On 13/12/13 03:23 AM, netbehaviour wrote: > > Over the last few years I have been staging a practical and theoretical > investigation of art historical media. I’ve been asking what are art > history and criticism are made of? Of course, the simple answer is: > words. When we interpret, contextualise and historicise artistic > practice we, in the main, take something visual and turn that experience > into one carried by words. But sometimes these words are spoken, some > are printed in books and magazines and now, with the rise of digital > technology and the internet, some of these words are digital. My concern > is that not only do we, as art critics and historians overlook our own > media in a bid to analyse and understand that of artists, but in doing > so, we are ignoring what happens to art knowledge when it is rendered in > different forms. So I decided I would have to render my own > investigation in different forms. > > http://digitalcritic.org/2013/07/what-is-art-history-made-of/
I'm biased (having helped with one of those forms), but I'm very glad that someone with the knowledge and position to do so is asking a question that I've had in my mind since I first encountered the confident but unreflective materiality of art history (and Theory...) at art school. I blathered a response here: http://robmyers.org/2013/09/09/allographic-fake-information-materiality/ which finishes: "Frost both recognizes the materiality of art historical media and seeks to broaden it. The Digital Humanities are already expanding the range of methods and materials available to art history, but Frost describes a broader self-critical programme for such experiments to pursue. This is a superset of a “critical digital humanities” that is much more than the call to order that label usually covers, bringing in Maker Culture and art practice as well." _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
