Call for Papers | ASECS 2016, Pittsburgh

Posted in Calls for Papers by Editor on July 31, 2015

2016 American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies Conference
Pittsburgh, 31 March — 3 April 2016

Proposals due by 15 September 2015

2998_40_zThe 2016 ASECS conference takes place in Pittsburgh, March 31 – April 3, at the Omni William Penn. Along with our annual luncheon and business meeting, HECAA will be represented by the Anne Schroder New Scholars’ Session, chaired by Janet White. In addition, a selection of sessions that might be relevant for HECAA members are included below. A full list of panels is available as a PDF file here»

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

Anne Schroder New Scholars’ Session (Historians of Eighteenth-Century Art and Architecture)
Janet R. White, UNLV School of Architecture, 4505 Maryland Pkwy, Box 454018, Las Vegas, NV 89154- 4018; janet.white@unlv.edu.

This session will feature outstanding new research by emerging scholars of art and architecture in the long eighteenth century.

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

Felines and Philosophers in the Eighteenth Century
Michael Yonan, Department of Art History and Archaeology, University of Missouri, 365 McReynolds Hall, Columbia, MO 65211; yonanm@missouri.edu.

The Comte de Buffon was not a cat person. “Unfaithful domestics,” he dubbed them, possessing “only the appearance of attachment or friendship” with their human keepers. Behind those enticing purrs and rubs lay malicious, distrustful natures, leading Buffon to question whether cats could ever be socialized completely. Even worse, unlike their wild cousins, house cats were dissimulators, “easily assuming the habits of society, but never acquiring its manners.” Buffon’s comments prophesize sentiments voiced today by those wondering how creatures with strong independent and predatory instincts ended up sleeping on our couches. They likewise reveal that something about felines remained difficult to describe within schema of animal behavior formulated in the Enlightenment. Following in the footsteps of recent ASECS panels devoted to birds, otters, and monkeys, this panel seeks papers discussing perceptions of domesticated felines in the eighteenth century. How did philosophers understand cats? How did natural historians explain their role in nature and subsequent migration into human domains? How did artists and writers formulate images and narratives that engaged with these perceptions? Papers from all disciplines are welcomed and interdisciplinary inquiries strongly encouraged.

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

In the 1720s. . .
Regina Janes, Dept of English, Skidmore College, 815 N. Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866; rjanes@skidmore.edu.

Papers are invited on any aspect of the culture (sermons to opera), economics, or politics of the 1720s. The decade beginning with the South Sea Bubble, saw Gulliver’s Travels, The Beggar’s Opera, two versions of The Dunciad, Defoe’s novels, Mandeville’s enflaming additions to the Fable of the Bees, Watteau’s death, Hogarth’s early work, Handel’s operas, Swift’s Irish tracts, Voltaire’s English visit and commentary, the beginning of Haywood’s career and the end of Centlivre’s, the death of George I and the coronation of George II, not to mention the controversy over who translated Pope’s Odyssey. Much has been omitted. Submissions are invited, but not required, to consider whether the work or problem under consideration, the tea kettle or the map, the garden or the statistical analysis, the book or the silver tray, constitutes a beginning at this period, or an ending, or merely a fecund middle muddle.

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

Mapping the Eighteenth-Century City
Hannah Williams, St John’s College, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3JP, United Kingdom; hannah.williams@sjc.ox.ac.uk.

This session seeks to explore eighteenth-century approaches to mapping cities and current approaches to mapping eighteenth-century cities. Academically these two pursuits are often distinct, with inquires into historical maps as visual images or textual documents, and inquiries using modern mapping techniques to communicate aspects of urban life in the past. This session draws connections between these practices inviting scholars from a range of fields, including art historians, historians, historical geographers, and digital humanists, among others, to bridge the discursive gaps. Papers might consider the functions of eighteenth-century city maps—then and now; eighteenth-century cartographic aesthetics and technologies; the kinds of information eighteenth-century map- makers were trying to record or reveal; and the role these material objects can play in our own attempts, as historians, to explore eighteenth-century cities, to visualise historical data in flexible and discoverable ways, and to probe the social lives and urban experiences of eighteenth-century city inhabitants. In particular, proposals relating to recent or on-going research projects engaging with digital mapping techniques and methods are especially welcomed.

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

Oriental Networks: Culture, Commerce and Communication, 1662–1842
Greg Clingham, Bucknell University Press, Bucknell University, Taylor Hall 6, Lewisburg, PA 17837; clingham@bucknell.edu.

Recent recognition of the global scope of the enlightenment has emphasized international networks informing travel, scientific exploration, trade, and politics, not to mention the fascination with exotic geographies and peoples that surfaces in poetry, fiction, drama, landscape design, art, material culture, and aesthetics. This panel seeks papers that explore any aspects of the cultural and commercial transactions and networks linking the Orient – understood as China, Japan, South East Asia, the Near East (and perhaps even the Cape Colony, as a pivotal geographical link between East and West)—with Europe and America from the time of the Kangxi emperor (1662–1722) to the first Opium War (1839–42). Contributors might explore either oriental or occidental perspectives. All critical and theoretical approaches are welcome, as are papers (of no longer than 20 minutes in length) in any discipline or combination of disciplines. If circumstances are right, abstracts (or full papers) will be circulated to interested parties before the conference, and contributors will be invited to submit their papers for publication in a volume of essays by Bucknell UP. Send 1–2 page abstract plus 1-page cv to Greg Clingham (clingham@bucknell.edu).

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

Inside the Artist’s Studio
Heather McPherson, Department of Art and Art History, AEIVA 211, 1221 10th Avenue South, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294; mcphers@uab.edu.

This session will examine the artist’s studio as a multi-faceted site of artistic experimentation, creation, and display; social interchange and artistic camaraderie; and financial exchange with collectors and dealers that frequently blurred the lines between public and private and art and commerce. I am interested in papers exploring the artist’s studio in the long eighteenth century from diverse national and global perspectives ranging from painting techniques and chemical experiments; to apprenticeship and the role of assistants in producing art and replicas; to the studio’s role as an exhibition venue; to its growing significance as an artistic and literary theme that was closely tied to artistic identity and professional status, sometimes functioning as a figurative self-portrait of the artist. The expanding coverage of the arts in the press and the advent of public exhibitions contributed to the public’s growing interest in the visual arts and the image and personality of the artist.

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

The Competitive Edge: Ambitious Relations Among Women
Julia Douthwaite, Dept. of Romance Languages and Literatures, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556; jdouthwa@nd.edu.

At the 2015 ASECS in Los Angeles, several panels were devoted to women’s tributes to women. Such panels showed how women writers either before or during the eighteenth century provided inspiring models or much-needed mentorship for other women writers. This 2016 seminar proposes to look at potentially more problematic relations among women. Under what conditions and why did eighteenth-century women compete with other women, whether precursors or contemporaries? How might we assess such competition? Presumably driven by ambition, whether conscious or not, was competition between or among women necessarily destructive, dividing women from each other, or could competition be productive, and if so how? In what genres—novels, painting, journals, philosophical or scientific texts, for instance—did women represent competition with other women, and does the genre affect what might be at stake for women competing with women? This seminar invites contributions from a variety of disciplines and cultural traditions to examine different forms of competition among women and interpret the reasons for that competition and the effects of it.

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

Empires of Print
Douglas Fordham, McIntire Department of Art, University of Virginia, Fayerweather Hall, P.O. Box 400130, Charlottesville, VA 22904; fordham@virginia.edu.

A quarter century after Mary Louise Pratt published Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation, this session reconsiders travel narratives in the long eighteenth century, and it places a particular emphasis on books and reproductive prints as physical objects with their own imperial histories and narratives. With books, prints, and printed ephemera more accessible to scholars than ever before, this session reconsiders ‘imperial print culture’ not just from the perspective of subject matter and thematics, but also as commodities and agents within the flows and networks of Western imperialism. Paper submissions are encouraged from a variety of disciplines and the travel narratives and images may pertain to any region or nation in the long eighteenth century.

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

Rubens in the Eighteenth Century
Kaylin Haverstock Weber and Leslie M. Scattone, (Weber) 4120 Oberlin Street, Houston, Texas 77005; (Scattone) 6236 Overbrook Lane, Houston, Texas 77057; kaylinhweber@yahoo.com and leslie.scattone@gmail.com.

Peter Paul Rubens (1577–1640) cast a long shadow on art and culture not just in the seventeenth century, but throughout the eighteenth century to the present day. Through hundreds of paintings as well as thousands of reproductive prints, the work of Rubens had a major impact on artists, patrons, collectors and writers. In the eighteenth century, the dynamic art market brought even greater access to his work both in Europe and her colonies. While many artists looked to Rubens for artistic inspiration, some also saw him as a model of an artist who attained the status of a gentleman, collector, diplomat, and court painter. His legacy, which has been the subject of a recent major exhibition, is a vast topic that deserves greater investigation. Through this seminar we hope to expand the scope of the current discourse to include not only European art, but also colonial art, as well as Rubens’s influence in terms of art criticism, literature, and fashion.

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

Satirical Images: Between Sociability, Animosity, and Entertainment
Kathryn Desplanque and Jessica Fripp, (Desplanque) AAHVS, Duke University, PO Box 90766, Duham, NC 27708; (Fripp) TCU School of Art, PO Box 298000, Ft Worth, TX, 76129; kathryn.desplanque@duke.edu and j.fripp@tcu.edu.

The use of graphic satire proliferated in the eighteenth century, from the caricature and portrait charges of the Grand Tour (Pier Leoni Ghezzi, Thomas Patch, François-André Vincent), to political caricature on the continent and in England, to the verbal-visual puns of broadside imagery and street cries series, to the complex allegories that criticized and supported the French Revolution. These different genres of graphic satire are difficult to reconcile because they vary widely in tone: some are oppositional, others are sociable, and others still seemed destined primarily for entertainment. Scholarship on eighteenth-century graphic satire has privileged oppositional and political imagery, neglecting the prolific sociable, amusing, and cultural caricatures whose imagery and tone are often more challenging to decode. Recent scholarship, such as The Efflorescence of Caricature (2010), The Saint-Aubin ‘Livre de caricatures’ (2012), L’Art de la caricature (2014), and Ann Bermingham’s 2015 Clifford Lecture, “Coffee-House Characters and British Visual Humor at the End of the Eighteenth Century,” has begun to bridge persistent gaps in the study of graphic satire, putting into conversation formerly disparate genres of satirical imagery. This panel seeks papers that nuance, overturn, or refine the categories applied to graphic satire—oppositional versus entertaining; political versus cultural; sociable versus slanderous. Possible topics might include, but are not limited to: satire (especially political satire) in the light of sociability; how the circulation of these images through commercial or social exchange relates to their format, including tone or medium; and how satire informs our understanding of relationships between individuals and groups, such as friendship, enmity, rivalry, or comradery.

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

Home Entertainment: Artistic Production and Domestic Life
Linda Zionkowski and Miriam Hart, Department of English, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701; zionkows@ohio.edu and hartmim@aol.com.

Writing in the mid-nineteenth century, Anna Lefroy recalled the home of her aunt, Jane Austen, as a haven for “the flow of native homebred wit,” where “all the fun & nonsense of a clever family” found expression in the art they produced. This session will examine the prevalence of homebred amusements in the long eighteenth century, particularly those involving music, drama, and literature. Journals, diaries, and literary texts from this period repeatedly describe the importance of home as a place for artistic creation, experimentation, and enjoyment, particularly for women like Austen but also for men like Alexander Pope; they also portray home entertainment as the occasion for dissipation and transgressive conduct—behavior that is all the more disruptive when it occurs in the midst of family life. Panelists might consider the way in which playing, singing, acting, or writing at home challenges concepts of gender roles and domesticity; enables individuals to fashion an identity as actors, writers, and musicians; and confuses the categorization of private and public venues for artistic production.

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

Picturing the News
Leslie Ritchie, Department of English Language and Literature, John Watson Hall 4th Floor, 49 Bader Lane, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L3N6; ritchiel@queensu.ca.

Unlike their image-laden modern counterparts, eighteenth-century newspapers present their readers with a wall of words. Within their tight columns of text, however, eighteenth-century newspapers allude to, advertise, or represent the pictorial in myriad ways. This panel will consider the role played by the pictorial in news media. Topics may include: advertisements for particular artists or prints; allusions to visual arts topoi or particular art works within the news; reviews that rely upon the visual; broadsides, pamphlets and prints that comment on news items using visual means; the typography and formatting of news.

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

Worrying about Money in France: The Art and Literature of Financial Crisis Kate Jensen, Dept. of French, Studies 416 Hodges Hall, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803-5309; kjensen@lsu.edu.

The 2015 ASECS Annual Meeting included at least six ‘economic’ panels that covered topics including the triangular trade, double-entry bookkeeping, and works of political economy by Smith and Montesquieu. Some scholars connected political economy to novels by authors such as Burney and Austen, or sought to understand the norms dictating the literary market and how it was gendered. A round-table focused on the surprise best-seller of 2014, Piketty’s Capitalism in the 21st Century. But the question of method remains somewhat elusive. Can media such as art and literature predict, prejudice or otherwise affect the course of financial history? Or do they play a more passive role, as a mirror of mentalities? Whereas Piketty studies the realism of Balzac to enable readers to identify the wealth needed to frequent the elite of the 1820s, and to understand the fears of bankruptcy felt by the have-nots, this panel would like to explore other methods of analyzing literature’s role in moments of economic turbulence. Before declaring on fiction’s use-value to realistically portray money worries, we need to explore where those worries came from, who generated them, and what forms they later took. This session seeks to prompt scholars to make interdisciplinary connections between art, literature and economic history, to see if and to what extent these media may be seen as active participants in fanning the flames of financial worry in eighteenth-century France, especially in reaction to the financial crisis of 1719–21 (the Law System) and the build- up to the French Revolution.

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

Realism and ‘Real Life’: New Approaches to Material Culture and Literature
Karen Lipsedge and Julie Park, (Lipsedge) English Literature Department, Kingston University, Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey, England; (Park) English Department, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, NY 12604-0744; K. Lipsedge@Kingston.ac.uk and jupark@vassar.edu.

One of the major innovations attributed to the eighteenth-century novel was its development of realism as a literary mode and representational system. So realistic was the narrative art of fiction during this period, the worlds depicted in it were recognizable as the readers’ own. Scholars from Ian Watt and Naomi Schor to Cynthia Wall have explored the critical role physical details play in producing narrative realism. What might happen if we were to focus not only on eighteenth-century material culture as it appears in literature as description or plot device, but on the referents themselves? How might research—including embodied research in physical environments—in the material worlds of eighteenth-century life complicate our understandings of realism’s realism? How might information about the way carriages, pockets, toothpick cases, personal letters, bowling greens, scissors, etc., were designed and used in their eighteenth-century contexts transform our understanding of their significance when they emerge in literature as setting, prop or detail? We invite papers exploring eighteenth-century literature of all genres and material culture research of all fields, from theater design, costume history, landscape and garden design to print and manuscript studies.

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

Tableaux Vivants: Life and/as Art in the Eighteenth Century
Noémie Etienne, Getty Research Institute; and Meredith Martin, New York University, Department of Art History, New York University, 303 Silver Center, 100 Washington Square E, New York, NY, 10003; msm240@nyu.edu.

During the eighteenth century, a whole series of artistic productions aimed to simulate motion and life, at the same time that individuals became ever more preoccupied with performing or embodying static works of art. This session aims to explore such hybrid creations and the boundaries they challenged between animate and inanimate form, art and technology, the living and the dead. Papers may focus on specific objects, such as the automata created by the clockmaker Pierre-Jacques Droz that imitated human acts of writing or harpsichord playing; hyperrealistic wax figures, sometimes displayed in groups or dioramas, that were used for entertainment as well as pedagogical and medical purposes; and ‘tableaux mécaniques’, mixed-media paintings with motors on the back that enabled the figures represented to move across their surfaces. Other possible topics include the staging of collaborative tableaux vivants in eighteenth-century theaters, gardens, and salons; and related attempts to resurrect or animate ancient artifacts, as in Emma Hamilton’s ‘living statue’ performances. Papers that consider the eighteenth-century specificity of such artistic productions, introduce new methodological perspectives, or discuss relevant examples from outside of Europe are especially encouraged.

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

Eighteenth-Century Freemasonry and the Arts
Rebecca Dowd Geoffroy-Schwinden, Music History, College of Music, Division of Music History, Theory, and Ethnomusicology, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle, Denton, TX 76203-5017; rebeccageoffroy@gmail.com.

Freemasonry represented a new social and cultural institution during the eighteenth century. The ideologies of Freemasonry opened new frontiers to the application of Enlightenment philosophy to lived experience, to the creation of new spaces of socialization, and to the integration of new forms of spirituality with Newtonianism and sensationism. The practices and ideologies of Freemasonry called for humans to rethink their relationships: with themselves and their peers, with authority figures, and toward the natural and supernatural realms. Artists across the visual, performing, and literary arts came to occupy a crucial role in the development, expansion, and sociality of Masonic lodges. This panel seeks to explore the significance of the relationship that Freemasonry, from its rituals to its social structure to its values, shared with the arts. Recent scholarship has begun to reveal the rapport between Freemasonry and the visual, performing, and literary arts. This panel aims to bring scholars of the arts into conversation to pursue a holistic theoretical and methodological framework through which to understand the mutual influence of Freemasonry and the arts during the eighteenth century.

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

‘The Delight of the Eye’: Eighteenth-Century Painting and/as Decoration
Yuriko Jackall, National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C. and Katherine Brion, Kalamazoo College, Jackall: Department of French Paintings, National Gallery of Art, 2000B South Club Drive, Landover, MD 20785; Y-jackall@nga.gov and kbrion@kzoo.edu.

In 1747, the critic Étienne La Font de Saint-Yenne lamented that painting of the French school had been divested of its rightful purpose: bringing great deeds of the past to splendid visual life. For his contemporaries, La Font argued, painting had become nothing more than another form of vanity or ornamentation, a “delight of the eye” equated with surface treatments such as mirrors, gilding, paneling, and plasterwork. In the context of this lament, he drew a sharp distinction between history painting (broadly defined as narrative representation with moral and didactic intent) and painting as decoration (associated with pleasure and flattery). Apart from some temporary upsets, this distinction held sway over painting and its reception through the nineteenth century and into the twentieth.

The goal of this session is to explore the relationship between painting and decoration in the practice and reception of eighteenth-century art—a relationship that begs to be reexamined, particularly in the light of increasing scholarly interest in later ‘decorative’ impulses. In what contexts was the category of decoration meaningful, and how was it defined? To what extent were site-specificity, the constitution of ensembles, the formal qualities of paintings themselves, and/or other concerns determining factors in the role of painting as decoration? Was ‘decorative’ painting aligned with, or distinguished from, other ‘decorative’ practices and media? Finally, do the answers to these questions dispute, nuance or confirm La Font’s opposition of decoration and edifying representation? Case studies in a variety of fields ranging from architecture to the decorative arts are welcome, as are papers examining the subsequent historical impact of eighteenth-century models of painting and/as decoration.

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

Istanbul: Beyond Tulips and Turqueries
Jonathan Haddad; jhaddad@berkeley.edu.

How should we situate Istanbul in Eighteenth Century Studies? Traditionally, scholarship has pivoted on the Tulip period (1703–30) as a moment of unprecedented adoption by the Ottoman state and society of European influences in the arts and technology, extending to advances in military tactics and the advent of print. However, recent revisions of studies in Orientalism have brought to bear evidence of more complex cultural flows that blur the frontiers between Europe and the Ottoman Empire. In a similar vein, situating Istanbul within the field of Mediterranean Studies has been fruitful in revealing the work done in facilitating these cultural flows by transcultural intermediaries, such as dragomans, renegades, and Armenian merchants. However, narratives of mobility reconstitute a European relationship with the Islamicate Orient at the risk of deemphasizing the internal dynamics of the Ottoman state and society as factors of artistic production.

This panel, then, seeks to reconcile these disparate approaches to the Ottoman Empire in the eighteenth century through contributions that explore how Ottoman and other identities (Persianate, European, Islamic, provincial, urban, transcultural, etc.) were articulated through poetry, performance, court ceremonials, the visual arts, ekphrasis, and/or artistic patronage in eighteenth-century Istanbul. Please send abstracts of 200–350 words.

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

Violence and Death in Eighteenth-Century Visual Culture
Amy Freund, Department of Art History, Southern Methodist University, P.O. Box 750356 Dallas, Texas 75275- 0356; afreund@smu.edu.

Chardin’s eviscerated ray, William Blake’s tortured slaves, Copley’s Watson eternally escaping his shark, Goya’s terrifying Disasters of War, David’s deaths of everyone from Hector to Marat: violence and death haunt eighteenth-century visual culture. This panel will explore the depiction of violence and death in eighteenth-century art, with the aim of mapping an alternative history of the visual arts and revising our understanding of aesthetic categories such as the Rococo and Neoclassicism. Topics might include: representations of sick, injured, aging or dying bodies, both human and animal; violent practices (hunting, executions, warfare); the impact of eighteenth- century colonial violence and global war on artistic production; memorialization of the dead (including saints and ancient or contemporary heroes); examinations of objects of violence (arms, armor, the guillotine), domestic or sexual violence; and violence against inanimate things (iconoclasm, the demolition of buildings, attacks on the state or religion).

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

Portraiture Before 1750
Jennifer Germann, Department of Art History, Ithaca College, 953 Danby Road, Ithaca, NY 14850; jgermann@ithaca.edu.

Over the last decades, the topic of portraiture has generated significant scholarly interest. Much of this attention has been focused on painted portraits in the second half of the eighteenth century. This panel proposes to turn attention to the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century. What are the major trends or themes emerging in the practice of portraiture at this time? What about sculpted portraits or those incorporated into the decorative arts (such as in tapestries)? How are artists working internationally, within and beyond Europe? What cross-cultural exchanges are emerging with the expansion of colonial networks? Papers are welcomed from diverse cultural traditions around the globe engaging both the analysis of cross-cultural exchange in terms of the approaches to and forms of portraiture as well as facilitating the cross-cultural comparison of portrait traditions.

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

Illustration, Visual Interpretation, and the Eighteenth-Century Book Market
Kwinten Van De Walle, Department of Literary Studies (English Studies), Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium; kwinten.vandewalle@ugent.be.

In the last two decades, scholars such as Peter Wagner and W.B. Gerard have abandoned the notion that illustrations are secondary to the typographic text proper in favour of a more balanced, and often interdisciplinary, approach which considers book illustration as an important and integral facet of print culture and the book market. Illustrations not only allowed publishers to generate appeal and to distinguish their products from their competitors’, it also had an impact on a reader’s approach to and interpretation of the text. A major intervention in the field is Sandro Jung’s recent book, James Thomson’s The Seasons, Print Culture, and Visual Interpretation, 1730–1842, which is a compelling study of the ways in which book illustration can significantly affect the cultural reception and reputation of texts. This panel wishes to acknowledge the value of book illustration studies and its potential to contribute to and even revise existing scholarly accounts of eighteenth-century literature. Open to presentations on a broad range of illustrations, from up-market productions (such as furniture prints) intended for an elite audience to cheaply manufactured ornaments in widely disseminated print forms (such as ballad-sheets and chapbooks), this panel invites 300-word paper proposals, aiming to consider the visual (re)interpretation of texts as well as the role of illustrations within the broader context of the eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century book market in general.

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

Fashion, Beauty, and Social Mores in Eighteenth-Century Europe
Catherine Sama, University of Rhode Island, Department of Modern and Classical Literatures, 60 Upper College Rd., Kingston, RI 02881; csama@uri.edu.

This panel invites papers from a variety of disciplines addressing the intersections among fashion, beauty, and social mores in eighteenth-century Europe. Papers might address (but are not limited to) the following topics:
• Fashion periodicals as proscriptive and/or descriptive texts of gendered norms
• Fashion, beauty, and the construction of literary, domestic, social, and national spaces
• Translations and adaptations of fashion periodicals across Europe
• Women, genre (textual, visual) and space/place in fashion periodicals and trends
• Notions of performance, gender, class in fashion periodicals and trends

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

Artists’ Artists in the Long Eighteenth Century
Ryan Whyte, Faculty of Liberal Arts & Sciences, OCAD University, 100 McCaul Street, Toronto, ON, Canada, M5T 1W1; rwhyte@faculty.ocadu.ca.

In the long eighteenth century, artists commissioned, collected, and published criticism of the work of fellow living artists. Superficially, artists’ patronage and criticism of other artists appears consistent with the activities of the larger world of art, yet in fact it represents a parallel world of artistic engagement that was, and remains, at least partially inaccessible and incompletely understood beyond professional artistic circles. This session aims to shed light on artists’ taste for one another’s work in a period when the emergence of art criticism and periodic public exhibitions of contemporary art created tensions between the increasingly public nature of artists’ careers, and the exclusive, technical nature of studio practice and language.

What did it mean when an artist—rather than a critic or a patron—favored the work of a fellow living artist? Who were considered ‘artists’ artists’, as reflected, for example, in artists’ collections of one another’s work, and why? To what extent was the notion of an ‘artist’s artist’ even understood beyond the confines of the studio? When artists commissioned, collected, and published criticism of the work of fellow living artists, how and why did their patronage and criticism depart from state and private initiatives? How did homages and rivalries manifest in artists’ portraits of fellow living artists, so prevalent and sophisticated in this period? This session welcomes new approaches to these problems, including interdisciplinary and methodologically innovative papers.

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

Re-Framing the Picturesque
William C Snyder, Department of English, Saint Vincent College Latrobe PA 15650; william.snyder@email.stvincent.edu.

My intent is to pick the brain of ASECS members to uncover the latest scholarship addressing the Picturesque, the late eighteenth century movement that involved landscape, prospects, natural process and the relation of these to multiple arts, especially painting, poetry, and gardening. Digital Humanities and other recovery tools have provided new texts and evidence of material culture that suggest that the Picturesque in its time was (1) not bounded on one end by the touring of the 1770s and on the other by Romanticism in the 1790s; (2) subject to competing aesthetic criteria as articulated by various theorists and practitioners; (3) part of, and not simply precedent to, theory and creative work of several Romantic writers and painters well into the 1800s. I have drafted this CFP: The ‘mode’ or ‘school’ of the Picturesque is generally fixed in the last quarter of the eighteenth century, but recent research questions the period boundaries of the Picturesque as well as its theoretical underpinnings. Papers are invited to re-assess the phenomenon of the Picturesque, focusing on the connections between its visual art and verbal art, its theory, its tools and practices, its implications involving class and gender, or its influence on some Romantic writers and painters. Send 300-word proposals.

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

Framing the Eighteenth Century: Borders and Peripheries in Visual Culture
Daniella Berman and Blythe C. Sobol, Institute of Fine Arts, 1 East 78th Street, New York, NY 10128, daniella.berman@nyu.edu and bcs265@nyu.edu.

In its entry on bordure, the 1792 Dictionnaire des arts de peinture, scupture, et gravure considers the dynamic between painting and frame, between border and center: “Cependant, d’après les loix d’un gout éloigné de trop de sévérité, la bordure d’un tableau, ainsi que la parure d’une femme, ne doit point fixer les yeux, en les détournant trop de l’objet qu’elle embellit; mais l’une & l’autre doivent faire valoir les beautés dont elles sont l’ornement.”

Watelet and Levesque underscore the distinct remit of the central work of art and its border, in terms of iconographic program and decorative function. How do framing devices augment our understanding of the artworks they surround? How do borders and margins function in visual culture? How intentional is the association between picture plane and the embellishments on the fringe? How vital is the periphery to the center—artistically, and spatially? This panel will explore the complex and sometimes fraught relationship between the artwork and its frame, between the ornament and the ornamented, between the periphery and the center in visual culture of the long eighteenth century. We welcome a variety of interpretations of the subject of borders and peripheries in the visual arts. Topics might include, but are not limited to, the role of borders in landscape architecture or manuscript illumination; relationships between (literal) framing, display, and status; re-woven tapestry borders; considerations of luxury and superfluity in artistic discourses; and examinations of the role of Paris versus the provinces in artistic production.

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

Representing the Fragment in the Eighteenth Century
Olaf Recktenwald, McGill University, School of Architecture, 815 Sherbrooke St. W., Montréal, QC H3A 0C2, Canada; olaf.recktenwald@mail.mcgill.ca.

Whether it be in discussions of architecture, art, music, philosophy, literature, or theatre, the fragment rose to a new level of significance in the eighteenth century. An obsession with torsos, ruins, fragments themselves, and unfinished conditions could be linked to an understanding of nature that found its fulfilment in future growth. In the case of the built artificial ruin, the confidence that architecture could provide humans with true places of dwelling was lost, thus necessitating a desire to return to nature’s garden. Pittsburgh collections such as the Carnegie Museum of Art’s Hall of Sculpture and Hall of Architecture attest to this cultural preoccupation. This panel readily welcomes interdisciplinary readings of the fragment and ones that address either international or local topics.

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

Rethinking the Academic Conference (Women’s Caucus Professional Panel)
Emily C. Friedman, Auburn University, 9030 Haley Center, Auburn, AL 36849, ecfriedman@auburn.edu.

Even as travel budgets shrink (when they exist at all), conferences still play an important part in the life of the profession, and maximizing one’s time at a conference seems all the more vital. It is possible to spend 21+ hours (almost 8 hours a day) seated in a chair listening to papers. In response, “innovative formats” such as roundtables, lunches, pre-conference events, and other session forms (in addition to ‘playing hooky’ altogether) have begun to proliferate as alternatives to the traditional 15-minute-paper format.

In light of this, this session asks: what kinds of knowledge-production and collaboration do our current formats support? How can we (and should we) alter formatting, programming, and scheduling to better foster our organizational, individual, and scholarly goals? Can we steal good ideas from sister organizations or learn from their mistakes?

The 2016 Women’s Caucus Professional Session will thus take the form of Pecha-Kucha style presentations (http://www.pechakucha.org) with an extended workshop period. We seek presenters who can bring examples of productive alternative format sessions from other academic organizations, their own institutions, or dream formats that have not yet been attempted, to inspire a lively and productive discussion among all session attendees. The session will end with a working document of potential session formats, with the advantages and challenges of each form as they apply to ASECS.

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

Intersections of Digital and Public Humanities: New Media and New Audiences for Eighteenth-Century Studies (Roundtable)
Jessica Richard, Wake Forest University, 1834 Wake Forest Road Winston-Salem, NC 27109; richarja@wfu.edu.

This roundtable will explore the challenges and benefits of studying the eighteenth century in public, using the digital environment and reaching new audiences. Participants with public-oriented digital humanities projects (small- or large-scale, nascent or established) will address some of the following questions: What does it mean to take our scholarly work online? What is gained and/or lost when addressing a public or blended public/student/scholarly audience? How do you elicit scholarly contributors? How do you engage readers in the online environment? What opportunities does the digital environment offer? Roundtable participants might be bloggers, editors, designers, contributors, or users of online journals or other digital projects, or scholars of the digital humanities.

◊  ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊

Note (added 14 August 2015) — The original posting failed to included the roundtable session on Intersections of Digital and Public Humanities.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: