Abstract
What happens when a work of art that reminds us of a work of literature despite bearing no clear historical, thematic or causal relationship? What value is there to following up on such resonances? How might this approach enable us to better understand the objects of our attention, or our responses to them? And how might our method of writing be harnessed to generate (not just communicate) such kinships? Michael Oakeshott – philosopher and political theorist – criticised the imposition of abstract theoretical models without adapting to the needs or requirements of the real-world situations. Thinking, he says, is developed not by applying preexistent methodologies but by ‘exploring and pursuing what is intimated’ by real-world situations. Political thought, he believed, should be adaptive and responsive. This paper argues that the same goes for art history. Methodologies and approaches should not be imposed upon artworks but should be allowed to emerge by intimation, from our encounters with them and our writing through those encounters. Borrowing from the work of Phillip Vannini and others, I characterise the contingent, individuated and associational nature of this kind of research – in which supposedly unconnected artworks and texts are brought into shared orbit by the art historian – as non-methodological. Non-methodologies, which pursue unforeseen intimations, are more receptive to the subjectivity of the viewer/researcher/writer allowing for a more open and emergent art-historical discussion in which the outcomes might be more reflective, creative and performative.
Presenters
Lizzie LloydSenior Lecturer, Fine Art, University of the West of England, Bristol, City of, United Kingdom
Details
Presentation Type
Paper Presentation in a Themed Session
Theme
KEYWORDS
Intimation, Association, Subjectivity, Non-methodology, Resonance, Experimental
