Deadline: May 6, 2013
Objects, Objectives, Objections:
The Goals and Limits of the New Materialisms in Art History
Our colleagues in the rest of the academy seem suddenly to be in
thrall to things. Scholars in fields ranging from political theory to
literature are moving away from an understanding of the world centered
on people and texts, and towards a reconsideration of the
interrelationships among all things, including humans. Artists and art
historians, having always attended to the confluence of things and
people, seem to be welcoming this shift with a mixture of delight and
circumspection. It is our contention that artists and art historians,
attuned to the specificity and uniqueness of our objects of study, can
enrich and productively complicate New Materialist ideas. The
ontological range of our objects of study is staggering, from unworked
rocks that have been transfigured solely by their translation in
space, through alchemical mixtures of organic and inorganic materials
to make pigments, which in turn are used to represent other objects,
to highly contingent digital and conceptual works that nearly shed any
semblance of “thingness.” The objects of our study are in a constant
state of flux.
We would like to take stock of the opportunities afforded art and its
history by what might collectively be called the New Materialisms.
What do the latest interdisciplinary theories (such as ecocriticism,
actor-network theory, and object-oriented ontology) offer us? What can
we learn from Jane Bennett, Graham Harman, Bruno Latour, et al.? What
do art and art history contribute to this developing critical mode?
This panel seeks papers representing a mix of perspectives examining
subject matter from diverse historical periods and geographical
locations. Presentations may model New Materialist approaches, whether
in artistic practice, art history, curatorial work, or criticism.
Others might take a more theoretical or historiographic tack,
analyzing the role of New Materialism in art history and suggesting
possible ways forward, or investigating whether New Materialism offers
anything different from earlier philosophical trends, such as
vitalism, which had its own impact on art and art history during the
twentieth century. Still others might take a critical stand: some art
historians, for example, worry that objects should not be endowed with
anthropomorphic agency. Does a New Materialist approach flatten
distinctions between animate and inanimate matter? If so, is that a
good or a bad thing? We welcome and encourage debate.
For further information and application form, see:
http://www.collegeart.org/
Please send an abstract of one to two double-spaced pages, cover
letter, CV, and application form to both:
Bibiana Obler
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Fine Arts and Art History
George Washington University
bobler@gwu.edu
Benjamin Tilghman
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Art and Art History
Lawrence University
benjamin.c.tilghman@lawrence.
No comments:
Post a Comment