. . . [T]he example of the digital realm gives us some hope in the near future and in the next one hundred years. . . . [T]he ability to thematize and conceptualize the fragmentary is precisely the epistemological hope offered in the digital realm that will need to be taken up as such by the CAA of the future. . . . The fluidity of the digital environment allows for the cross-pollination of ideas and images between artists and art historians that can never be achieved in the ink-bound page-limits of the Art Bulletin. . . . Yes, indeed, we will still need to think in conventional terms, highlighting issues of peer review in publication or valuing and protecting traditional venues of art exhibition or art media and education. These are required as much by the institutional conditions of museums and universities as they are by the realities of the art world and its publics. But such conventions are already living side-by-side with other kinds of interests, those that, for example, include more collaborative work, pieces that are multivalent in their layered applications and trains of thought, or interactive in real time . . .Paul B. Jaskot, “Conclusion: The Next 100 Years,” in Susan Ball, ed., The Eye, The Hand, The Mind: 100 Years of the College Art Association (New York: College Art Association and New Brunswick, NJ, and London: Rutgers University Press, 2011) pp. 239–290, at p. 242.
In what ways might the roles of the Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Board, and CAA support staff change to support digital publication of The Art Bulletin? How might CAA and The Art Bulletin plan for the cost of utilizing emerging technologies?
|Previous page on path||Timeline, page 38 of 38||Path end, continue|