What is Visual Studies in relation to art history and aesthetics?
Based on the readings, there is a resistance to introducing (or giving agency to) Visual Studies as the “new art history.” One of the main arguments is that Visual Studies is not historical, but anthropological. Since art history and aesthetics are pedigree, Visual Studies, as a hybrid offspring, is not. Aby Warburg’s methods are suddenly reconsidered for this emergent sub-genre or sub-discipline. This “new art history” trades formalisms, iconology/iconography, and social history for psychoanalysis, semiotics, identity, technology and globalism. Visual Studies is isolated or alienated from the “true” art history. Historians like Hal Foster and Rosalind Krauss oppose the transition because the shift is too general. Art historians ultimately fear a decline in literacy.
As Susan Buck-Morss says, “Visual culture, once a foreigner to the academy, has gotten its green card and is here to stay.” Most historians agree that a “critical analysis of the image as a social object” is necessary. This analysis should be both anthropological and sociological. This goes along with the question, Is the line between high art and mass culture still present? There is, of course, a paradox to Visual Studies: the viewing of art is defined solely by optical scope. If this is so, then it is believed that art plays only to the eye rather than to the mind and the senses. This is troubling because it excludes aesthetics and theory. Thomas Crow argues that Visual Studies is a modernist obsession with illusion. It can even be said that this spin-off is more of a scientific-based augmentation, which makes some art historians cringe—understandably so from their point of view.
This defensiveness and territorialness, according to W.J.T. Mitchell, is academically founded. It doesn’t welcome or encourage the emergent field of Visual Studies. He also states that the adopters of this new history haven’t come forth to defend appropriately as viable. Hence, Mitchell makes light of the fallacies against introducing Visual Studies and counters them with the example of his “showing seeing” exercise. “Showing Seeing: A Critique of Visual Culture” is reminiscent of C.P. Snow’s “two cultures” lamentation. Apparently, the divide within the humanities is gaping!
While Keith Moxey disagrees that (in an academic curriculum) Visual Studies is the obvious step towards the new global economy, he is inclined to recognize the emergent discipline because of its distinctiveness. He is interested in examining it for the production of art. To me, Visual Studies is like a Bauhaus. It is a sort of cosmology, an exploration of the origins of images in relation to art history and visual genres. (It’s called visual arts, isn’t it?) Rather than a post-structuralist or post-postmodern approach, it is a comprehensivist approach. Trading specialization for comprehension is necessary in this morphed society. But I am also left with questions about the usability of Visual Studies. I am fascinated by the Derridean idea that language is opaque; it doesn’t give access. How then would Visual Studies be used outside of academics? What does it mean to the curator? Does this mean that the museum is null and void? (A notion that is increasingly argued or believed.) It seems as though Visual Studies would require academic analysis in the form of an accompanied manual or user guide.
READINGS:
• “Nostalgia for the Real: The Troubled Relation of Art History to Visual Studies.” In Keith Moxey, The Practice of Persuasion: Paradox and Power in Art History (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001), 103-123. • W. J. T. Mitchell, “Showing Seeing: A Critique of Visual Culture,” in Art History, Aesthetics, Visual Studies, ed. Michael Ann Holly and Keith Moxey (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 231-50. • Visual Culture Questionnaire, October 77 (Summer 1996): 25-70.
Virginia Mecklenburg & Modern Masters from the Smithsonian American Art Museum
I just got home from the opening night of Modern Masters at the Jepson Center for the Arts where I saw my first Philip Guston painting. The exhibition features forty four works from key players in modern American art such as Josef Albers, Hans Hofmann, Philip Guston, Jim Dine, Helen Frankenthaler, Franz Kline and more. Tonight was particularly special because the Smithsonian American Art Museum’s Senior Curator Virginia Mecklenburg presented a lecture highlighting the works with witty insight relating to post-war America.
In great form and with true charisma, Mecklenburg introduced each artist by saying that most photographs reveal the artist either with a cigarette in their hands (or between their lips) or with a beer glass by their side. This statement was, of course, followed by visual confirmation. While walking through the rooms, I noticed that the majority of the plaques featured quotes straight from the artists describing their experiences and aims-of-capture. After listening to Mecklenburg and walking through the exhibit, I believe that I experienced a great example of curatorial work with the artist’s intentions at heart.
I left Modern Masters with the following thoughts: • Once you’ve seen a work of art in person, it’s pointless to revisit it in a slide. • I would love to see Mecklenburg’s exhibition script! What does it look like? • Interesting framing choices by the collectors, which reflect the timeframe. • I love peeking at the sides to see the hardware and hanging methods.
“I am involved in a problem which by its very nature is insoluble. This is the never ending struggle to create the structure which by virtue of its anonymity may evolve in the viewer the possibility of sensing, however fleeting, some element for truth.” —John McLaughlin
I have one complaint: the lighting was so bright that the paint reflected it. You had to approach the work oftentimes at an angle. But that’s off my chest now. So, while these cannot compare to the real work, the following images are my favorite paintings from the exhibit. I can’t wait to see them again on my lunch break tomorrow!
Philip Guston, Painter III, 1960, oil on canvas 60 5/8 x 68 in., Smithsonian American Art Museum (via).
Hans Hofmann, Fermented Soil, 1965, oil on canvas 48 x 60 in., Smithsonian American Art Museum (via).
Franz Kline, Blueberry Eyes, 1959-1960, oil on paperboard 40 1/8 x 29 3/4 in., Smithsonian American Art Museum (via).
Joan Mitchell, My Landscape II, 1967, oil on canvas 103 x 71 1/2 in., Smithsonian American Art Museum (via).
A catalog/book of the exhibit can be be purchased here.
Statistics for the Visual Arts
The topic of discussion during this week’s Historiography of Art History class with Julia Walker is Identity and Exclusion. We first read Griselda Pollock and Tamar Garb, which lead to a long tangent about women (us, a class of 8 women) looking for careers in the visual arts and the state of the field of art history. But what does feminism have to do with art history? Well, it’s not about asking who the female counterpart of Michelangelo is. It’s about who’s represented and who’s in positions of power in the art world. In a patriarchal society, it’s pretty grim. It’s not that bad, but it’s… bad. Take a look at the statistics above, which were emailed to us afterward by our professor. In choosing radical change versus incremental change, what’s best? Most of us agree that we’re hesitant to label ourselves as feminists…
Yikes. Just a thought.
Source: haveartwilltravel.org
Thesis Exploration: Phase I
I have three weeks until my thesis proposal is due!
Ideally, I wish to discuss employing the arts to inspire the next generation of science careers, emphasizing the creativity and interdisciplinary qualities of both fields. My case studies at the moment are both NASA and the National Air & Space Museum because both are working towards finding a way to connect with a younger generation to inspire and motivate you to study science. The problem I am running into is finding a way to have both fields work closely with one another without ‘using’ each other for one’s own purposes. I want to propose collaboration rather than tricking young people into thinking science is cool by using hip artists. Rather than focus on individual artists, I’m looking for science institutions that regularly collaborate with artists (scientific illustrators excluded).
Question + Topic = Thesis
Step one: find a thesis question. In order to write my proposal, it is imperative that I ask a question. I have to determine what I want to explore. For instance, How can the visual arts augment science? How can science and art be combined into a partnership? Why is it important to explore this partnership? But these questions are still too broad and general. I have to get specific! Essentially, I want to explore what one professor calls ‘reciprocal practices’ intersecting art with science and discuss the advantages and limitations of this partnership. If no examples exist already, provide a leadership solution. Either create a model or describe what is already in existence and what it should be like. I can also explore the reasons why an ideal partnerships doesn’t exist. Explore the lack of and then give suggestions.
I also must consider the setting. Is it the setting that interests me? Or is the setting unimportant? Whether a science or art museum, this notion is still a means of advancing the arts—or advancing both fields. My thesis can be written from the perspective of the science museum. I have options. I can either choose to discuss museums specifically or choose to explore arts organizations that are doing this or discuss case studies of different settings. Additionally, there are scientific approaches that I can research and use as examples to support my argument. For example, I can explore the introduction of neuroscience into art history. I can examine science organizations incorporating art programs like NASA.
One professor recommended that I simplify my thesis process by asking myself, What purpose does your thesis serve? Or What does my thesis need to do for me? It’s as simple as this: my thesis needs to serve as a writing sample to help land the job of my dreams.
Do any of you have suggestions or recommendations?
Reflective Summary: “The Two Cultures” *
In his 1959 Rede lecture, “The Two Cultures”, C.P. Snow laments the intellectual divide between the natural sciences and the humanities—specifically literary arts. His tone throughout is one of frustration and persuasion for a growing problem of a cultural divide between two intellectually elite disciplines. Snow writes, “I believe the intellectual life of the whole of western society is increasingly being split into two polar groups.” Moreover, he is mainly concerned with the gap between education and economic status.
This difference can be attributed to the basis that, according to Snow, many scientists come from humble, low-income backgrounds while literary academics are born from well-to-do upbringings. Snow believes that scientists “have the future in their bones” and that the other group is focused on the past, preoccupied with traditional culture. These differences in intellectual interests are what keep the two disciplines from mingling. It is the elitist attitudes of each field that perpetuate the gap.
Snow has no tolerance for the lack of communication between science and the humanities. Furthermore, his disdain for social structure is critical in determining the underlying issue. He warns that if the gap is not bridged, science’s role in society will be one of misunderstanding and alienation. In the long run, this could potentially stifle our future progress. This is precisely why education plays a significant role in science’s cultural link to society. It is crucial to communicate with a wider audience. Though Snow points out that neither discipline wishes to be dumbed down in order to communicate with the masses. He states:
Most of my scientific acquaintances think that there is something in it, and so do most of the practicing artists I know. But I have been argued with by non-scientists of strong down-to-earth interests. Their view is that it is an over-simplification, and that if one is going to talk in these terms there ought to be at least three cultures. They argue that, though they are not scientists themselves, they would share a good deal of the scientific feeling. They would have as little use—perhaps, since they knew more about it, even less use—for the recent literary culture as the scientists themselves.
Lastly, Snow argues that, in order to preserve science’s cultural role, there must be less specialization in education. Commonality is vital, and differentiating the message for userability is key. In order to maintain society’s progress of innovation and creativity, it is important to find a way to speak to the general public about the practicality of the sciences. Science has the potential to uncover a deeper meaning of the nature of our existence. Thus, educating the public can lead first to understanding, then to acceptance, and ultimately support. Avoiding scientific illiteracy is paramount.
In conclusion, this argument at its essence is precisely what influences my research into the intersection of art and science. Considering that the museum offers an educational overview, it is this interest that leads me to an interdisciplinary partnership of the two fields. It is my goal to utilize the museum setting as a foundation for communication. Art for the sake of science is perhaps my biggest motivator. But, furthering this notion, it is my professional goal to popularize science and inspire the next generation of a combined science and art careers.
* This summary only reflects section I of Snow’s The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution.
Academic Biography
Though far removed from the discipline of Art History, my undergraduate education focused primarily on the study of graphic storytelling in Sunday strips, comic books, and graphic novels. I received my Bachelors of Fine Arts in Sequential Art, during which a four-year degree at SCAD stretched out into a nine-year journey. This journey was the result of a disruption when, after three years into the program, I left SCAD to pursue a professional career as a graphic designer in the commercial comic book industry. When I finally returned, I was burnt out on comics and unsure of my position in the field. However, I remembered how earlier on during the program I enjoyed Survey of Sequential Art in which we looked at the origins and development of sequential narratives.
Thus, I took advantage of the three remaining and required art history electives to explore a new interest. I first enrolled in 20th-Century Art History to freshen up on early Modern Art, then studied World Rock Art. My experience with Rock Art was uncommon. Rather than the typical classroom environment, I was fortunate to examine a number of Paleolithic sites firsthand while studying abroad in Provence, France. I visited La Grotte de Rouffignac, Les Grotte de Combarelles, and Font de Gaume in addition to privately operated caves and the celebrated Lascaux II. World Rock Art introduced me to scientific methods for identifying signs and determining chronological history, which directly correlated with my sequential studies. Before taking the class, I was unaware that, besides stylistic approaches, Art History could comprise both scientific and cultural significance. Even so, Art History relies on oral history and anthropology. This was an eye-opener; behind each work of art or artifact is a story.
The addition of culture and politics in relation to art attracted me to my last undergraduate class, Art Since 1945. The movements, ideologies, and dialogues of Contemporary Art offer a new approach, that of art criticism. Our culture is increasingly in flux, making it difficult to clarify a linear history, which is of particular interest to me. Plus, art is no longer archival—a paradox for art historians. Realizing this, “art of the now” is, oftentimes, without critical review and its significance is yet to be determined.
In 2007, I finally completed my B.F.A. I also developed a taste for Art History. I knew I wanted a master’s degree, but I spent two years weighing my options. While Art History prepares individuals for scholarly positions, I craved the business aspect of museum management while incorporating my professional sales experience at shopSCAD. Additionally, I had two stipulations: 1) my love of both science and art; and 2) my dream job of Arts Administrator for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) permanent art collection.
My interest in NASA stems from the agency’s implementation of well-known artists’ interpretation of the early Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions to supplement historical documentation. NASA administrator James Webb launched the program in reaction to the lack of spirit in film and photographs. In keeping with Webb’s vision, I chose Arts Administration to explore interdisciplinary collaboration between science and art. This proposal of collaboration between the fields is also the basis of my graduate thesis paper, inspired by philosopher C.P. Snow’s 1959 lecture, The Two Cultures.
Suffice it to say, a deep-rooted interest in storytelling is the catalyst for my present day investigation into Art History. SCAD’s Arts Administration program is structured around public relations, marketing the arts, and fundraising and development for non-profit organizations. Legal Issues in the Arts is perhaps the most interesting class required in the program. In this class, I researched connoisseurship and authentication. Specifically, I focused my research on the work of Andy Warhol, whose mechanical process of making and reproduction diluted the very concept of authorship. I came to the conclusion that the importance of authorship has shifted and become less significant in certain cases of Contemporary Art History. I am extremely interested in how previous art theory informs or changes today’s art. Consequently, I chose Contemporary Art and Historiography of Art History to complement the business of art with the study of theory.
I believe that the field of Art History is a crucial component to exploring humanities and cultural heritage. Furthermore, my most valuable academic experience with the field is simply the process of learning how I learn about art. My curiosity with specific issues such as art law leads to a methodical approach to researching. On the other hand, research leads to my biggest weakness, which is subjectivity in writing about art. A look at the bigger picture in context guides me through this learning experience. I have especially discovered that I center my methodologies on intuition, context, trend forecasting, and ideas surrounding utopia and dystopia. I have recently begun employing psychological methods to analyze art. For instance, in my latest paper, SACHS v. KOONS, I researched Nicolas Bourriaud’s Relational Aesthetics and Claude Lévi-Strauss’ “bricolage” in The Savage Mind to explain how handmade aesthetics arouse a more engaging experience unlike that of the mechanically made art object.
All of these skills and methods contribute to my future pursuits and best-laid plans. Finding placement in a science-based organization with a background in the arts is my main career motivation. Over the last twelve years, it is clear that I am invested in the scientific and metaphysical study of art in relation to our cultural time capsule. I thrive on experiencing art; the art world is both my playground and my classroom. Examining art without seeing it in person (sometimes having to rely on descriptions from critical reviews) has inspired me to visit as many museums, galleries, and artist studios as possible. With a background in narratives and a specialized focus in science and art, I hope to either work at a prominent art museum, curate NASA’s art collection, or find employment managing the archives and exhibitions at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C.
Selected Bibliography
Artistic Ignition: The Aesthetics of Space Promotion (August 2009)
Everyone’s Gone to the Moon: Space Exploration in Contemporary Art (April 2009)
Newgrange: Folklore or Fact? (May 2007)
SACHS v. KOONS: Studio Practice and the Role of Assistants (May 2010)
‘There’s No Such Thing as an Authentic Warhol’: Disbanding the Warhol Authentication Board (November 2009)
