ABSTRACT
There are two ways to take the general conversation initiated by James Elkins in “The Art Seminar.” First, we can take the issues raised in conversation to articulate that we have an impoverished art history that refuses to account for aesthetic judgments. And, second, we can observe that there exists an impoverished aesthetics that disregards the history of art. All of the panel participants address these two issues. But, it is, to my mind, Diarmuid Costello’s admission that locates a gap in the penurious disciplines of art history and aesthetics:
