Curiously, the relationship between academic art history and aesthetics has been marked by their representatives' attitude of persistent lack of interest for each other. Art history reproaches aesthetics for missing the historical dimension of art, whereas aesthetics considers that art history lacks a definition of the term art which, after all, forms the base of the subject itself.

If art history and aesthetics have also repeatedly clearly distinguished themselves from each other or even ignored one another, the discourses of both disciplines have nevertheless proved interwoven in an unconventional way. From the very beginning, as an academic discipline art history has developed its distinctive image through the discourse with art theory, art philosophy and aesthetics. This delimitation of art history in comparison with aesthetic discourses, which later seem to have become a habit, can be misleading in terms of the fact that the subject would be unthinkable without aesthetic hypotheses, even explicitly claiming at its very beginnings to be approaching aesthetic or art-historical issues with new methods.  By understanding art, this unique collective, as a historically developed entity, art history introduces an aesthetic issue into the disciplines discourse. But at the same time, the consistently historicising look at a variety of individual works of art seems to call into question the possibility of a comprehensive aesthetic theory. Art history, so it seems, thus disputes its very assumptions: the possibility of defining the concept of "art".

Attempts have occasionally been made to develop approaches to research that use methods of aesthetic theory and art history for shared issues. If this matter was followed by Max Dessoir, among others, with his universal aesthetics and art history at the beginning of the 20^th century, the prevailing attitude of turning towards scientific and critical issues in relation to images seems to be pointing in a similar direction. Such innovative perspectives result in productive questioning, in particular in the field of art history, for it has to demonstrate more clearly and unambiguously its disciplinary foundations and presumptions, and define the amount of theory inherent in the discipline's practice. Given that established art-historical approaches having neglected aesthetic questions and having to some degree refrained from referring to the unique collectivity of art (iconology, social history of art, feminist and post- colonial art history etc), current art history has to face the challenge, not least posed by "Bildwissenschaften" and "visual studies", of determining its relationship with the forgotten (or denied) primary concept of "art".

It is obvious that the current debate is driven in particular by French and German studies albeit without any truly stable and constructive dialogue so far. With this choice of annual theme, the German Centre of Art History in Paris hopes to bring together the current vivid, but often enough independently led discussions with considerable mutual benefit. The annual theme will be discussed in close cooperation with French and German universities and the national research centre "Bildkritik" (pictorial criticism) of the University of Basle. It will be addressed not only with respect to a historical perspective but also with respect to contemporary positions on fine art and architecture. Furthermore, there will be seminars, colloquia and public conferences.

Under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Andreas Beyer and Prof. Dr. Danièle Cohn