At the outset I would like to make a plea for clarity and consistency in the use of
terminology. In my view, it is unfortunate that the expressions 'art history' and 'the
history of art' are used interchangeably by so many scholars. Art history is
something different from the history of art. Art history is the name of an

intellectual, theoretical discipline whose object of study is the history of art. [An
example from the sciences will make this clearer: astronomy is a science that studies
the cosmos using ideas, theories and data acquired by physical instruments such as
telescopes.] Although the phrase 'the history of art' indicates that there is a single,
homogeneous object of study, in practice art history never supplies us with a single,
complete, homogeneous account upon which we can all agree. There are always

A whole talk could be devoted to the problems involved in specifying the object
of study of art history. Suffice to say, art history is not merely concerned with
studying artworks, styles, genres, artists, patrons, the concept of art, taste, etc; these
would be the objects of study of anar tologis t. The object of study of art history is
thehis tor y of all these things. In short, art history is a branch of the intellectual
discipline history. It is time art historians started to pay some attention to the
problems of history-writing and developments within history, especially those on
the continent (e.g. the work of the French historian Fernand Braudel [1902-85]).

Another talk could be devoted to the idea that art history generates a particular
kind ofdis cour s e, and to the problems caused by itsr epr es entat ion of the object of
study in particular languages and media. I leave these topics for another time.
Today my aim is to focus upon the production, distribution and consumption of
artistic signs model and to evaluate its usefulness for art historians. Before looking

at the constituents of the model I want to make some general, preliminary remarks
concerning the model and ther ecipr oca l relationship between production and
consumption.

The bulk of art-historical literature consists of 'partial' studies in the sense that
there are studies of artists, works of art, patrons, dealers, styles, periods, national
schools etc, etc, but what is lacking is a general account of how all these particular
studies inter-relate and, taken together, constitute a coherent totality. The diagram
entitled 'A general model of the production, distribution and consumption of artistic
signs' is intended to display, schematically, the system as a whole, and to show the
logical relationships and connections between its various elements.

One advantage of such a general model is that it enables us to see at a glance
where a particular study belongs. It also enables us to identify those topics which
currently receive little attention from scholars. Such a model is not without its
limitations; for example, it does not explain how radical social change comes about.
Inevitably it is highly abstract in character and therefore it would, no doubt,
require modification when applied to particular human societies. The model, I
should explain, was designed with modern Western society in mind (1800 to 1980),
consequently, it would need to be revised when applied to the cultural production of
a tribal or a feudal society (for instance, the emphasis given in the model to the art
market and to questions of distribution would be non-existent or less in tribal or
feudal societies). Nevertheless in spite of these qualifications - and I am sure you
will find other faults in discussion - it seems to me that the model has a general
validity through time and cross-culturally because the activities of production and