The theme of discussion and the readings for last week have brought about two questions for me. First, John Markoff’s cahiers case study illustrates a method for how they were able to overcome gaps in archival records, but how might this apply to ephemeral art objects that are no longer extent? Secondly, how might art historians who prioritize objects apply critical search, outlined by Guldi, to their search for images/objects to support research?

Both of these questions emerge from a tension that I have been experiencing and a larger question that I have been asking myself throughout the semester: as an art historian, what is my “data?” It is easy for me to just set aside the visual and material objects that I am working with and say that my data is the primary and secondary sources that I am using to frame my narrative or interpretation of the objects. However, that answer seems, at the very least, incomplete because I use those sources only as supporting evidence for what I am seeing in the objects themselves, and often I’m also using other artworks alongside the textual sources as support for my claims. The characteristics of the visual and material objects are as much my data as the textual sources that I deal with.

This is a particularly challenging reality when the objects that would be useful for supporting my claims no longer exist because textual descriptions of these objects often cannot articulate precisely enough the formal characteristics of the art object to support visual claims. Ekphrasis is often useful for establishing the existence of an object, but knowledge of its existence is insufficient for many visual arguments. This contrasts with the case study presented by John Markoff in which knowledge of the existence of cahiers was enough to begin to make larger historical claims.

In my own research, I often come up against this when dealing with Eucharistic devotion in 16th- and 17th-century Rome. During the period, Eucharistic devotion often centered around what are described as elaborate and theatrical stages on which a monstrance was placed to display the Eucharist for worshippers. These stages, though they often were designed by leading artists of the period, were ephemeral. They were dismantled after the event was completed. From the textual descriptions, I can make historical claims about these ephemeral works. I can, however, say very little art historically about them because I can’t see them. When drawings or prints illustrating these backdrops are extent, I can then begin to make visual arguments and hypothesize about how they might relate visually to other artworks.

The second question emerged for me out of the Guldi reading because I often find quite time consuming to find images (or more generally art objects) that support the arguments of my research. These objects (data) exist but are not often able to be found with a quick search. Part of the reason for this in my case is that I deal largely with artwork in situ or more generally smaller architectural spaces, such as chapels. For my current research project, I am finding that I actually have to find interior pictures of each of the Baroque churches in Rome and virtually walk through them to find the data I need. It would be amazing to be able to apply a sort of Guldian critical search method to find these objects and supporting material, but I can’t quite envision how that might work. I wonder if I might open this up to the class to see if others, especially those who deal material culture, have thought about how critical search might be adapted for visual sources. Any thoughts?