Welcome to the Open Inquiry Archive’s review section. In addition to traditional reviews, our goal is to provide longer reviews that delve into thematic and interdisciplinary issues in depth. All reviews are thoroughly vetted and edited in consultation with one or more of the OIA Review Editors. (See “Submitting a Review” below for more details.)
The views and opinions expressed in this and other entries of the REVIEWS series are those of the respective author(s). As always, we welcome and encourage thoughtful discussion and responses (as outlined here).
(December 2014) — Presenting: Kent L. Brintnall’s review of “Representations of Pain in Art and Visual Culture” (Di Bella and Elkins, eds.) and Asbjørn Grønstad and Henrik Gustafsson’s “Ethics and Images of Pain.” (FORTHCOMING)
(September 2014) — Presenting: Jessica Dallow’s “Animal Voices, Artist Choices,” review of Stephen F. Eisenman, “The Cry of Nature: Art and the Making of Animal Rights” and Steve Baker, “Artist/Animal.” Access full-text pdf here.
(June 2014) — Presenting review number two: K. Porter Aichele’s “Modernism Domesticated,” review of Patrick Lee Lucas, “Modernism At Home: Edward Loewenstein’s Mid-Century Architectural Innovation In The Civil Rights Era.” Access full-text pdf here.
(May 2014) — As the first contribution to “REVIEWS,” we present Jeffrey Thompson’s review “The Devil is in the Details: Framing Ideologies in Ben Urwand’s The Collaboration.” Access the full-text pdf here.
Submitting a review.
Reviews are solicited by editors but can also be submitted for consideration. Interested in proposing a review? Contact the Reviews Editors by sending an email to Ben Harvey or Kirstin Ringelberg or Andrew Graciano.
As you prepare your review, keep the following in mind:
1. Reviews should be written for a general educated audience and should assume the desirability of online dialogue.
2. The minimum word count is 800; considerably longer essays are welcomed that survey a number of related materials or examine a particular issue or theme in depth.
3. Reviewed material should be consistent with the general content of the journal.
4. Reviewed material need not be limited to books and can include major online and digital humanities initiatives as well as exhibition reviews.