Gomrich has used numerous iconographical analyses in his book the story of art. Moreover, it is remarkable that at the time Gombrich’s symbolic images were published, none of the individuals who reviewed them commented on the relationship between his symbols used by Gombrich and other writers. There are no subsequent commentators on the iconology have pursued the issue of the relationship either. Most reviewers of the Gombrich works credited the work of Gombrich by avoiding the extravagant interpretation of the symbols he uses that sometimes provides the air of metaphysical fantasy to the writings. Moreover, he follow s the warburgian practice of the studying the subject rather that the forms well as the outstanding advantages. For all his works, Gambrich has been considered to be the most concerned to know the moment to stop being erudite. Moreover, Gombrich presents the main differences between other writers in the use of iconology and himself. As a result, it reflects the fundamental different in the method and philosophy.
The question of reception of the art work might be considered in corresponding to the history of science. According to Gambrich, the traditional historiography of science, the values an individual scientist whose merits as well as professional recognition are determined particularly by the discoveries that are associated with his/her name. Nevertheless, the concept of strict cumulative progress within the history of science, and in the history of art, was abandoned as a new historiography which emerged due to the sensitivity to ruptures. However, this does not imply that an individual deny the continuity. Nevertheless, it is significant to note that the continuity in this context should be understood not to be a mere logical continuity, rather, a more complex historical relation as well as theoretical.
In the beginning chapters of the story of arts by Gomrich, he takes the readers on a journey into much more compared to other writers who at all time have only a single picture. Moreover, he takes the readers on a voyage of history of arts, and the readers are encouraged with the plenty knowledge gained. Through the history of art, Gombrich refers to the history of picture making, buildings as well as stature making. Moreover, Gombrich comprises such entities as part of the history itself, without the consideration to where they took place they occurred or even at what period of time. Gombrich does not make value judgment according to many. The most people who have reviewed his work note that his work lacks the fundamental history due to Gombrich being selective and his fears. Moreover, he include certain element of history that any other historian today might do with doe not make him outstanding from the rest. However, it is significant to note that he mainly focuses of the western history. Contrary to the expectation, his selectivity makes his book to be unconventional in the egalitarian as well as multicultural current tide. Gombrich was also selective in the type of work he included in his work. He did not include women artists for the fear of being labeled sexist. On the other hand, he did not include the history from every nation of the planet with the fear of being labeled as Eurocentric. Thus, making his book, ‘the story of art’ to be criticized by many.
Gombrich’s chapters work in enlightening the people to the historical value. Most of the time, history carries the power of memories times and places; how the individuals see the world. Moreover, his chapters present what was considered to be reality then and now. Hence, it presents the fundamental information which is useful in the comparison of the past and the current. However, the history can carry with it the prejudice of bad memories, hence a constant reminder for the readers. Therefore, in order to understand and enjoy Gombrich work of art, the readers should discard their prejudice as well as the habits of approaching the artists as a stranger.
