DOI issue:
Nr. 1
DOI article:Rampley, Matthew: Visual culture: an end to the history of art?
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52804#0058
notion of primitive ‘art’ — quite apart from the diffi-
culties of the term ‘primitive’ — had been current in
anthropology for some time, but in the 1980s the
debate spilled over into art history with a now noto-
rious exhibition staged at the Museum of Modem Art
in New York entitled Primitivism in the Twentieth Cen-
tury. Affinities ofthe Tribal and the Modernd6 As critics
were quick to point out, the exhibition endorsed the
practice of early twentieth-century artists of aesthet-
icising artefacts from Afričan and Pacific societies,
treating them as merely a stylistic resource.16 17 Other
criticisms followed in the wake of the debate over the
MoMA exhibition; museological analyses highlight-
ed the extent to which the MoMA exhibition was only
the most obvious example of a much more widespread
tendency within muséums to the aestheticise non-
Western artefacts.18 A subséquent exhibition curat-
ed by Susan Vogel in the Museum of Africa in New
York, Art / Artefact demonstrated this ail the more
sharply; the status and meaning of objects changed
radically depending on the manner in which they were
exhibited, either as practical Utensils or as items for
aesthetic contemplation, exhibited in sympathetical-
ly lit display cabinets.19 It is in response to this that
the term ‘visual culture’ has been adopted as free from
the connotations of the term ‘art’, which were deemed
to be culturally inappropriate.
The post-colonial sensibilities underpinning this
debate also motivated the second turn away from art
history and towards visual studies and culture. The
traditional narrative which, from Hegel onwards, had
afforded Classical and European art a privileged place
in the évolution of art, was increasingly countered
during the 1970s and 1980s with an image of art as
shaped by multiple historiés. An important area of
16 RUBIN, William (ed.): Primitivism in the Twentieth Century.
Affinity ofthe Tribal and the Modem. New York 1984.
17 See, for example, FOSTER, Hal: ‘The "Primitive” Unconscio-
us of Modem Art’. In: October, 34, 1985, pp. 45-70.
18 See, for example: KARP, Ivan - LAVINE, Steven (ed.): Exhi-
biting Cultures. Washington 1991; COOMBES, Annie E.: Re-
inventing Africa. Museums, Material Culture and Populär Imagi-
nation. London - New Haven 1994; PRICE, Sally: Primitive
Art in Civilized Places. Chicago 2001.
19 VOGEL, Susan (ed.): Art / Artefact. New York 1989-
debate, for example, was the meaning of modernism
which had always been oriented around an axis lead-
ing from Berlin and Paris to New York. However,
récognition of the role of other ‘modernist’ art practic-
es, such as the saqqakhaneh movement of Iranian art-
ists such as Hossein Zenderoudi and Parviz Tanavoli,
or the ‘Bombay Progressives’ of India such as Maqbool
Husain or Francis Souza, has rendered such geograph-
ical limits highly problematic.20 It also compelled
a redéfinition of the meaning of modernism. This is
a particular instance of a wider reshaping of the do-
main of art history. Where once it was conceivable to
produce universal historiés of art, the stress on the dis-
unified, fragmented nature of the field has such
a conception has now made such a notion increasingly
untenable. For some this has led to the decision sim-
ply to focus on local historiés,21 but for others this has
led to the more radical conclusion that art history as
a paradigm is the basic problém. Hence the formation
of visual studies has taken place in part to replace
a discipline defined by an increasingly unstable domain
of objects - the global practices of art — by one defined
by a set of methods and conceptual problems. The fore-
most exponent of such a view, Irit Rogoff, has explicit-
ly dissociated visual studies from any lingering attach-
ment to historiés of spécifie practices, whether of film,
art or any other visual discipline. Instead:
“The emergence of visual culture as a transdisciplinary
and cross-methodological field ofinquiry means nothing less
and nothing more than an opportunity to reconsider some of
the present culture’s thorniest problems from yet another an-
gle ... visual culture provides the possibility of unframing
some ofthe discussions we hâve been engaged in ... from the
disciplinary fields ... which first articulated (them).. .”22
20 On the notion of Asian modernism see CLARK, John: Mo-
dem Art in Asia. Honolulu 1998. On Iranian art see BA-
LAGHI, Shiva (ed.): Picturing Iran. Art, Society, Revolution.
London 2003. On Indian modernism see MITTER, Partha:
Art and Nationalem in Colonial India: Occidental Orientations.
Cambridge 1995 and KAPUR, Geeta: When was Modernism?
New Delhi 2001.
21 See, for example: ELKINS, James: Stories ofArt. London 2003,
which suggests that art history should restrict itself to the
history of western art, recognising that other cultures hâve
such alien conceptions of‘art’, as to make art historical analy-
sis culturally inappropriate.
56
culties of the term ‘primitive’ — had been current in
anthropology for some time, but in the 1980s the
debate spilled over into art history with a now noto-
rious exhibition staged at the Museum of Modem Art
in New York entitled Primitivism in the Twentieth Cen-
tury. Affinities ofthe Tribal and the Modernd6 As critics
were quick to point out, the exhibition endorsed the
practice of early twentieth-century artists of aesthet-
icising artefacts from Afričan and Pacific societies,
treating them as merely a stylistic resource.16 17 Other
criticisms followed in the wake of the debate over the
MoMA exhibition; museological analyses highlight-
ed the extent to which the MoMA exhibition was only
the most obvious example of a much more widespread
tendency within muséums to the aestheticise non-
Western artefacts.18 A subséquent exhibition curat-
ed by Susan Vogel in the Museum of Africa in New
York, Art / Artefact demonstrated this ail the more
sharply; the status and meaning of objects changed
radically depending on the manner in which they were
exhibited, either as practical Utensils or as items for
aesthetic contemplation, exhibited in sympathetical-
ly lit display cabinets.19 It is in response to this that
the term ‘visual culture’ has been adopted as free from
the connotations of the term ‘art’, which were deemed
to be culturally inappropriate.
The post-colonial sensibilities underpinning this
debate also motivated the second turn away from art
history and towards visual studies and culture. The
traditional narrative which, from Hegel onwards, had
afforded Classical and European art a privileged place
in the évolution of art, was increasingly countered
during the 1970s and 1980s with an image of art as
shaped by multiple historiés. An important area of
16 RUBIN, William (ed.): Primitivism in the Twentieth Century.
Affinity ofthe Tribal and the Modem. New York 1984.
17 See, for example, FOSTER, Hal: ‘The "Primitive” Unconscio-
us of Modem Art’. In: October, 34, 1985, pp. 45-70.
18 See, for example: KARP, Ivan - LAVINE, Steven (ed.): Exhi-
biting Cultures. Washington 1991; COOMBES, Annie E.: Re-
inventing Africa. Museums, Material Culture and Populär Imagi-
nation. London - New Haven 1994; PRICE, Sally: Primitive
Art in Civilized Places. Chicago 2001.
19 VOGEL, Susan (ed.): Art / Artefact. New York 1989-
debate, for example, was the meaning of modernism
which had always been oriented around an axis lead-
ing from Berlin and Paris to New York. However,
récognition of the role of other ‘modernist’ art practic-
es, such as the saqqakhaneh movement of Iranian art-
ists such as Hossein Zenderoudi and Parviz Tanavoli,
or the ‘Bombay Progressives’ of India such as Maqbool
Husain or Francis Souza, has rendered such geograph-
ical limits highly problematic.20 It also compelled
a redéfinition of the meaning of modernism. This is
a particular instance of a wider reshaping of the do-
main of art history. Where once it was conceivable to
produce universal historiés of art, the stress on the dis-
unified, fragmented nature of the field has such
a conception has now made such a notion increasingly
untenable. For some this has led to the decision sim-
ply to focus on local historiés,21 but for others this has
led to the more radical conclusion that art history as
a paradigm is the basic problém. Hence the formation
of visual studies has taken place in part to replace
a discipline defined by an increasingly unstable domain
of objects - the global practices of art — by one defined
by a set of methods and conceptual problems. The fore-
most exponent of such a view, Irit Rogoff, has explicit-
ly dissociated visual studies from any lingering attach-
ment to historiés of spécifie practices, whether of film,
art or any other visual discipline. Instead:
“The emergence of visual culture as a transdisciplinary
and cross-methodological field ofinquiry means nothing less
and nothing more than an opportunity to reconsider some of
the present culture’s thorniest problems from yet another an-
gle ... visual culture provides the possibility of unframing
some ofthe discussions we hâve been engaged in ... from the
disciplinary fields ... which first articulated (them).. .”22
20 On the notion of Asian modernism see CLARK, John: Mo-
dem Art in Asia. Honolulu 1998. On Iranian art see BA-
LAGHI, Shiva (ed.): Picturing Iran. Art, Society, Revolution.
London 2003. On Indian modernism see MITTER, Partha:
Art and Nationalem in Colonial India: Occidental Orientations.
Cambridge 1995 and KAPUR, Geeta: When was Modernism?
New Delhi 2001.
21 See, for example: ELKINS, James: Stories ofArt. London 2003,
which suggests that art history should restrict itself to the
history of western art, recognising that other cultures hâve
such alien conceptions of‘art’, as to make art historical analy-
sis culturally inappropriate.
56