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 the 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 Gombrich’s works credited him for avoiding the extravagant interpretation of the symbols he uses, which sometimes provide the air of metaphysical fantasy to the writings. Moreover, he follows the Warburgian practice of studying the subject rather than the forms, as well as the outstanding advantages. For all his works, Gambrich has been considered to be the most concerned about knowing 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 differences between the methods and the philosophy.
The question of the reception of the artwork might be considered in relation to the history of science. According to Gambrich, in the traditional historiography of science, the values of 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 art was abandoned as a new historiography that emerged due to its sensitivity to ruptures. However, this does not imply that an individual denies the continuity. Nevertheless, it is significant to note that continuity in this context should be understood not to be mere logical continuity but rather a more complex historical and theoretical relation.
In the beginning chapters of the story of arts by Gomrich, he takes the readers on a journey into much more than other writers who at all times have only a single picture. Moreover, he takes the readers on a voyage of the history of arts, and the readers are encouraged by the plenty of knowledge gained. Gombrich refers to the history of art, including picture making, buildings, and stature making. Moreover, Gombrich comprises such entities as part of the history itself, without considering where they took place, where they occurred, or even at what period of time. Gombrich does not make value judgments, according to many. 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 includes certain elements of history that any other historian today might do, but this does not make him outstanding from the rest. However, it is significant to note that he mainly focuses on Western history. Contrary to the expectation, his selectivity makes his book unconventional in terms of the egalitarian and multicultural current tide. Gombrich was also selective in the type of work he included in his work. He did not include women artists for fear of being labelled sexist. On the other hand, he did not include the history of every nation on the planet for fear of being labelled as Eurocentric. Thus, making his book, ‘the story of art’ to be criticized by many.
Gombrich’s chapters work to enlighten people about historical values. Most of the time, history carries the power of memories, times, and places, as well as how individuals see the world. Moreover, his chapters present what was considered to be reality then and now. Hence, it presents fundamental information that is useful for comparing the past and the current. However, 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’s work of art, readers should discard their prejudice and the habit of approaching the artist as a stranger.
