Defining Community through Laughter in Early Modern Art
Renaissance Society of America Annual Conference, Venice, April 8-10, 2010.

At the theoretical level, comic art may be divided into two forms: the
socially inclusive–where we smile uncomfortably at ourselves–or the
socially rejective–where we ?point the finger of scorn? censoriously at
others.  In practice, of course, these forms may overlap or intersect.  We
propose a panel to examine the ways early modern artists have used humor
to galvanize communities, to ostracize people through ridicule, or even
ambiguously promote both views simultaneously.  We seek papers that
explore how comic art delimits social circles and its potential to
strengthen, undermine or problematize such networks.  Ideally, the range
of topics for the session(s) would demonstrate the role of visual humor in
both Northern and Southern European art, and involve challenging
explorations of implicit social frictions of the works of art in question.
The organizers welcome papers that address a variety media:  prints,
drawings, painting, etc.

Art and Science in the Pre-Modern Netherlands

Volume 61 (2011) of the Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art is
devoted to the relation between art and science in the pre-modern
Netherlands. In Western culture since the sixteenth century, the
relation between art and science, and indeed the meaning and content
of these terms or disciplines themselves, have been the subject of
continuing reflection and representation, in word and image, both
implicitly and explicitly. In the proposed volume art stands for more
than visual creativity and science for more than the investigation of
nature. In the pre-modern period each was characterized by the other,
in various ways and to varying extents, through shared curiosity,
knowledge and study of the world. Art and science encountered and
enlightened each other on an epistemological level, in practice and
in the physical spaces of study, as well as in the resulting concrete
products? in paintings, prints, poems, books, treatises, tracts and
anatomical models. That both discourses made use of the same media,
namely words and images, shapes an explanation for the ways in which
concepts, ideas and metaphors from one played a role in that of the
other. In the past two decades there has been a growing awareness
that art and science share common ground, illustrated by studies like
Svetlana Alpers? much debated The art of describing, which found its
counterpart in Brian Ogilvie?s The science of describing: Natural
history in Renaissance Europe, and by the work of Wolfgang Harms and
William Ashworth jr, who both stress the inextricable relation
between natural history and emblematics in the early modern period.

The editors welcome submissions that address the relation between art
and science as concretely as possible, based on historical textual
and pictorial material, in all conceivable spheres. Inter- or trans-
disciplinary contributions are welcome. Several examples might
illustrate some of the issues at stake:

-          Good artistic practice required knowledge, both practical
knowledge of materials and techniques (perspective, paint, colors,
printing) and knowledge of content, of literature, history,
philosophy, theology and anatomy.
-          Scientists relied on craftsmen for the design and
manufacture of instruments, and artists for their illustrations. Some
scientists themselves commanded considerable artistic talent, which
led them to illustrate their own and others? work.
-          The importance of illustration increased, as did demands
that these be true to reality (?naer ?t leven?). They constituted a
substantial part of scientific argumentation.
-          Scientists regarded themselves as artists (or conducted
themselves as such) in so far as the objects of their study?above all
nature and the human body?merged with art or were treated in
?artistic? ways.
-          Artists displayed great interest in and knowledge of
nature in their rendering of phenomena such as flora, fauna, anatomy,
human faces, sunshine, shadows, rain, clouds, moonlight, etc.
-          Art came together with science at the point of visual
observation, of the use of arguably the most important sense, the
eye. From the seventeenth century on, people were certainly
fascinated with the working of the eye (and of lenses).
-          How the eye perceived perspective and color and helped to
fix impressions in the memory held the interest of both scientists
and artists. Visual perception developed into an absolute, undisputed
route to insight.
-          Illustrations and poems likewise served to introduce,
illuminate, valorize and popularize scientific knowledge, opening
doors to its practical application.
-          In the physico-theological tradition, emphasis was placed
on the beauty of creation as being God?s work; the exact and precise
representation of nature in word and image was closely allied with
aesthetic as well as religious attitudes.
-          Some scientists demonstrate aesthetic and religious
feelings in literary ways, whether in the style and vocabulary of
their scientific prose, or in separate literary works (above all
poetry).
-          In the eighteenth century physiognomical insights received
a great deal of attention, so did?in the early nineteenth century?
theoretical writings on the sublime in art and literature.
-          Science and scientific practice became the subject of
artistic reflection. Individual and group portraits of scholars?among
other things author portraits?provide evidence of this, as well as
literary and poetic inscriptions and dedications, and introductory
and laudatory poems in the opening pages of scientific books.
-          There were places and spaces where objects of art and
science were brought together and either one, or both together, were
studied: wonderkamers, cabinets of art and curiosity, museums,
lecture halls, anatomical theaters, gardens, herbariums, and arboretums.

The NKJ is dedicated to a particular theme each year and publishes
essays that reflect the diversity of approaches to the study of
Netherlandish art. Contributions to the NKJ (in Dutch, English,
German, or French) are limited to a maximum length of 7,500 words,
excluding the notes.

The deadline for submission of proposals is June 1, 2009. Selection
of proposals will take place at the beginning of July 2009. The
deadline for submission of the articles for consideration and
editorial comment is December 1, 2009. A workshop is planned at the
Huygens Institute, The Hague, early 2010, with the authors of the
provisionally accepted papers. Final decisions on the acceptance of
any paper will be made by the editorial board following receipt of
the complete text.

Proposals for papers, in the form of a 200-word abstract, should be
sent to:

Deadline: May 8, 2009

This session considers problems of innovation, agency, and historiography
with relation to fourteenth-century Italian art. That something changed
ca. 1300 was a commonplace of the Early Renaissance, and has subsequently
shaped how we view the art of the period. The association of the trecento
with the birth of humanism and the tragedy of the Black Death made it an
apt case for Millard Meiss?s assessment of change within a history of art
where the definition of humanity was at stake. More than half a century
later, the power of such narratives has been eroded; the questions of how
to judge innovation and weigh individual agency remain. We invite papers
that propose new criteria for the assessment of change in
ourteenth-century Italian art and reflect on the expectations we bring to
our evaluations and histories.

To submit a paper proposal, please send a short abstract (approximately
250-300 words) and a resume to:

Jean Campbell, Art History Department, Emory University, Carlos Hall, 581
S. Kilgo Circle, Atlanta, GA 30322