The art is in history all as is the history of art since it is bound to a context that only history can restore. According to the art historian Hubert Damisch, who makes on form the work of art comes of several horizons. The work is not only produced by history, it leads history under varied and shaded modes. However, concerning the works of art, history cannot neither serve of thought nor to constitute a definitive judgment. All you have to do is to take the prehistory in example since in this domain the archaeological and technical has point of reference without the support of any written or oral story that we had reached. Therefore, no historic data exists in spite of the fact that the studies were able to develop without the historical provision.

However, there is a social history of the art but the most important is the ulterior destiny of the work by its action and its effects that persisted until in the present culture. It is in fact that the work of art keeps a meaning outside of its historic context and it become in no position to see the works of art in the eyes of the contemporaries, of those that were the first witnesses or the first receivers.
Indeed, to interrogate a work of art it’s firstly led to wonder about what it presents in our own vision and to ask how and why this work is used, once separated from its original contest and without ceasing to challenge or delight us.

Concerning art, the successful interpretation of a work thus implies which is more present than ever at our eyes and it resists to all these attempts at explanation which tend to relegate it in a background with a report to history. It is enough to compare the history of the arts with that of the sciences which includes a stake of truth on the level of the scientific discovery. One cannot fall into this diagram while speaking about the art, which would be thus dependent on ideological criteria, or even about the arbitrary ones. There are aesthetic stakes to take into account because the history of the art is informed by aesthetics although the problem is to know if to know perfectly a work permits to conclude some of its value from beauty. One also can contrary seeking to know if someone can reach to a perfect knowledge of works, without putting the question of aesthetic quality. Perhaps, it should be said that the history is never better itself than when, far from being satisfied to replace works in their origin context, it endeavours to present through the time that saw them being born, the time that knows them. One is thus confronted with the need to read a work with the glance of this time, independently of the history of which it forms part.

Besides, we cannot disregard some big artistic ruptures in the passing of history that don't always correspond with the society changes but to the artist’s evaluation outside the historical context.
When the oil painting appeared, the Middle Ages were not finished yet. When the first perspective painting began to be produced, the Renaissance wasn’t yet a reality. When Caravage treated the realism in his works, the criteria as regards pictorial representation at his time had not evolved yet and its so revolutionary kind fully was finally recognized only at the XIXth century. In this sense, the works of Caravage don't correspond to the spirit or the history of the end of the XVIth century just like those of Van Gogh, which did, not inscribed in the movement in vogue of the painting of the end of the XIXth century. The movement in vogue of the painting by the end of the XIXth century. Misunderstood at their times, these two artists, just like the others, became legends of the history of art whereas today their works challenge us so much and that one can explain them or to peel them with leisure. The history of art is used first of all to draw up a chronology without conforming to a precise relationship with the humanity evolution. One notes it with prehistory with the parietal works created according to a narrow continuity between 30 000 and 10 000 years before J -c while the speeding-up of the historical process after this period was not really synchronous with the evolution of art. . One notes also at certain periods due to several factors, which do not have a whole, a bond with the history but aesthetic regressions rather with sociology.


During the antiquity, the art depended on the systems in place by the Greeks and the Romans then thereafter the progressive power of Christendom starting from IVth century until that the artists gradually released from his cane to reach autonomy in creation. Thereafter, the neoclassic art was born before even the institution of the French Empire whose style fell under this mobility. During second half of the XIXth century, the impressionist art did not bore but rather with the beginning of XXth, that is to say forty years after its appearance, whereas the historians register it in the history of the years 1880-1890. As for the Cubism, one will not be able to affirm that it corresponds to the period of the years 1910-1920 but which it constitutes a precursory movement so much it was generally contrary to the tastes of the individuals of this time. . One can better apprehend today besides works cubists created during the First World War and better interpret them than the contemporaries who saw them being born.

In conclusion, the importance of what is carried out now cannot be completely included today whereas tomorrow one can measure it with more relevance. In fact, rare were the artists in whom one could of their alive detect their genius. One needed the longevity of Renoir, Monet, Rodin or Picasso to conceive in time that they had been pioneers in their art but others disappeared without knowing the dedication