[NetBehaviour] [spectre] post-doc grant programme (blocked postings)

Joel Weishaus joelweishaus at gmail.com
Fri Sep 5 02:19:03 CEST 2014


I think you're wrong about this. She concludes:

"There was, until recently, virtually no art history that ever asked how 
women or African-Americans, or
non-Europeans 'influenced' the direction of art, or even traced any kind 
of links between such artists
and the canonised white men. It is the kind of art history practiced in 
today’s universities, rather than
the auction houses, that is asking precisely these bigger questions."


On 9/4/2014 4:25 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> On 03/09/14 11:24 AM, Joel Weishaus wrote:
>> Rob;
>> Is there a link to this story?
> - From my "Links" the other day:
> http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/902625-computers-can-find-similarities-between-paintings-but-art-history-is-about-so-much-more/
> The article starts out as a valid if obvious criticism of a Digital
> Humanities project that finds visual similarities between scanned
> images of paintings. The project demonstrates a useful
> defamiliarization and investigation technique, but obviously isn't
> without limitations. Visual similarities may not always be caused by
> direct *influence* between works in a small database. There may be a
> third common ancestor external to the database or there may be
> cultural or physical influences or constraints at play for example.
> The article then goes off the deep end a bit by framing the digital
> humanities project as a "connoisseurial" approach to art that fails to
> follow the political programme of current academic art history,
> thereby defending the evils of "the canon" and "the art market". In
> contrast to connoisseurial approaches, current academic art history
> isn't about *looking* at art. It's about giving voice to what has
> historically been excluded from the canon, the market, and art history
> itself.
> But valorizing works that were previously excluded from the canon and
> the market will make them more appealing for inclusion in the canon
> and the market...
> There's less difference and more opportunity here than might appear.
> Both digital art history and current academic art history are gnostic
> ideologies, ways of not seeing. The former uses machine vision, the
> latter the canons of critical theory.
> If academic art history really wants to move beyond the canon and the
> market, rather than expand or merely recenter them, it needs to deal
> in *populations* of works. This is something that digital humanities
> approaches can do. I believe that the political programme of the
> former has more to gain from the technical programme of the latter
> than vice versa.
> Version: GnuPG v1
> omKkXK9aNPYGqMJGuBMYuAIbb/np6XgVfWY374Q02eweSLuoz+XC190n8TRmolJA
> vlGQLyGa+V32sTLh36cmxUwM7/FsPURPzeyaADaMPTjJRxLTclvgnL6WZ6zR0xnk
> aqTIRto+ItOouJ5FFbjhuNU00ocuWwTKkLlWQvV/MRJW78Zm3Q2jNFsM6J0mpSuS
> mEeQ+uLI/hgd+pn2mYsIrR1VET74G3UGE+Ja6kYUSrbiDRyOMJiFW4m+rrLAtkKi
> jMxFP44j3msMolkv67wsjhEgVDIPCKk9GAuauAQBuoNRSVFSZ0O57mmMFWQzuMg=
> =g49B
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list