(1989). International Review of Psycho-Analysis, 16:513-516 Review by: Ellen Handler Spitz To scan the brochures of the major academic presses (at least in the United States) is to realize instantly that interdisciplinary scholarship is no longer a noman's land. Quite to the contrary, it is a territory that now embraces much of the most up-to-date thinking in the humanities across the board from classics to history and criticism as well as art history. Disciplinary boundaries, the modern versions of which can be traced back to the Renaissance, quaver precariously under the impact of contemporary scholarship. Authors doing what David Carrier (1987) has called 'artwriting' (examples might include Fried, 1980) ; (Clark, 1984) ; Bryson, 1985; (Krauss, 1985) simply write across the walls that once shut art history away from literary criticism and critical theory. Notions and tactics drawn not only from psychoanalysis but from Marxism, structuralism, post-structuralism, feminism, deconstruction, and post-modernism have reshaped the discourses of the humanities. Although [This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.] |
