EB: Mondrian.

RK: Excuse me. What did I say?

EB: Everybody understood that you were talking about Brancusi.

RK: Brancusi. You know, sort of a hand polished blond surfaces which is sort of cold objects Brancusi with Prouve cast several of his sculptures in stainless steal. And this struck me absolutely zaniest detail of almost of that decade of 20th. I must say when you work on a book for ten years, and write as many pages as we did, you have to kind of amuse yourself, so we are always looking for the zany and eccentricities. So the only way I could write again about Brancusi was from the points of view of his making barbarian.

AR: Conjunction of Prouve and Brancusi page strikes me immediately something quite weird, I think. Then, you are right, in a sense that the canonical figures are kind of flittering away the edges and this is in a sense carrying not through kind of overproduction of which things to say and  one is driven into finding something new to say about him and something quite kind of crankier is occurring, so in a way one might say that one of the things opening in the core of pedagogical process, kind of responsibility, a kind of openness, finally, yes.

MN: I think the pedagogic principle in this book is really interesting. I wonder if I could maybe just quote for the audience if you passages from the book. Because there is in a sense that in which for me at least one of the narratives strands of the book is pedagogy itself, pedagogical book but it's also it's a book which there wealth of pedagogical scenes from the Bauhaus to Guggenheim and beyond. So just give you an example from those of you might not have opportunity to look at the book. In Yve-Alain's methodological introduction to formalism and structuralism, he opens up with Roland Barthes 1971 and 1972 seminar in the history of semiology and he writes, “the curiosity of Barthes auditors myself among them was immense. In this period of intellectual turmoil marked by general edictal desire to kill the structuralist model, they expected him to ease their understanding shift underway from A: structuralism to B: post structuralism...” They anticipated a chronological survey: an anticipation which was disappointed so we have this kind of right from the beginning of the book, narrative drive. Now there is something about Yve-Alain Bois. And his relation to Roland Bathes' pedagogic situation is kind of like fascinating historical moment in which something about the author and something broader historical situation come together and we have seen in which teacher is going to do something unexpected. There would be a surprise in a way that the materialist thought.

In Rosalind's methodological introduction to post-structuralism and de-construction, she opens with Paris in May '68 highlighting the challenge to the institutional frame that posed by the poststructuralist project. And quotes from a leaflet, published by protesting students, which saids in parts we refused to become teachers serving a mechanism of social selection in an educational system operating at the expense of the working class children. And also cites the linguistic student as well closed comparison of the university's examination and police interrogation. So this idea that the kind of pedagogical situations that the book explores will be ones that are contested which there is kind of disruptedness that you are also talking about the way you write the book in a way that you are sort of teaching people to think about their work that something kind of subversive within this. There are other moments which are a different character which kind of take from the history of the development of the teaching of art history, for example. There is a box you saw when the slides are going by some of these boxes. (00:35:00)
There is one on Roger Fry which quotes from Virginia Wolf's description of his inaugural slayed lectures at Cambridge at 1933. And she writes, he had only to point to a passage in the picture and murmur the word "plasticity" and magical atmosphere was created. He looked like a fastened fly with rope around his waist and spawned by his evening dress, the religion of his convictions. "Slide please, he said." and she goes on this really, you know, wonderful account of what was like to listen to Fry lecturing. And many other examples from the Bauhaus and the blackmountain college. The experience of Anni Albers and others teaching and learning there, but through out the book, I think, there is this interesting way in which the whole problem of pedagogy and what teachers and students do together. It is really interestingly explored as a dialogue and dynamical and struggle in it. All gets to sound pretty flash and surprising. I just wondered in what extent that you talked about that problem you were doing in the book or just have it.

YB: We didn't really talk about it. We thought of the book as a text book. We thought of the book as something that going to help people to teach this period and to all students to have a glimpse of it. So, it was the pedagogical function of the book was very clear right from the start that we... But we also, all of us have been teaching quite a while. So, you know, we have some tricks and so, one of what I refers before was this narrative kick that we liked. This is kind of surprised part of this tricks that we put that is so evident in the book in part I think because the book was right from the start to be at pedagogical function. I didn't consciously reflect upon this the fact that I give right from the start this example of Barthes; because the trick was not start from Saussure but start from Barthes which is he is a first semiological lead. I have a nothing to do with Saussure. I don’t think whatever. But the idea was the science of signs starting with Barthes was a big surprise for all students at that time. And I think we do this we do offer a lot in the book actually to supply slightly off in order to stimulate kind of interest and new angle and new light and but we in a way the pedagogical function triggered some kind of different kinds of things which we emphasized.

For example, several times in the book, there are entries that personally don’t like to write which was omnibus century. You write about 20 artists because you have to, just because there was a movement. I didn't like those particular entries to write. I don't like those entries, I don't think I just erased I didn't like to write but you know that you have to do those just to place something but there are also other entries we all did that put huge emphasis on one or two works of art. Complete long analysis, discussion you know, unfolding a problem, because we felt this was also pedagogical devise to really make sure that provide kind of model not just attention, how do you sustain analysis of... I remember very long time ago, lecture by Tim Clark, with only one slide for one hour and that was extraordinary. Actually, I tried to imitated I was unable to do it. You know, it's really kind of great to be able to have a book which discusses so many artists and so many movements from time to time, two or three pages on one work, or three paragraphs, but kind of slowdown. We thought it was very important things to do. Maybe we wouldn't have done it just like that if we are not consciously thought about the pedagogical structure.

RK: Well, we never actually though about this business about narrating the pedagogical situations and that you discovered that I am very pleased that it's there. (00:40:00)
MN: It is a kind of invitation in the preface to the book to the reader to find some that there would be narratives within this book that would be possible to find narrative strands through the way that the book is organized that are not necessarily the ones that are highlighted. This is one example but there are any number of examples that one could bring forward and that's one of the pleasure of working with it even more so if you didn't kind of larger than there. But that is something present.

RK: That's great. Thank you.











AR: Interesting interpretations, I think, to your art of introductions to follow minimalist thing, poststructualism and deconstruction. Before in fact you've talked about any theorist, you are talking about Mass Boughtae, a way in which art and signification work. Complexity, the way　 in which he arrange his objects, and it's not through spelling out theoretical apparatus and saying now we go to work and see that work is or isn't deconstructed, or is or isn't post-modern, advent, apre, retro or whatever. But that it somehow starts there. And then, you are going to the critique of structuralism. Again, I found that was pedagogically important. Maybe, in terms of a book which is art history book, at times art history remains a kind of contended discipline or discipline is or isn't changing enough. That seemed to me to be important. Because there is a way in which image then drives the analysis and that goes beyond the problem whether it's formalism or not. And again, I thought if it's individual or something strategy or am I right reading into the volume, narratives which emerge from it.

RK: Who you are addressing, Yve-Alain, me?

AR: Anyone.

YB: Well, I think all four of us, actually, really have always worked very close to... I mean, how would you say, use respect and respect for the art object as a theoretical statement. You know, painting is theoretical act or taking the object itself as formulating thought visually but basically thought is theory, though. I think it stands from there. We wanted to make sure that contrasted certain prejudice about theoretically inclined art historian as we are labeled. It would not seem because that’s not how we work. We start from the theory and go to work. We want to make sure that it will be clear that in our way of thinking, the theoretical impulse very often, most of the time, comes from the question raised by the object within the context. So, I think that's one of the reasons for Rosalind starts from Boutae as well. It’s kind of quite common to our thinking of all of us, I think. I don't know maybe Benjamin Buchloh disagree. I think it is. I think that we always look at art as a very, very important way of thinking that has its own distribution of knowledge, let's say. Starting with, taking as a kind of theoretical discourse, as well.

AR: I was wondering that if we can... floor? Can you hear? We can carry on, or? (00:45:00)
Here comes a microphone. Here, right from the very front row.

YB: Depends on which sets. It's very heavy when you receive on your feet. It is a monument in a sense that it's a symptom of a particular moment, which is the end of the 20th century, well it’s the beginning of the 21st. But we don’t want to be kidding. Basically it’s the end of the 20th century so far and in a way, we recapitulate and re-frame whole past period. So, in that sense, it is a text full of our own conscious projections of all our blind spots. That would be the symptomatic reading of what our monument is, but, to impact it fully history in our future generation. I think, to be able to…

RS: I would like to add something to it. It's a monument to Nicolas’ Stangles and his commitment to art history to modernism to 20th century. You know, I mean, he published books, edited books on 19th century and now it's 20th century, so it's kind of monument to him and dedicated to him.

You know, it's a grid that you have empty cases.  I hope it all through the cross referencing that have been mentioned, that we have avoided. And in fact we are four different voices. And we speak, the entries are not continuous chapter but, you know, give a sense of discontinuity end of raptures while also giving this. On the other hand cross references in the sense of continuity that you can construct yourself as a user of the book. I hope you have voided completely the idea of this massive, me, Harvard elite, I am going to tell you about what the modern art is about, right from the start. That's not what we wanted to produce.

AR: Also, in a way Rosalind said, it is a document. It is a document in a way in which art history is constructed, deconstructed as well. In the way which the grounds of which might wish to develop our history changes as you looked through the relation between political days, days in which stars social histories and political studies and cultural studies where 1917 or 1953 or 1956 or 1968 in which when people endlessly talked about their moment of their wish to be or not to be.  These days, actually we don't care it at all in that way. They only occurred in a way which art has before or afterwards generated, interacted with or being carrier of some of these ideas and it’s very straightly forward from political date of first half, 1934 which is a Soviet writer’s congress and the development of the load of social historicism. But it's not in 1917. And I kind of find that interesting in terms of which in relation to which the art and political is documented or re-mapped here. The date which need to be explained is 1848 or 71 again. It was in 19 century. It was flitted away. So, this one of 1934 stands out. And I was wondering perhaps I was do you want to raise yourself to that a little to that maybe to 1934. Did you…

EB: No, Benjamin did. Well, you know, I think.

AR: He is after tea.

MH: Could I just say something else about the monument, because one thing we haven't really mentioned, I don't think, are the roundtable discussions which you have the end of each discussion section. And there is a way which some of the reflections you offer in those roundtables anticipate the questions that you are asking because you ask yourself such thing as well what we’ve learned about the period from 1900 to 1945 by doing the work that we've done and how does it change our understanding of what we might have to say next about that period. So, there is a sense of which think Benjamin’s first intuitive odd critiques of problems that arises within the process from having written the book which can then be followed by you and by others. And so, there is a kind of anticipation of what comes next which seems to really in some sense anticipate that question about what the status of this project is. And I wondered did you want to say anything about the roundtables and the decisions to include it in the book or how you came up with that idea.

RK: It was decided when it was decided that student edition would be two volumes.

YB: So it was practical. It was very useful sometimes the good decision was made by practicality. I mean it was good, because the problem of the first half century and the second are not the same and the problem of the relationship between the first half and the second is addressed more in the second roundtable. The relationship between the art comes after the war. It was, I think, in part to prevent the big monument and also for practicality.

AR: OK.