Partisan
Canons
by Anna
Brzyski, Editor
Duke University Press, Durham and London,
2007
370pp. Trade, £58; paper, £14
ISBN: 978-0-8223-4085-0; ISBN: 978-0-8223-4106-2.
Reviewed by Jennifer Ferng
Department of Architecture
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
jferng@mit.edu
Self-selecting, problematic, and yet,
encompassing and remarkably discriminate
at the same time, the canon, or a long-standing
compilation of artworks revered as benchmarks
of connoisseurship as well as public appreciation,
remains a thorny issue that deeply divides
scholars in the field of art history.
Why and how often are students consistently
shown the paintings of Jacques-Louis David,
Edouard Manet, and Paul Cézanne
as exemplary models of art? This inquiry
is inevitably linked to issues of authority,
institutionalization, legitimacy, and
orthodoxy that arise when selecting standards
of what is considered good art, an objective
that is not without its pedagogical impediments
or biased social judgments. Edited by
Anna Brzyski, this anthology includes
discursive essays ranging from South African
contemporary art and apartheid, the nationalist
politics behind the Taiwanese Palace Museum,
to the popularity of French Impressionism
and the longevity of survey textbooks
such as Gardners Art Through
the Ages. Gathered together as a series
of loosely bound viewpoints from many
educators and art historians, they introduce
a wide variety of complex and unsettled
issues associated with the canon to the
general reader at large.
Starting with Brzyskis introduction,
the universalized standards of the canon
are deeply ingrained into art history,
and yet it has become a normative practice
to question deputized works and why specified
artists were intentionally or unintentionally
left out of the picture. This quandary
brings to mind some of the polemical statements
brought forth by critics such as Linda
Nochlin, who has demanded "Why have
there been no great female artists?"
and Kobena Mercer, who has argued for
better representation of the African diasporic
visual arts. There is, however, a partial
consensus among scholars that that there
are, and perhaps have always been, multiple
canons, each with their own trajectory
through the history of art, broadened,
of course, by contemporary interests in
globalization and countries that have
been historically omitted from the Western
European modernist tradition. The operations
of the canon itself are often contradictory,
a "mechanism of oppression, a guardian
of privilege, a vehicle of exclusion,
and a structure for class, gender, and
racial interests." [1] The Western
canon to this day monopolizes the cultural
appraisal and reception of other forms
of art. Brzyski introduces the thesis
that a singular canon alone cannot possibly
account for the diversity of individual
artists, groups, and institutions that
begin and end in heterogeneous geographic
regions and time periods. The necessity
for multiple canons thus becomes apparent;
by considering each sub-field and historical
context as its own canon and the deliberate
motivations of artists themselves, the
so-called grand narrative of the history
of art can be revised to a greater degree.
Brzyskis tenaciousness in revealing
the mechanisms of canons is admirable,
to uncover what Henry Louis Gates called
the "veiled logic" behind tradition
[2]. The structure of canons and their
contents are often at odds with one another,
and the act of choosing one work of art
over another implies the automatic formation
of a canon. With the demise of old-fashioned
slides and the more frequent use of digital
images, in university collections or on
the Internet, Brzyski states the canon
could become reinstated through the ARTstor
databases survey collection and
argues that with its operations of metadiscourse,
self-maintenance, and perpetuation, it
is equally connected to the question of
the archive. The visibility of the archive
is tied to hierarchies employed to name
what is valuable and worthy of preservation,
according to given criteria or "specific
regularities." There also lies the
danger of tautological analysis, where
works of art are often criticized by the
very same systems that produced them.
It is worth restating as Brzyski mentions
that "arts history is not affected
by art historic discourse." [3] She
suggests that the visual mapping of complex
data sets may be a constructive means
of imagining the interrelated networks
of relationships that exist in a canon.
While this may provide a possible image
of the canon, this tangential part of
her argument steers the premise of the
book away from supplemental questions
of social and cultural discourse that
may not be included in a condensed networked
diagram. Her somewhat awkward use of "nonequilibrium
history," a term familiar to architects
who have read the philosophy of Manuel
de Landa, to describe this new type of
diachronic, synchronic canon seems incompatible
with the socially-infused, culturally-rich
phenomena she is addressing in the field
of art history.
The rest of the book is balanced between
several essays that are based on somewhat
quantitative studies that take statistics
about paintings in the canon as their
foundation and a few that emphasize the
rhetoric behind the practices of inclusion/exclusion.
While there is not enough room in this
review to do justice to all of the varying
essays presented in this anthology, each
essay, in its own way, encourages further
research into examining the claims at
stake and how each case study relates
to the robust discourse on the canon.
Robert Jensen in "Measuring Canons"
employs a straightforward empirical approach
by collecting detailed citation studies
on how often an image by a canonical artist
appears in a given textbook. His analysis
proposes that a market environment and
changes in an economy has a dramatic effect
on the success or failure of important
works of art. While James Elkins uses
a similar technique in identifying the
global dispersion of art history departments,
his meta-methods are quite exhausted by
the end of his essay (as he himself notes),
proving that numbers may only go so far.
He stresses, nevertheless, that an honest
form of multicultural, polymorphous art
history may be out of reach, a clear insight
not underscored enough by the other authors
of the anthology. Writing from the field
of psychology, James Cutting proposes
the concept of "mere exposure"
to illustrate why images that are the
most reproduced are often the ones that
are the most liked, and in turn, become
natural canonical images. In Paul Duros
essay "Imitation and Authority,"
the artist Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres
submits to his audience that he is "a
conservator of good doctrine, but not
an innovator, nor am I as my detractors
pretend, a servile imitator," an
apt phrase for the theme of this book.
[4] Contested standards of modernist taste
and emulation permeate Despina Stratigakos
essay on the tensions between masculine
reason and feminine spirit in the Werkbund
as well as Marcia Brennans essay
on the artistic genealogies outlined by
Alfred H. Barr Jr. and James Johnson Sweeney
at the Museum of Modern Art in the 1930s.
Some of the other essays occasionally
lack larger intellectual or theoretical
arguments for a specific stance on how
canons should function; for example, the
case studies on the Rembrandt Research
Project, where dissident members of the
organization re-categorize seventeenth-century
Rembrandt paintings according to present-day
standards, and Thomas Kinkade, who anoints
trainees to hand-highlight his kitschy
canvases, operate as individual yet obvious
monographs, rather than demonstrating
how each artist would fit into more unlikely
corners of the canon.
The volume, nonetheless, concludes with
a stimulating coda written by Terry Smith
who is the author of The Architecture
of Aftermath and teaches at the University
of Pittsburgh. Smith contends that the
modern is often equated with the historical,
and similarly, contemporaneity and the
modern are often conflated with one another.
He suspects that contemporary art sometimes
is not conjoined to contemporaneity, the
condition of being of, with,
or in time. The quality of "presentness"
in a work of art is difficult to measure;
Smith uses Iranian artist Shirin Neshats
Passage (2001) as an example of
art that "locates itself at the emotional
core of a culture that seems to have nothing
that is contemporary about it, yet persists
in our time." [5] For Smith, contemporary
art is about fashioning modern ways of
re-presenting aesthetic beauty that signifies
human experience, and while aesthetics
may still thrive alongside the lack of
certainty in our post-postmodern world,
one now can no longer be sure of what
can be called or classified as art of
the present.
[1] Anna Brzyski, ed., "Introduction:
Canons and Art History," in Partisan
Canons, 1.
[2] Ibid, 4.
[3] Ibid, 18.
[4] Paul Duro, "Imitation and Authority:
The Creation of the Academic Canon in
French Art, 1648-1870," in Partisan
Canons, 106.
[5] Terry Smith, "Coda: Canons and
Contemporaneity," in Partisan
Canons, 321.