Art and Artists

Abstract

The conceptual framework of Atlantic history calls for a nuanced understanding of the designations “art” and “artist.” As self-evident as these terms might seem, they are in fact dynamic categories whose meanings have shifted—and continue to shift—in response to historical circumstances. Awareness of the historiography of these terms helps to clarify their past use and current meanings in relation to Atlantic history. Abiding within the terms art and artist are associations with Eurocentric concepts like originality, masterpiece, and genius. This is no surprise. The study of art as a distinct field of history emerged in Europe in the 18th century, and the resulting discipline of art history encoded Enlightenment assumptions regarding the superiority of certain social institutions, cultural forms, and kinds of knowledge. As a category of cultural artifact, art was ascribed a primarily aesthetic function that could be appreciated by all viewers, regardless of cultural origin. The problem with this understanding of art was its internal contradiction: to exist, “art” depends simultaneously on highly subjective judgments about aesthetic merit and on claims of universality. Historically, reliance on this understanding of art excluded the visual and material culture of non-Europeans, including indigenous peoples, from art historical valuation. Constraints imposed by the term “artist” were similar. Conventionally applied to individuals engaged in the deliberate production of objects recognized for their primarily aesthetic value, the category “artist” was closed to those working outside a specifically Western and modern cultural economy. Consideration of art and artists within the context of Atlantic history has provided an opportunity to re-examine these categories. In the early 21st century, most scholars of Atlantic history use the terms art and artist inclusively, without implying aesthetic judgment or intent. Those seeking to distance themselves further from historical prejudices may rely instead on such terms as “visual culture” and “maker” in place of “art” and “artist.” Rather than dispensing with the terms art and artist, this article proceeds from the belief that these concepts retain historiographic usefulness. Strangeness is an inevitable part of cultural encounter, and so is commensurability. To highlight the importance of interconnectedness for the study of art and artists in Atlantic history, this article is organized around networks of cultural exchange, encounter, and exploitation.