CFP -- Abiding Present: Challenges of Time in Art History

The question of time has been at the forefront of art historical investigation for several years. The value of Time in the history of Art is in bringing together a conceptually, methodologically and thematically diverse range of viewpoints to present the range of problematics at stake in the questioning. The collection is, however, symptomatic of the challenges and pitfalls of art historical attention to time. First, sustained and analytical attention to philosophies of time are obscured in favour of descriptions of the temporal complexity of artefacts/images/artworks. Thus, despite claims to the contrary, the underlying conceptual frameworks and models of time (including the much-maligned model of chronology) persist. Second, the questioning of time is detached from the questioning of other fundamental presuppositions of art historical study – such as knowledge, representation and fact – and as such only partially enacts the critique of art historical thinking that it claims to stage.

Time in the History of Art, 2018

For several years now, the problematisation of time has been at the forefront of debates in art history. According to the editors of this volume, Keith Moxey and Dan Karlholm, this problematisation offers a way to revive the discipline from its current crises: namely, its perceived irrelevance within the contemporaneity of the present (1). Rather than retaining its traditional focus on putting art objects in their proper chronological places-a focus reinforced by a preoccupation with context (the social, economic, political circumstances under which a work was made)-art history might instead, by embracing the temporal qualities presented by the work/image such as 'anachrony' and 'heterochrony', affirm its relevance for a present that sees itself as 'post-historical' (1). In this way, art history could loosen its inscription as a practice of history still laden with outmoded expectations of objectivity, contextualism, chronological positioning and the 'Hegelian model of progress', to become a reflection on time that is more responsive to the heterogeneous actualities of contemporary practice, discourse and experience. This transformation, Moxey and Karlholm suggest, would proceed through a foregrounding of the singular questions posed by the artwork/image over the broad structures of historical inquiry. With the affirmation that art/image is always more than, or other than, art history, the art historian's leading questions would become: 'what if visual art is in a position to explain and expand history rather than vice versa? What if the artwork grounds history?' (1) The question of the time of art history is thus guided by a questioning of the time of art. Time in the History of Art adds to the plethora of volumes published in the last decade that examine the temporality of art and art history: Georges Didi-Huberman's masterful studies of the anachronistic being of images (such as The Surviving Image:

Addressed to students of the image–both art historians and students of visual studies–this book investigates the history and nature of time in a variety of different environments and media as well as the temporal potential of objects. Essays will analyze such topics as the disparities of power that privilege certain forms of temporality above others, the nature of temporal duration in different cultures,

Untie to Tie: On Colonial Legacies and Contemporary Societies (ifa Digital Platform), 2017

Gallery reflections is a series of public discussions on art, institutions, and curatorial practices convened by anthropologist Jonas Tinius. The encounters take place in the ifa-gallery Berlin once per chapter, crisscrossing the overall themes and decentring the focal points of the one year programme ‘Untie to tie: Colonial Legacies and Contemporary Societies’ (2017-2018) curated by the gallery’s director Alya Sebti. This second column in the series reflects on how traces, legacies, and futures - as concepts and as practices - allow us to think about the relation between anthropology, art, and temporality.

Time and Presence in Art: Moments of Encounter (200–1600), 2022

This volume has a twofold origin. It developed out of a panel at the 2016 International Congress on Medieval Studies in Kalamazoo, entitled "Picturing the Present: Structuring the Medieval Beholder's Relation Towards Time." The panel considered how medieval images depicted the present and how they mediated their beholders' conceptualization of time. A second, larger conference, entitled Picturing the Present: Gegenwart im Bild und Bild in der Gegenwart (200-1600) followed in June of 2018 at the University of Leipzig. This conference built on the topic of the Kalamazoo panel by considering the presence of images in relation to the present time as depicted and experienced by viewers. This conference aimed to bring together more traditional academic research with educational, museological, and empirical practices. A final session, comprised of scholars and museum educators, addressed how we can study and teach medieval art today and have meaningful aesthetic experiences with the objects.

2014

Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.

The Journal of Art Historiography, 2019

For several years now, the problematisation of time has been at the forefront of debates in art history. According to the editors of this volume, Keith Moxey and Dan Karlholm, this problematisation offers a way to revive the discipline from its current crises: namely, its perceived irrelevance within the contemporaneity of the present (1). Rather than retaining its traditional focus on putting art objects in their proper chronological places-a focus reinforced by a preoccupation with context (the social, economic, political circumstances under which a work was made)-art history might instead, by embracing the temporal qualities presented by the work/image such as 'anachrony' and 'heterochrony', affirm its relevance for a present that sees itself as 'post-historical' (1). In this way, art history could loosen its inscription as a practice of history still laden with outmoded expectations of objectivity, contextualism, chronological positioning and the 'Hegelian model of progress', to become a reflection on time that is more responsive to the heterogeneous actualities of contemporary practice, discourse and experience. This transformation, Moxey and Karlholm suggest, would proceed through a foregrounding of the singular questions posed by the artwork/image over the broad structures of historical inquiry. With the affirmation that art/image is always more than, or other than, art history, the art historian's leading questions would become: 'what if visual art is in a position to explain and expand history rather than vice versa? What if the artwork grounds history?' (1) The question of the time of art history is thus guided by a questioning of the time of art. Time in the History of Art adds to the plethora of volumes published in the last decade that examine the temporality of art and art history: Georges Didi-Huberman's masterful studies of the anachronistic being of images (such as The Surviving Image:

Image and Narrative, 2009

The idea that art should be occupied with imagining the past has been entertained within the art world for quite some time now, as is manifested in a number of exhibitions exploring historical matters. A touring show On the Tectonics of History, curated by Martin Krenn and Andrea Domesle (2005-2009) or the Amsterdam exhibit Usable Pasts, Concerted Forgettings in Smart Project Space (2008) are just two recent examples. It has almost become trivial to say that a significant part of contemporary art practice is centered on an investigation of the past in either a historiographical, archival or archeological mode. Logically, this raises the question whether such development can offer a fruitful ground for art. In his recent critique of the so-called 'retrospective mode', Dieter Roelstraete claimed that artists assuming the role of historians neglect their task of imagining the future (Roelstraete 2009). If art is meant to critically approach contemporary issues in order to foresee or prepare for the future, then the dwelling on the past can only lead to an ersatz enterprise meant to distract our attention from real questions. Yet the historiographical tendency should not and cannot simply be discarded from the start. I would argue that the book Questioning History. Imagining the Past in Contemporary Art provides several answers and constructive propositions that counter Roelstraete's critique.

2008

The idea that art should be occupied with imagining the past has been entertained within the art world for quite some time now, as is manifested in a number of exhibitions exploring historical matters. A touring show On the Tectonics of History, curated by Martin Krenn and Andrea Domesle (2005-2009) or the Amsterdam exhibit Usable Pasts, Concerted Forgettings in Smart Project Space (2008) are just two recent examples. It has almost become trivial to say that a significant part of contemporary art practice is centered on an investigation of the past in either a historiographical, archival or archeological mode. Logically, this raises the question whether such development can offer a fruitful ground for art. In his recent critique of the so-called 'retrospective mode', Dieter Roelstraete claimed that artists assuming the role of historians neglect their task of imagining the future (Roelstraete 2009). If art is meant to critically approach contemporary issues in order to foresee or prepare for the future, then the dwelling on the past can only lead to an ersatz enterprise meant to distract our attention from real questions. Yet the historiographical tendency should not and cannot simply be discarded from the start. I would argue that the book Questioning History. Imagining the Past in Contemporary Art provides several answers and constructive propositions that counter Roelstraete's critique.

Panorama: Journal of the Association of Historians of American Art, 2022