Thread by @JeffreyASachs

Two art history-related kerfuffles to come in over the transom recently. First, Yale's decision to scrap its popular Intro to Art History survey course, allegedly because it is too white, male, and Western. The usual crowd is, of course, outraged.

yaledailynews.com/blog/2020/01/2…

However, it's important to note that the course is not being scrapped for long. In 2-3 years, it will be replaced with another Intro to Art History course, so it's not clear what's being lost. Much of the subsequent commentary ignores this fact, e.g.:

reason.com/2020/01/27/yal…

But more to the point (and here I'm sure some of you will dismiss me), I *strongly* suspect that this is much ado about nothing. In part, that's because the move has the support of the Director of Undergraduate Studies, Marisa Bass.

arthistory.yale.edu/people/marisa-…

Bass, for those of you who don't know, is the absolute last person who would reject the importance or grandeur of European art history, in particular the Vasari/Van Mander roster of Great Worthies. I've read some of her work myself. I'm in awe.

https://twitter.com/JeffreyASachs/status/1216411269034659840

In other words, the chance that Yale's students aren't going to have the chance to participate in the great Renaissance-to-Now march through art history is basically nil. They, and the canon, are in good hands.

Kerfuffle #2: @wmarybeard calls on viewers to (re-)consider the nude as "porn for the elite". Critics claim she's undermining great works of art in a fit of feminist pique. But she's absolutely correct!

telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/2…

@wmarybeard Many of the original patrons who commissioned these nudes (the Titians, Rubens, etc.) did so *explicitly in order to be titillated*. We know this for an historical fact; they talked about it constantly. It's smut. Other things as well, and undoubtedly great art. But also smut.

@wmarybeard Unfortunately, museums do everything possible to disguise this fact. Art, especially great art, is something we must take "seriously", which above all means gravity, solemnity, fastidious dignity.

But come on. Look at this stuff. Not exactly subtle!
(Grien, Boucher, Rubens)

@wmarybeard Ironically, while Beard is being accused of degrading great art, it's actually her critics who are doing the cheapening. Unlike them, she's taking these works seriously, pulling them down off the gallery walls and pedestals to see them as they were meant to be seen.

@wmarybeard It's like with religious paintings. Your Michelangelos, Durers, and Memlings. Plucked from behind the altar and mounted on a tastefully colored gallery wall, it's easy to forget that these are sacred objects. Too easy.

@wmarybeard Museums are wonderful, but they are also traps for the gullible. Beard is reminding us of this fact. But since nobody likes being told that they're gullible (not least when there's a potential Culture War valence to the thing), they jump down her throat.

@wmarybeard Which for anyone who purports to care about art is a massive shame.

@wmarybeard CODA: I've seen this response a lot. It's a perfectly understandable suggestion, but if you know how academia works, you know it's more complicated than that.

https://twitter.com/IdiotTracker/status/1222576420561416192?s=20

@wmarybeard This was an introductory survey course. I'm guessing that it was required for the major/minor. I'm also guessing that it did contain some non-European content, albeit very little.

@wmarybeard Which means it's not just a matter of adding on the word "European". We're talking a change in content AND a change in the structure of the major/minor. Certainly the second of these (and probably the first as well) would require approval from the Faculty Senate and dean.

@wmarybeard I don't know the details, but my point is that you can't just tweak an intro survey course like that. There's a whole months-long (at best) process, with input from lots and lots of stakeholders. Frustrating, but that's the reality.