Eric,
"Visual Studies" is actually a new named initiative in
Duke's next 5-year strategic plan, which goes into affect next week. I
don't think this is necessarily an 80s/90s thing. My department just
changed its name from Art and Art History to Art, Art History &
Visual Studies to better reflect what we teach, our part in Duke's
interdisciplinary approach to all studies, and the growing importance
of visual culture studies at this university. Visual studies offerings
can be based in our department, Film and Video, Women's Studies,
Classics, Literature, Languages, the Law School (art and the law),
Information Studies, History, Genome Science, etc.
I think the differentiation is between the traditional history
and study of works of art and architecture and the history and study
of images (those beyond art and architecture), whether they be
cultural images from the past or images from popular culture today.
We teach courses on art markets, "destinations"
(Disneyworld, Las Vegas), artists and trauma, Roman spectacle, images
of the nuclear age, caricature and comics, the monastic life, etc. Not
easily classifiable as traditional art or architecture.
I always felt "visual resources library" to be a vague
term (whereas slide or photograph library never was). Even
"image" or "media" library seems more descriptive
of our collections now. Whenever I am describing my title,
facility, or profession, I always have to add "slide, photograph,
and digital image" as a subtext. What does "Visual Resources
Association" really say to anyone who isn't in the field? I also
don't see "art library" as exclusive of image collections,
just as the Art Libraries Society already includes a VR division. Of
course, back to my original point, it's not all about "art"
anymore.
John
I am all for
closer relations between the two organizations. Before any
serious talk of mergers, however, I think at least another couple
joint conferences would be in order, to ensure that the two cultures
both can preserve everything they want and complete their respective
agendas within such a framework. If it works well, then why not
merge? It would be great for people like me who are members of
both organizations, but can only go to one conference a
year.
Regarding
the term "Visual Culture", I would have to take a dissenting view
here. That term was all the rage among art history departments
in the late '80s-early '90s. While they all considered
changing their names (and some did), it was never clear how this was
reflected in the discipline or curriculum. I think it is always
good to have titles whose meanings can be readily understood by the
laity, and I don't think this one can. As the bulk of us are
still in museum or academic art or architecture libraries and
departments, I rather like having the terms "art", "libraries"
and "visual resources" in our title. A professional
organization should work to improve society-at-large's image of
librarians and VR professionals-we shouldn't change are name to
convince people we are on the cutting edge-rather we should be on
the cutting edge to show people what our titles
mean!
I do think
this discussion is very healthy!
Eric Wolf
Director of the Library
New York School of Interior
Design
170 E. 70th Street
New York, NY
10021
212-472-1500 x216
[log in to unmask]
__________________________________________________________________
Mail submissions to [log in to unmask] For information about joining
ARLIS/NA see: http://www.arlisna.org/join.html Send administrative
matters (file requests, subscription requests, etc) to
[log in to unmask] ARLIS-L Archives and subscription maintenance:
http://lsv.uky.edu/archives/arlis-l.html Questions may be addressed to
list owner (Judy Dyki) at: [log in to unmask]
--
John J. Taormina
Director, Visual Resources Center
Dept. of Art, Art History & Visual Studies
Duke University
Box 90764
112 East Duke Building
Durham NC 27708-0764
Ph: 919-684-2501
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
http://www.duke.edu/web/art/
"The spice must flow."
-Frank Herbert,
Dune