English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

any authors hâve commented on the close link existing between the development of art history and the display of artefacts within the muséums walls. Some, like the French literarv theoretician of realism, Philippe Hamon, hâve taken a broad epistemological overview that connects, under the gen­ eral concept of “expositions”, nineteenth-century architectural and discursive practices, linking them to the same cognitive System. Expanding on historian Pierre Nora’s famous remark : “Il n est de lieu que de mémoire” (every space is memory), Hamon points out that the most significant architectural realizations of the period, from the new department stores and the commercial arcades, to permanent and temporary exhibition pavilions, including the popular dioramas and panoramas, do not serve as merc décor or containers for redefined social behaviours.1 The architectural practice of what has been called “la société du spectacle”1 simultaneously puts in concrète form, allows and produces a conception of knowledge based on display, motivated by a phantasm of objective inquiry and exhaustive classifi­ cation of ail existing phenomena, each structure producing its own sériés or sets of sériés for intellectual grasp and/or pure enjoyment. This would also include the reassignment of older prestigious buildings like the Royal residency of the Louvre to the task of housing large art collections. Art history would then be the discursive exposition (meaning here the unfolding of textual argumentation) corresponding to the visual exposition of muséum exhibits. Donald Preziosi takes a similar stance when he characterizes the modem épistémè as having been essentially muséographie and art history as a kind of “major popular historical novel in and of museological space”.3 Within the muséographie paradigm, according to this author, both the muséum and the discipline of art history as a set of practices and techniques contributed to a linking together of subjects and objects that became key operating components of the efficient functioning of the modem nation-state. Secmingly in agreement with Michel Foucault’s conviction that every régime of knowledge is connccted with a corollary régime of power, Preziosi désignâtes the major European économie and political centres as masters of this game in which a panoptic frenzy becomes instrumental to both a scientific questioning of the world and the will to control it. That is why, among major manifestations of this state of affairs, the construction of non-Western culture within and by this pervasive museography (onc may recall, here, Timothy MitchelFs reflection on orientalism and the exhibitionary order4 ) becomes the very instrument of colonial hegemony. As for history, that particular kind of knowledge concerned with displaying and understanding the past, it too, of course, is being elaborated from the point of view and for the interests of the présent and of those commanding it.

New Art Histories: Severing the Incestuous Relation Between the Discipline and the Museum?