23 Feb 2026
The German Congress of Art History is set to start at LMU on 28 February. An interview with art historian Ulrich Pfisterer on the flood of images we see every day and their impact on art and the creation of knowledge.
The 38th German Congress of Art History will be taking place at LMU from 25 through 28 February. It will be dedicated to the topic of “knowing” and a visual understanding of the world in its historical and current dimension. Professor Ulrich Pfisterer, Director of the Central Institute of Art History and Professor of General Art History with a Focus on Italian Art at LMU, talks in this interview about the role that images play in the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge and how the flood of images we see in the media every day is impacting art.
The forthcoming German Congress of Art History at LMU will be focusing on “knowing” as a topic. What role do images play in the knowledge process today?
Ulrich Pfisterer: Today, knowledge is created through images and video clips to an extent that was simply not possible in the pre-digital age before the emergence of social media and smartphones.
This means that for the first time in a very long while writing no longer seems to be the predominant way in which we transfer knowledge, although this doesn’t mean that images did not play a decisive role in helping to create ‘knowledge’ in the past. But if we look today at how knowledge is created in our daily lives, it’s clear how much the way we see things and our esthetic perception are influenced by images – from the depiction of an everyday object or a traffic sign to a photo of the Sistine Chapel. News about events is also spread through images, triggering political responses. One example is the videos showing ICE agents in Minneapolis that were circulated widely: A message conveyed only in text form would not have the same kind of impact as these images.
Visually mediated knowledge is capable of being received around the world and we assume that we see things neutrally. But there’s a cultural conditioning in the way we see things that you often need to clarify first.Ulrich Pfisterer, Director of the Central Institute of Art History and Professor of General Art History with a Focus on Italian Art at LMU
Louvre, Paris.
© IMAGO/DreamstimeIs the fact that images are so omnipresent these days also changing the way we view art?
Yes, and this isn’t just down to the quantity of images, but also the speed at which they are produced. Billions of new images are uploaded to the Internet every single day. This sheer speed and inflationary mass mean that even people who regard themselves as artists face an entirely different level of competition in the visual sphere. There is still a notion that art produces something new and original. This criterion is almost impossible to satisfy if, as an artist, I’m confronted every day with billions of new images that are all designed to be bigger, faster and push boundaries.
Then there’s the level of global competition. Previously, anyone who studied and exhibited at an academy first had to succeed at a local level. Today, we can see instantly what’s being produced in Beijing or Argentina. Everything is available to view at the same time.
For me as an art historian, what’s interesting about this is that visually mediated knowledge is capable of being received around the world and we assume that we see things neutrally. But there’s a cultural conditioning in the way we see things that you often need to clarify first. We may not know anything about these other contexts – neither about the language nor about the social and political environment. And so we may completely misunderstand what is meant to be expressed at the level of colors alone.
What approach are artists taking in embracing this development in technology and the ubiquitous nature of images?
One example I would cite is the American artist Eduardo Kac He allegedly created a green rabbit by genetically modifying it back in the year 2000. So he used the latest medical knowledge at the time to produce a new form of artwork. But the rabbit is white on ‘normal’ photographs and only appears fluorescent green under certain conditions. This means that it could indeed be fake because we as the viewer can’t deduce what’s real and what isn’t.
This shows another dimension of knowledge as a topic that presents new challenges: Today, we’re no longer able to tell (or at least not at first glance) whether a photo or video is real or has been generated using AI. However, as these media have previously also been used to document things, with their trail of light seeming to faithfully capture reality, the potential for these images especially to deceive and seduce the viewer is very high.
“Not a single image from the depths of space that is communicated to a wider audience is – to put it crudely – ‘real’ in the sense of the kind of photography that we’re all familiar with. It’s not simply a case of taking a photo in space, but instead a computer is used to combine or edit special shots to create an image that produces what’s akin to an attractive ‘science fiction’ effect,” explains Ulrich Pfisterer. The image shows the Pillars of Creation in the Eagle Nebula, captured by the Hubble Space Telescope.
© NASA/ESA/STScI/J. Hester and P. Scowen (Arizona State University)The principle of an AI is to filter out the best solution from a set of data. And in the case of art, I wouldn’t think that the criterion of the best solution is always the decisive factor. The interesting thing about art isn’t the mere accumulation of a majority opinion, but is in fact the disconcertingly original, striking work of an individual artist.Ulrich Pfisterer, Director of the Central Institute of Art History and Professor of General Art History with a Focus on Italian Art at LMU
Does the same apply to art? Is this another area where we can no longer distinguish whether it’s real or AI-generated?
The first AI artwork has already been auctioned off and sold for an astonishingly high price. Although its monetary value is undoubtedly not the ultimate criterion that dictates the importance of art, in the current art trade it’s not a bad guide. But I think in this case it was the phrase “the first” that resulted in the artwork commanding such a high price. I find it hard to imagine AI replacing art created by human beings.
The principle of an AI is to filter out the best solution from a set of data. And in the case of art, I wouldn’t think that the criterion of the best solution is always the decisive factor. If you think about an expressionist or surrealist painting: It’s the disturbingly unexpected element that goes against the grain that makes a painting like this so valuable. The interesting thing about art isn’t the mere accumulation of a majority opinion, but is in fact the disconcertingly original, striking work of an individual artist.
AI can’t satisfy the appeal of seeing how a work has been created and an individual style. It can of course copy the style of van Gogh, for example, but art forgers like Wolfgang Beltracchi have been able to do that too. It’s not about whether you can get close to replicating an artistic style if you study it. We’re still fascinated by the art of van Gogh today because he painted his works in the late 19th century. If an AI does this, there’s an absence of context. So an AI would have to be capable of developing a kind of modern AI style that we perceive to be fascinating.
If this were to happen, this individual AI style could be capable of producing an infinite number of paintings, and presumably this would then lessen its appeal?
Exactly. Then the appeal is gone. That’s why I also believe that the materials and techniques used in art are currently becoming more important, whereas previously there was more of an interest in the message or esthetics of the artwork. There is now increasing focus on seeing how something has been created, rather than just being produced by an AI. I would view this as a response to this visual abstraction that surrounds us.
Another challenge that we have right now is that everything we see on our screens is depicted in the same size. Whether the item in question is a thumbnail image or a mural that is five meters tall, everything has the same format on my screen. That’s why there is now renewed interest in the question of how I physically approach something: Am I looking up? Am I standing outside or inside? Am I on my own or in a group?
I also believe that the materials and techniques used in art are currently becoming more important, whereas previously there was more of an interest in the message or esthetics of the artwork. There is now increasing focus on seeing how something has been created, rather than just being produced by an AI. I would view this as a response to this visual abstraction that surrounds us.Ulrich Pfisterer, Director of the Central Institute of Art History and Professor of General Art History with a Focus on Italian Art at LMU
Michael Triegel paints in the style of old masters. “He’s just painted a new altarpiece for Naumburg Cathedral that has proved highly controversial. It’s the 21st century, but the work is reminiscent of an Old Master demonstrating incredible manual skill. This shows that there are still some people who want to push back slightly against the notion that everything must always be new and different,” says Ulrich Pfisterer.
© cranach: IMAGO / epd / Rico ThumserIs this also what makes a visit to a museum so special for some people today?
Yes, absolutely. You only have to think, for example, of the American sculptor and painter Barnett Newman and American color field painting. If you stand close to it, you’ll be immersed in the area of color. The same could be said of Caspar David Friedrich’s painting The Monk by the Sea, for example. These are such huge canvases and, if you walk a little closer so you can see the monk, you won’t see anything to your left or right.
But the way we perceive things is changing. Our view today is that there should not be too many things hanging on one wall to allow each work of art to fully express its meaning. But we know that at the time some pictures were created in the 18th century the way paintings were hung up was very different: They appeared one above the other in three or four rows. This means the way we perceive art has always been shaped partly by the historical context.
Today, there’s renewed interest in all these aspects that are becoming lost in the digital space, where we can see anything we want from anywhere – whether we’re sitting at a desk or lying in bed.
taken at the Old National Gallery in Berlin
© IMAGO ScherfMuseums are also exploiting digital opportunities, with a presence on social media, and in their shops they sell famous pictures printed on umbrellas or coasters. What are the repercussions of this for the way art is perceived?
These merchandise products ensure that some museums are associated with three or four pictures. This is also reflected in the desire for selfies when visitors take pictures of themselves in front of the pictures: “Me, in front of Mona Lisa” or “Me and the Wanderer above the Sea of Fog”.
There are currently long lines forming in front of the State Museum in Wiesbaden because Taylor Swift reimagined the portrait of Ophelia in one of her music videos. All the crowds want to do is see the artwork that features in a song, and then of course take a photo of it and upload it to the Internet. Ultimately, these phenomena also make a crucial contribution to our knowledge horizon.
greift das Motiv der Pioneer-Plakette auf, die mit ins All geschickt wurde, um vom Menschen zu erzählen.
LMU will be hosting the German Congress of Art History from 25 through 28 February. The congress will be dedicated to the topic of “knowing” and a visual understanding of the world in its historical and current dimension.
The congress is being organized by the Deutscher Verband für Kunstgeschichte (German Association of Art History) in cooperation with the Central Institute of Art History and Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. Around 900 art historians from Germany and other countries are expected to congregate in the facilities at LMU and at other sites in Munich. Visits to local places and events will take the attendees to lots of museums, including Museum Brandhorst on the Thursday evening.
Anyone who is interested is eligible to attend. Visitors need to register (and purchase a ticket).
For the website, see: 38. Deutscher Kongress für Kunstgeschichte
This image on a plaque was intended as a message to extraterrestrials in 1972 and was sent into space aboard a Pioneer space probe.
is an advocate for art history and image studies becoming subjects taught at school. “In the same way as we take it for granted that a basic understanding of music is part of the curriculum and children learn how to analyse texts critically, an ability to judge images critically ought to be taught as well: How do I handle the fact that every single day in every medium I receive visual suggestions telling me what to do – from advertising to political messaging? The scale of this challenge is still very much underappreciated.” | © Helena Heilig
Prof. Dr. Ulrich Pfisterer studied art history, classical archeology and philosophy in Freiburg and Munich. He received his doctorate from the University of Göttingen and his work as a postdoctoral researcher included time spent at the Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florence. After completing his Habilitation (postdoctoral teaching qualification) at the University of Hamburg, in 2006 Pfisterer accepted a professorship at LMU, where he has been Professor of General Art History with a Focus on Italian Art at the Institute of Art History at LMU since 2008. Pfisterer has also been Director of the Central Institute of Art History in Munich since 2018.