Journées d’études "Contemporary Ruins/Les ruines contemporaines" 9-10 décembre 2021

 Anne-Laure Amilhat Szary (géographe, Université Grenoble Alpes) et Paul Duro (historien de l’art, University of Rochester, New York)

Anne-Laure Amilhat Szary (Université de Grenoble)

Where is the frame?

 Defining boundaries is key to the production of space and more generally, to our way of knowing, which is based on categories of distinction. Thought about border which is grounded in imaginary lines, draws upon a fundamental duality that continues to dominate its rationale, despite the progress of critical studies in this field. Apparent evidence of a contradiction between inside and outside is disproved by analysis of the transformation of contemporary borders, which open and close simultaneously, all the while spreading through space both upstream and downstream of the dyad.  Capturing these territorial processes helps understand evolving frames of representation. Action, represented by the gerunds “framing” and “unframing,” leads to questions about the “frame of the frame,” i.e. the standards and the actors who produce them. The goal of this talk is to question the point of view of the framing, starting with the issue of space: answering “where?” allows us to move the “how?”. I propose to work on understanding where the frame is  to advance in the analysis and problematization of the questions that structure the symposium.

Paul Duro (University of Rochester, New York)

Framing Space in Eighteenth-Century British Art and Culture

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ‘The poet should be a maker of plot-structures . . . in so far as his status as a poet depends on mimesis, and the object of his mimesis is actions.’

Aristotle, The Poetics.

The spaces of painting – the material, social, aesthetic or ideological constructions that implement, define, inhabit, underpin, circumscribe or otherwise (re)produce the limits of the pictorial world – are my topic. But how are these spaces constructed; above all, how do they relate to the all-important concept of the frame?

Since Jacques Derrida’s influential The Truth in Painting (1978), the answer has been the parergon (ergon: work, para: around), instancing ‘the frame, the title, the signature, the legend, etc.,’ as examples of the marginal devices that ‘give rise to the work.’ Yet while privileging the quadrilaterialism of the easel frame to great effect, Derrida had little to say about the protocols, expectations and uses resulting from this enframing. In response, this paper seeks to extend recent discussion of the parergon to address the role of the frame in the construction of space in eighteenth-century British art.

This optic matters because space in painting is never simply there; it must be constructed just like any other ‘part’ of painting (line, color, composition etc.) in order to serve as a setting for the action. From this perspective the frame ‘interpolates’ the beholder, positioning us in relation not only to the visual field (which is essentially the disposition of space), but also identifies these spaces according to the genres represented. The resulting field therefore opens up a space that functions symbolically, mediating between the beholder on the one hand and the narrative on the other, in order to frame a space in which action is the principal subject and any other element is secondary or parergonal.

Britain in the eighteenth century is an especially interesting case study for the reason that, despite the foundation of the Royal Academy in 1768 and the clear-headed advocacy demonstrated by Sir Joshua Reynolds in the Discourses, Britain did not have, and was never to achieve, parity with those genres of painting, especially history painting, on which so much art theory depended. In response, this paper will argue that artists and critics responded to the supposed ‘failure’ of history painting to identify forms and genres of pictorial expression that introduced a hybridity into British painting that melded styles and genres that may properly be considered to inaugurate a British ‘school’ of painting. This paper will draw for its examples on artists and theorists ranging from Hogarth to Reynolds and Turner, but will focus most on Joseph Wright of Derby, whose oeuvre contains unrivalled examples, such as A Lecture on the Orrery, of the kind of painting that is my focus in this talk.

Cliquez ici pour télécharger le programme.

Hébergement 

DEPUIS L'EXTÉRIEUR DE L'EUROPE

Les aéroports internationaux les plus proches sont l'aéroport de Francfort (bus express Lufthansa vers Strasbourg), Paris Orly (vols vers Strasbourg, ou RER vers Paris centre, puis TGV de la Gare de l'Est vers Strasbourg) et Paris Roissy (RER vers Paris centre, puis TGV de la Gare de l'Est vers Strasbourg).
 

 DEPUIS LE ROYAUME-UNI

Il y a trois possibilités, en plus de l'avion pour Paris ou Francfort :
 
- L'Eurostar de Londres Paddington à la Gare du Nord (puis une courte marche jusqu'à la Gare de l'Est, puis TGV de la Gare de l'Est à Strasbourg).
 
- Aéroport de Strasbourg : à 15 minutes du centre ville en train - vols en provenance de Paris Orly, Londres Gatwick, et d'autres villes européennes.
 

- Badenairpark près de Baden-Baden et Karlsruhe (Allemagne) - Vols Ryanair depuis Londres Luton. Pour aller à Strasbourg depuis Badenairpark, il y a deux possibilités :
1) navette directe vers Strasbourg (40-50mn, plus rapide et plus facile mais plus cher)
2) navette jusqu'à Baden-Baden, puis train pour Strasbourg - vous devrez peut-être changer de train (1h45-2h30).
 
- EuroAirport Basel Mulhouse - Vols Easyjet depuis Gatwick ; Vols British Airways depuis Heathrow. Pour aller à Strasbourg : navette jusqu'à Mulhouse (30mn), puis train jusqu'à la gare centrale de Strasbourg (45-50mn).
 

 
DEPUIS LA FRANCE ET L'EUROPE CONTINENTALE
 
En avion : voir ci-dessus
 
En train : Strasbourg est à environ 1 heure et 50 minutes de Paris en TGV. Il existe également des trains directs depuis les principales villes allemandes, suisses et autrichiennes.

After having organized several conferences and published several collective volumes on borders, the SEARCH research group at the University of Strasbourg pursues its research on space and its organization by addressing the issue of frames and their artistic, literary, historical, sociological and geographic significance.

     The conference seeks to study operations of isolating and circumscribing space, as is the case in landscape painting, and also the “production of space” (Lefebvre), without setting the two in opposition. Space is understood in a physical and geographical sense, but also in a social sense (social spaces and their rules) and a material one (the canvas, the page, the stage, photographic or cinematic space, for instance). The notion of frame opens up a reflection on the ways in which space is constructed or deconstructed, according to norms or against them. Frames can be material, geographical or visual, but also social, ideological or epistemological. We seek to explore frames, but also the ways in which they organize experience (Goffman), the ways in which we create them or seek to abolish them, the ways in which we experience them or impose them.

Delimiting space

     Frames imply a duality between inside and outside, and a relationship of inclusion, which is often informed by a hierarchical dimension. They also lead to transgression and interaction between inside and outside (Heller-Andrist). Such was the case in fundamental operations of delimiting space like the Northwest Ordinance (1787), which organized the division and the territorial expansion of the United States, and the Manhattan grid. This geographical framing corresponds to a conceptual and/or ideological framing, which may evolve over time. From this perspective, it is useful to address the evolution of spatial landmarks related to the Western expansion of the United States, or to the effects of climate change. Regarding the arts and literature, the frames that delimit the work can be studied in terms of how they circumscribe space (as with picture frames or the space of the page, for example). Another possibility is to study the attempts to break the frame, be it through transgression, dissolution or extension, from Dada to Happenings to Land Art.

Conceiving space

     Delimiting space is inextricably bound with a certain understanding of the latter, be it the apprehension of a pre-existing space or the emergence of a new space (Derrida), as the English verb “to frame” denotes. This conception can be the result of a power struggle or be entangled with attempts to appropriate and confiscate space, as demonstrated by the carving up of Africa at the Berlin conference (1884-5) or the controversies surrounding the gendered dimension of urban planning and schoolyards. This is also true of historiographic frames insofar as they apply the spatial regimes of a given era to a past era. Landscape painting does not delimit a space as much as it constructs one. This construction constitutes a represented object while simultaneously giving rise to a subject observer. Rather than an interface, the frame becomes the mark of this act of separation. For Latour, the dichotomy between nature and culture leads to the emergence of nature as object appropriated and exploited by the Western subject. Thus, the notion of frame can be a starting point for an exploration of space not as a given, but rather as a series of relations. Literature also constructs spaces of representation. Literary forms and genres create relations of inclusion and exclusion, as do all artistic rules.

Embedding, superposing, telescoping spaces

     Multiple framing phenomena can coexist and complement, superpose, or collide with one another.  In a painting, mise en abyme and related effects of duplication, embedding and in-building (Stoichita), in other words the relationships among various embedded frames, make apparent the semantic potential of such superimpositions. Phenomena of intermediality and transmediality deserve further scrutiny in this context, since they are particularly suitable for “heteromedial” framing (Wolf & Bernhart), be it ekphrasis or hypotyposis in literature, the relation between text and image in the art of emblems, visual arts and performance art, in political art and action, or the transposition of the canvas/the page to electronic media. The study of these heteromedial phenomena will allow us to better understand the nature of the varied relationships of opposition, reinforcement and transformation among frames, more specifically how they regulate the circulation between inside and outside.

      We encourage proposals on all English-speaking countries and all historical periods. We intend to publish a selection of papers in a peer-reviewed publication.

Possible topics: 

• Aesthetic frames
• Frames and knowledge
• Frames and power
• Production of space
• Social spaces and their rules
• Frames of representation
• Norms and transgressions related to the frame
• Evolution of frames
• Intermediality/transmediality
   
       Paper proposals in English or French (300 words) accompanied by a short bio should be sent to Pauline Collombier-Lakeman (collombier@unistra.fr) and Rémi Vuillemin (vuillem@unistra.fr) by May 31, 2021.

Organizing committee: Sandrine Baudry, Pauline Collombier-Lakeman, Gwen Cressman, Yves Golder, Hélène Ibata, Monica Manolescu, Mélanie Meunier, Fanny Moghaddassi, Ghislain Potriquet, Rémi Vuillemin.

Anne-Laure Amilhat Szary (geographer, University of Grenoble Alpes) and Paul Duro (art historian, University of Rochester)

Anne-Laure Amilhat Szary (Université de Grenoble)

Where is the frame?

 Defining boundaries is key to the production of space and more generally, to our way of knowing, which is based on categories of distinction. Thought about border which is grounded in imaginary lines, draws upon a fundamental duality that continues to dominate its rationale, despite the progress of critical studies in this field. Apparent evidence of a contradiction between inside and outside is disproved by analysis of the transformation of contemporary borders, which open and close simultaneously, all the while spreading through space both upstream and downstream of the dyad.  Capturing these territorial processes helps understand evolving frames of representation. Action, represented by the gerunds “framing” and “unframing,” leads to questions about the “frame of the frame,” i.e. the standards and the actors who produce them. The goal of this talk is to question the point of view of the framing, starting with the issue of space: answering “where?” allows us to move the “how?”. I propose to work on understanding where the frame is  to advance in the analysis and problematization of the questions that structure the symposium.

Paul Duro (University of Rochester)

Framing Space in Eighteenth-Century British Art and Culture

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ‘The poet should be a maker of plot-structures . . . in so far as his status as a poet depends on mimesis, and the object of his mimesis is actions.’

Aristotle, The Poetics.

The spaces of painting – the material, social, aesthetic or ideological constructions that implement, define, inhabit, underpin, circumscribe or otherwise (re)produce the limits of the pictorial world – are my topic. But how are these spaces constructed; above all, how do they relate to the all-important concept of the frame?

Since Jacques Derrida’s influential The Truth in Painting (1978), the answer has been the parergon (ergon: work, para: around), instancing ‘the frame, the title, the signature, the legend, etc.,’ as examples of the marginal devices that ‘give rise to the work.’ Yet while privileging the quadrilaterialism of the easel frame to great effect, Derrida had little to say about the protocols, expectations and uses resulting from this enframing. In response, this paper seeks to extend recent discussion of the parergon to address the role of the frame in the construction of space in eighteenth-century British art.

This optic matters because space in painting is never simply there; it must be constructed just like any other ‘part’ of painting (line, color, composition etc.) in order to serve as a setting for the action. From this perspective the frame ‘interpolates’ the beholder, positioning us in relation not only to the visual field (which is essentially the disposition of space), but also identifies these spaces according to the genres represented. The resulting field therefore opens up a space that functions symbolically, mediating between the beholder on the one hand and the narrative on the other, in order to frame a space in which action is the principal subject and any other element is secondary or parergonal.

Britain in the eighteenth century is an especially interesting case study for the reason that, despite the foundation of the Royal Academy in 1768 and the clear-headed advocacy demonstrated by Sir Joshua Reynolds in the Discourses, Britain did not have, and was never to achieve, parity with those genres of painting, especially history painting, on which so much art theory depended. In response, this paper will argue that artists and critics responded to the supposed ‘failure’ of history painting to identify forms and genres of pictorial expression that introduced a hybridity into British painting that melded styles and genres that may properly be considered to inaugurate a British ‘school’ of painting. This paper will draw for its examples on artists and theorists ranging from Hogarth to Reynolds and Turner, but will focus most on Joseph Wright of Derby, whose oeuvre contains unrivalled examples, such as A Lecture on the Orrery, of the kind of painting that is my focus in this talk.

Click here to download the program

Accommodation

FROM OUTSIDE EUROPE

The closest international airports are Frankfurt airport (Lufthansa express buses to Strasbourg), Paris Orly (flights to Strasbourg, or RER train to central Paris, then fast trains from Gare de l’Est to Strasbourg) and Paris Roissy (RER train to central Paris, then fast trains from Gare de l’Est to Strasbourg).
 

 
FROM THE UK

There are three main options, in addition to flying to Paris or Frankfurt:
 
-Eurostar train service from London Paddington to Gare du Nord (then a short walk to Gare de l’Est, and fast trains from Gare de l’Est to Strasbourg)
 
-Strasbourg airport : 15mn away from the city centre by train – flight services from Paris Orly, London Gatwick, and other European cities.
 
–Badenairpark near Baden-Baden and Karlsruhe (Germany) – Ryanair service from London Luton. To go to Strasbourg from Badenairpark, there are two possibilities:
1) direct shuttle services to Strasbourg (40-50mn, quicker and easier but more expensive)
2) shuttle to Baden-Baden, then a train to Strasbourg–you might have to change trains (1h45-2h30 overall).
 
–EuroAirport Basel Mulhouse – Easyjet flights from Gatwick ; British Airways flights from Heathrow. To go to Strasbourg: shuttle service to Mulhouse (30mn), then train service to Strasbourg central station (45-50mn).
 

 
FROM FRANCE AND CONTINENTAL EUROPE
 
By plane: see above
 
By train: Strasbourg is about 1 hour and 50mn from Paris by train. There are also direct train services from major German, Swiss and Austrian cities.