Intellectual Origins of The Formal School: The Early Methodology of Heinrich Wölfflin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/1728-2640.2025.161.5
Keywords:
Heinrich Wölfflin, formal school, methodology of art history, philosophy of culture, perception, Burckhardt, Dilthey, Brunn, Prolegomena to a Psychology of Architecture.Abstract
Introduction. The article explores the intellectual origins of the formal school in the history of art, examined through the early methodology of Heinrich Wölfflin (1864–1945). The article analyses the formation of Wölfflin’s scholarly views within the university environments of Basel, Berlin, and Munich. It foregrounds the influence of Jacob Burckhardt, Wilhelm Dilthey, and Heinrich Brunn, and emphasises the significance of Wölfflin’s early texts and correspondence. The discussion shows that Wölfflin laid the foundations of his methodology during his student years, developing an approach that combined the philosophy of culture, the psychology of perception, and the formal analysis of visual form.
Methods. The study employs historical-genetic, phenomenological, and hermeneutic approaches, as well as elements of new biography and prosopography, in order to reconstruct Wölfflin’s intellectual milieu. Comparative and stylistic analysis made it possible to trace the evolution of his methodology from the Prolegomena zu einer Psychologie der Architektur (1886) to Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe (1915). The analysis of Wölfflin’s letters and diaries made it possible to reveal the process of forming his own method as a search for objective laws governing the development of artistic form.
Results. The article demonstrates that Burckhardt’s concept of the intrinsic value of historical epochs, Dilthey’s philosophy of culture, and Brunn’s analytical approach all influenced Wölfflin’s methodological system. It highlights the role of drawing as an intellectual instrument for Wölfflin – a practical means of training the “eye of the art historian”. It also demonstrates that Wölfflin’s aspiration to grant art history the status of a science rested on his search for patterns of visual perception that operate independently of subjective factors.
Conclusions. The reconstruction of Wölfflin’s early methodology demonstrates that the formal school grew not from the rejection of content, but from the aspiration to objectify the analysis of artistic form. The combination of philosophy, psychology, and the practice of drawing became the foundation of his system, which shaped the development of art history in the twentieth century. Turning to these origins raises questions about the contemporary understanding of visual experience and the possibility of applying Wölfflin’s principles in visual studies today.
Keywords: Heinrich Wölfflin, formal school, methodology of art history, philosophy of culture, perception, Burckhardt, Dilthey, Brunn, Prolegomena to a Psychology of Architecture.
References
Antal, F. (1949). Florentine painting and its social background. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Bauer, K.-N. (2008). Heinrich Wölfflin’s ideas and historiographical discourse [Doctoral dissertation, The Open University / Architectural Association School of Architecture]. Open University Repository.
Baumgarten, J. (2023). Wölfflin’s North: The burden of belonging. Journal of Nordic Renaissance. https://jnr2.hcommons.org/2023/7972/
Bibliotheca Hertziana – Max Planck Institute for Art History. (2024, March 15–16). Form, style, principles: Art historical and theoretical reflections — A conference of the Wölfflin edition [Conference presentation]. Max Planck Institute for Art History.
Brunn, H. (1885). Über die Ausbildung des Auges und das Verständniss der Form in der Kunstgeschichte. Königliche Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Deliege, A., Dondero, M. G., & D’Armenio, E. (2025). Revisiting Wölfflin in the age of AI: A study of classical and baroque composition in generative models. *Journal of Imaging*, 11(5), 128. https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging11050128
Gantner, J. (Ed.). (1982). Heinrich Wölfflin: Autobiographie, Tagebücher und Briefe. Schwabe.
Grisebach, E. (1934). Goethe und die Weltliteratur. Vittorio Klostermann.
Hart, J. (1982). Reinterpreting Wölfflin: Neo-Kantianism and hermeneutics. *Art Journal*, 42(4), 293–299. https://doi.org/10.2307/776517
Hönes, H. (2025). Post-publication reviews, peer comments, and discipline formation in art history. *Minerva*. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-025-09600-3
Impett, L., & Offert, F. (2023). There is a digital art history. *arXiv preprint*, arXiv:2308.07464. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.07464
Levy, E., & Weddigen, T. (Eds.). (2020). The global reception of Heinrich Wölfflin’s *Principles of Art History*. Yale University Press. https://www.nga.gov/research/publications/pdf-library/global-reception-wolfflin.html
Steadman, P. (2008). The evolution of designs: Biological analogy in architecture and the applied arts. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203892529
Wallace, G. (1926). The art of thought. Jonathan Cape.
Weddigen, T. (2022). Heinrich Wölfflin’s classic patterns of the Renaissance. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378720876
Weisbach, W. (1957). Manierismus in der Kunst. F. Bruckmann.
Wölfflin, H. (1886). Prolegomena zu einer Psychologie der Architektur [Doctoral dissertation, University of Munich]. München.
Wölfflin, H. (1915). Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Das Problem der Stilentwicklung in der neueren Kunst. Hugo Bruckmann.
