Within art history, there is a codified manner in which we work. Must we feed these conventions? I’m not suggesting in any way that we reject traditional modes of scholarship (e.g., print publishing, conferences, etc.), but I am suggesting a reform within the field that finds impactful ways to use the technologies and international network given to us by the internet. Let’s discover and create new ways of practicing art history. Let’s redefine ‘art historian.’ In doing so, we’ll face practical and ideological roadblocks, but to get to a point where we can begin discussing these obstacles, we need to do a few things. First, we need to address the fact that the digital age isn’t going away. It’s not a fad. Art history will have to reckon with it at some point, so why not now? Second, we need to recognize and dissect our biases. It is because these unspoken biases exist in the shadows that digital art history cannot advance. Third, we need to ask some hard questions, including things like: What would digital art history ideally look like? What would its publishing forms be? Where would print publishing fit into this? How would authors secure their copyright in this new form of scholarship? Would ‘digital art historians’ be a new breed of scholar?
From “Art History in the Digital Age” on Caravaggista.com
For the state of digital art history, see Diane Zorich’s Kress Foundation report, Transitioning to a Digital World: Art History, Its Research Centers, and Digital Scholarship.
I’m hoping to revisit this topic soon.(via caravaggista)
We as a society really need to stop romanticizing the idea of “needing” romantic partners and “not being able to live without them” because it is incredibly unhealthy and leads people to wind up in unhealthy situations of dependency or feeling dependent and not thinking to change that mindset because it seems romantic