KEYNOTE ROUNDTABLE
Dr Richard S Field (Yale), Prof James Mosley (Institute of English Studies), Dr 
Ad Stijnman (Leiden), Prof Michael Twyman (Reading)

The material turn in fields that rely on historical printed matter has led to interest in how those texts and images were—and are—produced. Those objects, including cut woodblocks, etched and engraved metal plates, and lithographic stones, could be fundamental to research. Tens of thousands survive from the last 500 years, but the vast majority are inaccessible because they do not fit into the cataloguing structures and controlled vocabularies used by the libraries, archives and museums that hold them. Those that are accessible tend to be under-used, as few researchers are equipped to understand them or communicate about them across disciplinary boundaries. Even the most basic term is debated: in book research, a matrix is the mould for casting pieces of type; in art research, each resulting type is a matrix (and the sheets printed from them are the multiples). As new possibilities to catalogue and digitise these artefacts are revealing their research potential, it is essential to establish how they can best be made available and how they can be used in research.

This deeply interdisciplinary conference will survey the state of research into cut woodblocks, intaglio plates, lithographic stones, and other matrices/printing surfaces. It will bring together researchers, curators, librarians, printers, printmakers, cataloguers, conservators, digital humanities practitioners, and others who care for or seek to understand these objects. The discussion will encompass all media and techniques, from the fifteenth century through the present. Please submit abstracts for papers (20 minutes) and posters (A1 portrait/vertical) by 30 June 2017 at bit.ly/BlocksPlatesStones-Submit.

FUNDING BODY
This event is part of a 12-month British Academy Rising Star Engagement Award, ‘The Matrix Reloaded: Establishing Cataloguing and Research Guidelines for Artefacts of Printing Images’. The discussions will support the creation of a research network to distill a single, interdisciplinary best practice from existing standards across disciplines and heritage collections and produce a program to train researchers to engage with matrices/printing surfaces.

Historians of Netherlandish Art (HNA) Sponsored Session

Twenty-five years ago, Walter Melion, Timothy Riggs, and Larry Silver brought attention to the understudied subject of reproductive engraving in northern Europe with the exhibition and its accompanying catalogue, "Graven Images: The Rise of Professional Printmaking in Antwerp and Haarlem 1540-1640". Their essays explored the work of individual artists, the processes of technique and dissemination, and contemporary writing about reproductive engraving.

In the ensuing quarter-century, with notable exceptions such as the "Paper Museums" exhibition and catalogue (2005), we have not returned to the topic of Netherlandish reproductive printmaking with sustained focus. Through deepening scholarly interest in early modern print culture over the same 25 years, how has our understanding of specifically the reproductive print changed? What can be learned, for example, from studies of reproductive printmaking centered in the Netherlands vs. a broader geographical conception of the subject? Does knowledge about how gender functioned in the early modern artistic workshop expand our perspective on reproductive printmaking? Papers are invited that address any aspect of our changing notion of the Netherlandish reproductive print from 1350-1750.

Proposals should be 20-minutes papers and must include a title, abstract of no more than 150 words, keywords, and a C.V. of 300 words (no prose), and a short bio. Speakers will need to be members of RSA at the time of the conference.

Please send your submission to Amy Frederick (amy.frederick@centre.edu) by 26 May 2017. Applicants will be notified by 1 June.

In the early modern period, artistic ideas circulated on an unprecedented scale: locally, (inter)nationally, and globally. Indeed, these circulations were among the main factors in the great fecundity of the arts during this period. This panel seeks to define the nature
of artistic ideas and examine how they travelled, from the perspective of three key players: people, art objects, and texts. We are explicitly interested in circulations on any scale and without geographical boundaries: within Europe, between Europe and its (proto-) colonies, and within any other region, in the belief that the discussion will benefit from the input of researchers from different research traditions.

Possible topics may include, but are not limited to:
- Ideas of art and their circulation and transformation
- The role of art literature in this process (art theory, criticism, travelogues, diaries, print culture, etc.)
- Artefacts as material embodiments of ideas
- Regional, national and (inter)continental networks
- Methodological and theoretical reflections on the study of circulations, including cultural exchange, histoires croisées, assimilation, hybridity, mestizaje.

Proposals for 20-minute papers should include:
- Preliminary paper title
- Abstract of 150 words
- Keywords
- Curriculum vitae of 300 words, including full name, current affiliation, and email address

Please send your submission to Marije Osnabrugge (marije.osnabrugge@univ-montp3.fr) and Elsje van Kessel (ejmvk@st-andrews.ac.uk) by 25 May 2017, using the subject line ‘RSA 2018’. Applicants will be notified by 5 June.

The study of early modern cartography has gone through several phases. At first, maps were often read as fairly neutral documents, placed in alignment with other technologies in a positivistic framework aiming toward ever-increasing accuracy. Experts in cartography were often collectors with great knowledge of the printing and publishing fields who exerted connoisseurial skill in assigning dates and workshops to individual maps. A second movement, following poststructuralist developments in the humanities, began to read maps as texts, rethinking their vocabulary and addressing the dynamics of power and authority implicit in them.

Now that a generation of cartographic studies have followed upon the heels of post-structuralism, it is time to ask where the study of early modern maps is next headed. A potential third avenue explores a phenomenological approach, investigating how sensory perceptions augment—or conflict with—the mapping of cities/territories by individual cartographers and the reading, buying, carrying, displaying, and treatment of maps by purchasers or users.

We seek papers that deal with individual responses to maps that help us better understand the way their makers and users interacted with them, as well as how they may have been read against their intentions by particular users. Questions these papers might consider include (but are not limited to): How did the use of surveying instruments augment or replace visual apprehension? How accurately could conventions of scale be read by viewers? Did some purchasers read maps differently than others? How did artist-engineers discuss the practice of surveying (the field assessment) and the production of maps (the picturing)? How did maps allude to—or not—the use of optical devices and measuring instruments? How easy was it to interpret a map in the field?

Proposals addressing any geographic area are welcome.

Please send an abstract (150-word maximum), paper title (15-word maximum) and a brief CV (300-word maximum) to Leslie Geddes (Tulane University) and Mark Rosen (University of Texas at Dallas) at lgeddes1@tulane.edu and mxr088000@utdallas.edu by May 30, 2017.

Although the history of caricatured heads can be traced back to Antiquity, as an independent genre, depictions of strange, fantastic, comical and repulsive heads arguably stem from the influence of Leonardo Da Vinci’s systematic and experimental teste caricate, which soon became widely known and copied. Less programmatically Michelangelo too experimented with the genre, both in quick sketches and more complete works. Later exponents of the genre, each of whom contributed his own vision to its development, were Annibale Carracci, Ribera, Guercino, Gian Lorenzo Bernini and, later, Carlo Maratti and Pier Leone Ghezzi, all of whom produced substantial bodies of graphic caricature.

This session seeks to explore the development of the grotesque head as an early modern genre and later influences. Participants are encouraged to put forward original readings of grotesque heads as depicted in drawings, paintings and prints, as well as those found in single and group portraits, and series. We hope to approach the subject from many angles and would welcome analyses of processes ranging from the ‘doodle’ to highly finished works; and discussions of the subject as a reflection of the human condition from socio-political stances, as well as the interaction between caricature and audience.

Please send proposals to Rebecca Norris rebeccamnorris@cantab.net and Lucia Tantardini lt303@cam.ac.uk by Wednesday, 31 May 2017.

As per RSA guidelines, proposals must include the following: paper title (15-word maximum), abstract (150-word maximum), keywords, and a very brief curriculum vitae (300-word maximum).

Throughout the 16th century, the translation of sculptures, especially contemporary ones, into prints was quite uncommon – compared to the vast reproduction of paintings or drawn inventions in engravings or woodcuts.
Sculpture posed more difficulties to the printmaker. First of all, he had to render a three-dimensional object into two dimensions. Moreover the artist had to decide whether to complement his model: be it the fragmentary state of an ancient statue or the placing of a modern sculpture into a landscape or other setting. In many cases, printmakers even designed a whole narrative to round off their work. In addition to that, they had to choose the proper or best possible viewpoint. All these decisions were based on the strategies of the sculptor or printmaker regarding the publication of the print and its intended audience.

An essential aim of this session is to assess these and other related questions by analyzing prints produced between 1480-1600 in Europe and beyond. The session will continue a fruitful discussion started at the RSA conference 2016 in Boston, which included sculpture-related terminology in print inscriptions, the transformation of ancient sculpture in the early 16th century in Italy, and contemporary sculpture and its reception and interpretation via prints.

If interested, please send an abstract (150-word maximum) with paper title, keywords, and a brief curriculum vitae (300-word maximum) by May 21 to Anne Bloemacher (annebloemacher@uni-muenster.de) and Mandy Richter (richter@khi.fi.it). Submissions must be in English.

Empty Spaces in the Graphic Arts – The Function, Aesthetics, and Meaning of Unmarked Surface

Workshop at the Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florenz – Max-Planck-Institut

That drawing and print illustration are constituted by the presence and absence of marks, while compositional structure emerges out of their correlation and balance: this is probably the simplest way of defining these genres. Within this basic condition, the interplay of form and non-form does not necessarily lend the blank sheet a subordinate role with respect to the drawn line. The purpose of the workshop is to address the forms and functions of this unmarked space in the graphic arts of the Early Modern period. Central questions and problematics may include:

- What types of empty spaces exist and how do they differ semantically?
- What aesthetic potential does empty space hold in the work of art? Possible issues here would be its relationship to surface, its role as a spatial or perspectival element, or its chromatic values.
- Does the relationship between graphic content and empty space presuppose a space for abstraction?
- How does empty space serve as a vehicle for the aesthetic imagination of the artist and/or beholder? Could empty space be the place where an artistic 'idea' crystallizes?
- What kinds of empty spaces are technically conditioned? How can they be distinguished in drawing or print?
- How do we deal with non-artistic aspects of the empty image surface (the structure of paper and its color, watermarks, ageing, etc.)?
-What are the implications of cutting an image support?
- What role might the 'verso' play as an empty space?
- How can metaphors ("blinder Fleck," et al.) and philosophical ideas and concepts ("horror vacui") be related to Early Modern drawings and prints?
- What is the role of empty space in the Early Modern discourse on drawings and prints?

The two-day event offers the possibility to develop a 20-minute presentation in German, Italian, or English on these and other themes concerning the technical, aesthetic, and theoretical empty spaces in the graphic arts of the Early Modern period. In addition there will be an opportunity to select objects for view in a collective working conversation at the Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe degli Uffizi.

Please send an abstract (max. 500 words) and a short CV in a single PDF by 06/06/2017 to lisa.jordan@khi.fi.it and elvira.bojilova@khi.fi.it. The Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florenz – Max Planck Institut will cover travel costs (economy class) and accommodation in accordance with the provisions of the German Travel Expenses Act.

The relations between images and texts are one of the most important problems for the history of the arts, because they concern precisely their plurality and their significance. That is why they have captured the attention of artists, theorists and critics of art and literature since classical antiquity. For Western art, perhaps the simile of Horacio ut pictura poesis is the one that best expresses the relation between twin arts, giving rise to reflections that were crucial for the European culture and that led to the ideas of Lessing. But even after Lessing's effort to separate each art in different fields, the interrelation between words and images, graphics and figurations did not cease, neither in artistic production nor in iconographic, historiographic and semiotic studies. New studies of images have endorsed the interest to understand the passages, permeability and transit between words and images.

This is just one of the genealogies of this problem, which extends beyond the limits of linguistics, hermeneutics and semiotics. Under a conception developed in different semiotic perspectives, the interest in text, as a significant fabric, allows us to think of different dynamics for the analysis of images and languages. The decoding of the visual elements is not linear, for it is open to hesitations, regressions, choices and accidents, to a similar degree with respect to the writings. The supposed linearity of the written text is determined by the reading order and the syntax of the language it represents, but this is not to be understood either in a strict or unbreakable sense, since the graphic and permanent presence of signs allows the reader to return and reread the text if he wishes to.

In this way, intermediality — as has been called the collaboration between written texts, images and notations — supports the study of works of art, as well as many other forms of visual, textual and sound expression. Therefore, the Colloquium seeks to weave different genealogies and problematics of different disciplines around the articulations and interstices between images and texts (visual, verbal or sonorous, among others).

This edition of the Colloquium proposes to gather the discussion in the following panels, which can be reformulated according to the proposals received:

a) The debate on the boundaries between writing and image -- Disciplinary or interdisciplinary theoretical reflections and/or case studies: history of art, grammatology, historiography, semiotics, anthropology, linguistics, philology, aesthetics, iconography, tratadistics.

b) Writing itself as part of visual culture -- Beyond its strict value of reading, the graphemes of the writing systems are important components of design and visuality, that can be approached from formal points of view: calligraphy, typography, paleography. Writing and other systems of notation: storyboarding, musical, stage and/or dance notation, quipus, graphs, codes, etcetera.

c) Iconotext, ekphrasis and intermediation -- Theoretical reflections and/or case studies on collaboration and opposition between texts and images: titles and works, captions, texts within images, images within texts, illustration and activation; phylacteries, text bubbles, cartouches and highlights. Story and description.

4. Proposals will be evaluated by a Committee made up of members of the Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas and other institutions, who will select them based on criteria of quality and thematic relevance.

Please send your proposal to the following address ---

Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas, UNAM
Circuito Maestro Mario de la Cueva s/n
Zona Cultural, Ciudad Universitaria
Coyoacán, 04510, Ciudad de México
Phones (52 55) 5662 7250, (52 55) 5662 6999
E-mails: badisa1979@gmail.com

Throughout history, human cultures have used color to decorate their artifacts – amphorae and motor cars, textiles and smartphones – and technological processes have always been involved in obtaining and producing these colors, whether they are dyestuffs, pigments or paints. The 2017 Conference on the History of Technology will focus on Colors in Technology and Technology (or Technologies) of Colors, both in a European perspective and from a global-historical viewpoint.

The subject raises a host of different questions and aspects. How were such 'colors' manufactured? By whom and for whom? And how was trade organized? What is the social status associated with specific colors (dyes, pigments, and paints), with the painter's or dyer's trade and with other related trades? What are the gender-specific roles? Dyeing textiles and leather has long played an important role in society. Indigo and madder, to take but one example, have undergone societal and economic ups and downs depending on the particular constellation of requirements, resources, processes and markets. In early modern times, for instance, indigo production in India, along with the commercial network that grew up around it, spelt the end for the flourishing woad trade in Europe, but in turn it largely collapsed under the onslaught of the chemical synthesis of indigo in the 19th century. Is this pattern repeated elsewhere? How and when were hazards to health and the environment detected, and what was the impact on the manufacture and use of dyestuffs? The early modern age began to standardize colors, starting with 17th and 18th century color charts to the binding norms, say, of the RAL color chart – what was the background to this standardization in terms of natural history, trade and fashion? How were color standards designed and developed and how did they gain acceptance given the well-known difficulties of quantifying color?

When did people start coloring – painting and dyeing – technical artifacts? Which individuals – if any – were involved in the decision to do so? What viewpoints are important here, in terms of the societal situation and cultural emblems on the one hand and technical or economic possibilities and scientific results on the other? Where and how was color expertise developed? These and similar questions apply to colors used in architecture and on vehicles, colors used in signaling and on uniforms and clothing, and colors applied to machinery and objects of everyday use. How did the economic, social, and scientific dynamics develop that underlie the now ubiquitous use of colors to distinguish goods and trademarks with their distinctively gender-specific component? Lastly, how have colors been used – and how are they used today – in painting, in other figurative arts, and in the media, starting with medieval manuscript production to color printing, photography and film right up to modern-day display technologies?

The reconstruction and restoration of historical coloring is becoming increasingly important, be it in works of art, in architecture or on technical objects. In what circumstances are such issues of interest? What practices and techniques, what historiographical and natural science research findings are involved, and how do the results affect science and society in turn?

Proposals for papers on these and other color-related subjects are welcome.

The Network of American Periodical Studies, in collaboration with UCL Press journal Radical Americas, invites submissions for a special issue focusing on Radical American periodicals

In an early issue of New Left magazine Radical America, the editors outlined their aim to educate readers ‘about the radical traditions of this country’, to provide a ‘forum for students of American radicalism’, and to break down the barriers between the ‘activist’ and the ‘intellectual’. In doing so, Radical America refashioned a blueprint for American periodical radicalism that had been passed down by activists and editors for generations. As oppositional outlets for expressions of political, cultural, or social dissent, radical American periodicals have played a vital role as a forum for radical debate, and a challenge to mainstream understandings of American democracy, citizenship, and community. Yet what makes a periodical ‘radical’? And what makes it ‘American’? How has our understanding of these terms been shaped by the complex and constantly shifting nature of radical protest and the nation-state? And in what ways does this definition change depending on the editorial production, financial composition, geographic distribution or visual aesthetic of each ‘radical’ periodical?

This special issue seeks to address these questions through exploring the role and resonance of radical periodicals in America from the 18th to the 21st century. Bringing together scholars from a range of different disciplines and historical periods, we seek to interrogate how the concept of the ‘radical periodical’ in America has varied across time and place. We are not only interested in well-established oppositional periodicals, but also more transient forms of radical print - the hand-printed, mimeographed, photocopied, short-lived, minority, dissident, or extremist periodicals which have offered radical new perspectives on American culture, values and politics. We are also interested in papers which examine the connections between individual ideology and editorial intent, radical social movements and periodicals, the development and composition of radical audiences, and the challenges and opportunities of preserving radical periodical in the digital age.

Topics for papers may include:
· Dissident or banned periodicals.
· Communist,fascist or anarchist periodicals.
· Minority, feminist and queer radical publications.
· Reactionary radicalism, white nationalist and far-right periodicals.
· Radical American periodicals abroad and the circulation of radical foreign periodicals in America.
· The illustration, formatting and design of radical periodicals.
· The relationship between radical periodicals, organisations and networks.
· Radical periodicals, conservation and the archive.
· Radical zines and periodical radicalism in the digital age.

We welcome work in a number of different formats, including photo-essays, book reviews, interviews and archival notes. Articles for peer review should be between 4,000 and 12,000 words including footnotes. Book reviews should be no more than 1,000 words. Other pieces should be between 2,000 and 5,000 words. Please consult the UCL Press house style in advance of submission.

Initial proposals (max 4 pages) should be sent to Dr. Sue Currell (S.CURRELL@SUSSEX.AC.UK) and Dr. James West (E.J.WEST@BHAM.AC.UK) with ‘Radical Americas’ as the subject by May 1st 2017

Completed essays will need to be submitted to the editors, with permissions, by September 30th 2017