College Art Association Annual Meeting 2005

Atlanta, GA, February 16-19, 2005
Conference website: http://www.collegeart.org/.

Reviewed by Amy Ione
PO Box 6813
Santa Rosa, CA 95406-0813

ione@diatrope.com

The 2005 College Art Association (CAA) Annual Meeting, held this year in Atlanta, Georgia, brought to mind how easily we blur the boundaries between traditional approaches to visual art in our time. In doing so, the full schedule of events also revealed that the contemporary and historical co-exist and cross-fertilize one another. Indeed, as I rerun the conference in my mind, I find the blend of scholarship and art was so rich that it is difficult to pinpoint a most impressive feature. As the mix ranged across cultures and media it was clear that when those of the art community combine scholarship with practice, the end result is an environment that stimulates lively discussion, facilitates networking, and enables conference participants to exchange information and ideas. Equally important is the way the international group at the meeting encourages those in attendance to see art from a global perspective.

In its second year as a CAA affiliate, Leonardo has firmly established its place within this larger art community, as was evident at the events the group directly orchestrated. These ranged from the Mentorship Roundtable and the Affiliate Special Session (titled Hybridity: Arts, Science and Cultural Effects) to a Town Hall Meeting, Career Development Workshops and an ARTspace Lounge Screening. Curated by Timothy Allen Jackson, the ARTspace contribution featured the work of Leonardo/ISAST members Luc Courchesne, David Rokeby, Bill Seaman, Regina Celia Pinto, Hellen Sky, Steve Mann, and Paul Sermon. All of these venues elicited intercommunication among participants and allowed for effective outreach.

In part the exchange was advanced by the conference schedule. Although the meeting officially began on Wednesday evening, Leonardo’s mentoring workshop and special affiliate session took place on Wednesday afternoon. This timing led many not directly involved in art, science, and technology practice/research to venture into these sessions. Coming up first, the Mentorship Roundtable, organized by Steven Oscherwitz, provided an opportunity for art/science/technology faculty and specialists to share their knowledge, experience, and perspectives. Generally, the presentations (by Andrea Polli, Ioannis Yessios, Kit Hughes, Brad Smith, Gabriel Harp, Steven Oscherwitz and Roger Malina) introduced the audience to both academic frameworks and to art/science/technology projects. While well attended, the group included fewer students than participants expected, perhaps the downside of the early slot. Nonetheless, those present found much to chew on, as the lively discussion on copyright issues that followed the individual presentations demonstrated. The passion that participants brought to this topic, moreover, suggested that some areas outside of art per se have a tremendous impact on art practice and dissemination. What became clear in this case is that copyright laws might be looser when looking at projects conceived within the university than when applied to exhibitions that are mounted within the larger community. Although it was generally agreed that students have more leeway, it was also clear that the difference between parody and inappropriate appropriation remains open to debate.

The Hybridity: Arts, Science and Cultural Effects session, co-chaired by Yvonne Spielmann and Jay David Bolter followed immediately after the mentoring workshop. As a speaker within this session (with Dan Sandin, Diane Gromala, and George Legrady) I am not in a position to analyze it critically. Suffice to say that Spielmann began by explaining the panel was intended to address new forms of encounter, dialogue, and interaction that are indicative of larger shifts in the arts, sciences, and culture. As she explained, the session endeavored to show that art, science, and technology were closely connected in early modernity and that the hybridity of our time has fostered a means to establish a dialogue in the arts as they form collaborations with the sciences. Each speaker brought a unique perspective to this larger goal. Unfortunately time ran out too quickly for extended discussion. As attendees moved off to the Convocation (delivered by the art historian Bruce Cole, Chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities) it seemed clear that the presenters had provided much for all to savor.

The jam-packed conference also offered much that is of appeal to the Leonardo community even when the Leonardo imprint was not directly linked to an event. This, I would suggest, speaks to the range in which the confluence of art, science, and technology is evident in our world today. The synesthesia session and one of the printmaking panels I attended illustrated this well. Synesthesia and Perception, organized by Greta Berman and Carol Steen, included two practicing synesthetes, two art historians, and a cognitive scientist as discussant. This blend allowed the audience to gain a sense of the synesthete experience and to pair it with scientific views. I was amazed at how quickly the hours passed. No doubt this was due to the superb presentations by the panelists, who proved able to adapt when challenged by technical difficulties. Each of the participants left images and ideas churning in my mind and unfortunately, due to the computer glitches; there was a limited time for the group to follow-up with the panelists.

Equally thought provoking was the studio-art Open Session: Print Cocktail, chaired by Carmon Colangelo. I’ve always been attracted to the seamless way in which traditional printmaking integrates art, science, and technology, and the limited discussion of this in many art history sources. Listening to the speakers with this thought in mind, it was amusing to discover the degree to which contemporary "printmakers" have integrated new technologies. Blurring media boundaries, embracing time-based and digital modes, these practitioners have re-defined what printmaking is. Papers by Lisa Moren and Patricia Olynyk, in particular, effectively established the bridge between the old and the new is as evident in printmaking as it is elsewhere. On the other hand, given all the options, I was sorry I missed the gallery-based workshop on art conservation, organized by Andrea Kirsh. This session provided yet another framework to personally learn more about intersections of art, science and technology today.

Acknowledging what was missed seems important when commenting on an event of this size. One major difficulty participants face is that the schedule is filled with more activities than one can attend to despite one’s good intentions. The program included three full days of concurrent sessions in all areas of art history, contemporary issues, and studio art, sessions (and workshops). There were also abundant opportunities to explore professional options before and after the three-day meeting. In addition, the organizers provided a "conference-within-a-conference" at ARTspace, which featured panels, demonstrations, and talks of interest to artists. Suffice to say that with so much going on simultaneously even the most dedicated participant is unable to partake of the wealth of opportunity offered in the medley. Nonetheless, there is much to recommend the conference. Of greatest interest to those active within the Leonardo community is that it provides a venue for outreach and integration. In light of the promise and possibilities still to be realized, those who are CAA members might want to help build the CAA/Leonardo connection in future years. The best way to do so is to join the CAA/Leonardo working group at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/leonardocaacommittee/join.