Translated by Tanja Ohlsen

After the publication of Kunsthistorikerinnen 1910–1980 ^[1] in 2021, the Reimver Verlag published Kunsthistorikerinnen im 20. Jahrhundert – Institutionen, Strukturen, Handlungsräume in 2025. Edited by K. Lee Chichester, Annette Dogerloh, Brigitte Sölch and Jo Ziebritzki, the volume focuses not on chronology and some exemplary women art historians, but on the institutions (museums, art market), where art historians were active.

While critical reflection on and the historical correction of a canon of artists dominated by men became a fact latest in 1971 with Linda Nochlin, reflections on art scholars, art historians, museum directors and other, not cis-male individuals working in the field of art without necessarily being artists, have remained comparatively limited. Particularly, the reassessment of the history of women*, active in the art market, science, education and mediation before 1970, has been rare. This void is now comprehensively addressed with the edition of the two volumes, which offer a basis for further research.

Jo Ziebritzki’s opening contribution on the gender ratio in the Vienna School – particularly under Strzygowski and Dvořák – looks back to the beginnings of the discipline’s history which has earlier often been marginalised within the art historical discourse.^[2] The essay discusses the relevance and the role of gender-based differences in the two simultaneously existing seminars in Vienna between 1919 and 1930, and how former female students later described these. It tells of the obstacles female students had to overcome on account of the gender-based categorisation of institutes and the rise of antifeminist and antisemitic movements. Multiple discrimination, in particular, seems to have been neglected in earlier studies—which is not least due to the challenging situation of sources.

It is not surprising, that in a degree programme dominated by women there were feminist approaches avant la lettre as well as structural critique even before the incorporation of feminist art history into the discipline. Just as little surprising is the fact, that these received little attention—due to the dominance of men within the institutes and institutions. Lee Chichester’s contribution describes for example, how sceptically and controversially the artistic capability of women and the differences between male and female creativity were discussed at the beginning of the 19^th century. The hard-won opening of the university for female students surely introduced new perspectives. Suddenly, women were present in a field where “the woman” was only spoken and thought about in absence of “the woman”. The essay explores the essential and structural approaches by means of the writings of the first woman to achieve a doctor’s degree in art science, Erika Tietze-Conrat (degree in 1905) and the art critic and social theorist Lu Märten. In her text Die Künstlerin, autodidact Märten explored the representation of women as well as their artistic production from an innovative socio-historical perspective. Tietze-Conrat wrote about the exhibition Die Kunst der Frau at the Wiener Secession in 1910, which Lee Chichester calls a milestone.

Not all writings of that time with a progressive perspective on gender issues are free from the influence of “German” racial ideology. Some of them remained closely aligned to the then popular nationalist and racist currents. The author points out that a lot of research work has to be done, especially where there are parallels between völkisch-nationalist feminism and the right-wing positions of today can be found.^[3]

Finally, the book includes an interview with the art historian Heinrich Dilly, who worked on questions about the history of the discipline. The interview is about the Causa Schulze – Ingrid Schulze worked at the institute of art history in Halle for forty years, while also being an internal collaborator (sic!) for the Ministry of State Security. This case is explosive, not only because of her position in two male dominated areas, but also because Schulze was one of the first to advance critical engagement with art historians under the National Socialism, such as Hans Sedlmayr.

After the war the discipline in Germany and Austria was marked by the fact that – like many other disciplines – it had lost most of its most progressive representatives under the National Socialism through expulsion, persecution and murder. What was left were art historians that were loyal to the party. After serving the National Socialist ideology they returned to a pure and rarely critical kind of art history. Friederike Sigler writes in her contribution, that, after 1945, not only artists, but also art historians who were successful under National Socialism, worked as if their work had suddenly become antifascist. Sigler focuses on female actors in the art world under National Socialism. Bettina Feistel-Rohmeder for example, contributed significantly to the völkisch-fascist agenda and to the NS-conception of art. The fact, that her influence hitherto has been nearly underestimated, highlights mainly, that the role and the influence of women generally is a subject the has been neglected or even made invisible, but also that women were even more overlooked in the male dominated state of the NS regime.

The book offers insights into a wide range of activities and influences of women within more than 100 years of art history. Since the contributions are to fill a previously existing gap, many of them have an introductory character. They arouse curiosity and lead to new questions to a degree achieved by only few publications.

Overall, Kunsthistorikerinnen im 20. Jahrhundert is an important contribution to the critical history of the discipline. Hopefully, this impetus will lead to further discussion.

http://www.ulmer-verein.de/?page_id=14618

[1] Chichester, K. L., & Sölch, B. (Eds.). (2021). Kunsthistorikerinnen 1910–1980: Theorien, Methoden, Kritiken. Berlin, Germany.

[2] Dilly, H. (1979). Kunstgeschichte als Institution: Studien zur Geschichte einer Disziplin (1st ed.). Frankfurt am Main, Germany, p. 13.

[3] Chichester, K. L., Dogerloh, A., Sölch, B., & Ziebritzki, J. (Eds.). (2025). Kunsthistorikerinnen im 20. Jahrhundert: Institutionen, Strukturen, Handlungsräume. Berlin, Germany, p. 263.