The discourses around artworks – the critical writings, the theoretical constructs used to validate readings of them, the venues in which they are seen, the market value given them, the other artworks selected alongside them, and so forth – all of these help form the social meanings ascribed to them. On an individual level, we reach understandings of artworks through the mediation of words. Although artworks may provoke in us a visceral reaction, and one’s bodily relation to them is crucial, we reach understanding of how and why this might be so, and what its implications are, through thinking, discussing, and writing.
[Commenting on Griselda Pollock/Old Mistresses]
She [also] warns against the dangers of regarding feminism as a methodology within Art History – and conversely, why it is not enough to simply add women artists to the stories of Art History: the discipline produces notions of femininity that are antithetical to its notions of what it is to be an artist. The whole ideological structure of the discipline needs dismantling if women are going to be fully recognized as producers of culture.
Page 131 [Robinson referencing Mira Schor essay on art criticism ‘Patrilineage’ 1991]
[demonstrated’ how the same patriarchal ideology is holding the edifice together through the medium of providing patrilineage for artists. By this she means the technique of contextualizing an artist’s work only through reference to a canon of work by men, despite the fact that there is a clear and growing matrilineal heritage that can be used as a resource when writing about contemporary art. Schor argues for changes in all art and art history education and ‘a new art history and a different system of validation and legitimation’.