ABSTRACT
Art historians often take their brief to involve looking at works of art from the past through period eyes, not modern eyes; their task is, accordingly, to figure out what paintings meant, how they were viewed and discussed, in their own day. It’s hard to argue with this historicist scruple. If we disregard it, the pastness of the past disappears; it offers no resistance to our own interpretations of images, now. And yet some difficult cases, some limit cases, can force one to rethink this principle, however admirable in itself.
