Manton Studio, Tate Britain

mattednearAI and Robotics

Dec 1, 2013 (3 years and 7 months ago)

54 views


1



‘Lawrence Alloway Reconsidered’



Manton Studio, Tate Britain




Wednesday 30 March 2011, 10.00
-
18.00



10.
1
0 Welcome/Introduction

Jennifer Mundy

(Head of Collection Research) introduces
Dr. Courtney
J.
Martin

(Vanderbilt
University)


Session One: Independent Group

10:
15

Anne Massey
: ‘Farther Than Pop: Lawrence Alloway and the Independent Group’

10.
45

Eric Stryker
: ‘Parallel Systems: Eduardo Paoloz
zi and Lawrence Alloway’


11.
15

Discussion


Break 11.
30 Coffee and tea will be provided.


Session Two: Lawrence Alloway


Theory, Criticism, Writings

11.
45

Richard Leslie
: ‘Lawrence Alloway’s Parataxis’

12.
15

Julian M
yers
: ‘A Short History of the Long Front of Culture’


12.
30

Discussion


Lunch
break 12.45


13.30.

Viewing of related material drawn from Tate Archive.


Session Three: Lawrence Alloway


Theory, Criticism, Writings

1
3.30
Stephen Moonie
: ‘Lawrence

Alloway and Art Criticism
-
as
-
Information’

14.
00

Catherine Spencer
: ‘Lawrence Alloway’s Affinity with Anthropology’

1
4
.
30

Courtney J. Martin
: ‘Art World, Network and other Lawrence Alloway Keywords’


15.
00

Discussion


Break 1
5
.
1
5



15.30 Coffee and tea wil
l be provided.


Session Four: Film and Photography

1
5.30
Shelley Rice
: ‘Contemporary Photography as “Horizontal Description”’

16.
0
0
Peter Stanfield
: ‘
Intent to Speed: Lawrence Alloway’s Film Criticism’


1
6.3
0 Discussion


Session Five: Reflections

16.45
Rebecca Peabody
: ‘
Critics & Curators, and Alloway in the Archives


17.00
Victoria Walsh
: 'Reflections on Nigel Whiteley's
Art and Pluralism: Lawrence Alloway’s
Cultural
Criticism'
, to be published Autumn 2011



2


17.20 Discussion


17.4
0

Conclusion of conference.



Abstracts



Anne Massey
: ‘Farther Than Pop: Lawrence Alloway and the Independent Group’


This paper offers an account of the intellectual basis of Lawrence Alloway’s work as a leading
cultural commentator, curator and art
critic. The paper looks beyond the usual reading of his
work as a ‘Father of Pop’, by considering the foundations of his work, and development during
the first half of the 1950s. These foundations lie in his boyhood fascination with American
popular cultur
e and his involvement wi
th the Independent Group.
Drawing on interviews,
letters to the author and other archival material, this paper will frame the thinking of Alloway in
terms of the I
ndependent
G
roup

and shared childhood enthusiasms. His relationship with
Richard Hamilton will come under scrutiny, as will the importance of his partnership with

the
painter, Sylvia Sleigh. Alloway’s

intellectual resonance with Eduardo Paolozzi and John McHale
will also
form a key part. Rather than a simplistic reading of Alloway as a ‘Father of Pop’, this
paper frames his contribution in terms of an informed critique of both modernism and popular
culture, which is key to understanding
both
the work of the I
ndependent
G
ro
up a
nd the
intellectual foundations of this leading British writer.

Eric Stryker
: ‘Parallel Systems: Eduardo Paolozzi and Lawrence Alloway’


The relationship between Lawrence Alloway and
artists from the Independent Group

has often
been cited in narrative
s of the genesis of pop art and the formulation of a post
-
war European
avant
-
garde.

Indeed, many points of convergence and correlation can be identified in the
comparative study of Alloway’s writings and the visual works of his London contemporaries


most

notably, an interest in mass culture, as well as a willingness to identify its distinctive
qualities without resigning it to the cri
tical category of mere kitsch.

As such, Alloway and the
Independent Group, some have noted, appear to have adopted a vangua
rdist stance which is
self
-
consciously distinct from the Greenbergian dictates of au
tonomy and medium
-
specificity.
From this vantage, their voracious consumption of mass
-
produced visual culture becomes
historically significant as something greater than an
early signal of approach of pop art’s
consumer critique.


Undoubtedly, such meditation on (and reuse of) this predominantly American visual culture
was a self
-
conscious reflection on the transatlantic reception of these cultural forms in the
same

years th
at Britain’s newfound ‘special relationship’

with post
-
war American hegemony
was being secured.


However, the attention to visual culture was also tantamount to a process
of differentiation that sought to identity and create a sense of local and national i
dentity
apart

from American influence


one which paralleled various efforts to define British national
identity in the post
-
war period.

Through the interrogation of visual culture, Alloway and the

3

Independent Group evolved a set of themes, processes and c
ritical terms that are
very much
sited in the social history of post
-
war London and Britain.




Richard Leslie
: ‘Lawrence Alloway’s Parataxis’


This

paper argues that Alloway, after seeing himself as Clement Greenberg’s man in London
(
in
his attempt to rec
onfigure issu
es of modernism and abstraction),

consciously formulated a new
type of criticism that synthesized the ideas of Greenberg and Harold Rose
nberg.
Alloway
transposed Rosenberg’s arena for the artist into a sociological field
for action by the
critic. This
‘field theory’

of criticism is argued as
being
related to
,

but different from
,

his 1958 formulation
of a

fine
-
art pop
-
art


continuum
.

This

presentation briefly outlines
the
ideas in England on
which Alloway drew

in
develop
ing

his critical app
roach. Many of them were intellectual
currents and ideas within the I
ndependent
G
roup. Some,
such as computer science and
anthropology
, are now well known. But
some lesser known issues developed from Alloway’s
autodidactic approach to learning art historic
al methodology in his early years
, as well as
his
love of poetry.

S
pecific case studies on the application of his approach in the U
SA will be
discussed
.


Julian M
yers
: ‘A Short History of the Long Front of Culture’


First advanced by Lawrence Alloway in
1959, the phrase

the long front of culture


aimed to
describe an emergent attitude among the artists, architects, designers and critics connected to
the Independent Group: a fascination with, and complex manipulation of, the artefacts of a
new
American po
pular culture. In

place of an obsolete hierarchy of an imperilled modernism
and a debased kitsch (the boundary between which might alternately be policed and
transgressed), Alloway imagined a single continuum or

front

, where fine art and popular
culture
not only existed on equal terms


Picasso and bug
-
eyed monsters, Duchamp and lux
upholstery, Bauhaus and pornography



but competed for the attention of a new sort of mass
audience. What was the history of this idea? What was its fate in Alloway’s writing,

and how
does his essay read to us now? The concept was prescient, of course, foreseeing magazines and
programs in Visual Studies, as well as a certain sort of postmodernism. A theory of the

touchability of all the bases in the continuum

, one might even
argue, imagines Google Image
Search and

the long tail


avant l
a

lettre
, as well as the current, constant flux between celebrity
culture and contemporary art. Today we live in

the long front

. But now that it has become a
dominant condition, does
Alloway’s description retain any of its critical bite? Some answers
might be found in the transformations of the idea in Alloway’s own writing, its reconfiguration
in subs
equent years as ‘system’ or ‘
network
’.

Answers
,

too
,

might come from testing his theo
ry
against the work of artists who
assume a ‘long front of culture’

as their practice’s fundamental
ground.


Stephen Moonie
: ‘Lawrence Alloway and Art Criticism
-
as
-
Information’


Throughout his career
Lawrence Alloway claimed that the art critic should avoi
d the explicit
value judgments which were the
staple of modernist criticism.
Instead, Alloway insisted that
the critic must aim to provide information; he or she must attempt to ‘map’ the increasingly
diverse field of artistic practice, which threatened to

‘bulge inconveniently beyond the classical
scope of enquiry.’ Alloway’s sceptical pluralism would be conducive to the emergent

4

p
ostmodernism of the 1980s (to the genial tolerance of A
rthur Danto, if not the

theory of the
October

journal). More broadly, hi
s position is accepted by

many in the contemporary art
world.

A

2002 poll of American art critics was cited, where value judgements were ranked
bottom in their lis
t of priorities.
Given this acceptance of Alloway’s critical position, it is
necessary to con
sider its

implications more thoroughly.
Although there is no generally accepted
theory of information, the notion has significant implications for the art
-
world and its
participation in the post
-
industrial ‘knowledge economy
’.

Alloway’s writing is of parti
cular
historical interest, since as a critic, he was among the first to grasp this phenomenon.


This paper will discuss the emergence of Alloway’s critical ideas within the context of post
-
war
modernism.
Of particular importance is Norbert Wiener’s study
Cybernetics and Society

(1952)
that
introduced Alloway to the theories of information and communication
which
wou
ld help to
shape his thinking.
More broadly, the paper will suggest that reconsideration of Alloway is of
signi
ficant contemporary relevance.
H
is criticism poses a challenge to which few have
satisfactorily responded, which is to explain the role of the art critic in an increasingly diverse,
differentiated art

world.


Rebecca Peabody

is Manager of Research Projects at the Getty Research Institute
. She earned a
PhD from Yale University, and focuses her research on representations of race, gender, and
nationality in twentieth
-
century American art and culture. She is volume editor of
Anglo
-
American Exchange in Postwar Sculpture, 1945


197
5 and volum
e co
-
editor of
Pacific Standard
Time: Los Angeles Art 1945


1980
(both Getty Publications, 2011), and her essays appear, or
are forthcoming, in exhibition catalog
ue
s, edited volumes, and the journals
Comparative
Literature, Ethnic and Racial Studies
,
Gett
y Research Journal, Slavery & Abolition
, and
Studies in
Ethnicity and Nationality
. She has taught at Yale University and the University of Southern
California.


Catherine Spencer
: ‘Lawrence Alloway’s Affinity with Anthropology’


In his 1971 essay
‘Anthropology and Art Criticism’, Alloway invokes anthropology as a vital
interdisciplinary model for art criticism, represent
ing

an alternative to the formalist reification
promoted by Roger Fry. For Alloway, anthropology’s relevance was not that it provi
ded
theoretical tools for wholesale im
port into art criticism, but that

it held out the prospect of an
immersive critical approach predicated on wide
-
ranging cultural engagement, signalling a ‘way
out of regarding art as antagonistic to the rest of life
’.

The enabling qualities Alloway associated
with the discipline can be detected throughout his criticism, shaping his conviction that art was
bound up in a network of human communication, his effort ‘to see art in terms of human use’
not ‘philosophical probl
ems’, and his treatment of the heterogeneous manifestations of
popular culture as signs saturated with information about contemporary experience.


This paper proposes to trace Alloway and the I
ndependent
G
roup
’s cultivation of an
anthropological ‘affinity’
, arguing that it fuelled their prioritisation of fieldwork, personal
significance, ephemeral material, and concern with communication systems and information
networks, and was central to their semiotic approach to imagery. It will explore the emergence
of

this perspective through the exhibition environments created for
Parallel of Life and Art

(1953) and
This is Tomorrow

(1956), together with works such as Paolozzi’s
Bunk!

(1952) and
Hamilton’s
Interior I

and
II
(1964
-
5). In doing so, it aims to consider t
he wider correspondences
between pop and anthropology, and the ramifications involved in Alloway’s use of the analogy.

5

Richard Kalina observes that ‘Anthropology and Art Criticism’ anticipates Hal Foster’s seminal
critique ‘The Artist as Ethnographer’; whi
le drawing out the shared concerns of both essays, this
paper will suggest that Alloway’s affinity with anthropology is defined by the specificities of the
post
-
1945 Cold War environment.


Courtney J. Martin
: ‘Art World, Network and other Lawrence
Alloway Keywords’


Writing in 1976 about the possibility of women’s art in America as an avant
-
garde, Lawrence
Alloway declared that, “new art is
supposed

to presag
e a new set of social values.”
From the
late 1960s through the middle of the 1980s, Alloway
used his writi
ng to test ideas about new
art.

In his writing (art criticism, topical art magazine articles and exhibition catalogue essays), he
tracked the art of the times alongside its cultural and social relevance
.
In that process, he
explored the condi
tion of the network that he described as the
art world
, ‘
the support system
composed of artists, galleries, collections, museums and magazines that contribut
e to the
distribution of art’.
Network was a concept that encompassed contemporary art’s relationship
to
industrialisation
. Yet, Alloway’s understanding of the term predated its widespread use as a
description of the computer age that evolved into a metaphor for all forms of interconnec
tivity.

Unwilling to passively accept the changing status for participants (including himself) within the
art world
, Alloway set out to explore how each of these participants functioned individually and
in service to the whole. Over a series of articles
he charted concepts like the weakening of the
curatorial function, a process that he concluded was the result of a combined process of
consumeris
m and subservience to artists.
In other texts, he cautioned against misunderstanding
the significant role of th
e commercial art gallery, w
hile also championing

cooperatives

run by
artists
. Similarly, he questioned the motives of artist
-
writers, some of whom he wrote about
and championed. From this highly productive period, Alloway emerged as a figure whose
insight
into contemporary art holds value past the moment of its production. This paper will
examine Alloway’s keywords, like
art world

and
network
, in their current iterations. How have
their connotations deviated from his descriptions? How do different sets of s
ocial values shape
the understanding of these terms? Can new concepts be gleaned from his extant texts? What is
the use value for a system, like the
art world
, having a shared vocabulary?




Shelley Rice
: ‘Contemporary Photography as “Horizontal Descrip
tion”’


Writing in the S
pring 1979 issue of
Art Criticism
, Lawrence Alloway took it upon himself t
o draw
the broad outlines of a ‘
complex present
’.

The problem of the art critic, as he saw it, was to find
an esthetical

appreciation

of and appropri
ate to wh
at John Cage called a ‘
situation involving
multiplicity

, whether that multiplicity was
temporal, spatial or cultural.
Interested in
formulating a criticism based on cross sections of time within which simultaneous and
equivalent expressions co
-
exist, Allo
way often pointed to the Universal Exhibitions of the
nineteenth
century. Models of what he called

horizontal description

,

the exhibitions
(and
critics, like Baudelaire, who learned from them) were his touchstone for deciphering the
globalis
ed

art world.


Man
y of Alloway’s central tenets
have been incorporated into contemporary art discourse, with
or without acknowledgment of Lawrence’s role in their dissemination. There are, however,
some points that could use more development, and that might shed light

on contemporary art
and circumstances.

The most pertinent to this paper was put forth

in an essay of 1973. Entitled

The Us
es and Limits of Art Criticism’,

the text spoke about feminist, black and Puerto Rican

6

artists’ propensity to make the content of th
eir work

awareness of their identity
’.

Needless to
say, identity politics as artistic practice is now standard fare in contemporary expression, but
there are other ideas in Lawrence’s discussion that need to be revisited. Alloway was fascinated
by the ‘re
volutionary potential’

of a concept
of art that highlights ‘
what the artists have in
common as an active group rather than the definition of their work according to formal
criteria
’.

He concluded that this position points toward a
criticism whose function
is to ‘
study


the relationship between signs and their users
’.

This paper is

based on the premise that the
relationship

between signs and their users’
is a useful starti
ng point for the creation of a
‘horizontal description’

of contemporary photography


one that can radically alter current
discourse and the visual imaginary of the medium. The author will attempt to use Alloway’s
concepts to develop a theoretical model more nuanced than many of the analyses (often based
on more traditional, less technologi
cal media) now in place to describe multicultural
photographic production and international networks.


Peter Stanfield
: ‘
Intent to Speed: Lawrence Alloway’s Film Criticism’


In an essay on Alloway’s film criticism published in
Screen

in 2009, I conclude
d that there is
much that film studies can gain from an engagement with his ideas. This paper puts that claim
to the test. I ask questions about the formulaic nature of film production, which proceed from
the understanding that film is an industrial art. T
he relationship between art and industry was
at the heart of the questions Alloway had been asking about film since the late 1950s, questions
that reached an end point with the pu
blication in 1971 of his study ‘
Violent America: The
Movies

. The contradicti
on between film
as a manufactured, standardised

product, and film as
an art form and practice
,

underpins th
e terms of my enquiry.
I
shall
explore the oxymoronic
concept of the production of regular novelties. The challenge is to understand film’s unstable
combination of repetition and difference.
Like the lurid covers of pulp magazines that promised
all sorts of wonders, thrills, sensations, and curiosities, but which were often only a seductive
wrapper for

banal and prosaic formulaic stories, the attractio
ns in posters advertising the

JD/hot
-
rod cycle of films offered a compelling mix
of action
-
packed imagery with a
hyperbolic
textual entreaty. However, if the films renege on their promise of speed and thrills in story and
action, their production and
exhibition provided compensation. The turnover of movies in the
cycle was terrific, often double
-
billed for double impact. The pace at which the hot rod cycle
established itself and then burnt itself out was a remarkable act of an accelerated culture. The
cycle expended minor variations with giddy velocity while holding true to a formula that made
sure developments on a theme went nowhere fast. Considered within the context of cyclical
film production, this paper will examine the films’ production, marketin
g, and exhibition.



Biographies


Anne Massey
has written extensively on Lawrence Alloway and the Independent Group.
She is
Professor of Design at Kingston University.
Her
book
The Independent Group: Modernism and
Mass Culture in Britain, 1945

59
was publi
shed by Manchester University Press in 1995, and
republished as an Eprint in 2008.
Massey’s forthcoming title
Out if the Ivory Tower: The
Independent Group and Popular Culture
will be published

by Manchester University Press in

2012. She has also published

related work in
Art History, Art Monthly, Burlington Magazine
,
Macmillan Dictionary of Art
and contributed to the exhibition catalogue,
An Unnerving
Romanticism: The Art of Sylvia Sleigh and Lawrence Alloway
, to accompany an exhibition at the

7

Philadelphia

Art Alliance in 2001
. In 2002 Massey
contributed

a paper entitled

‘The
Independent Group: Urban Reality and the Impact of Science, the Media and American Popular
Culture’ to the British Council exhibition

catalogue
, Blast to Freeze: British Art in the Age

of
Extremes
.

Massey

runs the website,
www.independentgroup.org.uk

and
is Joint

Founding
Editor of the journal

Interiors: Design, Architecture, Cultur
e.


Eric

Stryker

is
Assistant Professor in Art History
at Southern Methodist University
. He

re
ceived
his Ph.D. from Yale University and

is a scholar of modern and contemporary art, film, and
photography, with
a
particular interest in
post
-
war Britain and Europe. Stryker’s

research
focuses primarily on the use

of visual media as techné in reconfigurations of socia
l identity and
human geography.

Technologies of the body, visual rhetoric, and the production of space are
recurrent strains in his teaching and scholarship.

The recipient of the Metropolitan Museum’s
Theodore Rousseau Pre
-
Doctoral Fellowship, Stryker co
-
curated the exhibition

London Pop Art


at the Yale Center for British
Studies.
His current book project is
en
titled
After the Blitz:
Figuration and Social Space in Reconstruction London
.


Richard Lesli
e

has been a Visiting Assistant Professor at the State University of N
ew York at
Stony Brook

since 1990
,

in a departme
nt founded by Lawrence Alloway. He has also been a
Lecturer since 1994
at the School of Visual

Arts (SVA) in New York City. Leslie has published
books,
reviews and essays,

and

is a critic and Contributing Editor f
or the Latin American
magazine
Art Nexus
. He is

a member of the Board of Directors for Art and Science, Inc. (ASCI)
where he has helpe
d c
urate numerous exhibitions on

art and science. Leslie

wrote his thesis
and dissertati
on on the criticism of Alloway (
the

basis of a forthcoming book) and he is
editor
-
in
-
chief of

the journal
Art Criticism
,
founded by Alloway and Donald Kuspit.


Julian Myer
s

is an art historian and critic whose writing has appeared in

numerous publications
including

Documents
,
October
,
Afterall
,
Frieze

and
Fillip
. He is the author of many
essays
that
focus
on the practices of Tariq Alvi, Trisha Donnelly, Edgar Arceneaux, Mic
hael Heizer, Eric
Wesley, Sterling Ruby and the

Independent Group, among others,
including ‘The Tend
ency to a
Synthesis of the Arts’

(
Afterall
, 2009) and ‘Form and Proto
-
politics’, relating to

the 1969
exh
ibition
Other Ideas

(
The Exhibitionist
, 2010).
Myers is Assistant P
rofessor at California
College of the Arts,

and is on the editorial board of
The Exhibitionist.


Stephen Moonie

completed
both his MA (2005) and

doctoral thesis

(2009)

at
the University of
Essex.


His PhD was
entitled ‘Criticism and Pai
nting: Modernism in the USA

c. 195863’. In the
academic year 2009

10, he was visiting lecturer at the University of Warwick.


Catherine Spencer

is an AHRC
-
sponsored
PhD student at
the University of York where she is

supervised by Dr
.

Jo Applin. The title
of her thesis is ‘The “Lesson of Anthropology” for

British
and American Art, 1950

70’, and her interests include theories of the anthropology of art and
material culture, artistic exchange between Britain, America and Latin America, the legacies of
surreal
ist ethnograp
hy for post
-
1945 practice,
assemblage and

auto
-
destructive art. Spencer

presented a paper at the
New Approaches to British Art 1939
-
1969
conference at the Courtauld
Institute of Art in 2010. An article based on her paper, ent
itled ‘The Indepen
dent Group’s

Anthropology of Ourselves”’, will be published in
Art History

in 2012.


Courtney J. Martin

researches twentieth
-
century British art, complemented by research and
writing on modern and contemporary art and architecture
. Currently

she is a post
-
doctoral

8

research associate and lecturer at Vanderbilt University. Prior to her appointment at Vanderbilt,
she was Chancellor’s Post
-
doctoral Fellow in the History of Art at

the University of California,

Berkeley (2009

2010),
a fellow at the

Getty Research Institute (2008

2009) and a Henry Moore
Institute Research Fellow (2007).
Martin is the author of

essays on the work of many
contemporary artists, such as Rasheed Araeen, Kader Attia, Rina Banerjee, Frank Bowling, Leslie
Hewitt, Wangechi Mu
tu, Ed Ruscha and Yinka Shonibare. Her writing has appeared in
Art Asia
Pacific
,
Artforum.com
,
Art Papers
,
Contemporary
,
Flashart
,
Frieze

and
NKA
.
Sh
e is
currently
working on a manuscript about British art and politics after 1968.


Shelley Rice
teaches in
both the Art History Department (Faculty of Arts and Sciences) and the
Photography and Imaging Department (Tisch School of the Arts) of New York University. A critic
and historian specializing in writing about photography and multi
-
media art since 1973,
Pr
ofessor Rice has written for such publications as

Art in America

,

Aperture

,

Artforum


and

Katalog

. She is the author of
Parisian Views

(
1997, shortlisted for the Krazna
-
Krausz Award
1999) and
Inverted Odysseys: Claude Cahun, Maya Deren, Cindy
Sherman

(
1999). She is also the
co
-
author of num
erous catalogues and books, and
a pending collection of Fleischmann lectures
at the University of Zu
rich will be published
in 2011

entitled ‘
The Geography of Photography:
American Photography
’. Professor Rice

has curated or co
-
curated a number of exhibitions,
among them
:


Deconstruction/Reconstruction


at the New Museum (1980) and (with Lynn
Gumpert)

Inverted Odysseys: Claude Cahun, Maya Deren, Cindy Sherman


at New York
University’s Grey Art Gallery, which w
on the International Art Critics’ Award for the best
American

photography exhibition of 1999

2000. Professor Rice has been awarded numerous
hono
urs, including

a Guggenheim Fellowship, two Fulbright Fellowships (to France and Turkey),
the PEN/Jerard award f
or Non
-
Fiction Essay

and
a H
asselblad Center (Sweden) Grant.

In 2010
Professor Rice

was named Chevalier in the Order of Arts and Letters by the French Minister of
Culture.



Peter Stanfield

is a Reader in Film Studies at the University of Kent. He is the a
uthor of two
studies of the Western, and a singular study of America’s gutter songs and the movies. His
latest work
,

Maximum Movies


Pulp Fictions: Film Culture and the Worlds of Mickey Spillane,
Samuel Fuller and Jim Thompson
,

is informed by the film the
ory of Lawrence Allow
ay and will
be published in Summer
2011 by Rutgers University Press.


Rebecca Peabody

is Manager of Research Projects at the Getty Research Institute. She earned a
PhD from Yale University, and focuses her research on representations of race, gender, and
nationality in twentieth
-
century American art and culture. She is volume editor of
Ang
lo
-
American Exchange in Postwar Sculpture, 1945


197
5 and volume co
-
editor of
Pacific Standard
Time: Los Angeles Art 1945


1980
(both Getty Publications, 2011), and her essays appear, or
are forthcoming, in exhibition catalogues, edited volumes, and the
journals
Comparative
Literature, Ethnic and Racial Studies
,
Getty Research Journal, Slavery & Abolition
, and
Studies in
Ethnicity and Nationality
. She has taught at Yale University and the University of Southern
California.


Victoria Walsh

is Head of Adult

Programmes at Tate Britain. Previously, she worked as a
freelance curator, project manager and research consultant in the fields of visual arts and
architecture. On post
-
war British art she has published on Nigel Henderson (
Parallel of Life and
Art: Nigel

Henderson

(2001
)
, Francis Bacon (‘The Ae
sthetic of Ambiguity’,

2008), architects
Alison and Peter Smithson,
and
Gilbert & George (
Sculpture in 20
th

Century Britain,

2003). In

9

2007 she collaborated with the late Nigel Whiteley and Anne Massey (Kingston Uni
versity) on
the Tate conference ‘Between Concept, Practice and Discipline:

The Legacy of the Independent
Group’.