Windows for the world: nineteenth-century stained glass and the international exhibitions, 1851-1900 focuses on the display and reception of nineteenth-century stained glass in an international and secular context, by exploring the significance of the stained glass displayed at ten international exhibitions held in Britain, France, the USA and Australia between 1851 and 1900. International in scope, it is the first study to explore the global development of stained glass in this period, as showcased at, and influenced by, these international events. Drawing on hundreds of contemporaneous written and visual sources, it identifies the artists and makers who exhibited stained glass, as well as those who reviewed and judged the exhibits. It also provides close readings of specific stained glass exhibits in relation to stylistic developments, material and technological innovations, iconographic themes and visual ideologies. This monograph broadens approaches to post-medieval stained glass by placing stained glass in its wider cultural, political, economic and global contexts. It provides new perspectives and fresh interpretations of stained glass in these environments, through themed chapters, each of which highlight a different aspect of stained glass in the nineteenth century, including material taxonomies, modes of display, stylistic eclecticism, exhibitors’ international networks, production and consumption, nationalism and imperialism. As such, the book challenges many of the major methodological and historiographical assumptions and paradigms relating to the study of stained glass. Its scope and range will have wide appeal to those interested in the history of stained glass as well as nineteenth-century culture more broadly.
Staging art and Chineseness is about the politics of borders ascribed to Chinese
contemporary art and the identification of artists by locations and exhibitions.
The paradoxical subject of Chineseness is central to this inquiry, which begins
with the question, what does the term Chinese Art mean in the aftermath of the
globalized shift in art? Through an exploration of embodied and performative
representations (including eco-feminist performances) by artists from China and
diasporic locations, the case studies in this book put to the test the very
premise of the genealogical inscription for cultural objects attributed to the
residency, homeland, or citizenship of the Chinese artist. Acknowledging the
orientalist assumptions and appropriations that Chineseness also signifies, this
study connects the artistic performance to the greater historical scope of
‘geographical consciousness’ envisioned by past and present global expositions.
The emergence of China’s shiyan meishu experimental art movement in the
1980s–1990s has largely been the defining focus for ‘global art’ during the
period when artfairs, biennials, and triennials also came into prominence as the
new globalized art institution (exemplified by China’s first biennial in
Guangzhou). The political aim is to recognize the multiple contradictions and
repetitions of history engendered by art, nationalism, and capital in the legacy
of Althusserian/Maoist interpellations – the reifications of global capitalist
illusions in the twenty-first century are conveyed in this book by performative
artistic expressions and the temporal space of the exposition.
text hopes to rectify. This omission,
alongside the perceived art-historical divisions between Eastern and Western
performance art, have causes both political and art-historical: the binary of
the Cold War, for one, alongside oversight on the part of scholars and critics.
Compiling this history is thus the necessary first step toward a reassessment
of the field of contemporary performance art and a move toward a globalarthistory, where the main point of reference is not necessarily the West.
The continuities I have highlighted between techniques and approaches
has been part of the project of modernity. A discourse of subversion, in this way, reduces the contexts unknown to Western European and
North American scholarship to the status of cultural tools serving the need
for representation and inclusion of the Other, while it robs the Other of
universality. As a disciplinary approach, it reduces art history to a politics of
representation, of inclusion and exclusion.
Neither can this study be subsumed within emerging discussions on globalarthistory that respond to the increasing globalization of art following the
Towards creolizing transnational South Asian art histories
Alpesh Kantilal Patel
, arguably, the territories described by these global circuits are always, already gendered.’ In this way, they situate the importance of gender not as an additive
frame but as integral to understanding contemporary art in the context of
Art historian Aruna D’Souza writes that, though globalarthistories ‘draw
upon the language of a particular strain of visual culture studies (a critique of
disciplinarity)’, they do not embrace the latter’s other imperatives, such as an
‘attention to a broader array of media and non-art forms … as a way of rejecting the
points as a way of moving on
Performance art in Eastern Europe since 1960
from the ‘before and after’ binary paradigm, which will effectively disrupt the
In this way, I propose to rethink art’s histories with this volume, which
raises a number of significant questions that have recently been, and continue
to be, discussed in the field: Why and how is the discipline of art history
divided into East and West? How can we move beyond the East-West binary
into a truly globalarthistory? How do we position artists from the region? It is
my hope that
notable example is the 1993 inclusion
of fourteen artists from China in the Venice Biennale for the first time in the
exposition’s 100-year history. The year before, curator Lu Peng had assisted
in organizing the 1992 Guangzhou Biennial, the first-ever biennial-type art
exposition held in China.1 But writing in reference to the landmark Venice
Biennale show, Lu asserted ‘the global “historical passage” that began in 1993
was not only Chinese contemporary art history but an integral component
of globalarthistory.’2 China plays a remarkable recurring role in the
exhibitors gain commissions and influence abroad, and considers the ways in which these
events shaped exhibitors’ reputations. Finally, Chapter 5 discusses how
the exhibition environment stimulated new iconographies and meanings
in stained glass, thinking particularly about how the exhibits reflected, and
Windows for the world
influenced, some of the global political themes of the nineteenth-century
exhibitions: nationalism, imperialism, and human variety.
In spite of recent interest in transnational and globalarthistories, and
institutional system over Taiwanese artists, see Chin-Tao Wu, ‘Occupation by
absence, preoccupation with presence: a worm’s-eye view of art biennals’, Journal
of Visual Culture, 6:3 (2007), 379–86.
47 For a discussion of the particularity of the view from the Nordic ‘semi-periphery’,
see Petersen, ‘Globalarthistory’. For summary mappings of the polycentric global
art world, see Bydler, The Global Art World, Inc., pp. 150–7; Hans Belting and Sara
Giannini, ‘Mapping: The Biennials and New Art Regions’, in Belting, Buddensieg
and Weibel (eds), The Global Contemporary and the
The Global South 1, no. 1
(Winter 2007): 12–23.
11 Scholars have responded by questioning the very possibility of a globalarthistory, but these responses are often entrenched in self-reference, as in James
Elkins’ multiauthored anthology, Is Art History Global? (New York and London:
Routledge, 2006), which stems from Summers’ Real Spaces. For fruitful
discussions of Chinese modernities and contemporaneities vis-à-vis global contemporary art discourse, see Jonathan Hay, “Double Modernity, Para-Modernity,”
Gao Minglu, “ ‘Particular Time