Explore the vast range of titles available.

Hans Sedlmayr - a central figure of the Second Vienna School of Art History - is highly debated, mostly for the following reasons: the problematic scholarly character of his interpretation theory and practice, moreover his condemnation of modernity, and, last but not least, his approval of Nazism. Despite this high level of attention within art historiography, important questions remain. One of them derives from the fact that Sedlmayr's methodological writings of the 1920s - in contrast to his later ones - have been appreciated as sound (especially by Ian Versiegen) and are generally separated from the method of 'structural analysis' as he developed it in the early 1930s. Scholars have repeatedly described a shift in Sedlmayr's writings of the 1930s. E.g. Versiegen even wrote of 'two Sedlmayr's, a short-lived, cosmopolitan Sedlmayr, and a later, diagnostic and hermeneutic Sedlmayr'; and according to Frederick J. Schwartz Sedlmayr falls 'from phenomenology into farce'. On the other hand the earliest decade of Sedlmayr's existence as an art historian, that is the 1920s, has been described as a 'grey area'. An important question thus is: How do Sedlmayr's early writings relate to the later ones? Apart from that it has been stated that Sedlmayr's adherence to Nazism stood in contrast with his Catholicism. While Hans Aurenhammer has tried to solve this problem by relating him to a group of Catholic Nationals active in Austria at the time, this short classification seems too rough to be satisfactory. Moreover, Aurenhammer himself noted that there is still a discrepancy here. Evonne Levy highlighted that it was 'still not entirely clear to what extent pre-1938 Sedlmayr was driving a political agenda'. By concluding with the statement 'to continue to pose these questions is the main point', she also insisted on a desideratum. Ian Versiegen came to the belief that Sedlmayr adhered to 'a Leninized \"dictatorship of the proletariat'\" and could be classified as a 'National Bolshevist'. However, this classification is mainly based on Ernst Gombrich's late retrospective recording of a hearsay that Sedlmayr had shown leftist tendencies when he returned from the First World War,· and on the fact that Sedlmayr apparently was not wealthy and therefore 'needed to make a living'. This seems rather unspecific. The second and third questions that currently still arise, are hence: What is the exact nature of his political orientation? And: Are his art historical writings driven by a political agenda? The paper at hand proposes answers that are gained from a comparison of writings by Sedlmayr and the authors suggested here as his sources. Its focus are philosophical premises that these authors as well as Sedlmayr need to presuppose in order to maintain their theories.In what follows it is argued that Sedlmayr's political orientation and his art historical writings cannot be separated from one another, as they both are closely linked to an unnamed, yet identifiable source, even from their beginnings. This source is, as this article tries to show, the Viennese professor Othmar Spann, along with his own source Franz von Baader and his pupil Johannes Sauter.

Widespread use of the term \"neoliberalism\" is of surprisingly recent origin, dating to only the late 20th century. The \"neoliberalism\" literature has nonetheless settled on an origin story that depicts the term as a self-selected moniker from the 1938 Walter Lippmann Colloquium. This paper challenges the 1938 origin, positing an earlier adoption of the term by Marxist and fascist political writers in 1920s German-language texts. These writers used \"neo/neu-liberalismus\" as a derisive moniker for the \"Marginal Utility School,\" then anchored at the University of Vienna. Definitional commonalities link this earlier use to pejorative deployment of the term in the present. JEL Codes: B13, B2, B53 Keywords: Neoliberalism, Mont Pelerin Society, Mises, Foucault, Walter Lippmann Colloquium