The theoretical work carried out in epistemology of art aims to determine the most appropriate way to interpret a work of art, that is, to determine what kind of knowledge we must bring to it so that an appropriate interpretation will occur. In theories of aesthetic empiricism, it is argued that the contact with its empirical properties is sufficient. In theories of aesthetic contextualism, it is argued that this is not enough. Contextual elements are necessary.
It is within the scope of aesthetic contextualism that the social and human sciences can be summoned in the interpretative process of works of art, such as the social history of art and the sociology of art. I will defend that formalist theories of art are those that come closest to pure empiricism, considering that in a formalist approach, within the scope of the work on formal properties, is where the autonomy of art can be more strongly defended. I will make a contrast with historical and sociological approaches to art that, radicalizing the importance of considering the social context of artists, result in a sociologism, annulling the portion of artistic autonomy that should be attributed to artists and artistic creation. However, I will argue that the convening of these disciplines, within the scope of their critical dimension and, therefore, of liberating intervention and emancipation, makes it possible to convene ideological elements that can lead viewers to the knowledge of the conditions of domination in which their lives occur. Establishing an analogy with the internalist and externalist theories of the history and philosophy of science, I will also argue that either appealing to an empiricist perspective or to a contextualist one, should both be thought of as a way of defending artistic creation as an existential stronghold.