Journal of Art Historiography Number 15 December 2016 Exorcising the demons of collectivism in art history Review of: ”ranko Mitrović, Rage and Denials. Collectivist Philosophy, Politics, and Art Historiography, 1890-1947, University Park, Pennsylvania University Press 2015, 242pp.ISBN 978-0-271-06678-3 Ladislav Kesner Arriving in an elegant op-art dust jacket that seems like a visualisation of the two dichotomous forces explored in its pages, Branko Mitrović´s Rage and Denials is a highly erudite, intelligent and timely book. It traces the history of collectivist approaches in (art) historiography and debates between the individualist and collectivist positions, with the dominant focus on German-speaking scholarship. The historical survey is then enriched with original hermeneutics through which the source of collectivist historiography is traced to the failures to regulate self-esteem on the part of its main protagonists. Without a single word of explicit mentoring, the author delivers a powerful lesson in the ethic of the historianȂs work, or – as he states in the preface – a warning against the danger of losing control of one´s self-self-awareness in writing history (xi). This deconstruction of the pathologies of collectivist history writing, infused with such ethical appeal, truly could not be more timely given the massive spread of populism and irrationality and the resurgence of nationalistic, xenophobic, and even racist discourse in the public sphere that we have been witnessing lately. The book, however, is timely for yet another reason, as arguably almost any historical interpretation reflects an implicit stance on the respective role of individualism vs holism in explaining historical facts; the duality thus remains one of the central – albeit not much discussed - concerns of art history. Unfortunately, MitrovićȂs strongly opinionated exposure of the dangers and pitfalls of essentialist historiographies comes at a price, as it is based on some untenable assumptions and conceptual oversimplifications that compromise the theoretical backbone of the historical survey. These, first and foremost, concern the way individualism and collectivism are presented as irreconcilable positions. It is precisely because I find MitrovićȂs book so timely and am fully sympathetic to his ethical commitment and warnings against the negative effects of the excesses of collectivist argumentation and dogmatic anti-realism that I feel it appropriate to examine some of the more controversial claims in detail. Before engaging in a discussion of these key points, it is worth providing a brief summary of the content of individual chapters. The Introduction outlines the conceptual framework of the subsequent discussion, articulating the opposition between collectivism and individualism and the basic tenets of collectivist methodology; further on their pitfalls, such as the propensity for circular explanations, are discussed, along with difficulties posed to collectivist historiographies by the freedom of will and reflexive argument (that is, the fact that if the historian assumes the determining role of the collective in creativity or writing, then he is not exempt from being similarly determined by his own collective horizon). Mitrović then asks whether the dilemma between individualism and collectivism can be reconciled by some form of middle-ground position and replies that from a philosophical perspective