4140179

When Little Girls Become Junior Connoisseurs: A Cautionary Tale of Art Museum Educationin the HyperrealAuthor(s): Melinda M. MayerSource: Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol. 40, No. 3 (Autumn, 2006), pp. 48-58Published by: University of Illinois PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4140179 .

Accessed: 08/07/2014 12:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Illinois Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofAesthetic Education.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 189.135.52.66 on Tue, 8 Jul 2014 12:39:20 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinois

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4140179?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


When Little Girls Become Junior Connoisseurs: A Cautionary Tale of Art Museum Education in the Hyperreal

MELINDA M. MAYER

Introducing the Tale

A young girl about eleven years old appeared on the TV screen. She stood in an art museum expounding upon the painting hanging behind her. She talked about the artist and what the image portrayed. With an air of elitist

prissiness that suited the museum environment, the girl delivered her presentation to a group of schoolmates. As I and the other art museum educators assembled in the conference room where the video was shown learned, the girl had participated in a program at a prominent art museum in which students from her school came to the museum many times during the school

year. This repeat-visit program culminated with these youngsters demon-

strating what they learned about art by giving a talk on a single artwork to

friends, family, or other classmates. The girl's recitation of art historically correct information was impressive. She sounded just like a junior art historian. Yet, something was missing. The little girl appeared to copy the style of art historical talk more than its content. I turned to the colleague sitting next to me and wondered, "Did that girl learn how to make meaning or how to talk like a curator?"

Despite the several years that have passed since the conference, the im-

age of that little girl lingers in my mind. A repeat-visit school program is what an art museum educator working with school tours desires.' All an art museum educator can hope to impart on a one-shot tour is a simple expo- sure to art and the museum. Hopefully, that one encounter will result in a

lifelong appreciation of art and art museums, but that is a tall order for one field trip. Repeat-visit programs, by contrast, allow knowledge and skills related to art to be presented in the school and museum and reinforced in

subsequent sessions. Students can learn to meaningfully interpret the content

Melinda M. Mayer is on the faculty of the Art Education/Visual Art Studies Division at the University of Texas at Austin. Her recent publications include "Bridging the Theory-Practice Divide in Contemporary Art Museum Education" in Art Education (March 2005), and "A Postmodern Puzzle: Rewriting the Place of the Visitor in Art Museum Education" in Studies in Art Education (Spring 2005).

Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol. 40, No. 3, Fall 2006 02006 Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois



When Little Girls Become Junior Connoisseurs 49

of works of art as well as make personal connections with them. The girl in the video, however, did not appear to be engaged in meaning-making. No hint that the painting had metaphorically come off of the museum wall and moved into her life experience appeared in the girl's presentation. Instead, she successfully imitated the manner of an art historian.

In the essay "The Precession of Simulacra," the French sociologist Jean Baudrillard theorizes that reality or meaning no longer exist.2 Like the Moebus strip, which when split generates a duplicate of itself, what we ex-

perience as reality in this increasingly mediated age in which we live is no more than the repeated circulation of models or simulacra. Rather than models emerging out of real phenomena or originals, they beget themselves-models precede models. Any notion of reality implodes in the circulation of these simulations. Reality becomes what Baudrillard calls the

hyperreal-simulation generating simulation. What does this imply for visual art? Interpretation of meaning in artworks would not reveal some rep- resented truth of human experience; instead it would be the repetition of

interpretive forms masking that there is no reality to represent. The talk by the little girl in the video indicated that art museum education, at least in that program, had become the perpetuation of a model of inquiry. Rather than making meaning, the girl reproduced the aesthetics of art history in-

terpretation. Even under the ideal circumstances of a repeat-visit school

program, the girl became the perfect model of a petite connoisseur.

Although the video depicts one little girl in one art museum program, is there not a cautionary tale here for the field of art museum education?3 When visitors to art museums, including children on school field trips, par- ticipate in educational programs, are they engaging in meaning-making or an experience in the hyperreal? In theory art museum educators espouse facilitating meaning-making as their mission; however, in practice are they falling into a vortex of recycling the models of art historical interpretation they assimilated during their own education? Do they replicate the form of the model rather than the substance of interpretation? Whether or not these educators agree with Baudrillard's premise that meaning no longer exists, when the programs they design cause visitors merely to imitate art history inquiry, the effect is the precession of simulacra. The model, not meaning, precedes the educational endeavor.

To delve into the lessons of this tale I will look at three models of art

history inquiry taught in university programs during the twentieth century and, as the story of the girl indicates, that recirculate today in museum education practice. I will address the question, How might these models operate to inhibit art museum visitors in making meaning in relation to works of art? To answer the question I will use Baudrillard's theory of simulacra to

examine Ernst Gombrich's perceptualism, Erwin Panofsky's iconology, and



50 Mayer

connoisseurship. First, however, what is meaning-making in the context of art museum education?

Art Museum Education and Meaning-Making

Whether we are discussing subject matter, content, or what the artist meant to convey, we are interpreting meaning from works of art. Since its incep- tion, the discipline of art history involved developing and applying models of interpretation to derive meaning from works of art.4 It is, in fact, hard to conceive of meaning-making without some model of interpretation to guide inquiry. In presenting works of art chronologically, stylistically, geographi- cally, or thematically, art museums represent institutionalized models of in-

terpretation. Exhibition practices and publications such as catalogs represent ways of seeing, interpreting, and understanding meaning in works of art. Art museum educators also work within the context of models. In de-

signing programs for the public, museum educators use and teach inquiry models "to enhance the visitor's ability to understand and appreciate original works of art."5 The little girl in the video had certainly learned a model of interpretation during the museum program she experienced. How could she not be engaged in meaning-making?

Baudrillard's theory does not contest the existence of models but rather the connection of models to an original, a reality. Art museums house original works of art. Yet, the work of art itself is a representation of an object, idea, or phenomena. Any reality involved in works of art, therefore, would have to exist in the broader world of culture. In order for art history inquiry models to produce interpretations that remain connected to some notion of a reality, they must relate to life. As far back as the 1980s, art museum educators defined as part of their mission enabling visitors to take what they learned from works of art and "to transfer these experiences into other as-

pects of the visitors' lives."6 Contemporary museum teaching theories and

strategies assert that visitors make meaning by integrating new information

into their preexisting ways of knowing.7 Interpretation is an interactive process through which visitors gain insight into life. Perhaps they will use their new knowledge in their lives beyond the museum walls.

When education programs focus inquiry on disseminating some notion of content from within the work of art, meaning-making is one-sided and art inquiry models are simply reproduced. The reality to which models of

interpretation should be anchored in art museum education is the visitors' own lives. When inquiry models do not allow visitors to forge that link with their lived experience, meaning-making collapses into the hyperreal. Little girls interpreting paintings mimic art historians. Examining the fea-

tures of art history inquiry models commonly used in art museums could reveal features within the models that permit them to spin into simulations of themselves.




Art Historical Mapmaking

Baudrillard opens "The Precession of Simulacra" by relaying the Borges tale as the "finest allegory of simulation."8 In this fable the mapmakers of the Empire produce a map of such exactitude that it perfectly covers the land. The abstraction of the map replaces the reality of the land. As the Em-

pire deteriorates so too does the map. The Empire and the map appear to be and become one in their deterioration-the true and the false disintegrate into each other. Baudrillard identifies this collapse of difference between the real and the imaginary as a second-order simulacra. The arena of simulation is the hyperreal, wherein models produce themselves rather than

representing realities. The Borges fable is an especially apt metaphor for modernist art history

methods of interpretation. When the postmodern critique of modernist art

history erupted in the 1980s and 1990s many art historians drew upon car-

tographic metaphors in their writing.9 Preziosi, Holly, and Bal used verbs such as "map," "survey," "chart," and "plot" to describe the nature of the modernist art historical enterprise.10 Interpretation of works of art was a

process through which the unified, inherent truth of the work of art was revealed, identified, and situated. With all the detail and fidelity a Borges car-

tographer could muster, the art historian mapped the truth or reality repre- sented through the work of art. Throughout the twentieth century various

inquiry models developed that relied upon this mapping process. Ernst Gombrich developed a perceptual model based upon the perceptions of the

mind."1 The iconology of Erwin Panofsky posited a humanistic approach to art historical inquiry.12 Connoisseurship was an applied approach to modernist art history that became widely pursued by curators in art museums

during the twentieth century.13 As will be seen below, through these models mapmaking can easily supercede meaning-making. When interpretation becomes confined to mapping the work of art, it becomes an aesthetic

project without connection to a reality.

Ernst Gombrich's Perceptualism

One of the most broadly influential art historians of the twentieth century was Austrian-born Ernst Gombrich (1909-2001). Until recently Gombrich's The Story of Art was a common text used in college art appreciation courses, thus forming students' notions of interpretation.14 Gombrich's model is still heard when students in the academy or visitors to museums focus their in-

quiry on discerning what the artist meant to convey in creating a particular art object. Bryson calls Gombrich's method the "perceptualist" account of

analyzing images.15 Accordingly, interpretation is anchored in the process of artistic perception.



52 Mayer

Gombrich's theory of art making is foundational to understanding the model of art history inquiry that arose from it. He theorized art making as a cultural practice more than the direct recording of nature. The artist, condi-

tioned by the history of representation preceding him or her, encounters nature with a set of stereotypes or schema in mind. These schema are the col- lected and modified perceptions of the artistic tradition that produced the artist. What the artist's eye beholds is less determined by the reflection of

light off an object and onto the retina and more by the artistic conventions of the culture. Art emerges from pictorial language, not from nature. As Gombrich states, "All art originates in the human mind, in our reactions to the world rather than in the visible world itself."16 In a similar fashion to

Baudrillard, Gombrich framed the artistic process as the generation of models. He would part with Baudrillard, however, by identifying schema as realities.

The science of psychology, specifically the psychology of artistic perception, informed Gombrich's understanding of art and artists. He had studied the research and writings of perceptual psychologists Rudolf Arnheim and Gustof Britsch.17 Although psychology articulated for Gombrich the act of

perception as constructed in the human mind rather than the eye, it was the

importance of the individual in the science of psychology that Gombrich

employed to distinguish his art historical practice from that of his peers. The Hegelian project in which cultural practices, such as art, could be traced to factors existent in the spirit, zeitgeist, of the times anchored art historical methodology among Gombrich's fellow art historians.18 His peers were identified as cultural art historians. They sought to map the meaning of a work of art through connective lines of influence discernible in the culture and reflecting a national spirit. A unified, true meaning of a work of

art, thereby, could be attained.

Despite his own identification as a cultural historian, Gombrich believed

accounting for the meaning of a work of art in the zeitgeist of the times was too facile. This approach denied the artist's ability to choose to differ, and

thereby consciously and intentionally develop one's own style. To Hegel, artists were members of a collective society, which was unified through the

spirit inherent in the times. That zeitgeist virtually predetermined the style or manner used by the artist. To Gombrich, however, artists were indi-

vidual, free agents developing their own style regardless of the zeitgeist. Gombrich's notion of individual agency as central in the development of

an artist's style and work informed his philosophy of the role of the art historian in discerning meaning in art. He believed the art historian needed to trace the ways in which individual artists differed from the prevailing artistic mode of the time, rather than attempt to lock the artist into the totality of

a movement.19 Working from the concentration on the individual, which Gombrich derived from psychology, he infused Hegelian art historical




theory with the notion of meaning derived from individual artistic inten-

tion. A more fitting description of Gombrich's art historical project, in fact,

might be the identification of artistic intent rather than the interpretation of

meaning. This intention was traceable through a scientific empiricism that was indeed a mapping project.20

Gombrich adopted the scientific method to map artistic intention. For

example, in Art and Illusion Gombrich hypothesized his theory of representation based on schema. Step-by-step he systematically confirmed his hy- pothesis. The truth, the reality, of individual artists' perceptions (intentions) are discovered and mapped in works Gombrich takes from the history of art.21 Although Gombrich believed his mapping of the stereotypes held in the minds of artists revealed the reality of artistic and human experience, a

hyperreal easily results. Stereotypes and schema precede the production of the artwork. Art history inquiry collapses the real and the model when us-

ing Gombrich's method. When used in art museum education programs, what effects could Gombrich's model have on visitors?

Bryson contends that the perceptualist account places the viewer in the

passive position of re-perceiving the image created by the artist.22 As the viewer gazes upon the image, his or her own culturally conditioned store of schema are set in motion. A check for correspondence is made between the viewer's schema and the image. Adjustments ensue, and the viewer's gaze is modified. This act occurs through the communication of a message, the artist's intent, from the artist through the work of art to the viewer. The

opening sections of The Story of Art illustrate the point. Gombrich establishes his mission in the preface of The Story of Art. He

wants the reader to understand the "master's artistic aims."23 Gombrich cautions the reader not to fall into the trap of judging a work to be correct or successful based on its fidelity to the visible world. Before evaluating a work of art the reader/viewer must ascertain whether "the artist may have had his reasons for changing the appearance of what he saw."24 Through his text Gombrich instructs the reader as to how to go about this task. Gombrich's reader/viewer is a passive receiver of artistic intent. The job of the reader/viewer is to alter his or her perceptions to accommodate the intention of the artist. In faithfully following and assimilating the map of artistic intention, the reader/viewer enters the hyperreal, wherein the model

reproduces itself. Museum visitors do not make personally relevant connections between works of art and their own lives through this model; instead,

reality collapses into the map.

Erwin Panofsky's Iconology

Erwin Panofsky (1892-1968) contrasted with Gombrich both in influence and method. Panofsky developed the theory and practice of iconology,



54 Mayer

which powerfully influenced the field of art history.25 The interpretation of works of art through the study of iconology continues to thrive among art historians in the academy and the museum. His influence on the general public, however, is less discernable than that of Gombrich. Panofsky differs from Gombrich in another important respect as well. The use of iconology appears to be a broader humanistic process of interpreting meaning than a scientific mapping of artistic intent. The Borges fable does not fit as readily here. If applied in art museum education programs, therefore, might iconology be less likely to result in a hyperreal of interpretation than with Gombrich's perceptualism? Might Panofsky's method enable visitors to make

meanings that connect works of art to their own lives? Erwin Panofsky articulated the subtleties and complexities of his theory

with clarity in "The History of Art as a Humanistic Discipline" and Studies in Iconology. Panofsky believed interpretation to be an organic exercise, re-

sulting in a meaningful whole that "makes sense."26 In "The History of Art as a Humanistic Discipline," Panofsky describes the art historian's proce- dure as starting in a scientific manner with observation, but immediately an

empathetic re-creative process takes place in the researcher's mind. The im-

age is to be interpreted in the context of culture. Through the analysis of

"man's" records, the humanist art historian engages in an investigation of the documents, of the archive. Investigating the meaning of the document rather than how it can be used, Panofsky contends, is what distinguishes the humanist from the scientist.27

Although Panofsky's approach is more humanistic than scientific, it in- volves three distinct stages to interpretation. First, the literal recognition of

subject matter and its expressive qualities is made. Next, the conventional

symbols (iconography) practiced and understood at the time period are rec-

ognized. Finally, interpretation moves into iconology or the deciphering of the deep codes of meaning embedded in social systems and the very iden-

tity of the artist.28 Rather than tracing direct lines of causation to artistic intent as did Gombrich, Panofsky creates a model with a hierarchical series of

steps laying out a path to meaning-a mapping project. Since art museums serve the general public, especially pertinent to inter-

pretive encounters with works of art in the museum setting is Panofsky's discussion of the difference between the naive beholder and the art historian. The naive beholder is the individual who enjoys looking at and interpreting works of art but is largely unaware how one's own cultural context shapes the assessment of art objects. Furthermore, the naive beholder does not re-

ally care whether the meaning he or she derives is correct or not. The art historian, on the other hand, is aware of his or her "cultural equipment."29 Panofsky points out that the expert tries diligently to shed all vestiges of this culturally constructed subjectivity through immersion in the records

surrounding the work of art and its context of production. This is the re- creative nature of interpreting works of art. As Panofsky puts it, the art



56 Mayer

Of the three art historical models examined here, connoisseurship is most explicitly a mapmaking model. The connoisseur is virtually charting the surface of the object and the land in which it exists (its style, school, period, lineage). Interpretation of meaning is not the goal. This rupture illus- trates Baudrillard's theory of the second-order simulacra, which hides the absence of a basic reality. With connoisseurship, ironically, there is no

meaning, only the work of art, which ultimately is a reproduction, a model.

Clearly the irony lies not with Baudrillard's theory but in the stated project of connoisseurship as authenticating real works of art. As Baudrillard points out, art objects are abstractions, not realities.38 The connoisseur, thinking to

map the reality of the original, is producing a second-order simulacra. Yet, what is the relationship between connoisseurship and art museum education?

With the emergence of the new art histories in the late twentieth century, Preziosi, Crimp, and Holly each noted that what thrived in the art museum was the connoisseur-like obsession with arranging art in terms of a progres- sive series of styles with traceable lines of influence and exemplified by master works.39 In Rethinking Art History Preziosi further observed that even as feminist and poststructural approaches to art history arose in the

1970s, iconography and connoisseurship were the prevailing modes of in-

quiry in the museum.40 The galleries of museums were virtually three-di- mensional maps charting the course of the history of art. Interpretation was not about meaning-making but rather about properly hanging the object in its precise location among the succession of works. Museum visitors liter-

ally move within the map that is the museum as they stroll from gallery to

gallery. The museum is a hyperreality. As the viewer walks through the

clean, well-lighted galleries, his or her eye is being trained to recognize the accurate placement of works. The connoisseur model is reflected in the la- conic viewer. No interpretation takes place. No connecting of meaning in works of art to life occurs. The job of the museum visitor is to faithfully follow the map from the Renaissance to the Baroque to Neoclassicism to Romanticism to Realism and on and on. The map and the empire are one.

The Moral of the Tale

What is to be learned from the mapping projects of art history? And what is the moral of the tale of the little girl? Art museum educators need to interro-

gate the inquiry models they learned and accepted through their education and practice and that they now perpetuate. They need to reflect on how those models operate. Do they indoctrinate museum visitors into the prin- ciples of reading maps of art historical interpretation? When the inquiry methods that educators use are confined or reduced to exercises in mapping artistic intention, reducing subjectivity, or examining the surface prop- erties of works of art, meaning-making collapses. Art museum education enters the hyperreal. Little girls become junior connoisseurs.




On the other hand, do our models produce vibrant interchanges of ideas and insights regarding what it means to be alive in contemporary culture? Do they illuminate culture? When museum educators create programs that

ignite visitors' own insights regarding art and life, and when those visitors are then able to become independent producers of interpretations, art museum education remains firmly connected to cultural realities. Art museum educators cannot help but use and teach models of interpretation in their

programs. They must take care in the models they choose and how they re-

produce them. Although the model will precede the educational endeavor, it will not merely reproduce itself if the connection to the visitor's life experience remains vital. Museum educators not only fulfill their mission, but

they also avoid the trap of the Borges tale when they so empower visitors. Little girls and little boys make meaning, not maps.

NOTES

1. Although the one-shot school visit is still the standard practice for fieldtrips to art museums, school programs featuring two to six visits per year have become more common since the 1970s. Susan Witmer, Jessica Luke, and Marianna Adams, "Exploring the Potential of Museum Multiple-Visit Programs," Art Education 53, no. 5 (2000): 46-52.

2. Jean Baudrillard, "The Precession of Simulacra," in Art after Modernism: Rethinking Representation, ed. Brian Wallis (Boston: David R. Godine, 1984).

3. In this article the term museum education will refer to art museum education. Al- though the issue presented here has bearing on interpretation in other museums such as those devoted to history, science, anthropology, etc., the context of this discourse is art history and art museum education.

4. For an overview of art history's methodologies see Eric Fernie, Art History and Its Methods: A Critical Anthology (London: Phaidon Press Limited, 1995), and Vernon Hyde Minor, Art History's History (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1994).

5. Bonnie Pittman-Gelles, "Defining Art Museum Education: Can We Agree?" Journal of Museum Education 13, no. 3 (1988): 21.

6. Ibid., 21. 7. Some contemporary museum education theories include constructivism, narra-

tive approaches, and the contextual model of learning. See George Hein, Learn- ing in the Museum (London and New York: Routledge, 1998); Lisa Roberts, From Knowledge to Narrative: Educators and the Changing Museum (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1997); John H. Falk and Lynn D. Dierking, Lessons Without Limit: How Free-Choice Learning Is Transforming Education (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2002).

8. Baudrillard, "Precession of Simulacra," 253. 9. For further information on postmodernism in art history, see A. L. Rees and

Frances Borzello, eds., The New Art History (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press International, 1988); Keith Moxey, The Practice of Theory: Poststructuralism, Cultural Politics, and Art History (Ithaca, NY, and London: Cornell University Press, 1994); Jonathan Harris, The New Art History: A Critical Introduction (Lon- don and New York: Routledge, 2001).

10. Donald Preziosi, Rethinking Art History: Meditations on a Coy Science (New Ha- ven, CN: Yale University Press, 1989); Michael Ann Holly, Past Looking: Histori- cal Imagination and the Rhetoric of the Image (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,



58 Mayer

1996); Mieke Bal, "Reading the Gaze: The Construction of Gender in 'Rem- brandt,"' in Vision and Textuality, ed. Stephen Melville and Bill Readings (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1995).

11. Norman Bryson, ed., Calligram: Essays in New Art History from France (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1988).

12. Erwin Panofsky, Studies in Iconology: Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renais- sance (New York: Harper and Row, 1939); Erwin Panofsky, Meaning in the Visual Arts (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1955).

13. Preziosi, Rethinking Art History, 191. 14. Ernst Gombrich, Story of Art (London and New York: Phaidon Publishers, 1950). 15. Bryson, Calligram, xviii. 16. Gombrich, Story of Art, 87. 17. Ernst H. Gombrich, Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Repre-

sentation (New York: Pantheon Books, 1960), 87. 18. Ernst H. Gombrich, "In Search of Cultural History" (1967), in Art History and Its

Methods: A Critical Anthology, ed. Eric Fernie (London: Phaidon Press, 1995), 227-28.

19. Ibid., 232. 20. Gombrich, Art and Illusion, 29. 21. Ibid., 80-81. 22. Bryson, Calligram, xviii-xix. 23. Gombrich, Story of Art, 2. 24. Ibid., 9. 25. Mieke Bal and Norman Bryson, "Semiotics and Art History," Art Bulletin 73, no.

2 (1991): 175-208. 26. Panofsky, Meaning in the Visual Arts, 8. 27. Ibid. 28. Stephan Bann, "Meaning/Interpretation," in Critical Terms for Art History, ed.

Robert S. Nelson and Richard Schiff (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996).

29. Panofsky, Meaning in the Visual Arts, 17. 30. Ibid. 31. Ibid. 32. Charles W. Haxthausen, ed., The Two Art Histories: The Museum and the Univer-

sity (Williamstown, MA: Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, 2002), ix-x. 33. Harvard's Art Museums: 100 Years of Collecting (New York: Harry N. Abrams,

1996), 39. 34. Ibid., 34. 35. Panofsky, Meaning in the Visual Art, 22. 36. Fernie, Art History and Its Methods, 330; Minor, Art History's History, 133-35. 37. Panofsky, Meaning in the Visual Arts, 19. 38. Baudrillard, "The Precession of Simulacra," 256. 39. Preziosi, Rethinking Art History, 9; Douglas Crimp, On the Museum's Ruins (Cam-

bridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993), 263; Michael Ann Holly, "Past Looking" in Vision and Textuality, ed. Stephen Melville and Bill Readings (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1995), 85-86.

40. Preziosi, Rethinking Art History, 71.



4140179

Documents