On Artists, Scientists and Historians: A Response to Arthur Loeb. With Reply by Arthur Loeb and Comments by Samuel Edgerton and Arthur C. Danto

The author challenges Arthur Loeb’s assertion that the art historian cannot move beyond historical correlations to causal relationships. Her discussion points up a fundamental difference between the purposes for which the scientist or artist, such as Loeb, and the art historian or science historian look at the past. Drawing upon current art historical scholarship, the author also counters the more specific criticisms in Loeb’s book review.