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#0067
follow. At the University of East Anglia the depart-
ment has reinvented itself as a department of world
art, while at Middlesex, although a degree in the his-
tory of art and architecture exists, there is no depart-
ment as such, and the degree has a heavy orientation
towards visual culture, media and cultural studies.
Some might refer to this as a period of crisis. This
is undoubtedly an overstatement. Rather, a general
pattern appears to be that the teaching of art history
is returning to the older universities in Britain that
were always most dosely linked to the social and cul-
tural aspirations of the British bourgeoisie. Within
the last ten years the only university that has seen an
expansion in the teaching of art history has been the
University of Oxford, undoubtedly the most venera-
ble and prestigious of all British universities. This
means that having engaged with a more inclusive
cultural politics, there is a danger that art history
might be reverting to a more exclusive social domain.
This is hardly surprising, for whatever the challenges
brought to the discipline by visual studies, there is
a wider institutional network — of private galleries,
muséums, auction houses, art dealers — that will re-
main unaffected by such debates, and which will con-
tinue to provide a demand for art historical research
of a rather traditional kind. In this respect it is nota-
ble that one of the more signifïcant providers of art
historical éducation in London is the auction house
Christie’s, which tuns both its own éducation depart-
ment and also collaborâtes with the Royal College of
Art and the Victoria and Albert Museum in the pro-
vision of degree programmes.
One can therefore conclude from this that in Brit-
ain, at least, visual studies will corne to displace art
history in those universities that have the weakest
links to the major centres of institutional power in
the field of art. In other universities with close con-
nections to the wider field of the art world, this is
unlikely to happen; the greatest danger is that art
history might finally confirm Sir Samuel Courtauld’s
vision of an academie discourse that is primarily a kind
of service industry to the art industry. This is un-
doubtedly the most negative possible impact of visu-
al studies, and it is still too early to predict whether
this might occur. Quite how this situation will devel-
op elsewhere remains an open question. However,
the enormous cultural capital invested in art in States
such as Italy, Spain or France suggests a similar out-
come to Britain. Where national and cultural identi-
ty is tied so dosely to a spécifie artistic legacy, it is
difficult to envisage a situation where increasingly
transnational populär media will entirely overcome
the attachment to art and its history. However, as in
Britain, it is not so difficult to see art history becom-
ing reduced to the status of adjunct to the concerns
of the muséums and the curators.
Conclusion
On the basis of the foregoing analysis it might
appear that while visual studies has raised some im-
portant questions for the practice of art history, and
indeed, may well force a reshaping of discourses on
art, it has failed in its more ambitious goal of sup-
planting the it. This need not be viewed as negative-
ly as some might présumé, however. There is an im-
portant lesson to be drawn from the fate of cultural
studies. Originally established as a sériés of polemics
against the political and cultural values underpinning
English and the traditional humanities, cultural stud-
ies has itself become congealed into various institu-
tional forms. Its critical dynamism has been largely
lost in the process of becoming an accepted field of
academie discourse. In this light, perhaps the way to
approach visual studies is not to regard it as a field of
study at all, but as a sériés of strategie interventions
within existing disciplines. In other words, in the place
of laying daim to the status of a new master discourse,
it should be seen as a disturbance of existing discipli-
nary limitations, in which various conceptual and dis-
cursive configurations are mobilised in response to
spécifie historical and Contemporary cases. This does,
of course, posit visual studies as parasitic on other
fields of study, but then this foregrounds its found-
ing logic, as not art history, not cultural studies, not
the history of film or photography, and so on. It also
releases it from the ossification that always has threat-
ened to overtake established disciplines.
65
ment has reinvented itself as a department of world
art, while at Middlesex, although a degree in the his-
tory of art and architecture exists, there is no depart-
ment as such, and the degree has a heavy orientation
towards visual culture, media and cultural studies.
Some might refer to this as a period of crisis. This
is undoubtedly an overstatement. Rather, a general
pattern appears to be that the teaching of art history
is returning to the older universities in Britain that
were always most dosely linked to the social and cul-
tural aspirations of the British bourgeoisie. Within
the last ten years the only university that has seen an
expansion in the teaching of art history has been the
University of Oxford, undoubtedly the most venera-
ble and prestigious of all British universities. This
means that having engaged with a more inclusive
cultural politics, there is a danger that art history
might be reverting to a more exclusive social domain.
This is hardly surprising, for whatever the challenges
brought to the discipline by visual studies, there is
a wider institutional network — of private galleries,
muséums, auction houses, art dealers — that will re-
main unaffected by such debates, and which will con-
tinue to provide a demand for art historical research
of a rather traditional kind. In this respect it is nota-
ble that one of the more signifïcant providers of art
historical éducation in London is the auction house
Christie’s, which tuns both its own éducation depart-
ment and also collaborâtes with the Royal College of
Art and the Victoria and Albert Museum in the pro-
vision of degree programmes.
One can therefore conclude from this that in Brit-
ain, at least, visual studies will corne to displace art
history in those universities that have the weakest
links to the major centres of institutional power in
the field of art. In other universities with close con-
nections to the wider field of the art world, this is
unlikely to happen; the greatest danger is that art
history might finally confirm Sir Samuel Courtauld’s
vision of an academie discourse that is primarily a kind
of service industry to the art industry. This is un-
doubtedly the most negative possible impact of visu-
al studies, and it is still too early to predict whether
this might occur. Quite how this situation will devel-
op elsewhere remains an open question. However,
the enormous cultural capital invested in art in States
such as Italy, Spain or France suggests a similar out-
come to Britain. Where national and cultural identi-
ty is tied so dosely to a spécifie artistic legacy, it is
difficult to envisage a situation where increasingly
transnational populär media will entirely overcome
the attachment to art and its history. However, as in
Britain, it is not so difficult to see art history becom-
ing reduced to the status of adjunct to the concerns
of the muséums and the curators.
Conclusion
On the basis of the foregoing analysis it might
appear that while visual studies has raised some im-
portant questions for the practice of art history, and
indeed, may well force a reshaping of discourses on
art, it has failed in its more ambitious goal of sup-
planting the it. This need not be viewed as negative-
ly as some might présumé, however. There is an im-
portant lesson to be drawn from the fate of cultural
studies. Originally established as a sériés of polemics
against the political and cultural values underpinning
English and the traditional humanities, cultural stud-
ies has itself become congealed into various institu-
tional forms. Its critical dynamism has been largely
lost in the process of becoming an accepted field of
academie discourse. In this light, perhaps the way to
approach visual studies is not to regard it as a field of
study at all, but as a sériés of strategie interventions
within existing disciplines. In other words, in the place
of laying daim to the status of a new master discourse,
it should be seen as a disturbance of existing discipli-
nary limitations, in which various conceptual and dis-
cursive configurations are mobilised in response to
spécifie historical and Contemporary cases. This does,
of course, posit visual studies as parasitic on other
fields of study, but then this foregrounds its found-
ing logic, as not art history, not cultural studies, not
the history of film or photography, and so on. It also
releases it from the ossification that always has threat-
ened to overtake established disciplines.
65