CIHA as the Subject of Art Theory. The Methodological Discourse in the International Congresses of Art History from Post-War Years to the 2000s (original) (raw)
Related papers
Conference, 2023
Introduced in 1902 in response to a polemical article by Strzygowski, the category of haptic formulated by the Viennese theorist Alois Riegl enjoyed a remarkable critical fortune, exquisitely interdisciplinary, throughout the 20th century and beyond. A critical fortune that, not infrequently, has taken the form of a complex and radical reinterpretation of the "optical device”, postulated by Riegl, reflecting on the construction of space in Egyptian bas-relief. Since the 1990s significant new interpretations have been made in Film Studies field by authors such as Antonia Lant, Noël Burch and, in a more openly subversive, transcultural and gender-based key, by scholars such as Laura U. Marks, Jennifer M. Barker and Giuliana Bruno. Although the research that has converged in the Film Studies field still needs systematic recognition, this branch of studies is partially known. Otherwise, the adoptions and interpolations this notion has received in contemporary art criticism and historiography still constitute a widely unexplored field. Given this scenario, this contribution aims at tracing how the notion of haptic has entered the lexicon of contemporary theory and criticism through the modernist period. It will try to record affinities, interpolations and reinterpretations of the Rieglian model to stress the theoretical malleability and vitality of this category. Through the rediscovery of some forgotten sources, such as Louis Danz's prodromic study on Picasso Guernica (1937) published in 1941, this study aims at analyzing critically how this notion has been experienced by authors such as Herbert Read, Clement Greenberg, Lucy Lippard and Jole De Sanna. Tracing essays and theories is intended to show how this category has become an eccentric critical tool to disorientate and dismantle the Modernist epistemic framework.
Artl@s Bulletin Art History and the Global Challenge: A Critical Perspective
2017
The challenge of globalization and the “decolonization” of our way of thinking have become a major concern for most art historians. While it is still too early to assess the impact on the discipline of the “Global turn”—a turn that is all the more timid that it materializes more slowly in public collections and public opinions than in books—we nonetheless wanted to probe scholars who are paying close attention to the new practices in global art history. Coming from different cultural milieus and academic traditions, and belonging to different generations, they agreed to answer our questions, and to share with us their insights, questions, doubts, but also hopes for the discipline. This surveymust be regarded as a dialogue in progress: other conversations will follow and will contribute to widening the range of critical perspectives on art history and the Global challenge.
The Revaluation of Art History
Art/Histories in Transcultural Dynamics
Recent debates on the content and objectives of a global art history have been accompanied by an increasing number of questions about its historical foundations. Is the degree of attention that is now devoted to non-Western art really such a new phenomenon, or does it have its own history? Is it the case, as one often reads, that people only started looking at art from a global perspective after the profound economic and geopolitical changes of the late twentieth century, with the year 1989 generally being cited as the decisive caesura? Was it really the present generation of art critics and historians who first recognised the Eurocentric bias of their subject and started to clamour for its revision? And lastly, is there any truth in the notion that all prior art-historical research was confined to national historiographies and as a consequence never even tried to replace the national paradigm with the idea of an international art, a global art or a world art? No small amount of energy has been dedicated to answering this question of late, and though our historiographical knowledge remains fragmentary there can now be no doubt that the current concern with non-Western art is by no means new. On the contrary, it is quite easy to show that art historians have been looking beyond the borders of Europe and seeking to explain and understand what they found there ever since the formation of the discipline in the mid-nineteenth century. In the years around 1900 in particular there were many researchers who started to go beyond mere descriptions of the alterity of non-European artefacts and actually began to concern themselves with the multifarious relationships between European and non-European art, that is, with the mutual influences, dependencies and interactions between them, even if the resulting value system was often very rigid and generally tended to present European art as the apogee of global development. 1 In any case, from around 1890 to 1930 the topic was an extremely popular one among art historians, and it is a striking fact that most of the researchers who were interested in world art came from the German-speaking countries.
ReintroducIng CIirculatIons: Historiography and the Project of Global Art History
2015
World art history has gained much attention in recent years, opening many new possibilities for the discussion of the history of art in general. There are myriad ways to approach envisaging a history that is truly global, also meaning universal or comprehensive, an Enlightenment project that may perhaps no longer seem so utopian. This book suggests how a revival of attention to circulations can renew the practice of art history and contribute to the discussion of world, global art history. It proposes that following the transnational circulations of artists, artworks, and styles provides a means not only to escape from the national narratives in which previous approaches had been enmeshed, but also to write a global history of art for a globalized world. We still employ the word " art, " although we recognize that the concept of art may be relativized, that for instance it might be conceived differently in one place than in another, that its meaning changes in time, and th...
Cross-Cultural Art History in a Polycentered World
Diogenes, 2011
The essays in this volume have been written by art historians who have all been involved in the activities of CIHA (The International Committee of the History of Art/ Comité International de l'Histoire de l'Art) during the past few years. CIHA is a daughter of CIPSH (Comité international pour la Philosophie et les Sciences humanitaires, The International Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Studies), the body for the Humanities formed by UNESCO and responsible for Diogenes. This is the first issue of this famous periodical that has been devoted to the history of art. CIHA is the oldest international organization of art history in the world. It was first constituted at Vienna in 1873. From that date CIHA has held quadrennial congresses-known colloquially as the art history Olympics, that represent the state of art history throughout the world and which were and are open to all nationalities. Well before it became fashionable to discuss globalization, CIHA was global, and as this volume shows, the concerns of CIHA remain global in a very special way. The last congress was held at Melbourne in January 2008, where the theme was: Crossing Cultures, Conflict, Migration and Convergence. The themes of this issue of Diogenes are taken from the concept of the congress and how art history has developed during my presidency. At CIHA Melbourne, 700 art historians participated from 50 countries. Despite the fact that Australia is a long way from many other countries, the call for papers resulted in a truly global expression of the subject, the concept enticing many contributions from countries south of the equator, notably Latin America. In the large volume 220 papers are published by art historians from 25 countries. CIHA's role has been to stimulate international meetings of art historians, either as the quadrennial congresses or with the more frequent colloquia every year, held in different countries throughout the globe, and to publish the proceedings as a record of the state of art history. Some 33 countries belong to CIHA and the number is increasing. Representatives from local national committees constitute the General Assembly. A smaller Executive known as the Bureau is responsible for guiding the academic programs and many of the authors in this volume are members of the Bureau: