College Art
Association Annual Meeting 2005
Atlanta, GA, February 16-19, 2005
Conference website: http://www.collegeart.org/.
Reviewed by Amy Ione
PO Box 6813
Santa Rosa, CA 95406-0813
ione@diatrope.com
The 2005 College Art Association (CAA)
Annual Meeting, held this year in Atlanta,
Georgia, brought to mind how easily we
blur the boundaries between traditional
approaches to visual art in our time.
In doing so, the full schedule of events
also revealed that the contemporary and
historical co-exist and cross-fertilize
one another. Indeed, as I rerun the conference
in my mind, I find the blend of scholarship
and art was so rich that it is difficult
to pinpoint a most impressive feature.
As the mix ranged across cultures and
media it was clear that when those of
the art community combine scholarship
with practice, the end result is an environment
that stimulates lively discussion, facilitates
networking, and enables conference participants
to exchange information and ideas. Equally
important is the way the international
group at the meeting encourages those
in attendance to see art from a global
perspective.
In its second year as a CAA affiliate,
Leonardo has firmly established its place
within this larger art community, as was
evident at the events the group directly
orchestrated. These ranged from the Mentorship
Roundtable and the Affiliate Special Session
(titled Hybridity: Arts, Science and Cultural
Effects) to a Town Hall Meeting, Career
Development Workshops and an ARTspace
Lounge Screening. Curated by Timothy Allen
Jackson, the ARTspace contribution featured
the work of Leonardo/ISAST members Luc
Courchesne, David Rokeby, Bill Seaman,
Regina Celia Pinto, Hellen Sky, Steve
Mann, and Paul Sermon. All of these venues
elicited intercommunication among participants
and allowed for effective outreach.
In part the exchange was advanced by the
conference schedule. Although the meeting
officially began on Wednesday evening,
Leonardos mentoring workshop
and special affiliate session took place
on Wednesday afternoon. This timing led
many not directly involved in art, science,
and technology practice/research to venture
into these sessions. Coming up first,
the Mentorship Roundtable, organized by
Steven Oscherwitz, provided an opportunity
for art/science/technology faculty and
specialists to share their knowledge,
experience, and perspectives. Generally,
the presentations (by Andrea Polli, Ioannis
Yessios, Kit Hughes, Brad Smith, Gabriel
Harp, Steven Oscherwitz and Roger Malina)
introduced the audience to both academic
frameworks and to art/science/technology
projects. While well attended, the group
included fewer students than participants
expected, perhaps the downside of the
early slot. Nonetheless, those present
found much to chew on, as the lively discussion
on copyright issues that followed the
individual presentations demonstrated.
The passion that participants brought
to this topic, moreover, suggested that
some areas outside of art per se
have a tremendous impact on art practice
and dissemination. What became clear in
this case is that copyright laws might
be looser when looking at projects conceived
within the university than when applied
to exhibitions that are mounted within
the larger community. Although it was
generally agreed that students have more
leeway, it was also clear that the difference
between parody and inappropriate appropriation
remains open to debate.
The Hybridity: Arts, Science and Cultural
Effects session, co-chaired by Yvonne
Spielmann and Jay David Bolter followed
immediately after the mentoring workshop.
As a speaker within this session (with
Dan Sandin, Diane Gromala, and George
Legrady) I am not in a position to analyze
it critically. Suffice to say that Spielmann
began by explaining the panel was intended
to address new forms of encounter, dialogue,
and interaction that are indicative of
larger shifts in the arts, sciences, and
culture. As she explained, the session
endeavored to show that art, science,
and technology were closely connected
in early modernity and that the hybridity
of our time has fostered a means to establish
a dialogue in the arts as they form collaborations
with the sciences. Each speaker brought
a unique perspective to this larger goal.
Unfortunately time ran out too quickly
for extended discussion. As attendees
moved off to the Convocation (delivered
by the art historian Bruce Cole, Chair
of the National Endowment for the Humanities)
it seemed clear that the presenters had
provided much for all to savor.
The jam-packed conference also offered
much that is of appeal to the Leonardo
community even when the Leonardo
imprint was not directly linked to an
event. This, I would suggest, speaks to
the range in which the confluence of art,
science, and technology is evident in
our world today. The synesthesia session
and one of the printmaking panels I attended
illustrated this well. Synesthesia and
Perception, organized by Greta Berman
and Carol Steen, included two practicing
synesthetes, two art historians, and a
cognitive scientist as discussant. This
blend allowed the audience to gain a sense
of the synesthete experience and to pair
it with scientific views. I was amazed
at how quickly the hours passed. No doubt
this was due to the superb presentations
by the panelists, who proved able to adapt
when challenged by technical difficulties.
Each of the participants left images and
ideas churning in my mind and unfortunately,
due to the computer glitches; there was
a limited time for the group to follow-up
with the panelists.
Equally thought provoking was the studio-art
Open Session: Print Cocktail, chaired
by Carmon Colangelo. Ive always
been attracted to the seamless way in
which traditional printmaking integrates
art, science, and technology, and the
limited discussion of this in many art
history sources. Listening to the speakers
with this thought in mind, it was amusing
to discover the degree to which contemporary
"printmakers" have integrated new technologies.
Blurring media boundaries, embracing time-based
and digital modes, these practitioners
have re-defined what printmaking is. Papers
by Lisa Moren and Patricia Olynyk, in
particular, effectively established the
bridge between the old and the new is
as evident in printmaking as it is elsewhere.
On the other hand, given all the options,
I was sorry I missed the gallery-based
workshop on art conservation, organized
by Andrea Kirsh. This session provided
yet another framework to personally learn
more about intersections of art, science
and technology today.
Acknowledging what was missed seems important
when commenting on an event of this size.
One major difficulty participants face
is that the schedule is filled with more
activities than one can attend to despite
ones good intentions. The program
included three full days of concurrent
sessions in all areas of art history,
contemporary issues, and studio art, sessions
(and workshops). There were also abundant
opportunities to explore professional
options before and after the three-day
meeting. In addition, the organizers provided
a "conference-within-a-conference" at
ARTspace, which featured panels, demonstrations,
and talks of interest to artists. Suffice
to say that with so much going on simultaneously
even the most dedicated participant is
unable to partake of the wealth of opportunity
offered in the medley. Nonetheless, there
is much to recommend the conference. Of
greatest interest to those active within
the Leonardo community is that
it provides a venue for outreach and integration.
In light of the promise and possibilities
still to be realized, those who are CAA
members might want to help build the CAA/Leonardo
connection in future years. The best way
to do so is to join the CAA/Leonardo
working group at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/leonardocaacommittee/join.