2023/04/09 by Jeanette Bicknell · 1 voice
Arts and Humanities · Social Sciences · #Art Therapy and Mental Health #Geographies of human-animal interactions #Night-time city culture
paper · doi:10.1093/aesthj/ayad010
openalex publication_date 2023/04/09 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/30
Objects play a prominent role in art history. Historians reflect on exemplary works and what they reveal. They may disagree as to which objects best exemplify a period or style, and about which represent stylistic innovations and turning points, but objects are central to these discussions. Artworks are a source of information about historical eras and about individual artists and their practices. Considering the reception of individual works can tell us about the values and social practices of a particular time and place. Even though there may be no consensus about what single works—exemplary or not—can reveal, the ‘object-centred’ approach characterizes art history textbooks, university courses, TV shows, and popular blogs alike. But the history of art is not just the history of objects, nor even the history of the artists who made them and of how those objects were received. The history of art is also the history of loss. Beate Fricke and Aden Kumler, the editors of Destroyed – Disappeared – Lost – Never Were, remind us that the destruction of art has a history as long as the making of art. Therefore, limiting our consideration to works that still exist may give a distorted understanding. To understand the history of art, one might argue, it is necessary to look beyond those objects that have survived until the present day. In addition to thinking about the objects that have endured, we must take seriously those works that have been lost and reconfigure art history with them in mind.