For those interested, Timothy Clark probably captures exactly what I found so empty about the Gombo school. Here is a link to a UCB newsletter:
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/02/01_clarkmellon.shtml
It describes Clark's approach to art history. If he'd been around back then I definitely would have hung on his every word.
I hope Clark represents a movement in the academic world rather than an exception. He breaths the life of a time into the arts and makes them intelligible. That goes a long way to getting students back interested the arts and humanities---and helps educate those who are just starting out in the arts. Art students are not born knowing what the arts are or how to go about doing them. There is nothing `genius' about them. They have to learn all about arts all over again and again and again. And the way art history was taught was no help at all. Nobody cares about taste or value or any of that crap. So Clark is particularly helpful from an art student's point of view.
I am sorry to say Gombrich was not at all helpful. I couldn't learn from him.
Let me add here, that Clark's approach is especially helpful in nailing down Strauss. What I want to do is depict Strauss through his intellectual history and associates, rather than attempting a close reading of him. I get nothing from a close reading. I can mount arguments against him all day long and essentially say nothing or contribute nothing. Strauss only makes sense within his own socio-political context---and our own context, the political climate of the US.
CG