Stedelijk Studies Journal最新文献

{"title":"Looking at the One and Only: The Return of the Single-Work Show","authors":"J. Lamoureux, M. Boucher, Marie Fraser","doi":"10.54533/stedstud.vol005.art07","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54533/stedstud.vol005.art07","url":null,"abstract":"Today’s museums are using their collections in new ways, most notably as event resources for institutional programming. The current context of collection repurposing is a phenomenon much broader than the logic exposed by François Mairesse under the rubric of “the museum as spectacle.”[1] It participates in the larger paradigm of what we call the “museum as event.” [2] The high point of the museum as spectacle was emblematized by the rise of the blockbuster exhibition and the multiplication of museum buildings erected as grand architectural gestures: these involved programming and expansion. The museum as event is a logic that permeates every part and aspect of the institution, including the collections that the spectacular museum rather took for granted and often neglected. It appears important, therefore, when addressing the issue of the relations between a museum and its collections, not to focus exclusively on the renewal of permanent displays, but to also question how collections are impacted by the intrusion of events into their territory. What are the new curatorial strategies, the new or renewed exhibition formulas that are deployed in order to “awaken” the collections and bring them into the fast and convulsive time of the event? For our study of this phenomenon, rather than look at collection-based exhibitions, increasingly popular among art museums, or permanent collection reinstallations, we chose to focus on a seasoned formula that is making an often innovative comeback: the single-work show.","PeriodicalId":143043,"journal":{"name":"Stedelijk Studies Journal","volume":"137 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114050651","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Welkom Today: On Collaborative Practice in Contemporary Photography","authors":"Anne Ruygt","doi":"10.54533/stedstud.vol008.art10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54533/stedstud.vol008.art10","url":null,"abstract":"This article centers on the notion that photography is inherently collaborative. This might not seem like a contested or groundbreaking line of thought but, until quite recently, photography’s history was shaped by the modernist concept of the artist as individual author.[2] Following a century-long debate about the medium’s status, photography was finally embraced as an art form in the late 1960s when conceptual artists started using photography, and photographers, on the other hand, started to edition and sign their work (as “vintage prints”). Although the idea of authorship was instrumental in the legitimization of photography as art, it also led to a highly restricted understanding of the medium.[3] In his recent publication Photography and Collaboration (2017), RMIT University professor Daniel Palmer even goes so far as saying, “Bound up with the construction of the modern author more generally—and related anxieties around originality and intentionality—it is difficult not to read [the fixation on authorship] as stemming from the idea that photography can be performed by anyone. Unease about photography’s democratic promise has, particularly in the hands of art historians, been overcompensated for in the figure of the bloated author.”[4] Roughly put, in order for a photograph to be an artwork (to be exhibited, studied, and collected by modern art museums), curators and historians stressed the original vision and unique eye of its maker. This focus on the photographer as artist—and less on the subject and the sociopolitical conditions that shaped their view—remained persistent long after photography’s emancipation in the art world.","PeriodicalId":143043,"journal":{"name":"Stedelijk Studies Journal","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117152310","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Biases within Digital Repositories: The Getty Research Portal","authors":"Hande Sever","doi":"10.54533/stedstud.vol010.art03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54533/stedstud.vol010.art03","url":null,"abstract":"The influence of computer science on disciplines outside of itself has constituted hybrid communities of practice, such as the digital humanities (DH) and digital art history (DAH), the latter being an offspring of the former.[1] The questions asked within these interdisciplinary fields are substantially different from those in core computer science fields, such as systems theory, language theory, and theory of computation.[2] As a result of the interdisciplinary nature of their inquiries, research questions pertaining to DH and the ethical challenges that accompany them are diametrically opposed to the empirical and often unambiguous measures of validity to which computer scientists are accustomed. This article will explore ethical questions pertaining to collections aggregation systems from the perspective of postcolonial scholarship and seek paths towards addressing the ethical questions currently facing many DH projects. To do so, I will use the Getty Research Portal (hereafter, “the Portal”) as a case study of a digital repository and draw on my personal experience as a software developer working on the project, as well as on current research on biases and ethics within DH.","PeriodicalId":143043,"journal":{"name":"Stedelijk Studies Journal","volume":"107 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123533899","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Modern Group Portraits in New York Exile: Community and Belonging in the Work of Arthur Kaufmann and Hermann Landshoff","authors":"Burcu Dogramaci","doi":"10.54533/stedstud.vol009.art03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54533/stedstud.vol009.art03","url":null,"abstract":"In the period 1933–1945 the group portrait was an important genre of art in exile, which has so far received little attention in research.[1] Individual works, such as Max Beckmann’s group portrait Les Artistes mit Gemüse, painted in 1943 in exile in Amsterdam,[2] were indeed in the focus. Until now, however, there has been no systematic investigation of group portraits in artistic exile during the Nazi era. The following observations are intended as a starting point for further investigations, and concentrate on the exile in New York and the work of the emigrated painter Arthur Kaufmann and photographer Hermann Landshoff in the late 1930s and 1940s, who devoted themselves to the genre of group portraits.","PeriodicalId":143043,"journal":{"name":"Stedelijk Studies Journal","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133410380","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Ludic Labyrinths: Strategies of Disruption","authors":"Paula Burleigh","doi":"10.54533/stedstud.vol007.art05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54533/stedstud.vol007.art05","url":null,"abstract":"Dylaby (1962), an exhibition organized by Stedelijk director Willem Sandberg in collaboration with the artist Jean Tinguely, transformed the museum into an immersive labyrinth. At times dark and disorienting, the participating artists—Tinguely with Niki de Saint Phalle, Daniel Spoerri, Per Olof Ultvedt, and Robert Rauschenberg—cluttered the galleries with physical obstacles that required visitors to navigate raised platforms, climbing structures, and false stairways amidst a cacophony of noise. A celebratory atmosphere likely tempered any frustration generated by the deliberate lack of clarity in the exhibition layout, as visitors gleefully fired BB guns and danced in a sea of floating balloons. Scholars have noted that Dylaby anticipated major trends that defined art of the 1960s and beyond: active participation supplanted passive spectatorship, and both experience and environment took precedence over the autonomous art object.[1] Less frequently discussed, however, is the actual structure of Dylaby, which gave the exhibition its title—an abbreviated form of “dynamic labyrinth.” Dylaby was far from the only exhibition to foreground the labyrinth as a central motif, metaphor, and organizing principle. Following World War II, the labyrinth experienced a revival in popularity throughout Europe, evident in works by collectives like the Letterist International, the Situationist International, and the Nouveaux Réalistes, which counted Tinguely, Saint Phalle, and Spoerri among its members.[2] This essay situates Dylaby within this larger revival of the labyrinth, which I argue functioned as a space of temporal collisions and play.[3] Both its confusion of time—gesturing simultaneously back to a mythic past and forward to a utopian future—and its ludic character were strategies of disruption, which artists mounted against stultifying conventions that governed the city and the museum.","PeriodicalId":143043,"journal":{"name":"Stedelijk Studies Journal","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134378187","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Flattening Hierarchies of Display: The Liberating and Leveling Powers of Objects and Materials","authors":"A. Lehmann, Judith Spijksma","doi":"10.54533/stedstud.vol005.art08","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54533/stedstud.vol005.art08","url":null,"abstract":"Recent collection display practices signal what has been described as a “comeback” for the integration of broad-ranging object categories in which the boundaries between these previously separated objects resolve.[1] Mixing objects from different object categories can take many forms, and occurs not only at the level of the objects themselves, but also at institutional levels. For categories such as painting, drawing, and applied arts, or the subcategories within, such as Renaissance drawings, porcelain, or twentieth-century art, are akin to the divisions in curatorial departments, galleries, or exhibition spaces and the people that work within them.[2] Also, museums that were initially not “disciplined” have been re-staged to reflect the originally mixed display, such as the Bode Museum, Berlin. Moreover, even in homogenous collections, a mixing of value and status becomes possible when chronology, subject matter, style, or school are not the guiding principle. Such display strategies of mixing therefore typically create new connections and enable collections of varying values, periods, and object categories to merge and their individual artifacts to meet in new and meaningful ways.","PeriodicalId":143043,"journal":{"name":"Stedelijk Studies Journal","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115253524","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Considering Competing Values in Art Museum Exhibition Curation","authors":"P. Villeneuve","doi":"10.54533/stedstud.vol008.art05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54533/stedstud.vol008.art05","url":null,"abstract":"Professor Pat Villeneuve has been a vocal advocate of visitor-centered exhibitions in art museums for decades. Her work on “edu-curation,” a practice advocating for a balanced approach between audiences and objects, as well as the development of supported interpretation—a model for visitor-centered exhibitions—have had a broad impact on the field of art museum curation and cultural education alike. She presents here a work in progress, a new theoretical model for art museum curation based on a competing values framework. This theory attempts to offer concrete, operationalizable tools to practitioners. To explore this theory, she uses a hypothetical conversation based on the scenario planning research method. This method allows her to test ideas, illustrate consequences, and identify the potential risks and need for action. Her article takes a strong stance in favor of a visitor-centered approach. This stance has been widely supported (and debated) in the museum world. Such discussions were initiated with the advent of the New Museology.[1] The visitor-centered museum has been core to dialogues around the social potential of the museum,[2] the educational capacity of the museum,[3] and, more recently, within discussions on participatory practices and the emancipatory potential of museums.[4] Such theoretical developments have allowed for pockets of visitor-centered practices to expand worldwide. Building on this well-established position, she attempts to bridge the apparent gap between a theoretically inclusive art museum and a still very mixed practice. Villeneuve takes as a starting point what she calls the “stalled paradigm shift of art museums.” While the discussion on this paradigm shift has been ongoing,[5] the tacit resistance of some institutional agents to such fundamental changes as visitor-centeredness has prevented practice to evolve more broadly. She hopes that her theoretical model will allow museums to initiate internal discussions, voice concerns, and identify their practice within a theoretical context while understanding how their curatorial choices impact audience attendance and engagement.","PeriodicalId":143043,"journal":{"name":"Stedelijk Studies Journal","volume":"109 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124829925","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"After(-)Images: Problematizing Collections of Early Documentary Photography in the Art Museum","authors":"Fabienne Chiang","doi":"10.54533/stedstud.vol011.art02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54533/stedstud.vol011.art02","url":null,"abstract":"Though the Stedelijk was the location of the first international photography exhibition in the Netherlands in 1908, the museum only began collecting photography in 1958. Following in the footsteps of the Museum of Modern Art in New York (MoMA), which had already begun collecting photography in 1930 and would establish a dedicated department in 1940 under the watchful eye of curator and photographer Beaumont Newhall, the Stedelijk embarked on the path of creating the first public photography collection in an art museum in the Netherlands sixty-three years after the museum opened its doors to the public for the very first time.","PeriodicalId":143043,"journal":{"name":"Stedelijk Studies Journal","volume":"169 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122856243","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Decolonial Aesthesis and the Museum: An Interview with Rolando Vázquez Melken","authors":"R. Wevers","doi":"10.54533/stedstud.vol008.art06","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54533/stedstud.vol008.art06","url":null,"abstract":"Rosa Wevers (RW): Rolando, you are the organizer of the Decolonial Summer School in Middelburg, you have published on decolonial theory and practice, and you are invited by many art institutions to speak on the question of how to decolonize the museum.[1] You are affiliated with the Institute of Cultural Inquiry (ICON) at Utrecht University and you are part of the advisory board of the Museum of Equality and Difference (MOED). Speaking from this position, what do you consider to be the urgent issues that Dutch art institutions should deal with today?","PeriodicalId":143043,"journal":{"name":"Stedelijk Studies Journal","volume":"81 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126379816","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Labyrinth as an Exhibitionary Model: Form, Event, and Mode of Life","authors":"Noit Banai","doi":"10.54533/stedstud.vol007.art03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54533/stedstud.vol007.art03","url":null,"abstract":"As we set out to construct the history of exhibitions from our contemporary vantage point, one of the central questions to consider is the relationship between models that emerged in the postwar European context—between the years 1945 and 1972—and current artistic and curatorial practices. The genealogies that we establish are not only significant because of their institutionalizing power, authorizing the preeminence of specific artists, curators, and exhibitions while potentially obscuring others; they also allow us to reflect on the connections and ruptures between the postwar period and our contemporaneity. As an art historian, a crucial aspect of my own project of writing about modern and contemporary art is to explore both the critical “potentialities” and historical “blind spots” of aesthetic paradigms and propositions. To understand how traditional disciplinary narratives have been formed and, for the most part, continue to maintain the hegemonic role of Western modernism and its biopolitics, we need to reflect on the questions that are asked, methodologies employed, and theories applied to the art objects and aesthetic events that are the focus of our study. Towards this goal, one of this article’s central interests is to delineate the ruptures and continuities in the understanding of the labyrinth, analyze its function in organizing exhibitionary practices, and consider its role in engendering specific types of social bonds within two distinct economic phases: liberalism and neoliberal global capitalism.","PeriodicalId":143043,"journal":{"name":"Stedelijk Studies Journal","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126453937","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}