Possibly related to the issue of reportorial journals, both in general and also in future digital form, is the import and role that the art and philosophy of "review" might eventually have on the fine arts. My thought here is motivated partly by the reproduction of selected artworks in books and shows, but mainly by the science of peer "review" and its importance to science in general, as well as in the storage and retrieval of written theories for purposes of unhampered ongoing research. Further related to this is the current tendency for the international scientific community to report and record all the key scientific papers in the digital form of american english, again for the assumed purposes of unhampered ongoing research.
Chris wrote... >Art journals are cited by (social) science journals more than by other art Journals< But the books we've been reading here recently (Berger, Dutton, Kivy) are loaded with citations of other contemporary scholars -- especially Berger. Way more than is found in art books written in the late 19th and early 20th C. (did Malraux even use any at all?) Whether this trend exemplifies the progress or decline of aesthetics is open to debate.
