This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are used for visitor analysis, others are essential to making our site function properly and improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Click Accept to consent and dismiss this message or Deny to leave this website. Read our Privacy Statement for more.
Print Page   |   Sign In   |   Register
Interdisciplinary and Miscellaneous CfPs for RSA 2019 Toronto
Blog Home All Blogs
This blog is for CfPs for interdisciplinary sessions for RSA 2019 Toronto, as well as those that do not fit into the Art History, History, or Literature discipline categories. Members may post CfPs here: sign in to RSA and select "add new post" to do so. Your post should include a title, and the CfP itself should be no longer than 250 words. Adding tags (key words) to your post will help others find your CfP. Make sure the CfP includes the organizer's name, email address or mail-to link for email address, and a deadline for proposals. Non-members may email rsa@rsa.org to post a CfP. Please use the email address of the session organizer posted in the CfP to submit a paper proposal. CfPs are posted in order of receipt, with the newest postings appearing at the top of the blog. Members may subscribe to the blog to be notified when new CfPs are posted: click on the word Subscribe next to the green checkmark above.

 

Search all posts for:   

 

Top tags: literature  art history  interdisciplinary  early modern  material culture  social history  art  book history  cultural history  gender  history  architecture  print culture  religion  circulation  classical reception  global  History of Science  identity  patronage  political history  transcultural  courts  digital humanities  gender studies  history of reading  Humanism  Philosophy  urban spaces  visual arts 

In Search of the Canon: Poets and Artists Confronting with their Models (c. 1500-1700)

Posted By Maria G. Matarazzo, Thursday, July 19, 2018

The theory of Imitation was a central topic of discussion in the ‘Republic of Letters’. The European community of humanists, philosophers, poets and artists was engaged in the dispute over the models to refer to during the creative process. How to develop a normative canon as a reference point for artists and writers in the practice of Imitation? Which poets and artists to select as the examples of ‘bello stile’?

While the authority of ancient models was universally acknowledged, the building of a canon of modern masters was under discussion. One of the typical environments of this discussion were the Academies, where writers, artists, philosophers, antiquarians gathered around learned patrons.

Considering the interdisciplinary nature of this debate, this panel aims to explore the construction of a canon through a comparative and interdisciplinary perspective. The main purpose is not only to study the mechanisms implied in the building of the canon but also to bring out the intersections between Art and Literature concerning this topic.

Questions to be considered include but are not limited to: the institutions where the debate took place, with a particular focus on the Academies; rhetorical devices for debating the canon and the metaphors of Imitation; the circulation of the canon through publishing, printings, new editions and reproductive printmaking; the impact of the canon on the teaching practices.

 

Please submit proposals to Ida Duretto (ida.duretto@sns.it) and Maria Gabriella Matarazzo (mariagabriella.matarazzo@sns.it) by August 12, 2018.

Proposals should include a paper title, an abstract (150-word maximum), keywords and a CV (300-word maximum).

Tags:  academies  Art History  book history  cultural history  early modern  history of reading  history of the book  Imitation  interdisciplinary  literature  mimesis  patronage  philology  Poetry  print culture  publishers  reproductive prints  the canon  visual arts 

PermalinkComments (0)
 

Philological Communities in Context(s) in the Early Modern World (1400-1850)

Posted By Jennifer Mackenzie, Tuesday, July 3, 2018

In recent years, collections such as World Philology (2015, Ed. Pollock, Elman, and Chang) and Philology and Its Histories (2010, Ed. Gurd) have brought philology to the foreground of humanistic study “not just [as] a mode of scholarship” but as “one of its objects” (Gurd, Introduction to Philology and Its Histories, 5). Questioning teleological histories that trace how philology achieved a modern and scientific status in the nineteenth-century European university, these studies call for a much broader canvas to account for the multiplicity and complexity of textual practices over time and space. They include within the study of philology not only the study of the transmission and editing of texts, but also of hermeneutical activities more generally, from textual readings to historical and cultural interpretations.

Our RSA panels seek to contribute to these efforts by examining philological practices in the early modern period (1400-1850) on a micro-historical scale, in their various social, institutional and/or political contexts. The aim is to bring to bear on the analysis of these practices recent developments in the history of academies, patronage, princely courts, universities, salons, libraries, and schools. On the premise that philological work often takes place in communal settings and practically always in relation to structures of power, we seek papers that illuminate these settings, and the exchanges they generated in specific early modern contexts. We are particularly interested in the effects of these circumstances on specific philological practices or hermeneutic perspectives.

Individual papers might shed light on communities which have been overlooked, having not generally been associated with the most (proto-)modern representatives of the development of philology as a scholarly discipline.  Or they might open newly contextualized perspectives on communities that have already played leading roles in philology’s historiography. In either case, we hope to enrich our methodologies for studying philological communities in context(s), with the goal of gaining a greater appreciation of philology’s political stakes in the early modern world, and of the varieties of its institutional incarnations.

—   How were philological practices developed, taught, transmitted, and performed within specific communities? How did they contribute to building communities? Can philological communities be studied through their textual and hermeneutical practices — and, if so, how?

—   How were particular theories or practices of philology — that is explicit or implicit articulations of philology’s methods and aims – bound up with social (i.e. class, familial, professional) affiliations?

—   How did the institutions or political structures in which philology was carried out shape philological approaches, in theory and in practice? How was philology in turn used by those who performed it, theorized it, or patronized it? In particular, in what ways could philological activities legitimize and/or subvert power?

—   How did philological work participate in local dynamics (in courts, cities, city states, etc.) and/or in international politics, for diplomatic purposes or when international conflicts arose?

—   How did institutions and/or political patronage constrain or nourish the practice of philology? Why were philologists valuable to institutions, powerful families, and princes — and how did they leverage their skills to serve the powerful, while also establishing their practices as valuable, legitimate and even autonomous forms of know-how?

Please submit a short (max. 150 words) abstract and CV by July 31, 2018 to Jennifer Mackenzie (jennifer.mackenzie@fandm.edu) and Déborah Blocker (dblocker@berkeley.edu).

Tags:  academies  courts  history of reading  patronage  philology  social history  universities 

PermalinkComments (0)
 

More Than Merely Passive: Addressing the Early Modern Audience

Posted By John R. Decker, Monday, July 2, 2018
Updated: Monday, July 9, 2018

“… so that the learned may savor the profundity of the allegory while the humble may profit from the lightness of the story” (de modo praedicandi)

 

Early modern audiences were not homogenous. Differences in status, education, language, wealth, and experience (to name only a few) could influence how a group of people, or a particular person, received and made sense of sermons, public proclamations, images, objects, and spaces. The ways in which images, objects, proclamations, etc. were framed and executed could have a serious impact on their relevance and effectiveness. This session seeks papers that investigate the ways in which authors, artists, preachers, theologians, and civic or court officials took account of and encoded pluriform audiences in their works. Topics might consider, but are not limited to, questions such as: What sorts of strategies were employed to take into account multiple ‘levels’ of audience? How well did such strategies work? What were the consequences—possible or actual—when they failed? Please submit an abstract and CV by no later than 30 July, 2018 to: jdecker@pratt.edu.

Tags:  art history  artists  collaboration  cultural history  gender  identity  images  imagination  invention  literature  material culture  patronage  religious communities  representation  social history  urban spaces  urbanism  visual arts  visual communication  visual culture 

PermalinkComments (0)
 

Parallel Patronage: Art and Social Antagonism in Italian Cities (1400-1600).

Posted By Marcello Calogero, Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Organizers: Saida Bondini, Courtauld Institute of Art/University of Lausanne and Marcello Calogero, Scuola Normale Superiore. 

 

 

The interplay between artistic patronage and socio-political power has long been at the centre of scholarly writings. Scholarship has deeply investigated the visual strategies put in place by princes, kings, and ruling families, to reinforce their political preeminence and convey an image of absolute power. Thus, public sites of patronage were often employed to make manifest the presence of the ruler in the city.

Despite these hierarchical systems, various centres of power existed. In courtly and oligarchic contexts, many individuals or families not having a political position relied on considerable financial means and newly acquired social status. Often in these cases, the lack of institutional power was counterbalanced by a pursuit for social distinction, fostered, also, through artistic patronage. This was made possible by conspicuous wealth, sometimes even surpassing that of the ruling power.

Tensions arising from this socio-political condition affected not only courtly enviroments. Cities like Venice or Bologna promoted an ideal egalitarianism between the members of the oligarchic power, but this often led to social clashes that impacted the practice of commissioning art. In these cases proper strategies of parallel patronage emerged.

This panel aims to determine the extent to which these conflicts were visualised and displayed in the urban public spaces of Italian cities. Do typological, stylistic, and iconographical choices allow us to trace these kind of social tensions? To what extent were ‘parallel patrons’ perceived as a threat to centralised power? When and why were princely or dominant patterns imitated or deliberately challenged? And finally, how can we track those reactions? Are there any documentary or literary sources which give an idea of the extent to which these practices were publicly disapproved of or accepted?

 

Papers are welcome from postgraduate, early career and established researchers working in different fields (art history, history, literature, etc.). Proposals of no more than 300 words can be submitted together with a short CV to Marcello Calogero (marcello.calogero@sns.it) and Saida Bondini (saida.bondini@courtauld.ac.uk) by June 30.

Tags:  art  courts  italian art  patronage 

PermalinkComments (0)
 

CfP, Panel Series: Cultures of Bureaucracy

Posted By Rachel Midura, Thursday, May 10, 2018

Organizers: Giacomo Giudici (Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Storici/Warburg Institute), Rachel Midura (Stanford University) & Luca Zenobi (University of Oxford)

We seek papers to contribute to a cultural history of Renaissance bureaucracy. During the last forty years, scholars have applied a cultural-historical perspective to the production, reception, and use of textual objects in a number of domains, yet the cultures of Renaissance administration remain largely unexplored.

The very notion of “bureaucracy” seems to run counter to themes of cultural history: hierarchy in place of agency, exclusion in place of collaboration, and formality in place of negotiation. A cultural approach to the people, practices, and material texts of Renaissance bureaucracy has the potential to challenge traditional notions of early modern statecraft and administration. Local and regional officials, secretaries and clerks, diplomats and couriers weathered the storms of war, the upset of regime change, and the occasional bankruptcy of their employers. Tax records, chancery documents, and ample official correspondence show an ongoing tension between ideals and customs in the worlds they moved between. How did notions of publicity and privacy, patronage and service, honor and dishonor guide documentary production, reception, and use? How do seemingly formulaic texts demonstrate both cultural influence and individual ambitions? How did protocol and administrative ideals shape the private lives of bureaucrats?

For this series of panels, we encourage papers to draw from any cultural-historical approaches, including material, gender- and class-based analyses. We particularly welcome papers that find collaboration and negotiation in bureaucratic archives, and/or contribute to a more humanized understanding of the Renaissance state. Potential themes might include:

  • bureaucracy from below: agency and informal networks in the production, use, and reception of political-administrative documents, including outsiders to bureaucracy, women and non-traditional office-holders
  • popular perceptions and depictions of bureaucrats, and their positive and negative influence on governance
  • spatial histories of administration and the spaces of action (from offices and archives, to public venues and private houses)
  • bureaucracy on the move: traveling personnel and exchange of administrative ideas
  • philosophical, literary and artistic themes related to imagined administrations, notions of civil service, and self-fashioning by agents of the state;
  • bureaucratic patronage and the political administration of art, music, and architecture.

Please send a brief abstract (max. 150 words) and CV to the panel organizers at info.culturesofbureaucracy@gmail.com. The deadline is June 30 2018.

Tags:  administration  bureaucracy  government  networks  patronage  statecraft 

PermalinkComments (0)
 
Membership Software Powered by YourMembership  ::  Legal