
conveys the “impression of an extraordinary but the spatial form represented by the
inner tension and of certain solidity”.36 column, which raises itself. [ . . . ]
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 09:52 04 January 2015

Aesthetic space is animate, formed


In the book, Raumästhetik und geometrisch- space.40
optische Täuschungen, published in 1897,37
Lipps again undertook an interpretation of Lipps’ reading of space is thus dominated by a
the Doric column, which he now—albeit bodily interpretation. That is, the Doric column
speaking of “sympathy” rather than “empa- is the “spatial form” that the observer
thy”—drew nearer to empathy theory.38 empathises with by perceiving it as animate.
Lipps left wholly aside the material as a factor in
The powerful contraction and self-raising aesthetic perception and concentrated, instead,
of the Doric column that I perceive gives on the form of an actually de-materialised
me pleasure, just as the powerful column.
contraction and self-raising of my own
body that I remember, or as the powerful Bodily reading is a constant motif in Lipps’
contraction and self-raising of someone theory. He dealt with three-dimensional space
else that I perceive, give me pleasure. only tangentially in the first volume of his
I sympathise with the manner in which the Ästhetik, giving the example of a church
Doric column behaves or by which it interior.41 In the analogy of the “space of the
testifies to an inner liveliness, because I human body” to architectural space, Lipps saw
recognise therein a natural mode of proof that empathy was applicable to spatial
behaviour of my own that gives me forms as well as to three-dimensional space.42
happiness. Thus, all pleasure produced by Still, his definition of “space” remained linked to
spatial forms, and, we can add, any kind of bodily reading: “It [space] is not a physical nor
aesthetic pleasure, is a feeling of sympathy merely a geometric body, but an aesthetic
that makes us happy.39 one”.43

In contrast to what one might expect from Empathy theory and its interpretation by
the titles of Lipps’ texts, three-dimensional Robert Vischer and Lipps found echo in the
space is not treated explicitly therein. Lipps European art theory of the late nineteenth and
instead examined “spatial forms” (räumliche early twentieth centuries. In 1893, for instance,
Gebilde), that is forms of spatial extension the sculptor Adolf Hildebrand (1847 –1921)
such as the Doric column, as well as their published his influential book, Das Problem der
reception. In the later text, the column was Form in der bildenden Kunst (The Problem of

298
ATR 18:3-13 ARCHITECTURE AS BODILY AND SPATIAL ART

Form in the Fine Arts).44 In it, he referred sow saw the “germinating seed” for all
indirectly to both theorists and inter alia took architecture in space.49 In spite of some
up Vischer’s distinction between “seeing” and fundamental differences, the theories of Wölf-
“scanning”;45 from “scanning”, Hildebrand flin and Schmarsow are aligned when it comes
derived key terms of his own theory, namely to the process of reception because both art
the differentiation of “visual idea” (Gesichtsvor- historians recognised this as being psychologi-
stellung) and “kinaesthetic idea” (Bewegungsvor- cally determined.
stellung). One representative of early
twentieth-century art theory is Wilhelm Heinrich Wölfflin: A Bodily Interpretation of the
Worringer (1881 – 1965), who, in 1907, Progress of Arts
published his dissertation, “Abstraktion und
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 09:52 04 January 2015

Einfühlung” (“Abstraction and Empathy”).46 In 1886—11 years before Lipps would publish
His work shows the influence of Lipps’ theory, his book on optical illusions—Wölfflin sub-
but, in the end, must also be seen as a drastic mitted his dissertation, “Prolegomena zu einer
reduction of the concept of empathy.47 Psychologie der Architektur” (“Prolegomena to a
Psychology of Architecture”).50 In it, he applied
empathy theory to an art historical interpret-
Empathy as an Instrument of Architectural ation of architectural forms. In the course of a
Theory: Psychology of Architecture seminar convened in 1884 by his professor at
the university in Basel, Johannes Volkelt (1848 –
With regard to the effect of empathy theory on 1930), Wölfflin had gained important inputs for
architectural theory, the writings of the two art his dissertation topic by giving a presentation
historians Heinrich Wölfflin (1864 – 1945) and on a dispute between formal and idealistic
August Schmarsow (1853 – 1936) are of aesthetics.51 Following this, he aimed in his
central significance. Both were intent on “Prolegomena” to settle the query: “How is it
establishing a psychology of architecture. Each possible that architectural forms are able to
arrived via his own reference to empathy express an emotion or a mood?”52
theory at the idea of the human possibility of
empathising with architectural forms on the The key to answering that query according to
one hand, and with architectural space on the Wölfflin was to be found in the self-projection
other. of the human subject into an object. Interest-
ingly, he did not use the term Einfühlung for
Wölfflin, like Lipps, assumed a mechanical describing that act, but, with a nod to Volkelt,
interpretation of forms. He was thus well spoke of Symbolisieren (symbolising).53 In the
placed to recognise Lipps’ importance for art first chapter of his dissertation, Wölfflin tried to
theory, stating in a favourable review of define this act with the help of a critique of a
Raumästhetik und geometrisch-optische chapter of Volkelt’s study, “Der Symbol-Begriff in
Täuschungen that Lipps had therein given der neuesten Ästhetik” (“The Concept of the
“hints at the foundation of an aesthetic Symbol in the Most Recent Aesthetics”), from
mechanic, and thus at the foundation of the 1876, which opened with a question—with
aesthetic understanding of the form of beauty regard to natural, rather than architectural
in general”.48 While Wölfflin stayed with a forms—similar to Wölfflin’s: “How is it that
bodily reading of architectural forms, Schmar- forms of nature want us to unconsciously

299
SCHÜTZEICHEL

animate them with our feelings and moods?”54 Wölfflin thus saw “physical forms” in juxtaposi-
But in his critique, Wölfflin did not register with tion to the human subject. His interpretation of
sufficient clarity that Volkelt was presenting the architectural forms remained bound to a bodily
theories of the philosopher Hermann Lotze reading, comparable to that of Lipps. Between
(1817 – 1881), and Robert Vischer. That is the these two authors, another similarity can be
reason why Wölfflin’s analyses of both Volkelt detected—in their choice of example for
and Vischer are to a great extent characterised discussing architectural forms. The column
by misinterpretation; in fact, it is most probable served both Lipps and Wölfflin as the
that at the time when Wölfflin wrote his prominent architectural element with which
dissertation, he had not even read Vischer’s they could explain their hypotheses on
seminal text in the original.55 In particular, empathy.58 The latter turned to the column
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 09:52 04 January 2015

Wölfflin did not realise that his own theses on firstly in order to illustrate the analogy of
the origins of empathy were partly similar to architectural forms and the human body, in
those of Vischer. relation to the sense of body:

Attributing immanent forces to forms and We have carried loads and experienced
objects, and thus following a mechanical pressure and counterpressure, we have
reading, Wölfflin recognised matter as being collapsed to the ground when we no
determined by an inner “force of form” longer had the strength to resist the
(Formkraft) and this hindered a “formless downward pull of our own bodies, and
collapse” of matter.56 Form for Wölfflin was that is why we can appreciate the noble
the result of an inner will or force that serenity of a column and understand the
expresses itself by overcoming an opposing tendency of all matter to spread out
force. His mechanical reading also was formlessly on the ground.59
essential for his idea of aesthetic perception,
which was based on a psychological approach. Thus, the column becomes accessible for
Only because of his or her own physicality aesthetic perception and judgement insofar as
was the human subject, according to Wölfflin, a projection of subjective exertion takes place.
able to aesthetically perceive architectural For Wölfflin, the column secondly represented
forms. the object of interpretation of architectural
forms tout court. His ekphrasis of the Doric and
We understand only what we ourselves Ionic temple front almost exclusively consists of
can do. [ . . . ] Physical forms possess a descriptions of the forces attributed to the
character only because we ourselves columns.60
possess a body. If we were purely visual
beings, we would always be denied an By interpreting the progress from Doric to
aesthetic judgement of the physical world. Ionic order psychologically as a collective
But as human beings with a body that striving for greater “elevation and freedom”,
teaches us the nature of gravity, and by claiming the same for the development
contraction, strength, and so on, we from Romanesque to Gothic architecture,61
gather the experience that enables us to Wölfflin laid the foundations for a psychological
identify with the conditions of other method in art history. For this, the context of
forms.57 empathy theory was essential. In his habilitation,

300
ATR 18:3-13 ARCHITECTURE AS BODILY AND SPATIAL ART

which was published in 1888, Wölfflin would tion and concepts of artistic expression, in
apply his newly-founded method on the Renaissance and Baroque art, respectively.70
transition from Renaissance to Baroque.62
Guided by the supposition formulated in his Wölfflin had originally developed his psycho-
dissertation that “any architectural style reflects logical method in connection with interpreting
the attitude and movement of people in the architectural forms. In later works, he increas-
period concerned”,63 in his habilitation, he ingly applied the method to painting and
approached architectural history psychologi- sculpture, thereby extending its scope.71 But,
cally as a sequence of styles each typical of its although Wölfflin, in his Principles, treated
time.64 architecture far less extensively than the other
two arts, he did develop further the model of a
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 09:52 04 January 2015

Looking back at Wölfflin’s initial query, namely mechanical interpretation of empathy that he
how architectural forms are able to express an had elaborated in the context of his earlier
emotion, one can now say that by looking for architectural studies.72 Finally, among a variety
an answer, he had also formulated a hypothesis of architectural elements, he again returned to
for a psychological art history. In his most the column as his exemplar in order to
influential book, Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbe- emphasise the subjective act of projecting
griffe (Principles of Art History),65 first published feelings into architectural forms and buildings as
in 1915, Wölfflin would continue the approach a basic condition for his study:
he had founded in 1886, although by then he
held a more critical opinion on his original Of course, all architecture and decoration
hypothesis concerning unconscious ascriptions reckons with certain suggestions of
of emotions to works of art.66 Still, in the movement; the column rises, in the wall,
Principles, he coined the term “The Double living forces are at work, the dome swells
Root of Style”, which brought together both upwards, and the humblest curve in the
“individual styles” characteristic of individual decoration has its share of movement,
artists and “the style of the school, the country, now more languid, now more lively.73
the race”67—and thereby linked a subjective
artistic expression with an intersubjective or In contrast to Wölfflin, August Schmarsow
collective one that is necessary for the focused not on a bodily reading of architectural
postulation of a general style of an epoch. forms, but on a spatial understanding of
What is remarkable in this later publication is architecture. In his inaugural lecture at the
that one of the five pairs of precepts he University of Leipzig in 1893, Schmarsow
famously proposed there, the “Linear” and the insisted that future architectural historians
“Painterly”, finds a relatively obvious parallel in treat space as their main topic. Wölfflin had
Robert Vischer’s dissertation—which, in the instead applied empathy theory to his archi-
meantime, had been studied by Wölfflin.68 tectural studies by analysing the projection of a
Vischer in the context of “scanning” had subject into forms and elements of architec-
distinguished between a “linear” act and a ture. His analyses remained limited to a bodily
“mapping of the masses”.69 For Vischer, this reading; this was rooted in his dissertation,
distinction was describing a mere optical act, where he had assumed a bodily counterpart to
whereas for Wölfflin, the principles “Linear” the human subject. Consequently, non-bodily
and “Painterly” stood for both optical percep- space remained a closed book to him.74

301
SCHÜTZEICHEL

August Schmarsow: A Spatial Interpretation of the style, which he achieved by turning to space
Progress of Arts and, hence, by abstracting from material,
constructive, or stylistic motifs:
In 1885, Schmarsow succeeded Rober t
Vischer to the chair in art history at the Let us now try to bring within a single
University of Breslau and, in 1893, he was historical perspective the varied
finally offered a chair at the University of phenomena that immediately suggest
Leipzig.75 Concurrently with taking up his themselves when we first consider this
appointment in Leipzig, Schmarsow undertook theme. From the troglodyte’s cave to the
a realignment of his art historical research. He Arab’s tent; from the long processional
now paralleled the approach of his earlier avenue of the Egyptian pilgrimage temple
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 09:52 04 January 2015

works to art history as a history of individual to the Greek god’s glorious column-
artists76 with a new concept, pursuing a borne roof; from the Carribean hut to the
comprehensive analysis of what he called in his German Reichstag building—we can say
inaugural lecture, the “Wesen der architekto- in the most general terms that they are all
nischen Schöpfung” (“Essence of Architectural without exception spatial constructs
Creation”).77 (Raumgebilde), whatever their material,
duration, and construction, and whatever
At the outset of the lecture, Schmarsow the configuration of their supporting and
revealed his psychological approach to archi- supported parts.83
tectural analysis by calling for an “aesthetic
‘from within’”.78 Schmarsow, too, assumed the Lipps and Wölfflin both had pursued mechan-
human subject to be central for aesthetic ical interpretations of form-giving forces in
perception, characterising it as both a “creative architecture and both illustrated their approach
and appreciative subject”.79 Following his with the example of the column. Schmarsow,
presumption, a “germinating seed” has to be on the other hand, regarded tectonic elements
found in all architectural creation; this “must as secondary to space; he even saw a
necessarily be present in the most imperfect mechanical reading of bodily forms as an
beginnings, which the history of true art can obstacle to a psychological interpretation of
barely acknowledge as its own, as well as in the space.84 He consequently changed the focus
masterpieces of a fully mature golden age”.80 from bodily architectural forms to space,
The synthesis and at the same time equal though significantly without giving up the
treatment of so-called primitive and refined human body as a reference system because
arts was rooted in the concept of empathy the connection between man and architectural
because, in it, the subject as observer has space was, according to Schmarsow, deter-
advanced to become the central figure, mined anthropologically.
whereas the object perceived is only of
secondary importance.81 Schmarsow found The axial system of coordinates
the “germinating seed” in spatial creation compellingly predefines the natural law
(Raumgestaltung) or, more specifically, in the that regulates creation. That law
“enclosure of the subject” in an interior necessarily and immediately manifests
space.82 He laid special emphasis on the itself in the important fact that spatial
emancipation of architecture from matter and creation never detaches itself from the

302
ATR 18:3-13 ARCHITECTURE AS BODILY AND SPATIAL ART

subject but always implies a relationship ourselves in any way other than by
with the observer and creator.85 imagining that we are in motion,
measuring the length, width, and depth,
Schmarsow defined space by its axial system, or by attributing to the static lines,
by height, width, and depth, and acknowledged surfaces, and volumes the movement
the exact same axial system in the human body. that our eyes and our kinaesthetic
He explained that height finds its counterpart sensations suggest us, even though we
in humankind’s upright position, width in the survey the dimensions while standing
symmetric organisation of the human body, and still.90
depth in the direction of moving forward.86
With this, his theory was widened by the With the help of this turn to a “psychological
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 09:52 04 January 2015

moment of actual or even merely imagined point of view” in art history, Schmarsow gained
movement. the subjective reading that he had begun to
take into account from 1883 onward—and
It is revealing that Wilhelm Wundt (1832 – from which he finally arrived at his “theory of
1920), one of the founders of empathy theory architecture as ‘creatress of space’”.91 Although
in physiological psychology and who had been his theory is based on an abundance of
part of Leipzig University’s staff since 1875,87 philosophical and art historical influences,
most likely attended Schmarsow’s inaugural empathy theory plays an important role
lecture. In 1874, Wundt had published his among them because of its psychological and
Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie (Prin- anthropological impetus.92 Regarding Robert
ciples of Physiological Psychology), in which he Vischer, two points of contact can be detected,
had described the development of spatial ideas even though Schmarsow did not refer to the
as a product of optical and tactile sensations, former in his inaugural lecture.93 Firstly, in
and he had assigned movement a central role in addition to a “motionless empathy with the
that process.88 The connection of the human static form”, Vischer with his concept of
body and movement with spatial directions also “affective empathy” had also reckoned with
hints at the influence of Hermann Lotze, the possibility of projecting motions into an
through whose suggestion Schmarsow became only virtually moved object.94 And secondly, he
acquainted with a psychological perspective in had characterised movement as an essential
art theory.89 Schmarsow applied the moment feature of aesthetic perception with his
of movement to his interpretation of architec- differentiation between “seeing” and “scan-
ture, by assuming the projection of a subject— ning”. But whereas Vischer had only seen this
imagined as being in motion—into the “static movement as relevant for optical perception,
spatial form”: that is, for the eyes, Schmarsow now also
incorporated actual movement in space into his
The linguistic terms that we use for space, theoretical concept.
such as “extension” (Ausdehnung),
“expanse” (Erstreckung), and “direction” Like Wölfflin, Schmarsow strove for a
(Richtung), suggest continuous activity on psychological method in art history. The
our part as we transfer our own feeling of difference between both concepts is that,
movement directly to the static spatial while Wölfflin examined changes in styles,
form. We cannot express its relation to Schmarsow looked for changes in spatial

303
SCHÜTZEICHEL

creation. In 1896, Schmarsow gave the lecture, example of Rococo style, Schmarsow saw an
“Ueber den Werth der Dimensionen im expression of light-heartedness that he took as
menschlichen Raumgebilde” (“On the Import- being typical for the whole epoch.99
ance of the Dimensions in Human Spatial
Creation”), which is enlightening in the context
of our enquiries here.95 In it, he derived his Conclusion
anthropological reading of space from three
design principles that he had arrived at by From the beginning, architectural elements,
adapting the theory of formal beauty that had especially the Doric column, were important
initially been put forward by the architect for empathy theory. But while Lipps merely
Gottfried Semper (1803 –1879). According to referred to architecture and its elements as
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 09:52 04 January 2015

Schmarsow, the principles are “proportion” for examples to illustrate his assumptions regard-
the vertical axis, “symmetry” for the horizontal ing optical reception, as Robert Vischer had
axis, and “rhythm” for forward movement into done, both Wölfflin and Schmarsow founded
depth (the principle aligned to the spatial their respective theories on the analysis of
dimension of depth had in Semper’s theory architecture. For these two theorists, empa-
been characterised as “direction”).96 Schmar- thy theory had an essential effect on their
sow regarded this third axis—depth—as the works. Wölfflin as well as Schmarsow strove
most important for architecture, while for in their early writings, in which they
painting, it was width, and for sculpture, investigated the reception of architecture
height.97 According to this classification, he, and the evaluation of specific characters, to
for instance, interpreted the extension of a set up an art history that was determined by
Rococo palace into the horizontal direction as psychology. Further, in their theses derived
painterly tendency. He assumed that a from architecture, these men saw keys to the
“predominance of one or another [dimension] interpretation of the progress of arts through
defines the character” of an epoch.98 There- different epochs as a history of the relation of
fore, because of the dominance of width in the the human subject to both forms and space.

Notes
1. Physiological studies on the eye were, for 3. Frank Büttner recognises a “psychological turn”
instance, carried out by Hermann von Helm- in art history during the years 1870 to 1910;
holtz (1821 – 1894), who also had great Frank Büttner, “Das Paradigma ‘Einfühlung’ bei
influence on art theory; for his most important Robert Vischer, Heinrich Wölfflin und Wilhelm
work in this context, see Hermann von Worringer. Die problematische Karriere einer
Helmholtz, Handbuch der physiologischen Optik, kunsttheoretischen Fragestellung”, in Christian
Leipzig: Leopold Voss, 1867. Drude and Hubertus Kohle (eds), 200 Jahre
Kunstgeschichte in München. Positionen—Perspek-
2. The works of Wilhelm Wundt (1832 – 1920), tiven—Polemik 1780 – 1980, Munich/Berlin:
who, in 1879, founded an institute for Deutscher Kunstverlag, 2003, 82. In the same
experimental psychology at the University of context, Magdalena Bushart speaks of an
Leipzig, were fundamental for the early phase of “anthropological turn” because of the turn to
physiological psychology; see, for instance, the human subject; Magdalena Bushart, “‘Form’
Wilhelm Wundt, Grundzüge der physiologischen und ‘Gestalt’. Zur Psychologisierung der Kunst-
Psychologie, Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann, 1874. geschichte um 1900”, in Otto Gerhard Oexle

304
ATR 18:3-13 ARCHITECTURE AS BODILY AND SPATIAL ART

(ed.), Krise des Historismus—Krise der Wirklich- 12. Vischer, “Critique of My Aesthetics”, 689– 690.
keit. Wissenschaft, Kunst und Literatur 1880 –
1932, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 13. Vischer, “On the Optical Sense of Form”, 92. For
2007, 147. Friedrich Theodor Vischer’s original formulation,
see Vischer, “Critique of My Aesthetics”, 690.
4. Robert Vischer, “On the Optical Sense of Form:
A Contribution to Aesthetics” [“Über das optische 14. Robert Vischer referred to Wilhelm Wundt,
Formgefühl. Ein Beitrag zur Ästhetik”] (1872), in Karl Alber t Scherner (1825 – 1889), and
Harry Francis Mallgrave and Eleftherios Ikono- Gustav Adolf Lindner (1828 – 1887). The
mou (eds), Empathy, Form, and Space. Problems in influence of Hermann von Helmholtz is also
German Aesthetics, 1873–1893, Santa Monica, noticeable in, for example, the adaptation of
CA: The Getty Center for the History of Art and the term “visual sensation” [Gesichtsempfin-
the Humanities, 1994, 89–123. dung] from Helmholtz’s Handbuch der physio-
logischen Optik; Vischer, “On the Optical Sense
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 09:52 04 January 2015

5. For the influence of Friedrich Theodor of Form”, 95.


Vischer’s aesthetics on the empathy theory of
Robert Vischer, see Christian G. Allesch, 15. Vischer, “On the Optical Sense of Form”, 92.
Geschichte der psychologischen Ästhetik. Unter-
suchungen zur historischen Entwicklung eines 16. In the original German texts, the similarity is
psychologischen Verständnisses ästhetischer Phä- much more evident, since Robert Vischer spoke
nomene, Göttingen/Toronto/Zurich: Verlag für of “unbewußtes Versetzen der eigenen Leibform
Psychologie/C. J. Hogrefe, 1987, 327 – 329. See und hiemit auch der Seele in die Objektsform”,
also Mallgrave and Ikonomou, Empathy, Form, and the words used by Friedrich Theodor
and Space, 18 – 20. Vischer were “unbewußte[s] Unterlegen von
Seelenstimmungen”. See (respectively) Robert
6. Friedrich Theodor Vischer, Ästhetik oder Vischer, “Über das optische Formgefühl. Ein
Wissenschaft des Schönen (1851), vol. 3, ed. Beitrag zur Ästhetik” (1872), in Robert Vischer
Robert Vischer, Munich: Meyer & Jessen, 1922, (ed.), Drei Schriften zum ästhetischen Formpro-
234, § 561. blem, Halle/Saale: Max Niemeyer, 1927, 4; and
Friedrich Theodor Vischer, “Kritik meiner Aesthe-
7. Vischer, Ästhetik oder Wissenschaft des Schönen, tik”, in Friedrich Theodor Vischer, Kritische
vol. 3, 235, § 561 (translation by the author). Gänge, nr. 5, Stuttgar t: J. G. Cotta’sche
Buchhandlung, 1866, 140 (emphasis by the
8. For the definition of the term “symbol”, see author).
Vischer, Ästhetik oder Wissenschaft des Schönen,
vol. 2, 495, § 426. 17. For Vischer’s distinction between “seeing” and
“scanning”, see Vischer, “On the Optical Sense
9. Vischer, Ästhetik oder Wissenschaft des Schönen, of Form”, 93 – 95.
vol. 3, 370, § 382 (translation by the author).
18. Hermann von Helmholtz had already empha-
10. For the importance of the subject for the sised the relationship between eye movement
reception of beauty in Friedrich Theodor and spatial perception; cf. Kirsten Wagner,
Vischer’s theory and its influence on empathy “Die Beseelung der Architektur. Empathie und
theory, see Mar tin Fontius, “Einfühlung/ architektonischer Raum”, in Robin Curtis and
Empathie/Identifikation”, in Karlheinz Barck et al. Gertrud Koch (eds), Einfühlung. Zur Geschichte
(eds), Ästhetische Grundbegriffe, vol. 2, Stuttgart/ und Gegenwart eines ästhetischen Konzepts,
Weimar: J. B. Metzler, 2001, 130– 131. Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 2009, 54 – 55.

11. Friedrich Theodor Vischer, “Critique of My 19. Vischer, “On the Optical Sense of Form”, 94.
Aesthetics” [“Kritik meiner Aesthetik”] (1866), in
Charles Harrison, Paul Wood, and Jason Gaiger 20. Vischer, “On the Optical Sense of Form”, 94.
(eds), Art in Theory, 1815 – 1900: An Anthology of
Changing Ideas, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 21. Vischer, “On the Optical Sense of Form”,
2000, 689. 104– 105.

305
SCHÜTZEICHEL

22. Vischer, “On the Optical Sense of Form”, 108. 31. Mallgrave and Ikonomou consider the books,
Raumästhetik und geometrisch-optische Täuschun-
23. For the terms “immediate feeling” and “respon- gen and the Ästhetik, to be the two “primary
sive feeling”, see Vischer, “On the Optical Sense works by Theodor Lipps dealing with his theory
of Form”, 107. For a distinction between of empathy”; Mallgrave and Ikonomou, Empathy,
Einfühlung, Zufühlung, and Nachfühlung, see Form, and Space, 73.
Fontius, “Einfühlung/Empathie/Identifikation”, 131.
32. Theodor Lipps, “Ästhetische Faktoren der
24. Vischer called this preparatory process “atten- Raumanschauung”, in Arthur König (ed.),
tive feeling [Anfühlung]”; Vischer, “On the Beiträge zur Psychologie und Physiologie der
Optical Sense of Form”, 106, 108. Sinnesorgane. Hermann von Helmholtz als
Festgruss zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag,
25. According to Friedrich and Gleiter, Robert Hamburg/Leipzig: Leopold Voss, 1891, 217–
Vischer did not try to establish a specific theory 307.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 09:52 04 January 2015

of art; Thomas Friedrich and Jörg H. Gleiter,


“Einleitung”, in Thomas Friedrich and Jörg 33. Lipps, “Ästhetische Faktoren der Rauman-
H. Gleiter (eds), Einfühlung und phänomenolo- schauung”, 222 (translation by the author).
gische Reduktion. Grundlagentexte zu Architektur, Kirsten Wagner connects this interpretation
Design und Kunst, Berlin: Lit, 2007, 9. But with empathy theory: “To perceive an object
although Vischer’s dissertation does not offer aesthetically, or in other words to empathise with
an applied theory of arts, his emphasis on it, [according to Lipps] means to comprehend
artistic production still shows the importance the mechanical forces that give the object its
of this aspect for his argumentation; cf. Gustav specific form”. Wagner, “Die Beseelung der
Jahoda, “Theodor Lipps and the Shift from Architektur”, 64 (translation by the author).
‘Sympathy’ to ‘Empathy’”, Journal of the History
of the Behavioral Sciences, 41, no. 2 (Spring 34. Lipps, “Ästhetische Faktoren der Rauman-
2005), 153. schauung”, 272 (translation by the author).

26. Vischer, “On the Optical Sense of Form”, 97. 35. For Lipps’ opinion on the role of architecture,
see Lipps, “Ästhetische Faktoren der Rauman-
27. According to Christian Allesch, the rejection of schauung”, 240.
formal aesthetics through an idealistic approach
was an important motivation for Vischer’s 36. Lipps, “Ästhetische Faktoren der Rauman-
dissertation; Allesch, Geschichte der psycholo- schauung”, 245 (translation by the author).
gischen Ästhetik, 328 – 329. Mallgrave and
Ikonomou underline Vischer’s criticism against 37. Theodor Lipps, Raumästhetik und geometrisch-
formal aesthetics as well as his revision of optische Täuschungen, Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius
idealistic aesthetics with the help of a sub- Barth, 1897.
jectivism immanent in empathy theory; cf.
Mallgrave and Ikonomou, Empathy, Form, and 38. Lipps used the terms “sympathy” and “empathy”
Space, 21. almost interchangeably; see Jahoda, “Theodor
Lipps”, 158– 159.
28. Vischer, “On the Optical Sense of Form”, 115.
39. Lipps, Raumästhetik, 7 (translation by the author
29. Robert Vischer, “Der ästhetische Akt und die reine and by Gustav Jahoda; see Jahoda, “Theodor
Form” (1874), in Vischer, Drei Schriften, 54 Lipps”, 158).
(translation by the author).
40. Lipps, Raumästhetik und geometrisch-optische
30. For Lipps’ terminology of empathy, see Klaus- Täuschungen, 14 – 15 (translation by the author).
Peter Lange, “Zum Begriff der Einfühlung
(Theodor Lipps und Johannes Volkelt)”, in Helmut 41. For Lipps’ only three-page study on “The three-
Koopmann and J. Adolf Schmoll gen. Eisenwerth dimensional space” [“Der dreidimensionale
(eds), Beiträge zur Theorie der Künste im 19. Raum”], see Theodor Lipps, Ästhetik. Psychologie
Jahrhundert, vol. 1, Frankfurt: Vittorio Kloster- des Schönen und der Kunst (1903), vol. 1, Leipzig:
mann, 1971, 118–123. Leopold Voss, 1923, 257– 259.

306
ATR 18:3-13 ARCHITECTURE AS BODILY AND SPATIAL ART

42. For empathy with architectural space, see Lipps, 53. Mark Jarzombek interprets Wölfflin’s avoidance
Ästhetik, 258. of the term Einfühlung as an attempt to escape a
categorisation of his art historical method; Mark
43. Lipps, Ästhetik, 258 (translation by the author, Jarzombek, “De-Scribing the Language of Look-
emphasis in the original text). ing: Wölfflin and the History of Aesthetic
Experientialism”, Assemblage, 9, no. 23 (April
44. Adolf Hildebrand, “The Problem of Form in the 1994), 42.
Fine Arts” [“Das Problem der Form in der
bildenden Kunst”] (1893), in Mallgrave and 54. Johannes Volkelt, Der Symbol-Begriff in der
Ikonomou, Empathy, Form, and Space, 227– 279. neuesten Aesthetik, Jena: Hermann Dufft, 1876,
51 (translation by the author).
45. Henning Bock points out parallels between
empathy theory and Hildebrand’s Problem der 55. For Wölfflin’s misinterpretation of Volkelt’s
Form. See Henning Bock, “Einführung: Die work, see Lurz, Heinrich Wölfflin, 69 – 71.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 09:52 04 January 2015

Entstehung des ‘Problem der Form’”, in Adolf


von Hildebrand, Gesammelte Schriften zur Kunst, 56. Wölfflin, “Prolegomena to a Psychology of
Cologne/Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1969, Architecture”, 159.
22 – 23. For the influence of Vischer and Lipps,
see also Mallgrave and Ikonomou, Empathy, 57. Wölfflin, “Prolegomena to a Psychology of
Form, and Space, 37. Architecture”, 151.

46. Wilhelm Worringer, Abstraktion und Einfühlung. 58. In his review of Lipps’ Raumästhetik und
Ein Beitrag zur Stilpsychologie, Neuwied: Heuser, geometrisch-optische Täuschungen, Wölfflin
1907. would also give the example of the column:
“The author [Lipps] starts out from the
47. For a critical account of Worringer’s main theses, psychological fact that all forms are interpreted
see Büttner, “Das Paradigma ‘Einfühlung’”, 87–89. according to their activities [Thätigkeit]. While
perceived aesthetically, the column is not a
48. Heinrich Wölfflin, “Theodor Lipps: Raumästhetik motionless form [ruhendes Gebilde], but a being
und geometrisch-optische Täuschungen” [review], that gives itself a form, that raises and contracts
Kunstchronik, 9, no. 18 (March 1898), 292 itself, that senses and overcomes an impression
(translation by the author). of resistance etc.”. Wölfflin, “Theodor Lipps:
Raumästhetik”, 292 (translation by the author).
49. August Schmarsow, “The Essence of Architec-
tural Creation” [“Das Wesen der architekto- 59. Wölfflin, “Prolegomena to a Psychology of
nischen Schöpfung” (1893), in Mallgrave and Architecture”, 151.
Ikonomou, Empathy, Form, and Space, 283.
60. For the comparison of Doric and Ionic
50. Heinrich Wölfflin, “Prolegomena to a Psychol- architecture, see Wölfflin, “Prolegomena to a
ogy of Architecture” [“Prolegomena zu einer Psychology of Architecture”, 179– 181.
Psychologie der Architektur”] (1886), in Mallgrave
and Ikonomou, Empathy, Form, and Space, 149– 61. Wölfflin, “Prolegomena to a Psychology of
190. Architecture”, 181.

51. For Wölfflin’s presentation titled “Gibt es reine 62. Wölfflin applied the hypothesis of an uncon-
Formen, welche schön sind?” [“Are There Pure scious ascription of emotions to objects
Forms that are Beautiful?”], and for its influence explicitly to architecture in his habilitation and,
on his dissertation, see Meinhold Lurz, Heinrich therein, he again saw human physicality as the
Wölfflin. Biographie einer Kunsttheorie, Worms: key to empathy; Heinrich Wölfflin, Renaissance
Werner’sche Verlagsgesellschaft, 1981, 59 – 64. und Barock. Eine Untersuchung über Wesen und
Entstehung des Barockstils in Italien, Munich:
52. Wölfflin, “Prolegomena to a Psychology of Theodor Ackermann, 1888, 63.
Architecture”, 149. For an extensive study on
Wölfflin’s dissertation, see Lurz, Heinrich Wölfflin, 63. Wölfflin, “Prolegomena to a Psychology of
53 – 89. Architecture”, 182.

307
SCHÜTZEICHEL

64. “Transposing his model of empathy at once from architectural space in his Principles of Art History,
the universal to the historically specific and from where he in reality did not deal with spatial forms,
the individual to the collective, he [Wölfflin] but with three-dimensional space: “Space, being
defines architectural style as the expression of physical, can only be apprehended by physical
the feeling of a particular people and age”. Helen organs”. Wölfflin, Principles of Art History, 63.
Bridge, “Empathy Theory and Heinrich Wölfflin:
A Reconsideration”, Journal of European Studies, 75. For Schmarsow’s biography, see August Schmar-
41, no. 1 (March 2011), 9 – 10. sow, “Rückschau beim Eintritt ins siebzigste
Lebensjahr”, in Johannes Jahn (ed.), Die Kunst-
65. Heinrich Wölfflin, Principles of Art History. The wissenschaft der Gegenwart in Selbstdarstellungen,
Problem of the Development of Style in Later Art Leipzig: Felix Meiner, 1924, 135– 156; and Peter
[Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Das Problem H. Feist, “Schmarsow, August Hannibal”, in Neue
der Stilentwicklung in der neueren Kunst] (1915), Deutsche Biographie, vol. 23, Berlin: Duncker &
New York: Dover Publications, 1950. Humblot, 2007, 121– 123.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 09:52 04 January 2015

66. “By attributing everything to expression alone, we 76. For Schmarsow’s monographic studies, see, for
make the false assumption that for every state of instance, August Schmarsow, Leibniz und Schot-
mind the same expressional methods were always telius. Die unvorgreiflichen Gedanken, Strassburg:
available”. Wölfflin, Principles of Art History, 13. Karl J. Trübner, 1877; and Schmarsow, Raphael
und Pinturicchio in Siena. Eine kritische Studie,
67. For the chapter, “The Double Root of Style”, see Stuttgart: W. Spemann, 1880.
Wölfflin, Principles of Art History, 1 – 13.
77. Schmarsow, “The Essence of Architectural
68. For the pair, “Linear and Painterly”, see Wölfflin, Creation”, 281– 297.
Principles of Art History, 18 – 72. Meinhold Lurz
delivers proof of Wölfflin’s reading of Robert 78. Schmarsow, “The Essence of Architectural Cre-
Vischer; see Lurz, Heinrich Wölfflin, 74, 188. ation”, 283. With the term “aesthetic from within”,
Schmarsow distinguished his concept from formal
69. Vischer, “On the Optical Sense of Form”, 94. aesthetic architectural analyses on the one hand, and,
on the other, from an empirical approach
70. Wölfflin still emphasised the dominance of optics undertaken by the philosopher Gustav Theodor
by explaining changes of style as “decisive Fechner (1801–1887), who differentiated between
readjustment[s] of the eye” and by characterising an “aesthetic from above” and an “aesthetic from
formal principles as “modes of vision”, an below”. For Fechner’s aesthetics, see Gustav
interpretation that put him close to Vischer’s Theodor Fechner, Vorschule der Aesthetik, part 1,
distinction between “seeing” and “scanning”; Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1876; for an English
Wölfflin, Principles of Art History, 18. excerpt, see Gustav Theodor Fechner, “Aesthetics
from Above and from Below”, in Harrison, Wood,
71. For the disciplinary orientation of Wölfflin’s and Gaiger, Art in Theory, 632–635.
dissertation and habilitation, as well as for his
later extension of the method to painting and 79. Schmarsow, “The Essence of Architectural
sculpture, see Lurz, Heinrich Wölfflin, 9. Creation”, 283.

72. Stephan Nachtsheim sees the basis for Wolfflin’s 80. Schmarsow, “The Essence of Architectural
art historical method in empathy theory, a theory Creation”, 283.
that he in his later works “would not relinquish,
but complement and modify [ . . . ]”. Stephan 81. Magdalena Bushart sees in empathy theory a
Nachtsheim, Kunstphilosophie und empirische precondition for the possibility of treating
Kunstforschung 1870 – 1920, Berlin: Gebr. Mann, different phases of art history and different
1984, 117 (translation by the author). stages of development of art equally: “As soon as
the focus no longer lay on the single work of art,
73. Wölfflin, Principles of Art History, 63. but on the ‘constitutive categories of the soul’,
works of practical art could rank as high as those
74. This pre-eminence of bodily forms in Wölfflin’s of the fine arts”. Bushart, “‘Form’ und ‘Gestalt’”,
method becomes obvious in a commentary on 148 (translation by the author).

308
ATR 18:3-13 ARCHITECTURE AS BODILY AND SPATIAL ART

82. Schmarsow, “The Essence of Architectural nation of space by “the spatial experience of a
Creation”, 291. subject in his given anthropological and historical
conditions [ . . . ]”. Roger Lüdeke, “Einleitung”, in
83. Schmarsow, “The Essence of Architectural Jörg Dünne and Stephan Günzel (eds),
Creation”, 286. Raumtheorie. Grundlagentexte aus Philosophie
und Kulturwissenschaften, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp,
84. For Schmarsow’s opinion on the tectonic 2006, 455 (translation by the author).
structure of a building, see Schmarsow, “The
Essence of Architectural Creation”, 294. 93. In his lecture, Schmarsow acknowledged neither
Vischer nor Wölfflin, but referred to Lipps’
85. Schmarsow, “The Essence of Architectural Ästhetische Faktoren der Raumanschauung in the
Creation”, 288. context of the unity of the “creative and
appreciative subject”; Schmarsow, “The Essence
86. For the comparison of the human body and the of Architectural Creation”, 283.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 09:52 04 January 2015

three dimensions of space, see Schmarsow, “The


Essence of Architectural Creation”, 288– 291. 94. Vischer, “On the Optical Sense of Form”, 105.
The influence of Robert Vischer on Schmarsow’s
87. Regine Heß points out that Wilhelm Wundt was theory is hinted at by Mitchell Schwarzer, who
professor at Leipzig at the time when Schmarsow significantly claims that Theodor Lipps had coined
held his inaugural lecture; Regine Heß, Emotionen the term Einfühlung in his book, Raumästhetik und
am Werk. Peter Zumthor, Daniel Libeskind, Lars geometrisch-optische Täuschungen, from 1897;
Spuybroek und die historische Architekturpsycholo- Mitchell W. Schwarzer, “The Emergence of
gie, Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 2013, 88. Architectural Space. August Schmarsow’s The-
ory of ‘Raumgestaltung’”, Assemblage, 6, no. 15
88. For the importance of the movement of the eyes (August 1991), 53.
for spatial perception, see Wundt, Grundzüge,
552. Referring to Wundt, Kirsten Wagner shows 95. August Schmarsow, “Ueber den Werth der
the importance of movement for spatial percep- Dimensionen im menschlichen Raumgebilde”,
tion by summarising that “the tactile and visual Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königlich-
scanning [Abtasten] of objects by a moving body Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 48,
that is at the same time experiencing this Philologisch-Historische Klasse (1896), 44–61.
movement leads to the idea of space”. Wagner,
“Die Beseelung der Architektur”, 56 (translation by 96. For Semper’s creative principles, see Gottfried
the author). Semper, “Ueber die formelle Gesetzmäßigkeit des
Schmuckes und dessen Bedeutung als Kunstsym-
89. For Lotze’s explanation of spatial perception with bol” (1856), in Manfred Semper and Hans
the help of man’s movement and physicality, see Semper (eds), Kleine Schriften von Gottfried
Hermann Lotze, Grundzüge der Psychologie. Semper, Berlin/Stuttgart: W. Spemann, 1884,
Dictate aus den Vorlesungen, Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 328– 329.
1881, 34 – 36. Beatrix Zug also relates Schmar-
sow’s theory to Lotze’s Mikrokosmus; Beatrix 97. For the classification of the arts according to
Zug, Die Anthropologie des Raumes in der their respective relationship to one of the three
Architekturtheorie des frühen 20. Jahrhunderts, dimensions of space, see Schmarsow, “Ueber
Tübingen/Berlin: Ernst Wasmuth, 2006, 15 – 18. den Werth der Dimensionen im menschlichen
Raumgebilde”, 60.
90. Schmarsow, “The Essence of Architectural
Creation”, 291. 98. Schmarsow, “Ueber den Werth der Dimensionen
im menschlichen Raumgebilde”, 61 (translation by
91. Schmarsow, “Rückschau beim Eintritt ins sieb- the author).
zigste Lebensjahr”, 7 (translation by the author).
99. For Schmarsow’s psychological interpretation of
92. Roger Lüdeke sees the influence of empathy the respective tendencies, see Schmarsow, “Ueber
theory in Schmarsow’s inaugural lecture, as well den Werth der Dimensionen im menschlichen
as on Wölfflin’s dissertation, in the determi- Raumgebilde”, 61.

309

You might also like