1. An art historian needs to be art-proof as bullet-proof. Art is a proof of
human activity and mind in a specific time, place and community. Art history
works the same way as art works above. In addition, art is primarily nothing
more than certain materials assembled in a certain way and embodied with
certain meanings corresponding to a certain culture over time.
2. Sharing knowledge should be regarded as affiliation and prejudice free for a
better and an easier growth and expansion of all disciplines. "Affiliations" can sometimes hinder the progression of an idea or project
and finally of the discipline one serves.
3. Internet is here, in academia, to make our lives much easier. It could also
save you a whole lot of money in travel expenses, when otherwise you should
have to travel miles and miles just to consult only one single leaf in a museum
or library. The Benjamin's aura thing of an artwork is something of utmost
desire and definitely indispensable. But what happens when both time and money
are in shortage? Electronic catalogues, services and applications of museums,
libraries, research centres or institutes can at least compensate you to a
4. All voices (old and new whispers) have the right to be heard, independent or
not, affiliated or not. One bright man had once said that if we wanted to write
the history of a magazine or a journal, we should thoroughly study not only
(the editor and) the published articles but also the ones which hadn't been
that lucky to get published.
5. What happens in case there are no archives near you or one has no access to
any? Re-evaluation of sources and/or methods? What happens if the "End" has
already arrived? But, is there an "End," at all? Would that mean that people
could lose their jobs? A shift in methodology (not in career) seems more
6. There is no place on earth with just a single art history. More, there is no
art history paper in the globe, which could
possibly represent more than one art history at a time. Further, there is
always a person behind a name; not to mention behind an art history.
7. Art history even could be a collective or personal art history; more it
could certainly be described and clearly defined either as written, with the notion of academic, or as public
or oral art history. Furthermore, once there had been solely history of art,
then it became art history. Art criticism, as genre with no particular form, personal art histories and art
documentaries, among others, are in the spectrum of oral and public art history.
8. And when one has finally approached the way one's contemporary public(s)
approach the different arts, in our case visual, one should try to figure out
why a certain public believe what they believe. More, all the databases formed
in order to accommodate such research projects could prove to be an invaluable
source for the present but also in principal for the future art historian. The
number of voices from upper, lower, working, farming and marginal cultures, for
instance, which could be saved that way, could be astonishing. All user generated content projects are promoted towards this direction.
9. Articles, interviews, letters, working notes and reviews of current books
and exhibitions are eligible to its content. Re-evaluations, re-considerations,
new approaches and new perspectives to art history and theory are strongly
10. In addition, Art History Supplement encourages experimental publications
with a multi/inter-disciplinary character. Such an examination of art is
certainly not something new, but what happens when art history meets religion, linguistics, semiotics, ESL, classical languages and studies, computer science, health and natural sciences, music, film studies, translation studies, museology, and social sciences, among others, or once more the science of history of literature and literature itself?