[1] The Language of Fame and Failure in the Renaissance

What was the vocabulary for describing an artist’s fame or failure during the fourteenth through sixteenth centuries? How did this language vary when it was voiced by one artist about another artist? What labels were used in official contracts, in the communications of a patron, or in the growing biographical/autobiographical literature? How did these descriptive terms evolve over time? One is familiar with laudatory words, such as artful, genius, or divine, and phrases, such as a second (or new) Phidias, or, to borrow the Duke of Burgundy’s praise for Jan van Eyck, “one so excellent in his art and science.” At the opposite end of the verbal spectrum, what language expressed failure? This might cover real or perceived artistic failure, incompetency, or the poisoned words of a jealous rival. One only needs to think of Cellini’s less-than-kind opinions of his contemporaries. This session welcomes specific case studies and more wide ranging linguistic investigations. Participants must also be members of the Renaissance Society of America.

Please send an abstract of 1-2 pages, letter of interest, submission form (available from collegeart.org), and current CV by May 8 to: Jeffrey Chipps Smith, University of Texas, Austin. Email: chippsaustin.utexas.edu.

[2] The Meaning of Marginalia in Early Modern Art and Theory (1550-1750)

Published texts employed as teaching and learning tools by early modern artists, authors, and art patrons often bear traces of their readers' reactions in the form of marginal notes, and artists sometimes annotated their own works -- and those of others that came into their hands -- with revealing comments. These documents and others like them offer a rich vein of information and insights that deserves to be better known, both for insights into particular cases and as an enduring form of reception and the practice of connoisseurship. Among cases that have attracted the greatest attention are the series of postille inscribed by Annibale Carracci in
his copy of Giorgio Vasari's Vite, examined by Charles Dempsey in 1986 and still mined for insights into the artist's views, and Rembrandt's annotated drawing of the portrait of Baldassare Castiglione by Raphael, recorded along with its hammer price as the painting went up for auction in Amsterdam. Early modern collectors often made comments and even sketches in
the margins of sale catalogues, adding to the value of these texts as sources of information not only about individual works and their reception, but also about networks of collectors and shifts in taste. Annotated copies of important catalogues became collectors' items in their own right. This session invites papers that explore the insights to be gained from studying annotations added to publications, drawings, and other documents by artists and art lovers of the early modern era. While printed marginalia, such as the extensive annotations that accompanied the Dutch Statenbijbel, functioned as a literary category, this session is concerned primarily with
manuscript notes and sketches as a record of liminal thoughts bridging the published and the private. Papers may address individual case studies or examine broader trends from any part of Europe in the period 1550 to 1750. How might marginalia contribute to our understanding of the development of particular works, artists or trends, fluctuations in market value, or the
evolution and transmission of ideas in art theory?

Please send abstracts to: Stephanie Dickey (dickey.ssgmail.com) by April 15. All participants must become members of CAA. For format, guidelines, eligibility, etc., consult the CAA website:
http://www.collegeart.org/proposals/

Stephanie Dickey
Queen's University
Kingston, ON