Mathews Shares Her Artistic Vision

Pat Mathews is a professor of modern art history at Oberlin, and teaches courses covering a variety of cultures and nationalities. She has written for several art publications and her recent book, Passionate Discontent: Creativity and Gender in French Symbolist Art, has been nominated for the College Art Association prize for best art history book of the year. Editor in chief Nick Stillman spoke with Mathews about her teaching style, feminism and the discipline of art history.

Nick Stillman: Do you think Oberlin’s art history department is understaffed and that each professor is expected to cover too broad a range of material?

Pat Mathews: I think the art history program is very appreciated by the College — it’s very highly enrolled. I don’t think we’re understaffed in Western art, but art outside of the West. Arts are so global now. I think anyone in the department would agree with that.

NS: What’s your stance on professors teaching about a culture or race to which they don’t belong? Can it be done without seeming patronizing?

PM: As long as I don’t pretend to be an expert on the experience, it’s my responsibility to talk about it. I feel like it’s my responsibility to teach African-American art since I’m the modernist. The only thing is not to claim you’re the authority.

NS: In the course catalog description for your “Art in the World” class you wrote you’re trying to focus on areas where the artists’ work relates to their contemporary culture. How do you choose which cultures to cover?

PM: I’m teaching the course on two cultures I know nothing about — Chinese and African. To go outside what I know I’ve always felt wouldn’t be doing a good job for the students, but I’m doing it. We need it so badly. I looked at these two cultures and their contemporary art I could grasp by reading histories. I’m reading everything I can get my hands on. I chose these cultures because I feel there’s really good written material. I originally chose Mexico but three is too many to teach.

NS: Give me a brief synopsis of how you teach your intro-level course.

PM: I have a goal. I want students to come out not knowing a condensed chronology but to think about and look critically at art so they can go to any museum and feel comfortable looking at art — not just a visual vocabulary but an intellectual one as well.

NS: What do you think is more effective about teaching the course that way as opposed to a more traditional chronological approach?

PM: I think a traditional chronological survey is totally unfair to art. It’s the “masterpiece and genius” theory. You could end up not really understanding the value of art. There’s also the issue of the great masters always being white, male and middle-class.

NS: Would you say art historical notions of a rigid canon and the perception of the artist as a genius are changing?

PM: I think they’re definitely on their way out. What’s happened is that art history has expanded its vocabulary to every other discipline. I think art history is one of the prime disciplines right now. Visual culture is one of the most exciting areas of study now and who speaks about images most richly? Of course it’s art historians, because they study images.

NS: Among the academic art historical community, has feminism come to be respected as an entrenched and valid methodology?

PM: Absolutely. However, the word “feminist” in itself is so tainted at the moment that I wouldn’t say that term — let’s say “gender studies.” Gender studies are really significant to art history. There’s a lot dealing with transexuality, bisexuality, gays and lesbians and femininity. The boundaries of gender have expanded.

NS: Do you more enjoy working with students and classes or doing your own personal research and writing?

PM: Both. I know that sounds like a cop-out but it’s not. I love Oberlin students. They’re the best thing the school has going for it. I would stay here for the students no matter what it’s like because they’re the prize. I love my scholarship, too. I love detective work and I love writing. What I don’t like is bureaucracy — the politics that go with that sort of thing. I wish that would go away. Then I’d really be happy.