Comments on: CAA Roundup http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=809 News for Art Historians Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:57:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Ben http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=809&cpage=1#comment-3254 Ben Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:04:24 +0000 http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=809#comment-3254 Also here: http://artforum.com/diary/id=22217 Also here:

http://artforum.com/diary/id=22217

]]> By: dr b http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=809&cpage=1#comment-3235 dr b Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:35:36 +0000 http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=809#comment-3235 american education is insular and the problem lies in that it does not teach the importance of learning foreign languages. i had several interviewers that were astonished i could speak four languages. also, why should a press publish something that has no demand?? believe me, i would love annotated reprints of all the scholars i am interested in, but the demand for these scholars' writings is probably low even in their own countries. it is up to us to read them in their original languages or to get photocopies of earlier translations. also i am not sure how becoming friends with a contemporary artist will help our knowledge of dutch or mayan art. i really don't. their notions of who created art and the function of their art was so different that this is not a valid recommendation, especially in the general terms in which it is stated. contemporary production might shape how i see the art of the past but the challenges contemporary artists face are not as illuminating. and about studying yet to be discovered artists?? are you kidding me? this whole career is a crap shoot and i should dedicate my dissertation, or article to someone who might or might not be important, therefore relegating my own career to obscurity? given the dearth of teaching jobs, i can't see a better way to remain unemployed. it is possible that emerging talent is best covered by art critics, and i know that a lot of scholars are, in fact, reconsidering obscure figures that have been slighted by the canon. so are you asking us to study passing fads? fascinating. american education is insular and the problem lies in that it does not teach the importance of learning foreign languages. i had several interviewers that were astonished i could speak four languages. also, why should a press publish something that has no demand?? believe me, i would love annotated reprints of all the scholars i am interested in, but the demand for these scholars’ writings is probably low even in their own countries. it is up to us to read them in their original languages or to get photocopies of earlier translations.

also i am not sure how becoming friends with a contemporary artist will help our knowledge of dutch or mayan art. i really don’t. their notions of who created art and the function of their art was so different that this is not a valid recommendation, especially in the general terms in which it is stated. contemporary production might shape how i see the art of the past but the challenges contemporary artists face are not as illuminating.

and about studying yet to be discovered artists?? are you kidding me? this whole career is a crap shoot and i should dedicate my dissertation, or article to someone who might or might not be important, therefore relegating my own career to obscurity? given the dearth of teaching jobs, i can’t see a better way to remain unemployed.
it is possible that emerging talent is best covered by art critics, and i know that a lot of scholars are, in fact, reconsidering obscure figures that have been slighted by the canon.

so are you asking us to study passing fads? fascinating.

]]> By: tw http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=809&cpage=1#comment-3203 tw Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:02:27 +0000 http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=809#comment-3203 CAA is a disaster of an organization, a thrilling mediocrity of a conference. Fewer panels with better papers would improve things slightly, but the whole organization seems to be blithely unaware of or unwilling to deal with the truly monstrous problems facing the discipline--the need for massive curtailment of graduate programs, support of young professionals beyond the "emerging professionals" claptrap, ethical use of adjuncts, etc. Instead: a packed panel session on Contemporary Art where one would be surprised to learn that art before 1945 exists. The whole ordeal is an intellectual cesspool, and meanwhile the organization has failed to serve as a means of steering the discipline as a whole. It's a macabre dance, though maybe the MLA and AHA are just as bad. Though I hardly think the problem is that we need MORE Riegl studies... CAA is a disaster of an organization, a thrilling mediocrity of a conference. Fewer panels with better papers would improve things slightly, but the whole organization seems to be blithely unaware of or unwilling to deal with the truly monstrous problems facing the discipline–the need for massive curtailment of graduate programs, support of young professionals beyond the “emerging professionals” claptrap, ethical use of adjuncts, etc. Instead: a packed panel session on Contemporary Art where one would be surprised to learn that art before 1945 exists. The whole ordeal is an intellectual cesspool, and meanwhile the organization has failed to serve as a means of steering the discipline as a whole. It’s a macabre dance, though maybe the MLA and AHA are just as bad.

Though I hardly think the problem is that we need MORE Riegl studies…

]]>