The Ruins of Universal History: The Paradox of Anachronic Art and Chronological History in Alois Riegl’s Historical Grammar of the Visual Arts

Yaowen Li
Department of Art History, University of Hamburg
https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1675-9437

Volume 9, October 2025

Abstract

In Historical Grammar of the Visual Arts, Riegl first established the overall framework of ‘art history as universal history’ through a macro-level worldview periodisation. Thereafter, inspired by historical comparative linguistics, Riegl sought to elaborate this universal history by using the elements that run through all art forms. Despite addressing the subject twice, Riegl never built the unified edifice of art history, leaving only a magnificent ruin behind. Delving into the reasons, it is important to note that Riegl invoked several dualistic concepts in elements, such as ‘organic/inorganic’, to construct his temporal model. However, unlike Hegel, he did not dissolve these oppositions in a dialectical progression toward perfection or finality. In contrast, Riegl attempted to weave the art of all periods equally into an endless fluctuating timeline between two eternal poles, i.e., those dualistic concepts. Thus, Riegl eventually compromised by constructing an oscillatory, non-progressive, and non-teleological model. It was Riegl’s ideal of value that made his universal history project perpetually unattainable: there is an implicit non-temporality or anachrony in the equal recognition of art’s value in each period, which was incompatible with a centralised, chronological, and teleological program. Riegl’s failure prompts a reflection on the complexities of integrating art into the framework of history. Yet this is not a ruin to be mourned, but one that fosters new change and reconstruction. Rather than dismissing the feasibility of this endeavour, it suggests that the ‘future art history’ might benefit from exploring the multiple forms of time inherent in art itself, allowing the artwork to become a key source of its own history and truth.

Keywords

Alois Riegl, Historical Grammar of the Visual Arts, Universal History, Ruin, Anachrony

[pdf]

Bibliography

Bakoš, Ján, ‘Walter Benjamin a hĺbka Historicity (Benjamin a Viedenská škola dejín umenia)’, Slovak Review of World Literature Research, 1 (2007), 27–36.

Bakoš, Ján, ‘Paths and Strategies in the Historiography of Art in Central Europe’, Ars, 43.1 (2010), 85–118.

Benjamin, Walter, Arcades Project, trans. by Howard Eiland and Kevin McLaughlin, prepared on the basis of the German volume edited by Rolf Tiedemann (Cambridge, MA and London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999).

Bolz, Norbert, and Willem van Reijen (eds), Ruinen des Denkens: Denken in Ruinen (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1996).

Busse, Hans Berthold, Kunst und Wissenschaft: Untersuchungen zur Ästhetik und Methodik der Kunstgeschichtswissenschaft bei Riegl, Wölfflin und Dvorák (Mittenwald: Mäander Kunstverlag Itzelsberger KG, 1981).

Cordileone, D. R., Alois Riegl in Vienna 1875–1905: An Institutional Biography (London: Routledge, 2017).

Didi-Huberman, Georges, Devant le temps: Histoire de l’art et anachronisme des images (Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit, 2000).

Dietrich von Loh, ‘Alois Riegl und die Hegelsche Geschichtsphilosophie: Ein Beitrag zur Entstehung der Formanalyse in der Kunstgeschichte’, Kunstjahrbuch der Stadt Linz (1986).

Gubser, Michael, Time’s Visible Surface: Alois Riegl and the Discourse on History and Temporality in Fin-de-siècle Vienna (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2006).

Hegel, G. W. F., Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. by A. V. Miller, with analysis of the text and foreword by J. N. Findlay, F.B.A., F.A.A.A.S. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977).

Karlholm, Dan, and Keith Moxey (eds), Time in the History of Art: Temporality, Chronology, and Anachrony (New York and Abingdon: Routledge, 2018).

Lorenz, Chris, and Berber Bevernage (eds), Breaking up Time: Negotiating the Borders between Present, Past, and Future (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013).

Olin, Margaret R., Forms of Representation in Alois Riegl’s Theory of Art (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992).

Riegl, Alois, ‘Der moderne Denkmalkultus: Sein Wesen und seine Entstehung’, in Gesammelte Aufsätze, ed. by Karl Maria Swoboda (Augsburg and Vienna: Filser, 1929), pp. 144–193.

———, Die Spätrömische Kunstindustrie nach den Funden in Österreich-Ungarn im Zusammenhange mit der Gesamtentwicklung der Bildenden Künste bei den Mittelmeervölkern (Vienna: Druck und Verlag der Kaiserlich-Königlich Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1901).

———, ‘Eine neue Kunstgeschichte’, in Gesammelte Aufsätze, ed. by Karl Maria Swoboda (Augsburg and Vienna: Filser, 1929), pp. 43–50.

———, Historical Grammar of the Visual Arts, trans. by Jacqueline E. Jung (New York: Zone Books, 2004).

———, Historische Grammatik der bildenden Künste, ed. by Karl M. Swoboda and Otto Pächt, with an introduction by Andrea Pinotti, trans. of the introduction by Marit Rericha (Graz–Cologne: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf., 1966; repr. Milan: Mimesis Edizioni, 2017).

———, ‘Kunstgeschichte und Universalgeschichte’, in Gesammelte Aufsätze, ed. by Karl Maria Swoboda (Augsburg and Vienna: Filser, 1929), pp. 3–9.

———, The Group Portraiture of Holland, trans. by Evelyn M. Kain and David Britt (Los Angeles: Getty Publications, 2000).

———, ‘Spätrömisch oder orientalisch?’, Beilage zur Allgemeinen Zeitung, 93 (1902).

Iversen, Margaret, Alois Riegl: Art History and Theory (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993).