Concordia University

http://www.concordia.ca/content/concordia/en/finearts/art-history/programs/graduate/art-history-phd/seminars/archives/2017-2018/arth-805---what-do-we-owe-the-object.html

ARTH 805 - What Do We Owe the Object

J - 14:00-17:00
Concordia University, EV-3.760
INSTRUCTOR: DR. MARTHA LANGFORD

In 1979, Rosalind Krauss wrote the following: "it is obvious that the logic of the space of postmodernist practice is no longer organized around the definition of a given medium on the grounds of material, or, for that matter, the perception of material. It is organized by the universe of terms that are felt in opposition to the cultural situation. "(" Sculpture in the Expanded Field, " October 8). Krauss is but one, in the hundreds of theorists, rounded up in Martin Jay's Downcast Eyes (1993), an exhaustive survey of the legacy of 20th-century (588) in visuality, its subordination to other Senses and systems of knowledge. The seminar will reopen this discussion, canvassing both the losses and the gains. We know, for example, That understanding perception as tinted by memory and imagination has expanded our readings of visual art, while admitting factors that may seem, at a glance , to obscure, or even displace, the object. Perceptual errors, sometimes exploited as productive slips , creep into the discourse. Conventional approaches, as deemed limiting within an unbounded, interdisciplinary critical field. The situation is liberating, but the nagging question remains: as historians, theorists, and teachers, what do we owe the object? Are critical currents of creative, reflexive analysis running roughshod over our objects of desire? Simply put, is there anything left of the thing itself ? To obscure, or even displace, the object. Perceptual errors, sometimes exploited as productive slips , creep into the discourse. Conventional approaches, as deemed limiting within an unbounded, interdisciplinary critical field. The situation is liberating, but the nagging question remains: as historians, theorists, and teachers, what do we owe the object? Are critical currents of creative, reflexive analysis running roughshod over our objects of desire? Simply put, is there anything left of the thing itself ? To obscure, or even displace, the object. Perceptual errors, sometimes exploited as productive slips , creep into the discourse. Conventional approaches, as deemed limiting within an unbounded, interdisciplinary critical field. The situation is liberating, but the nagging question remains: as historians, theorists, and teachers, what do we owe the object? Are critical currents of creative, reflexive analysis running roughshod over our objects of desire? Simply put, is there anything left of the thing itself ? Interdisciplinary critical field. The situation is liberating, but the nagging question remains: as historians, theorists, and teachers, what do we owe the object? Are critical currents of creative, reflexive analysis running roughshod over our objects of desire? Simply put, is there anything left of the thing itself ? Interdisciplinary critical field. The situation is liberating, but the nagging question remains: as historians, theorists, and teachers, what do we owe the object? Are critical currents of creative, reflexive analysis running roughshod over our objects of desire? Simply put, is there anything left of the thing itself

 

 

The seminar is based on a cluster of historiographical and philosophical problems, some to be introduced by guest speakers, others arising from the assigned readings. Readings are organized in dense clusters. In both instances, participants are encouraged to seek solutions to their particular research problems through exploratory discussions and presentations. 

 

Back to top

© Concordia University