Enfilade

From ArtHist.net:

New Horizons in American Art History

Philadelphia, 15–16 April 2027

Proposals due by 15 December 2026

The field of American art history was only just emerging in 1976. The Bicentennial generated a series of ambitious and influential exhibitions, including Philadelphia: Three Centuries of American Art (Philadelphia Museum of Art), Two Centuries of Black American Art (Los Angeles County Museum of Art), Selections of Nineteenth-Century Afro-American Art (The Metropolitan Museum of Art), American Art 1750–1800: Towards Independence (Yale University Art Gallery), and America as Art (National Collection of Fine Arts, now the Smithsonian American Art Museum). These shows and others asserted the vitality of American art, which, as one contemporary New York Times critic remarked, had previously been “widely condescended to in high places and often relegated to the storeroom.”

Fifty years on, American art’s position in the canon is secure but the shape and terrain of the field as defined by those exhibitions has shifted. Questions about the meaning of ‘America’ have only become more complex and urgent despite promises, at the Bicentennial, of a freer, more open, and more just future. What, then, is the state of American art history at the 250th anniversary of the nation’s founding, and what might the next fifty years bring? How have the exhibitions and publications inspired by the Semiquincentennial—including A Nation of Artists at the Philadelphia Museum of Art and the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts—shaped our understanding of creativity in the United States? More broadly, how have methodologies or critical frameworks that have gained strength in recent decades—among them, materiality, ecocriticism, critical race theory, dialogues about ‘self-taught’ and ‘folk’ artists, the field’s hemispheric turn, post- and decolonial discourses, and Indigenous Studies—changed what it means to be an Americanist? What conversations are we having now, and which are still needed?

Toward that future, the Philadelphia Museum of Art, in collaboration with the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, will convene a symposium for emerging scholars working on art—defined as all visual and material culture—of the Americas across every period and medium. Proposed papers should reflect on the current moment in scholarship, highlight new modes of inquiry, and/or propose creative approaches to teaching, interpreting, or exhibiting American art of all types. Interventions that are interdisciplinary in nature and/or that push the traditional boundaries of ‘American art’ are encouraged.

Submission Guidelines
• Current graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, and scholars in the early stages of their careers (within 5–7 years of receiving their terminal degree) should submit abstracts of ca. 300 words as well as a brief curriculum vitae by 15 December 2026 to academicengagement@philamuseum.org.
• Proposals will be evaluated by a committee made up of staff from the Philadelphia Museum of Art and the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts. Papers that are selected for the symposium will be grouped into panels to be moderated by mid-career and senior scholars in American art history. Presentations will have a maximum duration of 20 minutes.
• Applicants will be notified of the outcome of the selection process by mid-January 2027. Participants should plan to attend both days of the symposium and will have their travel and lodging expenses reimbursed.

From ArtHist.net:

Capturing Iridescence in Early Modern Europe, 16th–19th Century

Sorbonne University, Paris, 15–17 September 2027

Proposals due by 5 October 2026

‘Iridescence’ a term evoking Iris, the goddess of the rainbow, was first coined in most European languages in the early 19th century. Its first recorded instances in print point to the English language, via the work of mineralogists and geologists. That the word should have first appeared in the natural sciences comes as no surprise, given that nature has retained a “monopoly on this metallic-like, colored effect” (Parker 2016, 58) until the 21st century, when nanoscience allowed the advent of iridescence-inducing technologies such as pearlescent flakes (Schenk et al. 2013). Our conference will look into the work of artists, scientists & authors as they experimented with iridescence before it was even understood or named.

Since iridescence represented a major mimetic challenge, namely the reproduction of something that could not be explained any more than it could be named, artists and authors had to innovate in order to reproduce its appearance and effects. This methodological premise ties in with the field of ‘bioinspiration’: this emerging domain, defined by the Biomimetics Committee of the International Organization for Standardization in 2015 as “a creative approach based on the observation of biological systems,” has up to now been mostly concerned with industrial or architectural developments (Raskin & Molina 2018; Camborde 2018; Pawlyn 2019; Boeuf 2022; Chayaamoor-Heil 2023; Fernandes 2024). Breaking away from such dominant perspective, we want to show how poetic, dramatic, literary and visual designs were never intended as “mere copies of living nature” but work instead to “extract a principle (or principles) from nature, seek to understand that principle, and incorporate the principle into a new medium, design, or other applications” (Bhushan 2024; 23).

One of the leading premises behind the IRIS project is that the history of the description of iridescence between the 16th and 19th century cannot be disconnected from a global history of international negotiations. Trade, travel, and exchange were nothing new in the 16th century; yet “the trade in goods across distances moved a significant step towards becoming truly globe-encompassing [f]rom the late sixteenth century onwards (Gerritsen & Riello 2021, 4). Following those same routes, plants, animals, men and women, pictures and books circulated in hitherto unheard-of numbers”. In addition to increasing the number of iridescent specimens which were brought to the attention of the European audience, the discovery of new forms of natural iridescence, which oftentimes could not be shown first hand, led to the development of a booming visual and textual culture of reportage through which artists and authors tried to render these new natural wonders. Although these circulations nurtured scientific and artistic exchange and contributed to the development of novel mimetic techniques, they also exposed complex dynamics of appropriation and exploitation that pervade this history.

Confirmed keynote speakers: Brendan McMahon (University of Michigan) and Franziska Schenk (artist and researcher, Birmingham City University)

Please submit your abstract (250 to 300 words) for a 25-minute paper and a short biography to IRIS_Sorbonne@proton.me by 5 October 2026. Speakers will be notified of acceptance in November.

Papers may address, but are certainly not limited to, the following topics:

1) Techniques of iridescence

Appropriation: techniques of ‘appropriation’ include attempts at rendering iridescence by collecting the material straight from the animal/mineral/vegetal (Mandrij & Simonini 2023). The term ‘capture’, which features in the title of our project, condenses the ambivalence of such techniques, by underlining their potentially predatory and unethical aspect.

Innovation: the rendition of iridescence which so occupied scientists and artists alike also led to technical (visual) and generic innovations (visual & textual), as well as innovative taxonomy or translations. How have naming & describing iridescence before it was named impacted its interpretation?

2) Functions of iridescence

Much in the way iridescence serves functional purposes in the natural world (such as camouflaging or signalling), we would like to investigate the functions, metaphors or symbols attached to of iridescence over the periods and areas covered by our project:
Production of knowledge: how did artists, authors and scientists contribute to the apprehension of iridescence? This includes the official employment of artists by scientists (Kusukawa 2019) as well as the circulation of concepts and tropes between literature (including technical) and science, or across genres and linguistic areas.

Historicising physical phenomena: this will include a study of the changing function of iridescence depending on a “period eye” (Eaton 2016, McMahon 2017). We will here look more closely into the (geo)politics of iridescence as well as into its philosophical and epistemological use in order to historicise the very idea of biomimesis.

3) Meanings of iridescence

How did iridescence affect the mediums through which artists, scientists and writers tried to capture it? As a mimetic challenge in itself, iridescence questions the very limits of representation and pushes artists, scientists and authors to experiment and fail, sometimes.
This section may include discussions of the conservation and obsolescence of iridescence in visual arts (the degradation of materials making it sometimes impossible to sustain iridescence).

It may also deal with the power and effects of iridescence in the arts (drama, poetry, visual arts) as well as iridescence’s loss of poetic and dramatic efficacy over time: how can we reactivate and not miss the puissance and polysemy of iridescence from our own historical position which now sees it as mostly “innocuous” or hackneyed? (McMahon 2017, 3). How and why did poets and playwrights strive to recreate the effect of iridescence upon their readers/viewers, and what does it teach us about the history of the “material perception” (Nordén et al., 2023; Fleming, 2017) of structural colours?

In addition, speakers may address the way history of science has experimented with and described iridescence over the centuries. They may also inquire into the way iridescence affects human engagement with the natural world. Papers may here explore issues related to early forms of ecological sensitivity and sense of “biomimethics” (Delannoy 2021) and how they transpire through the capture of iridescent subjects by artists and writers.

We welcome applications from a broad range of scholars and museum professionals at all career stages. There will be no registration fee to participate in this in-person conference, and a subsidy to support at least part of travel and accommodation expenses for speakers. A selection of the papers presented will be published both as scholarly articles and as contributions to the online exhibition accompanying the project.

The IRIS project is funded through Sorbonne Université’s Émergence programme, and gathers scholars and museum professionals. Its members (and organising committee of the conference) are:

Vanessa Alayrac-Fielding (Université Paris Cité)
Olivia Dill (Baltimore Museum of Art)
Anne-Valérie Dulac (Project leader, Sorbonne Université)
Arnaud Dubois (CNRS – Musée de l’Homme)
Bérénice Gaillemin (University of Warsaw, ERC TEOTL)
Sophie Rhodes ( Victoria and Albert Museum, London)
Charlotte Ribeyrol (Sorbonne Université)
Cecilia Ronnerstam (Nationalmuseum, Stockholm)
Giulia Simonini (Bibliotheca Hertziana)

s e l e c t i v e  b i b l i o g r a p h y

Jean ARNAUD et al., eds., Biomorphisme: approches sensibles et conceptuelles des formes du vivant (Aix-Marseille: Editions Naïma, 2021).

Frank BAUER, Yoonha Kim, Sabine Marienberg and Wolfgang Schäffner, Toward a New Culture of the Material, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2024.

G. BOEUF, ‘Biomimétisme et Bioinspiration’, Bulletin de l’Académie Nationale de Médecine 206, no. 3 (2022): 365–69, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.banm.2022.01.016.

Bharat BHUSHAN, Introduction to Biomimetics and Bioinspiration: Materials and Surfaces for Green Science and Technology (Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024).

Jean-Philippe CAMBORDE, Biomimétisme. Il y a du génie dans la nature (Versailles, Quae, 2018).

Natasha CHAYAAMOR-HEIL, ‘From Bioinspiration to Biomimicry in Architecture: Opportunities and Challenges’, Encyclopedia, 2023.

Emmanuel DELANNOY, Biomiméthique: répondre à la crise du vivant par le biomimétisme, L’écopoche (Paris: Rue de l’échiquier, 2022).

Natasha EATON, ‘In Search of Pearlescence: Pearls, Empire and Obsolescence in South Asia’, Journal of Material Culture 21, no. 1 (1 March 2016): 29–58.

Li FENG et al., ‘Review of Recent Advancements in the Biomimicry of Structural Colors’, Dyes and Pigments 210 (1 February 2023): 111019.

Rui D. V. FERNANDES et al., ‘Iridescence Mimicking in Fabrics: A Ultraviolet/Visible Spectroscopy Study’, Biomimetics, 2024.

Cédric FINET, ‘Light as Matter: Natural Structural Colour in Art’, Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10, no. 1 (22 June 2023): 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01854-0.

R. W. FLEMING, Material Perception. Annual Review of Vision Science, 3(1), 365–388, 2017.

Anne GERRITSEN and Giorgio RIELLO, eds., Writing Material Culture History, Second edition, Writing History (London, UK: Bloomsbury) 2021.

Stefan HANß and Ulinka RUBLACK, ‘Knowledge Production, Image Networks, and the Material Significance of Feathers in Late Humanist Heidelberg’, Renaissance Quarterly 74, no. 2 (2021): 412–53.

Ayaka KAWAMURA et al., ‘Full-Color Biomimetic Photonic Materials with Iridescent and Non-Iridescent Structural Colors’, Scientific Reports 6, no. 1 (2016): 33984.

Karin KJERNSMO et al., ‘Iridescence as Camouflage’, Current Biology 30, no. 3 (2020): 551–55.

Sachiko KUSUKAWA, ed., ‘Making Visible: The Visual and Graphic Practices of the Early Royal Society’, Perspectives on Science 27, no. 3 (1 June 2019).

Guillaume LECOINTRE et al., ‘Revisiting Nature’s “Unifying Patterns”: A Biological Appraisal’, Biomimetics 8, no. 4 (August 2023): 362.

Samuel LUTERBACHER, ‘Surfaces for Reflection: Nanban Lacquer in the Iberian World’, Journal of Early Modern History 23, no. 2/3 (March 2019): 152–90.

V.E. MANDRIJ and Giulia SIMONINI, Insects and Colors between Art and Natural History (Leiden, Brill, 2024).

Brendan C. MCMAHON, Iridescence and the Image. Material Thinking in the Early Modern Spanish World (Penn State University Press, 2025).

Brendan C. MCMAHON, ‘Contingent Images: Looking Obliquely at Colonial Mexican Featherwork in Early Modern Europe’, The Art Bulletin 103, no. 2 (3 April 2021): 24–49.

Melissa G MEADOWS et al., ‘Iridescence: Views from Many Angles’, Journal of The Royal Society Interface 6, no. suppl_2 (6 April 2009).

Antonio MOLINA, Kalina RASKIN, and Rachel MARLIN, ‘Biomimetics: Nature as a source of innovation’, Le journal de l’école de Paris du management 129, no. 1 (2018): 15–22.

Michael PAWLYN, Biomimicry in Architecture, 2nd ed. (London: RIBA Publishing, 2019).

Sébastien R. MOUCHET and Olivier DEPARIS, Natural Photonics and Bioinspiration (Norwood: Artech House, 2021).

Abdelilah NAIT BIHI et al., ‘Investigation of the Origin of Structural Colors in Calliphoridae Flies for Bioinspiration’, Physica Scripta, 2024.

Klara K. NORDÉN et al., ‘On Metallic Luster and Iridescence in Animal Coloration’ (bioRxiv, 17 October 2023).

Konstantina PAPACHRISTOPOULOU and N. VAINOS, ‘Bioarchitectonic Nanophotonics by Replication and Systolic Miniaturization of Natural Forms’, Biomimetics, 2024.

Andrew PARKER and Franziska SCHENK and, ‘Iridescent Color: From Nature to the Painter’s Palette’, Leonardo 44, no. 2 (2011): 108–15.

Andrew PARKER, Seven Deadly Colours: The Genius of Nature’s Palette (London: Natural History Museum, 2016).

Franziska SCHENK et al., ‘The Japanese Jewel Beetle: A Painter’s Challenge.’, Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, 2013.

Franziska SCHENK, “Biomimetics, color, and the arts,” Proc. SPIE 9429, Bioinspiration, Biomimetics, and Bioreplication, 2015.

Katsuhiko SHIMIZU, ‘Genetic Engineered Color Silk: Fabrication of a Photonics Material through a Bioassisted Technology.’, Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, 2018.

Susan STEWART, Poetry’s Nature: Four Lectures, Clarendon Lectures in English (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, forthcoming 2025).

Devi STUART-FOX et al., ‘The Paradox of Iridescent Signals’, Trends in Ecology & Evolution 36, no. 3 (2021): 187–95.

Raquel VAZ, Manuela F. FRASCO, and M. Goreti F. SALES, ‘Photonics in Nature and Bioinspired Designs: Sustainable Approaches for a Colourful World’, Nanoscale Advances 2, no. 11 (2020): 5106–29.

Pete VUKUSIC and J. Roy SAMBLES, ‘Photonic Structures in Biology’, Nature 424, no. 6950 (August 2003): 852–55.

George M. WHITESIDES, ‘Bioinspiration: Something for Everyone’, Interface Focus 5, no. 4 (August 2015): 20150031.

From the Call for Papers, which includes the German:

‘Lost in TransNation’: (Trans-)National Figures in the Arts around 1800?

Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Centre for Romanticism Research, 24–26 February 2027

Organized by Johannes Grave, Justus Hierlmeier, and Selina Kusche

Proposals due by 31 October 2026

Eugène Delacroix, Faust and Mephistopheles, shown at the Salon of 1827–28, oil on canvas, 18 × 15 inches (London: Wallace Collection).

The period around 1800 was characterised by the simultaneous coexistence of national and transnational thinking. An understanding of one’s own ‘nation’ in a modern sense began to develop, not least through acts of demarcation that drew upon one’s own history and literature. At the same time figures who became focal points for the formation of national identity could also serve as transnational cultural reference points and be appropriated. While William Shakespeare was celebrated in England as the embodiment of English literature and culture, he was simultaneously appropriated by the German Johann Gottfried Herder as the greatest ‘poet of the Nordic people’. Such national and transnational processes of appropriation of cultural reference figures appear to be characteristic of Romanticism(s).

They are demonstrated not least in the visual arts of the period and the focus was not solely on poets and writers. Alongside Dante Alighieri, William Shakespeare, John Milton, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Lord George Byron, the characters they had invented or adapted also exerted a powerful fascination. Beatrice and Virgil, Macbeth and the witches, Robin Goodfellow, Mephisto, Gretchen and Manfred experienced a remarkable resurgence in the visual arts of Europe during the ‘Sattelzeit’. The subject of Ossian by the Scotsman James Macpherson was also rendered in paintings by the British artist Joseph Mallord William Turner and the Dane Nicolas Abildgaard, as well as by the Frenchman François Gérard and the American John Trumbull. This also applies to archetypal characters such as the figure of the monk, who was of interest to the Englishman Matthew Gregory Lewis (1796) as well as to the Frenchmen Pierre-Paul Prud’hon (1797) and Louis-Édouard Rioult (1831).

It is striking how frequently, in the visual arts, individual actors—even minor characters—were lifted out of their narrative contexts and, as isolated figures, became central subjects of depictions. This decontextualisation was often accompanied by an emphasis on the individuality of the figure in question. In this way, visual representations of figures were able to offer a wide range of points of connection for various forms of appropriation and re-
interpretation. By pushing a figure’s definition within a narrative context into the background, these images invited viewers to devise new definitions, characterisations and narrative frameworks. The figures, which tended to be decontextualised and individualised, served as models for identification.

The workshop ‘Lost in (Trans-)Nation’ will focus on cultural figures of reference and their visual representation during the transitional period between 1750 and 1850. The focus is on both fictional characters (e.g. Mephisto) and fictionalised figures, i.e. figures who are historically documented but whose image has also been shaped by fictional texts (e.g. Macbeth, Faust), including poets and artists (e.g. Dante, Raphael). The workshop aims to trace the translation and mediation of fictional and fictionalised figures in art across Europe around 1800. It explores whether specific forms of visual representation prevalent around 1800 fostered a simultaneity of national and transnational appropriations. How do different interpretations of one and the same figure differ, and how are these differences linked to trends in image types and forms of representation? To answer these questions, we aim for an interdisciplinary approach that seeks to draw on the overlaps between cultural and visual studies with a historical focus.

The workshop is being organised by the research group European Romanticism or Romantics in Europe? On the question of the unity of Romanticism in the visual arts and aesthetics of the early 19th century’ at the Jena Centre for Romantic Studies. The conference language is expected to be English; contributions in German are also welcome.

In addition to guests who have already been confirmed, we would also like to extend a special welcome to early-career researchers. This call for papers is therefore primarily aimed at PhD students or those who have only recently completed their PhD. Please submit a tabular CV of no more than 2 pages, together with an abstract and the title of your presentation, by October 31 to europaeischeromantik@uni-jena.de. The abstract should, if possible, not exceed 300 words. Presentations are limited to a maximum of 25 minutes, to allow sufficient time for questions and discussion.

From ArtHist.net:

Sacred Sound in Transit: Musical Practice,

Spatial Transfer, and Local Adaptation in Early Modern Europe

Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Institute for Art History and Musicology, 17–18 December 2026

Organized by Margherita Antolini, Klaus Pietschmann, and Tobias Weißmann

Proposals due by 15 October 2026

In the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, new forms of sacred music circulated across Europe together with musicians, repertories, instruments and ideas about performance. Changes in musical style and ensemble size affected the spatial disposition of performers and thus the relationship between music, architecture, acoustics and liturgy. In Rome, polychoral performance practices made extensive use of permanent cantorie and coretti as well as temporary palchi, while the increasing importance of pratica concertata introduced changing requirements for the positioning and accommodation of singers and instrumentalists. Yet such developments cannot be understood as the simple diffusion of a single Roman model. Venetian polychorality, Roman concertato practices, and other Italian traditions intersected with local musical, architectural, and confessional cultures north of the Alps.

The interdisciplinary workshop focuses on the transfer and spatial translation of sacred musical practices between Italy and Central Europe. Rather than asking only how repertories circulated, we investigate what happened when particular performance practices entered new architectural, institutional, and liturgical environments. Special attention will be given to the Rhine-Main region and neighbouring ecclesiastical territories, including Mainz, Würzburg, Frankfurt, Cologne/Bonn, and Fulda, which provide particularly promising case studies for different forms of musical and spatial adaptation. These Catholic contexts will be considered in comparison with better-researched Protestant centres such as Wolfenbüttel and Dresden. Guiding questions could be: What exactly was transferred—repertory, scoring practices, ensemble structures, spatial dispositions, acoustic knowledge, or architectural solutions? Who acted as mediators: travelling musicians, court chapels, religious orders, ecclesiastical princes, architects, organ builders, printers, or institutional networks? How can direct transfer be distinguished from mediated adaptation or independent parallel development? To what extent did imported musical practices require temporary stages, galleries, organs, or more permanent architectural interventions? And how can 3D reconstruction and acoustic simulation contribute to reconstructing such ephemeral and often poorly documented performance situations?

The workshop brings together approaches from musicology, architectural and art history, liturgical history, transfer and mobility studies, acoustics, and digital humanities. Its aim is to develop a shared methodology for a comparative history of musical-spatial transfer and to identify promising case studies, sources, and archival holdings for future international cooperation. The workshop is organised by the research project CANTORIA: Music and Sacred Architecture at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz.

Papers of 30 minutes will be accepted in English, German, and Italian. Interested speakers are invited to submit an abstract of their proposed paper (max. 500 words) and a short CV (max. 300 words) by 15 October 2026 to anmeldung-musikwissenschaft@uni-mainz.de. Contributions by junior researchers will receive special attention. Travel and accommodation expenses will be reimbursed.

From the Call for Papers:

Sequitur, Fall 2026 | Ephemera

Submissions due by 28 September 2026

The editors of SEQUITUR, the graduate student journal published by the Department of History of Art & Architecture at Boston University, invite current and recent MA, MFA, and PhD students to submit content on the theme of “Ephemera” for our Fall 2026 issue. This issue invites submissions that consider material ephemera and its temporal connotations. “Ephemera” refers to the short-lived: fragments, traces, and remnants of material culture, survived in physical form or in memory alone. We encourage submissions that deal not only with physical objects, but with artworks, ideas, and texts that memorialize or reference things past.

Ephemera takes many forms, including letters, notes, doodles, waste, newspapers, trinkets, receipts, clothing, digital articles, or other transitory objects. It invites a consideration of fragmentary materials—pieces of ceramics, scraps of fabric or paper, archaeological remnants, among other parts of a whole. Ephemera also refers to short-lived events—pageants, parades, spectacles, and performances, whether unrecorded or reenacted—or it may be commemorative in its intertextuality, allusion, or indexicality.

In 1589, the Medici staged a mock sea battle—a naumachia—at the Palazzo Pitti as one of several events to celebrate the marriage of Christine of Lorraine to Ferdinando de Medici. The event is recorded in text but elaborated in an etching by Orazio Scarabelli, the only visual evidence from that grandiose celebration. While the event was a spectacle, it is preserved through a print, easily distributable and quotidian in comparison to the event. And yet, it is the print that indexes the performance.

Ephemera also relates to the temporal dimensions of memory that an object holds onto. As Andreas Huyssen argues, the past persists in the present like a palimpsest, meaning our access to the past is inevitably mediated by the present, even as traces of the past continue to shape how the present is experienced. Such temporal layering complicates any attempt to encounter an object solely through the historical moment of its production or from the perspective of the present. Ephemera are thus self-referential: their material or immaterial presence points toward what has passed, while the traces they accumulate make visible the distance between then and now. Remembering, in this sense, does not necessarily preserve the past intact. Whether oral, visual, material, digital, or embodied, it can reconstruct, fragment, or reactivate the past, at times pushing against the coherence and authority of official historical narratives.

This issue seeks to collect scholarship spanning antiquity to the present that investigates the traces, scraps, fragments, and mementos of daily life—extant or refuse, partial or whole, indexical or commemorative. Potential subjects may include but are not limited to:

material culture, temporary materials, traditional or non-traditional archival materials, mementos, remnants, ruins, photographs, newspapers, notes, letters, cards, postcards, trinkets, tickets, receipts, stickers, organic matter, fabric, scraps, junk, compostable material, disposable/plastic/single use objects, waste, garbage, unpublished materials, advertisements, flyers, digital ephemera (texts, social media, emails), digital memory, database, preservation, conservation, fragmentary, partial, reconstruction, reenactment, tribute, memory, memorializing, remembering, mnemonic traces, commemorative, personal memory, collective memory, generational memory, legacy, heritage, referentiality, the picturesque, temporality, anachronism, palimpsest, forgetting, amnesia, post-memory

SEQUITUR welcomes submissions from graduate students in the disciplines of art history, architecture, archaeology, fine arts, material culture, visual culture, literary studies, queer and gender studies, disability studies, memory studies, and environmental studies, among others. We encourage submissions that take advantage of the digital format of the journal.

Founded in 2014, SEQUITUR is an online biannual scholarly journal dedicated to addressing events, issues, and ideas in art and architectural history. SEQUITUR, edited by graduate students at Boston University, engages with and expands current conversations in the field by promoting the perspectives of graduate students from around the world. It seeks to contribute to existing scholarship by focusing on valuable but often overlooked parts of art and architectural history. Previous issues of SEQUITUR can be found here.

We invite full submissions in the following categories. Please submit your material in full for consideration in the publication:

Feature essays (1500 words)
Content should present original material that falls within the stipulated word limit (1500 words). Please adhere to the formatting guidelines available here.

Visual and creative essays (250 words, up to 10 works)
We invite M.Arch. or M.F.A. students to showcase a selection of original work in or reproduced in a digital format. We welcome various kinds of creative projects that take advantage of the online format of the journal, such as works that include sound or video. Submissions should consist of a 250-word artist statement and up to 10 works in JPEG, HTML, or MP4 format. All image submissions must be numbered and captioned and should be of good quality and high resolution.

We invite proposals for the following categories. Please write an abstract of no more than 200 words outlining your intended project:

Exhibition reviews (500 words)
We are especially interested in exhibitions currently on display or very recently closed. We typically prioritize reviews of exhibitions in the Massachusetts and New England area.

Book or exhibition catalog reviews (500 words)
We are especially interested in reviews of recently published (1–3 years old) books and catalogs.

Interviews (750 words)
Please include documentation of the interviewee’s affirmation that they will participate in an interview with you. Plan to provide either a full written transcript or a recording of the interview (video or audio).

Research spotlights (750 words)
Short summaries of ongoing research written in a more casual format than a feature essay or formal paper. For research spotlights, we typically, but not universally, prioritize doctoral candidates who plan to use this platform to share ongoing dissertation research or work of a comparable scale.

To submit, please send the following materials to sequitur@bu.edu:
• Your proposal or submission
• A recent CV
• A brief (50-word) bio
• Your contact information in the body of the email: name, institution, program, year in program, and email address
• ‘SEQUITUR Fall 2026’ and the type of submission/proposal as the subject line

All submissions and proposals are due 28 September 2026. Please remember to adhere to the formatting guidelines available here. Text must be in the form of a Word document, and images should be sent as .jpeg files. While we welcome as many images as possible, at least one must be very high resolution and large format. All other creative media should be sent as weblinks, HTML, or MP4 files if submitting video or other multimedia work. Please note that authors are responsible for obtaining all image copyright releases before publication. Authors will be notified of the acceptance of their submission or proposal the week of 16 October 2026, for publication in January 2027. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the SEQUITUR editors at sequitur@bu.edu.

The SEQUITUR Editorial Team
Ada, Emma, Hamin, Hannah, Isaline, and Jenna

From The Furniture History Society:

‘In Pursuit of the Maker’: Shaping Furniture Research

The Furniture History Society Annual Symposium

London, 6 March 2027

Proposals due by 7 September 2026

Side chair (one of a pair) after a design by Thomas Chippendale, ca. 1755–60 (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 64.101.983).

The Furniture History Society Annual Symposium will be held next year on the 6th of March in central London, to mark and celebrate the tenth anniversary of British and Irish Furniture Makers Online (BIFMO). Over the past decade the project created a digitised version of the Dictionary of English Furniture Makers, 1660–1840, which now serves as the foundation of the database. Through research initiatives and generous contributions, BIFMO currently contains the details of nearly 100,000 furniture makers across the British Isles, c.1500–1914, some presenting skeletal details of trade and craft people’s lives, others offering comprehensive and illustrated histories.

The day will be divided into plenary sessions: recounting the origins of Christopher Gilbert’s and Geoffrey Beard’s Dictionary, leading to the establishment of BIFMO; the historiography of British and Irish furniture makers and the structure of the trade they worked within; the influence of trans-Atlantic migration and immigration on the design, style and construction of furniture, their workshop practices and trade networks; and furniture making in Britain and Ireland throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. We hope that papers might demonstrate the use of BIFMO in research.

We invite submissions for papers (15–25 minutes) for topics including, but not limited to
• Documenting British and Irish furniture history, from the early modern to the Edwardian periods.
• Trans-Atlantic migration and immigration
• The relationship between designers and furniture makers, 1660–1900
• Nineteenth-century research and discoveries

Our audience will include members and non-members of the FHS, including academics, curators, conservators, and members of the art market. The proceedings will also be live-streamed. The deadline for submission is Monday, September 7. Please submit an abstract of 250–300 words and a short biography to bifmoeditor@furniturehistorysociety.org.

I’ve highlighted here only a selection of CAA panels related to the eighteenth century; so, please consult the Call for Papers for additional possibilities. –CH

115th Annual Conference of the College Art Association

Hilton Midtown, 3–6 February 2027

Proposals due by 31 August 2026

All at Sea: Art and Open Water in the (Long) Eighteenth Century (ASECS)
Chairs: Elisabeth Rivard (University of Virginia) and Dani Rebecca Ezor (SUNY New Paltz)

This panel takes inspiration from what literary scholar Steve Mentz has termed the ‘blue humanities’, or human engagement with the world’s oceans. The challenge is for scholars to center the seas as a dynamic force rather than a passive surface between land or nation-based borders. Historically, the long eighteenth century was marked by efforts to survive or even control the open oceans. ‘All at sea’ meant leaving the sight of land and entering open water. The vast waterways of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans provoked numerous responses from artists and writers, ranging from wonder, indifference, terror, fascination, and opportunism. These sensibilities linger in the second quarter of the 21st century, as the majority of ocean environments remain unmapped and unexplored.

Here, we turn our attention to human-centric attempts to engage with the open seas and oceans, in any dimension or media in visual culture of the long eighteenth century. Papers are invited to explore real or imagined confrontations with the ‘high seas’ and ‘deep water’, whether close to or far removed from the coasts in either direction. Topics may include but are not limited to movements of people and objects, depictions of oceans, and marine material culture. We encourage submissions that consider or contrast Euro-American-centric perspectives with timelines, knowledge, and practices from global cultures and welcome all papers that broadly address visual and/or material culture in the long eighteenth century.

◊    ◊    ◊    ◊    ◊

Assessing Cause, Assigning Responsibility: Responses to Human and Natural Disaster before 1800
Chairs: Sofia Hernandez (Princeton University) and Ashton Fancy (Princeton University)

From earthquakes to sieges, structural collapse to flooding, disasters—whether natural or human-engineered—reshape the built environment. Recent scholarship in disaster studies has expanded our understanding of how catastrophe was experienced in the pre and early modern worlds. This panel builds on such work to ask how natural and human-made disasters might differently transform architecture and urbanism? Foregrounding the relationship between causation and reconstruction, we ask how the origin of destruction—seismic, environmental, military, or technological—shapes the material and spatial responses that follow. What forms of repair, adaptation, or redesign emerge from these distinctions? Post-disaster interventions are never neutral: they are shaped by material limitations, local knowledge, and competing political priorities, and often encode judgments about responsibility and blame. Natural disasters may be framed as acts of God or environmental inevitabilities, while warfare or infrastructural failure more readily invite attribution and accountability. Such distinctions may leave materially legible traces.

Bringing together cases before 1800, this panel examines how societies have historically responded to—and differentiated between—forms of destruction. By foregrounding architecture as a practice shaped by instability and constraint, this session also speaks to the renewed urgency of building amid ongoing environmental risk and uncertainty. We welcome contributions that address: architectural survival or collapse during disasters; comparative approaches to the impact of manmade and natural disasters on material culture; approaches to reconstruction, urban redesign, and their cultural or political significance; disastrous interactions between natural forces and built environments; comparative perspectives across different periods or regions.

◊    ◊    ◊    ◊    ◊

British Art In and Out of Fashion (Historians of British Art)
Chairs: Lindsay Wells (UCLA) and Courtney Tanner Wilder (Vanderbilt University Museum of Art)

British art production, as well as its study within the field of art history, has been subject to sporadic periods of fashionability. At present, British art—or the idea of it, in any case—is having a pop culture moment, from the reimagined Georgian society of Bridgerton to the Pre-Raphaelite aesthetic of Taylor Swift’s The Life of a Showgirl. Yet British art itself has just as frequently fallen out of fashion, both in popular media and academic scholarship. This panel invites papers that propose new ways of engaging with the waxing and waning of British art’s fashionability, broadly conceived. What insights can an emphasis on fashions bring to our current understanding of British art, and what might such a focus obscure? How have fashions across the arts shaped the representation of Britain’s national and imperial identity? What roles have trends, crazes, tastemakers, and revivals played in the production of British art and its critical reception? How have fashions in dress and design historically intersected with those in the fine arts? Why are Britain’s colonial entanglements essential to understanding the fashionability of British art in different contexts? Papers might also examine moments during which British art contributed prominently to the development of art history as a discipline or, alternatively, moments when British art was notably unfashionable in the academy. Other potential subjects include the reception of British art in popular culture, film, and contemporary art. Abstracts for 15-minute papers on these or related topics are warmly welcomed.

◊    ◊    ◊    ◊    ◊

Napoleon’s Suppression of the Venetian Scuole: Their Historic and Artistic Legacy
Chair: Diana Gisolfi (Pratt Institute, Pratt in Venice)

Napoleon’s decree of 1806 suppressed the ‘scuole’ or confraternities of Venice, large and small. Combined guild, charity and devotional society, the scuole were central to the life and economy of the Republic. Their membership comprised virtually all workers. Carpenters, goldsmiths, butchers, shoemakers, silk-weavers, merchants etc, each of over 200 scuole had statutes and a site for devotion. Sites ranged from one altar to a building with boardroom and two large halls. The scuole grandi had formed in the Middle Ages for devotion and had grown in wealth. Scuole members participated in processions on feast days; processional banners depicted patron saints.

Napoleon’s decree disrupted Venetian society. Confraternities’ property, from altarpieces to buildings, was confiscated, movable items sent to Paris or sold on the art market, a few select objects reserved for the new Accademia. Venetian regret for this loss of patrimony engenders ongoing efforts for recovery. Two scuole buildings were exempt and survived with decorations intact: Scuola Grande di San Rocco and Scuola Dalmata. Some others’ sites have been revived, with changed decorations or virtual installations. Some remaining sites of scuole are identified and purloined works traced.

This session invites papers that study Venice’s confraternities, their histories, their patronage, their displaced patrimony, and their roles in the world of Venice. Papers might attempt to identify works from a particular scuola, or study the specific charitable role of a confraternity in relation to surviving descriptions of an iconographic program.

◊    ◊    ◊    ◊    ◊

Painted Statuary and Statue Paintings in the Global Iberian World (Society for Iberian Global Art)
Chairs: Jessica Weiss (Metropolitan State Univ of Denver) and Ilenia Colón Mendoza (Univ of Central Florida)

In the global Iberian world (1400–1800), painted statuary and statue paintings functioned as sophisticated tools of devotion, illusion, and aura transfer. This not only included polychromed three-dimensional objects but also grisaille, trompe l’oeil, and polychrome techniques that were used to represent painted statues in two-dimensional images. From fresco cycles to altarpieces, sculptures were clearly chosen as a communicative device, but to what end? Was it to showcase the skill of the painter or did it convey a deeper meaning? For example, statue paintings that depicted miraculous images of sculptures with great attention to detail could, by extension, become miraculous images themselves. In this case sanctity becomes transferable. This panel seeks to explore this topic further by asking considering the function of painted statuary within the context of ‘traditional’ painting. Were there overlaps in artistic techniques between creating two-dimensional images of sculpture and sculptural polychromy? How are the statues presented with regard to the picture plane? And what does evidence reveal about their use? Was it possible for paintings, which were transported to distant territories, to provide sculptural substitutes? Ultimately, the relationship between sculpture and painting is at the forefront of the discussion of painted statuary as we seek answers to these questions. This panel invites scholarship on painted statuary and statue paintings created in the global Iberian world from 1400 to 1800.

◊    ◊    ◊    ◊    ◊

Proxy Nature: Specimens, Images, and the Mediation of the Nonhuman
Chairs: Benjamin Pollitt (University of Queensland) and Shing-Kwan Chan (Princeton University)

At the heart of this panel is a deceptively simple question: what is the relationship between a specimen and its image, its trace, or its reproduction? As scholars have long noted, specimens—whether fossils, preserved plants, or taxidermy—are not only scientific objects, but forms that invite imaginative reconstruction. They require interpretation and speculation, even as they remain profoundly artificial. In this sense, the notion of the ‘proxy specimen’ may be something of a tautology: the specimen itself is already a proxy, a mediated form that stands in for a once-living organism that can no longer be fully present. If this is the case, then the images and objects that follow the specimen are not secondary or derivative, but part of the same representational process. Drawings, prints, photographs, and cabinets of natural history do not simply mirror nature, they extend, translate, and transform it, shaping how it is understood, classified, circulated, and valued. What might it mean, then, to bring the tools of art history to bear on the specimen itself?

With particular attention to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries—a period of intensified collecting and imperial expansion—the panel situates specimens and their proxies within networks of extraction, circulation, and labour. It considers how these forms shaped aesthetic and epistemic categories such as beauty, vitality, and classification. By repositioning the proxy as fundamental rather than secondary, this panel reframes natural history as a visual and material practice in which life is not simply preserved, but actively reconstituted.

◊    ◊    ◊    ◊    ◊

Shine, Shimmer, and Sheen: Surface Effects and Material Thinking in the Early Modern World (HECAA)
Chairs: Carole Nataf (CASVA, National Gallery of Art) and Cynthia Kok (Los Angeles County Museum of Art)

What did it mean for early modern objects to catch the eye? Art history has long privileged line and color as categories of artistic analysis, yet the visual impact of artworks often depended just as much on surface effects. From the shine of silver and gold and the shimmer of silk and tapestries to the gloss of lacquer, the brilliance of porcelain, and the iridescence of mother-of-pearl—or the opacity of earthenware and wool—reflective effects shaped how art, objects, and people were seen, valued, and understood. These qualities were produced not only through finishing techniques such as polishing or glazing, but also through the manipulation of pigments, dyes, binders, and other materials across media.

How did makers manipulate and conceptualize reflective effects such as shine, shimmer, sheen, translucency, iridescence, or brilliance across media? What cultural or symbolic meanings did these reflective effects impart to objects? How might attending to surface effects reframe canonical art historical narratives? What roles did pigments, dyes, and surface treatments play in producing reflective effects?

We welcome papers addressing the social, gendered, and racial stakes of surface. Shine could signify luxury, splendor, and conspicuous consumption, but it also raises questions of ephemerality, artifice, and race. Materials such as porcelain, lacquer, or silver participated in circuits of global trade, colonial exchange, and racialized values of whiteness and blackness. Panelists are encouraged to reflect upon the politics of surface and visibility. As Krista Thompson has shown, shine can be understood as the art of being socially seen.

Metropolitan Museum Journal 62 (2027)

Submissions due by 15 September 2026

The Metropolitan Museum Journal publishes articles and research notes that contain original research on works of art in The Met’s collection. Works from The Met collection should be central to the discussion. Articles contribute extensive and thoroughly argued scholarship—art historical, technical, and scientific—whereas research notes are narrower in scope, focusing on a specific aspect of new research or presenting a significant finding from technical analysis, for example. The maximum length for articles is 8,000 words (including endnotes) and 10–12 images, and for research notes 4,000 words (including endnotes) and 4–6 images.

The process of peer review is double-anonymous. Manuscripts are reviewed by the Journal Editorial Board, composed of members of the curatorial, conserva­tion, and scientific departments, as well as scholars from the broader academic community.

Articles and research notes in the Journal appear in print and online, and are accessible in JStor on the University of Chicago Press website. The deadline for submissions for Volume 62 (published in December 2027) is 15 September 2026. Submission guidelines are available here.  Please send materials, as well as questions, to journalsubmissions@metmuseum.org.

From the ArtHist.net:

Practices of Drawing in Goethe / Praktiken des Zeichnens bei Goethe

Goethe-Nationalmuseum, Weimar, 10–12 March 2027

Organized by Christoph Orth and Mira Claire Zadrozny

Proposals due by 23 August 2026

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832) bequeathed not only a remarkable literary and scientific oeuvre, but also a comprehensive collection of his own drawings. He drew throughout his entire life—during his upbringing in Frankfurt am Main, his studies in Leipzig, and later in Weimar. Likewise, Goethe was well known to sketch while travelling, whether in the Thuringian Forest or during his Italian journey. More than 2,500 of Goethe’s drawings have been preserved, most of them held in the collections of the museums of the Klassik Stiftung Weimar. Their sheer number alone suggests that drawing was by no means a subsidiary matter for Goethe but rather integral to his intellectual pursuits and conduct.

The practice of drawing permeates his work and interweaves with his other areas of interest. For him, it seems, the act of drawing was a way of comprehending the world. A re-evaluation of Goethe’s graphic oeuvre therefore promises to be highly productive, particularly if, instead of focusing primarily on aesthetic and biographical questions, attention is directed towards the recurring practices associated with the act of drawing. The conference hence proposes a praxeological approach as it has recently been derived from the social sciences to be successfully applied to art history and visual studies. The potential of a practice-oriented approach is particularly evident in conjunction with the aesthetics of production and reception as well as questions of materiality and mediality.

For Goethe’s drawings, three aspects seem particularly relevant. First, the epistemic practice of drawing, which becomes especially apparent when viewed in relation to Goethe’s scientific work in the fields of botany, geology and optics. Secondly, the social practice of drawing, which is not only reflected in sketches found in the margins of letters, but also provided an inherently different way of communication, evident in e.g. the artistic practices of teaching and collaborating that Goethe shared with contemporaries such as Christoph Heinrich Kniep, Carl Wilhelm Lieber or Johann Heinrich Wilhelm Tischbein. And thirdly, the notion of Goethe, the literatus, as a graphic artist who combines writing and visual art, thus developing complex entanglements of image and text.

The conference Practices of Drawing in Johann Wolfgang von Goethe invites participants to explore these key questions in 15– to 20-minute paper presentations that situate an object-oriented approach within the proposed theoretical framework. Speakers are welcome to address the following or other topics:
• Drawing as an epistemological practice of perception and comprehension
• Social interactions in the medium of drawing (letters, portraits, presents)
• Drawing instruction and art theory
• Practices of image production and questions of materiality
• Socio-critical perspectives and drawing as an elitist practice
• The reception of Goethe’s drawings and its constitution through curatorial practices
• Formation and reproduction of an art-historical canon

In addition to the paper presentation, a significant part of the conference will be dedicated to the in-person study of the drawings, providing an opportunity to go beyond questions of form and motif, to observe the drawings’ material conditions, their methods of production, and traces of handling. The conference will be held in German and English. Applications from early-career scholars and curators are especially welcome. Travel and accommodation costs will be covered. A subsequent publication of the conference findings is intended. To apply, please send an abstract (c. 300 words) together with a short biography to graphische.sammlungen@klassik-stiftung.de by 23 August 2026.

The conference is being organised as part of the research project Corpus of Goethe’s Drawings, carried out by the Direktion Museen of the Klassik Stiftung Weimar and funded by the Ernst von Siemens Kunststiftung and the Hermann Reemtsma Stiftung.

From ArtHist.net:

Baroque Portraiture in Silesia and its Neighbouring Lands: New Perspectives

The Ossoliński National Institute, Wrocław, 26–27 November 2026

Organized by Emilia Kłoda and Marek Kwaśny

Proposals due by 31 July 2026

Following the end of the Thirty Years’ War and the signing of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, Silesia, as a land belonging to the Bohemian Crown, became the arena of fundamental political and social transformations. In place of the local Protestant nobility, new cosmopolitan aristocratic families of the Catholic faith emerged, loyal to the imperial authority. The confessional character of the Habsburg state fostered the renewal of religious life and increased the influence of ecclesiastical institutions on politics, culture, and society.

These changes manifested themselves in numerous and magnificent artistic foundations. Noble and episcopal palaces, monasteries, and academies filled with art, with portraiture occupying a particularly prominent place. Alongside images of the ruler and his family—expressions of political loyalty—noble portrait galleries comprised likenesses of contemporary family members and their most illustrious ancestors. Thus created, the ancestor halls were intended as an artistic manifestation of high status, aspirations, and proof of noble lineage. Bishops’ palaces were adorned with portraits of successive church hierarchs, while the representative halls of monasteries were filled with extensive portrait cycles depicting subsequent abbots and abbesses. These often included imaginative representations of semi-legendary early superiors, reaching many centuries back, thereby underscoring institutional continuity and sanctioning the communities’ exceptional social position.

On the other hand, despite a more difficult political and religious situation, numerous portrait commissions also came from the numerically dominant Protestant inhabitants of Silesia: wealthy burghers, councillors, scholars, humanists, and Lutheran clergy, equally eager to emphasise their significance as prosperous and educated representatives of society. It must of course be remembered that the portrait in this period served various functions: from the most fundamental one of „making the absent present,” through representative, ritual, propagandistic, and commemorative roles, to finally serving as a tool of self-creation and manifestation of identity (social, political, and religious).

Thanks to extensive field research conducted in recent years, we know of over 800 surviving Baroque portraits of various types located in Silesian museums, palaces, monasteries, and public institutions. Despite such a rich heritage, many aspects of this artistic activity still await new, interdisciplinary approaches. Suffice it to say that over forty years have passed since the last exhibition on early modern portraiture in Silesia, organized by the National Museum in Wrocław, and since then no comprehensive, overarching study has been dedicated to this subject, leaving it on the margins of other art-historical inquiries.

Therefore, the Institute of Art History of the University of Wrocław and the Ossoliński National Institute invite you to participate in an international academic conference devoted to early modern portraiture in Silesia and its neighbouring lands. The artistic phenomena observable in Silesia were similar in other lands of the Bohemian Crown, while the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had extraordinary patrons of portraiture among its magnates and high-ranking clergy. We invite you to jointly reflect on the place of the portrait in the visual culture of Central Europe, on its functions, meanings, and transformations over the centuries. We are open to new methodological perspectives and various interdisciplinary approaches that take into account the socio-economic conditions of the epoch and region. We welcome not only scholars interested in painted portraiture but also in sculptural, graphic, and drawn portraits.

We encourage the submission of papers addressing, among others, the following topics:
• The portrait and its function: representation of power, propaganda, commemoration, self-creation, the portrait as an object of exchange
• Historicising portraiture and sacred identification portraits
• The portrait and the sitter’s identity: confession, estate, nationality, gender
• Portraitists and their place in the art market: the artistic activity of portrait painters and guild structures with their constraints, secular and ecclesiastical servitorate, artist mobility and earnings
• The portrait and its display: residential ancestor galleries, monastic portrait cycles of abbots and abbesses, collections of portraits of famous figures, scholars and professors, bourgeois interiors, images in public spaces, epitaphs and tombstones
• The portrait in sculpture, numismatics, graphic arts, and decorative arts
• The turbulent fate of portraits: translocations, destruction, thefts, restitution
The thematic scope remains flexible. We will gladly consider proposals that extend beyond the aforementioned areas.

Speaking time: 20 minutes
Conference languages: English
Please send your proposals by 31 July 2026 to marek.kwasny2@uwr.edu.pl.

Submissions should include:
Full name, academic title/degree, affiliation
Paper title
Abstract (max. 200 words)
Short biographical note

Notification of acceptance will be sent by 31 August 2026.

We plan to publish a peer-reviewed post-conference monograph in English with a high-scoring academic publisher.

Conference Fee: 450 PLN / 100 EUR
The fee includes: conference materials, coffee breaks, lunches, and a gala dinner. Please note that the organizers do not cover travel or accommodation expenses. However, we are happy to assist with hotel reservations where possible.

Scientific Committee
Katarína Kolbiarz Chmelinová, PhD., Comenius University Bratislava
Andrzej Kozieł, University of Wrocław, University of Ostrava
Zuzana Macurová, Ph.D., Palacký University Olomouc
Jacek Tylicki, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń

Organising Committee
Emilia Kłoda, The Ossoliński National Institute in Wrocław
Marek Kwaśny, Institute of Art History, University of Wrocław