A book on the relation between art history and aesthetics, with a sample chapter on the reasons art historians don't attend aesthetics conferences.

Art History versus Aesthetics

(New York: Routledge, 2005)

This book is vol. 1 of the Art Seminar series (see the series page for more information).

The relation between aesthetics and art history is partly institutional (the two are divided in Western universities, although they are often mingled in Chinese and other Asian universities) and partly philosophic (because one attends to properties that are said to be universal, and the other attends to how those properties have been understood at different times and places). These differences are a large, unresolved problem in the study of art practice, art theory, and art criticism.

This book centers on a panel discussion about the relation between art history and aesthetics; there is an Introduction by Robert Gero, Afterwords by Jay Bernstein and Marc Redfield, and assessments by Arthur Danto, Thierry De Duve, Diarmuid Costello, Andrew Benjamin, Stephen Melville, Adrian Rifkin, Paul Crowther, Wendy Steiner, John Hyman, Richard Woodfield, Anna Dezeuze, Keith Moxey, Matthew Rampley, and about twenty others (New York: Routledge, 2005). 

The essay posted here, "Why Don't Art Historians Attend Aesthetics Conferences?" is a chapter in the book.

(The images on this page are samples of aesthetics journals, the kinds that are not routinely read by art historians.)