Die metodologiese krisis in die Kunsgeskiedenis kan op die rekening van die eensydigheid van navorsingsmetodes geplaas word. Aan die hand van 'n ontleding van enkele werke van J.H. Pierneef word die binere en paradoksale aard van die menslike begrip in verband gebring met kreatiwiteit in die algemeen en die meersinnigheid van vorm en funksie in die beeldende kunste. Die algemene teorie van teenstellende vormbegrippe wat Heinrich Wolfflin op die kuns van die Renaissance en Barok toegepas het, het misluk omdat vorm en funksie as logiese, in plaas van strukturele, teenstellings verstaan word. Die metodologie van die Kunsgeskiedenis kan baat vind by 'n binere benadering tot die kunste.
The one-sidedness of research methods is taken to task as being the main reason for the methodological crisis in the Art History. Attention is being focused on the binary nature of human comprehension and the paradoxal relationship which exists between its parts. This is linked to creativity in general and in particular to the ambivalence of form and function in art. An analysis of some of J.H. Pierneef's works is used to elaborate on these points. This article concludes with reference to Heinrich Wolfflin's pairing of opposing formal notions with regard to the art of the Renaissance and the Baroque, which as a general theory failed because form and function were realized as logical instead of structural opposites. The paper concludes with the suggestion that methodology in Art History would benefit from a binary approach to art.
