Comments on: A Postcolonial / Anthropological Intervention

By: Jeremy Miller

Jeremy Miller — Wed, 19 May 2010 19:47:35 +0000

The fact that an Art Bulletin Intervention “produced a lot of bitching and moaning from some pretty prominent Renaissance scholars, indeed continues to do so” demonstrates to me the success of the series. It seems clear that the series represents the attempt of a more traditional (conservative is an imprecise term) publication to incorporate persepectives, methodologies, etc from less traditional branches of the field in a way that provides some critical context. In regards to the series being “edited/reviewed within an inch of its life”, it should be in a publication like Art Bulletin. While the model of scholarship that the Art Bulletin represents may not be new, it is still quite relevant, regardless of your political views.

By: Travis Nygard

Travis Nygard — Tue, 18 May 2010 21:37:19 +0000

I agree with you, TW, that the Art Bulletin is often a conservative venue, but I think that you will be pleasantly surprised by this dialog. (Incidentally, what is your name, TW? It is always nice to know who we are conversing with.) I found Byron Hamann’s article–and the responses–to be an uplifting read. The author gives credit to the scholars whose shoulders he stands upon, and he correctly frames his work as original because it engages with methodology from other disciplines–postcolonial analysis and material culture studies. The article demonstrated that New World products are present in Las Meninas, and that the painting would have been understood–when new–as tied to a colonial economy. The discussants acknowledged what Hamann’s article was ingenious, but they also pointed out questions that remain unexplored. I was ultimately left with a richer understanding of Velázquez, and I see Las Meninas as more interesting than before. The few comments by respondents that were negative assumed that the goal of art history is to recover the mindset of artists. That was not Hamann’s goal, as he is an anthropologist and historian who took a broader set of actors and agendas into consideration.

By: tw

tw — Tue, 18 May 2010 09:44:42 +0000

I haven’t seen this specific intervention, but the interventions in the past have typically shown up how disconnected and sclerotic the Art Bulletin is. The Indian avant-garde intervention was pretty typical–an argument that in another form would have been interesting, but instead seemed edited/reviewed within an inch of its life. The Nagel/Wood intervention from a few years past was the last insightful one I can remember, and even that produced a lot of bitching and moaning from some pretty prominent Renaissance scholars, indeed continues to do so. Which is to say, they could only be considered interventions at one of the most conservative art history publications out there, and produce a bevy of largely parochial reactions nonetheless. Seeing junior scholars navigate telling senior scholars that they’re idiots provides a kind of political education, but otherwise they mostly seem useless.

By: Travis Nygard

Travis Nygard — Mon, 17 May 2010 20:02:46 +0000

I love this series, and I could not have been more excited when this specific issue arrived. This coming fall I will be teaching an upper level undergraduate course on colonialism and postcolonialism, and I plan to use the articles as a teaching tool. The first article does a great job of applying postcolonial theory to Las Meninas. I will be able to have students read a non-postcolonial interpretation of Las Meninas in preparation for it. (Does anyone have a suggestion for this reading?) The responses will be a great way to show how dialog occurs within the humanities in journals. I will probably assign a low-stakes writing assignment along with the articles, requiring students to map out the different interpretations of the painting and which arguments are particularly compelling. Have any of you used a series of articles before in your teaching? If so I would love to see your insights here in the comments.