Marvin Trachtenberg, currently a Professor of Fine Arts Institute of Fine Arts, New York University wrote in to The New York Times in 1988 to voice his concern of a drift towards a one-sided approach to the history of art. As a witness to the phenomenon of "social art history", which he thought was embraced and celebrated at the expense of all other approaches was a troubling phenomenon at the art history department of Harvard University in the early 80s.

More than 20 years since that letter was published, we can readily testify that his fears had not been realised. "Social art history" still inspires and motivates students of art history today, but it certainly did not snuff out new possibilities of representation. I am inclined to conclude that art history, as a device of persuasion does possess the potential to be most effective when it wields support from social and cultural contexts of the artist and his/her works. But the type of writing that excites me in art history also challenges the way we look at art vis-à-vis the analysis of symbols, themes, and subject matter derived from a close study of the work itself. After finishing Trachtenberg's letter, a sentence that resonates with my ideal of art history is his argument that "in the best art history, methodology remains invisible".

Please use the following link to access the full letter:
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/17/arts/l-trends-in-art-history-183588.html?scp=1&sq=Trends%20in%20Art%20History&st=cse