Theory for Art History: Adapted from Theory for Religious Studies, by William E. Deal and Timothy K. Beal [Paperback]

Reviews are intended to let us know whether to read a book, visit a gallery, or attent a show, among other things. It was my reading of Robert Sommers'Amazon.com review of Emerling's "Theory for Art History' that enticed me to purchase the book. I was not disappointed and in particular would recommend the book's 'Afterword' to any student of contemporary critical writing as its applies to the visual arts. While I remain unconvinced of the merits of many of Emerling's theoreticians (and only time will finally arbitrate on that)they are not to be avoided at present, and Emerling provides concise and sometimes lucid summaries of their various ideas. Perhaps the best an introductory book can hope for is to entice students to turn to the primary literature. With this book beside them, that literature, at least as it applies to art history, will be much more accessible.

This book was a required book for a class and it has been helpful in class and out. It gives a brief biography and a synopsis of the authors that makes the authors text easier to comprehend.

Why more theory and art history books now? (One may ask, as one person did at the Border's I was at.) And, what, or which, (critical and/or art) theory and what, or which, art history, or, to be more precise, which (critical and/or art) theories and which art histories--for there is nothing singular, nothing truly monolithic, about these fields of study, about the fields of critical theory, art theory, and art history and criticism in general and specific. They are, and have been, always-already plural. In what ways does the collecting, the archiving of, "key" theorists, those in or out of vogue, eliminate other theorists--ones who could, and have, vastly re-directed and re-networked the field over the past 200-ish-year-old discipline we have been calling art history? What does Jae Emerling's biography/resource text/unravelings, in other words, what does _Theory for Art History_ give "us" that the shelves of similar texts DO NOT give us, and I do mean "give"--as in the giving of a gift as articulated by Catholic theorist Jean-Luc Marion has articulated--"us"? How does Robert Williams' _Art Theory: An Historical Introduction_ re-configure that way "art theory" is, or was, supposedly scripted and staged? How about the same question for _A Companion to Art Theory_, which is edited by Paul Smith and Carolyn Wilde. What does it mean to "companion" or "accompany" a reader, a undergrad or graduate student, an academic, a professor, or adjunct faculty member in the field of art history? Again, why more theory and art history books now?

An obvious answer to one of my aforementioned questions is that there is no obvious or set answer-no single answer, just as there is no art history, art theory, or critical theory and philosophy; rather, these have always-already been plural. There is always the need for smart and sophisticated texts such as Emerling's in the multifarious field of art history--art histories.

Towards the end of the Twentieth-Century and the beginning/s of the Twenty-first-Century, there has been a veritable explosion of "art history" and "art theory" anthologies and resource texts that range from Eric Fernie's _Art History and Its Methods: A Critical Anthology_ (1995), Donald Preziosi's important _The Art of Art History_ (1998), and Vernon Hyde Minor's _Art History's History_ (1994, 2001) to Jae Emerling's _Theory for Art History_ (2005), his recent and inspired contribution to art history and theory anthologies and resource texts.

Emerling's text is extremely, important, and different-as well as an intervention into the traditionalists' and neoconservatives' celebratory calls, chants, and shouts for the "end of theory" in art history, which (re)surfaced after 9/11 for theory in general and "postmodern" and "poststructuralist" theories in specific, and then they gained momentum after the death of one of the 21st Century's greatest philosophers: Jacques Derrida--as Emerling discusses in his brilliantly written and absolutely inspiring conclusion titled "A Relation of Immanence: The Afterlife of Art History and Critical Theory". Furthermore, this "conclusion" marks this text--as a whole, from beginning to end and back again--as a much-needed one--not to mention a breath of fresh air amid the stench of authoritative, masculinist, and monolithic art history and theory texts, which are more often than not written by the "October Group" and their "offspring." Thus, in this (rather contorted) review, which functions as a compassionate and impassioned critique, I would like to jump around as a "fetishistic" and "hysteric" reader, as Roland Barthes would call it, and which Emerling states "Most readers will not read it from cover to cover" but rather move, jump, skip, and restart their readings of the plethora of philosophers and theorists in _Theory for Art History_ (xiv).

A Step Back ... But a Step Forward

In the "Introduction" Emerling's offers "his" text up as a producer text--some thing to be used and re-used--and in ways most likely not imagined by the author of _Theory for Art History_. In other words, there is no fixed or linear way to go through the text (isn't this true for any text though? Yes, but in this text it is more obvious and encouraged): one may start at Agamben or Spivak. Emerling's approach is truly an instantiation of a performative work(-ing). And, his placement of "Predecessors" (Freud, Marks, Nietzsche, and Saussure) is an invaluable resource to see how later theorists formed their ideas in relation to other, earlier theories and theorists, BUT i do wish Emerling had "Proto-Predecessors" (?) (e.g., Winckelmann, Hegel, Kant, Herder, et al.), but Emerling does give a reason for this blatant omission: the text is more for "critical theory's" entrance into art history after WWII and beyond. (I have always thought it interesting that when NYC [or the USA] "stole" modern art, Europe "stole" theory, which during the late 70s to the late 80s and early 90s was sometimes more important than any artwork or artists--indeed, the rise of the academic and intellectual Superstar--a la Andy Warhol.)

_Theory for Art_, after the "Predecessors," has various influential theorists that are placed in alphabetical order: from Theodor W Adorno to Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Using this "queer" strategy, I argue, Emerling blasts the hierarchy of theorists and makes a rhizome: what connects these theorists are their studies of art-without being a trained art historian, and what connects them is (ironically?) their disconnection; this bring us to the beautiful Outside of the overwhelming mass of "similar" texts that I mentioned at the beginning of this (quick) review. My only critique here is that Emerling does not mention some important theorists such as Helene Cixous, Maurice Blanchot, and others, and he does not give the importance that feminism and LGBT and (later) queer theory have played a crucial role in art history and (critical) theory--but these are my biases ... we all haven them.

.

I should note that Emerling, by alphabetizing the various theorists by her or his last name, seemed trite when I first saw it, but after reading it (in bits and pieces, and then as a whole, and then just the intro and conclusion) functions as a way to, as I stated above, level out--in a powerfully productive way, without obliterating, the theorists and their respective theories. In short, the alphabatizing of theorists is a highly imaginative maneuver in this day-and-age when certain quarters privilege this or that theorist or theory over and against others. By alphabetizing, the authors, this encourages the reader, in a rather blatant way, to make their own connections and a mixing and matching of theories and theorists, which, for some, would be too perverse, but, as I stated, art history is (among other things) "queer".

Interdisciplinarity

It should go without say, or maybe not, that art history has always (already) been interdisciplinary (AND theoretical, as Emerling stats "art history is already a theory"), but this is suppressed by those who desire that art history-as well as the art object-remain a field, an object, unto its own, unto itself; thus, unblemished, untouched, pure, and pristine ... a discipline that will not gain anything by drawing from other disciplines within the Humanities and Social Sciences, or so they (so often) proclaim. But, art history always already moved in and out of its disciplinary borders, leaking into other disciplines as they have also leaked into art history.

Is it so easily forgotten that JJ Winckelmann-a German, Protestant-turned-Catholic "homosexual"-drew on various theories and practices in order to develop his project: art history-a development of the Enlightenment itself. Is it so easily forgotten (read: suppressed) that Winckelmann fetishsized (which isn't a "bad" act-just a perverse one-a beautifully perverse act, if you ask me) and wrote veritable love letters, beautiful ones at that, to the dead (Greek boys), and who was eventually killed, post-coitus--after leaking everywhere and everywhere surrounded by images and statues of the Ancient past--by an Italian rent-boy? Indeed, how easily it is forgotten, suppressed, that the art history of, say, for example, HW Janson-as well as many other magisterial and authoritative art historians and their "panoptic" art-historical dooms-day books, to cite Donald Preziosi in _Rethinking Art History, was and is always already interdisciplinary, theoretical, and, in many ways, "queer"-in all of its senses, definitions, and anti-definitions. And it is vastly important due to the gift of feminists, queers, the working class in the academy, and people/queers of color who commenced multiple theories in "art history." It is important because what we, feminists, queers, and people of color, were given a gift that is also a promise, and as with all promises, this promise must be kept in order to keep art history as democratic, anti-colonialist, anti-racists and classist, feminist, anti-heterosexist as possible--if not for everybody, but at least then for those whom these issues are important--worth the fight to keep some of the roads open.

It is always a pleasure to find new anthologies texts in/for art history, so "finding" Emerling's text was a joy, and in a sense a gift already given to "me" and "art history".

-robt

› Go to Amazon.com to see all 4 reviews  4.0 out of 5 stars