Robert Thomas Kilroy
I received my Ph.D. from Trinity College Dublin in 2016. My doctoral thesis, entitled Marcel Duchamp: Resolving the Word/Image Problem, Afterthought, radically re-evaluates the writings and art-works of the French artist Marcel Duchamp from the perspective of the French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan. The central argument is that Duchamp’s oeuvre emerges from a precise psychoanalytic approach to painting and that Lacan’s theoretical framework has its origins in an acute iconological understanding of the clinical setting. In bringing together Duchamp with Lacan, I give a central role to the philosopher, psychoanalyst and cultural theorist Slavoj Žižek, whose work I critically re-examine.
Broadly speaking, my research revolves around three central axes. First, through the lens of the word/image dichotomy, I develop Duchamp’s oeuvre into a tool for the analysis of visual culture. In doing so, I adapt Žižek’s approach to ideology critique along aesthetic lines in order to determine the role of digital technology within the dynamics of 21st century capitalism. Finally, on a broader institutional level, my work attempts to redefine the terms of the disciplinary exchange between Art History and Psychoanalysis with a view to mapping a new model for Humanities scholarship, what I term “infra-disciplinarity”.
While my research interests fall between the disciplines of Art History and Psychoanalysis, I also engage in Philosophy, Critical Theory, and Visual/Digital Culture. My current research focuses specifically on the triangulation of modern art, aesthetics and visual studies and the evolving role of the digital in contemporary art and culture. I am exploring these areas with a view to developing a new methodological and conceptual approach to the question of global art history. This research informs my current work as Chief Curator for Modern and Contemporary Art in Louvre Abu Dhabi. I am also an Adjunct Lecturer in the Department of Archeology and History of Art Sorbonne University Abu Dhabi, where I teach Aesthetics, Historiography and Visual Culture.
Trinity College Dublin
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)
2009 - 2015
Thesis title: 'Marcel Duchamp: Resolving the Word/Image Problematic, afterthought'
Supervisor: Prof. David Scott
Trinity College Dublin
Master of Philosophy (M.Phil.), Textual and Visual Studies: 19th and 20th Century France
2007 - 2008
Thesis title: 'Renvoi Miroirique: Re-contextualizing the Lacanian Real through the Duchampian Gesture'
Supervisor: Prof. David Scott
University College Dublin
Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), Honors French and Honors Art History
2002 - 2006
Awards:
Irish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences (IRCHSS) Postgraduate Scholarship (2009 - 2012)
A.J. Leventhal Scholarship, Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Studies, Trinity College (2012)
A.J. Leventhal Scholarship, Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Studies, Trinity College (2010)
Broadly speaking, my research revolves around three central axes. First, through the lens of the word/image dichotomy, I develop Duchamp’s oeuvre into a tool for the analysis of visual culture. In doing so, I adapt Žižek’s approach to ideology critique along aesthetic lines in order to determine the role of digital technology within the dynamics of 21st century capitalism. Finally, on a broader institutional level, my work attempts to redefine the terms of the disciplinary exchange between Art History and Psychoanalysis with a view to mapping a new model for Humanities scholarship, what I term “infra-disciplinarity”.
While my research interests fall between the disciplines of Art History and Psychoanalysis, I also engage in Philosophy, Critical Theory, and Visual/Digital Culture. My current research focuses specifically on the triangulation of modern art, aesthetics and visual studies and the evolving role of the digital in contemporary art and culture. I am exploring these areas with a view to developing a new methodological and conceptual approach to the question of global art history. This research informs my current work as Chief Curator for Modern and Contemporary Art in Louvre Abu Dhabi. I am also an Adjunct Lecturer in the Department of Archeology and History of Art Sorbonne University Abu Dhabi, where I teach Aesthetics, Historiography and Visual Culture.
Trinity College Dublin
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)
2009 - 2015
Thesis title: 'Marcel Duchamp: Resolving the Word/Image Problematic, afterthought'
Supervisor: Prof. David Scott
Trinity College Dublin
Master of Philosophy (M.Phil.), Textual and Visual Studies: 19th and 20th Century France
2007 - 2008
Thesis title: 'Renvoi Miroirique: Re-contextualizing the Lacanian Real through the Duchampian Gesture'
Supervisor: Prof. David Scott
University College Dublin
Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), Honors French and Honors Art History
2002 - 2006
Awards:
Irish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences (IRCHSS) Postgraduate Scholarship (2009 - 2012)
A.J. Leventhal Scholarship, Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Studies, Trinity College (2012)
A.J. Leventhal Scholarship, Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Studies, Trinity College (2010)
less
InterestsView All (21)
Uploads
Books by Robert Thomas Kilroy
Now, one hundred years later, Robert Kilroy attempts to answer these questions by examining the evidence with fresh eyes. Central to the investigation is the primary witness – Duchamp himself – whose statements are forensically analyzed. The facts themselves are interrogated using the methodology of a detective: precisely speaking, an art historical approach with a critical edge sharpened by a new interpretation of psychoanalytic theory.
In weaving an alternative narrative, Kilroy shows us that, not only has Fountain been fundamentally misunderstood, this very misunderstanding is central to the work’s significance. The final verdict, he argues, was strategically stage-managed by Duchamp in order to expose the apparatus underpinning Fountain’s reception, what he terms “The Creative Act.” By suggesting that a specific aesthetic “crime” has gone unnoticed, Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain: One Hundred Years Later asks the reader to radically reassess his/her precise contribution to “the creation of art.” This urgent, if somewhat troubling question, could have far-reaching implications for the field of scholarship, the course of contemporary art and the discipline of Art history.
Journal Papers by Robert Thomas Kilroy
Au travers d’une ré-interrogation de l’oeuvre de Marcel Duchamp, cette
contribution se propose d’explorer l’acte de nommer d’un point de vue
psychanalytique. Selon le philosophe et psychanalyste lacanien Slavoj Žižek, l’acte de nommer est à considérer dans toute sa texture socio-symbolique. C’est un acte ritualisé significatif qui constitue la base de la croyance collective. L’acte de nommer fonctionne donc à la manière d’une opération stratégique car c’est le socle de l’interpellation idéologique – c’est un geste performatif qui
fait de son énonciateur un « sujet ». Ce sont les titres des oeuvres de Duchamp, et en particulier son readymade connu sous le titre de Fontaine, qui rendent visible cette fonction idéologique sur un plan esthétique. Ainsi, Duchamp fait apparaître les coordonnées fondamentales du cadre théorique žižekien et, par un même mouvement, l’oeuvre duchampienne retrouve son essence psychanalytique.
In this text I wish to argue that the ‘parallax’ perspective required to grasp this impossible relation can be found in the writings of Charles Baudelaire. Baudelaire’s seminal essay The Painter of Modern Life (Le Peintre de la Vie Moderne) has, of course, been consecrated in what Marcel Duchamp calls ‘the primers of art history’ (The Writings of Marcel Duchamp, edited by Michael Sanouillet and Elmer Peterson, New York: Da Capo Press, 1973, 138) as the source of the avant-garde impulse, a ‘call to arms’ for the modern artist. Nevertheless, as a critical discourse it remains, to this day, rather strange and unsettling. Although it draws out the motifs and themes that would become central to the new movement, there are many deadlocks and distortions in the text itself which block a complete and coherent reading.
In my contribution I propose a re-examination of Manet’s image and Baudelaire’s text which reconsiders such gaps and slippages not as obstacles to be overcome but as solutions in themselves, what in the praxis of psychoanalysis is termed a ‘symptom’ and what Žižek redefines through his notion of a ‘parallax’ gap. In doing so, I will attempt to argue that Manet’s painting and Baudelaire’s essay function, on respective visual and verbal levels, as an ‘unmasking gesture of psychoanalysis’ (Žižek, The Sublime Object of Ideology, London: Verso, 2008, 25). Ultimately, by adopting this method I will produce a text of my own which, by developing the central themes of the two images in question, renders explicit their impossible relation.
Book Chapters by Robert Thomas Kilroy
Now, one hundred years later, Robert Kilroy attempts to answer these questions by examining the evidence with fresh eyes. Central to the investigation is the primary witness – Duchamp himself – whose statements are forensically analyzed. The facts themselves are interrogated using the methodology of a detective: precisely speaking, an art historical approach with a critical edge sharpened by a new interpretation of psychoanalytic theory.
In weaving an alternative narrative, Kilroy shows us that, not only has Fountain been fundamentally misunderstood, this very misunderstanding is central to the work’s significance. The final verdict, he argues, was strategically stage-managed by Duchamp in order to expose the apparatus underpinning Fountain’s reception, what he terms “The Creative Act.” By suggesting that a specific aesthetic “crime” has gone unnoticed, Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain: One Hundred Years Later asks the reader to radically reassess his/her precise contribution to “the creation of art.” This urgent, if somewhat troubling question, could have far-reaching implications for the field of scholarship, the course of contemporary art and the discipline of Art history.
Au travers d’une ré-interrogation de l’oeuvre de Marcel Duchamp, cette
contribution se propose d’explorer l’acte de nommer d’un point de vue
psychanalytique. Selon le philosophe et psychanalyste lacanien Slavoj Žižek, l’acte de nommer est à considérer dans toute sa texture socio-symbolique. C’est un acte ritualisé significatif qui constitue la base de la croyance collective. L’acte de nommer fonctionne donc à la manière d’une opération stratégique car c’est le socle de l’interpellation idéologique – c’est un geste performatif qui
fait de son énonciateur un « sujet ». Ce sont les titres des oeuvres de Duchamp, et en particulier son readymade connu sous le titre de Fontaine, qui rendent visible cette fonction idéologique sur un plan esthétique. Ainsi, Duchamp fait apparaître les coordonnées fondamentales du cadre théorique žižekien et, par un même mouvement, l’oeuvre duchampienne retrouve son essence psychanalytique.
In this text I wish to argue that the ‘parallax’ perspective required to grasp this impossible relation can be found in the writings of Charles Baudelaire. Baudelaire’s seminal essay The Painter of Modern Life (Le Peintre de la Vie Moderne) has, of course, been consecrated in what Marcel Duchamp calls ‘the primers of art history’ (The Writings of Marcel Duchamp, edited by Michael Sanouillet and Elmer Peterson, New York: Da Capo Press, 1973, 138) as the source of the avant-garde impulse, a ‘call to arms’ for the modern artist. Nevertheless, as a critical discourse it remains, to this day, rather strange and unsettling. Although it draws out the motifs and themes that would become central to the new movement, there are many deadlocks and distortions in the text itself which block a complete and coherent reading.
In my contribution I propose a re-examination of Manet’s image and Baudelaire’s text which reconsiders such gaps and slippages not as obstacles to be overcome but as solutions in themselves, what in the praxis of psychoanalysis is termed a ‘symptom’ and what Žižek redefines through his notion of a ‘parallax’ gap. In doing so, I will attempt to argue that Manet’s painting and Baudelaire’s essay function, on respective visual and verbal levels, as an ‘unmasking gesture of psychoanalysis’ (Žižek, The Sublime Object of Ideology, London: Verso, 2008, 25). Ultimately, by adopting this method I will produce a text of my own which, by developing the central themes of the two images in question, renders explicit their impossible relation.
The discussion will be in French.
Talk delivered at Majlis Littéraire, Sorbonne Université Abu Dhabi, Jan. 26. 2017
Bridging Art and Science in the 21st Century:
The Beauty of Engineering. Engineering Beauty.
In what meaningful sense can art be described as a science? Is it possible to legitimately define science as an art? This collaborative initiative attempts to address such questions by bringing together scholars from across the Humanities and the Sciences through a series of unique cross-disciplinary encounters. The aim is to build new bridges by identifying points of convergence and intersection, common concerns that give rise to new ways of approaching the challenges faced in the 21st century.
The first seminar is organized through collaboration between the Department of Archeology and History of Art (SUAD), the Department of Science and Engineering (SUAD), and the Healthcare Engineering Innovation Center (HEIC) at Khalifa University. The aim is to stage a conversation between the engineer and the art historian around the concept of beauty. Cesare Stefanini, Professor of Biomedical Engineering at Khalifa University, Director of HEIC and active in the field of Human Centered Design, will approach this issue by focusing on the question of function. An object’s aesthetic appeal, he argues, is rooted in the act of production: it assumes a particular shape because it is built with a precise purpose in mind. Dr. Robert Kilroy, lecturer on the Masters in History of Art and Museum Studies at SUAD, will then focus on the question of intention. An object’s aesthetic appeal, he argues, is rooted in the effect it produces: it provokes a feeling of sensible pleasure because it is entirely without purpose.
The ultimate aim is for these seemingly separate viewpoints to combine as a single inter-locking perspective. Looking at art from the perspective of science, we arrive at a renewed appreciation of the beauty of engineering. Approaching science form the position of art, we come to new understanding of how beauty is engineered. Such an overlap marks the ground for a new mode of exchange where the space between disciplines (“inter”) is replaced by a focus on the space within (“infra”). Through this shift, the notion of ‘bridge building’ is radically transformed: rather than strive to simply connect two distant locations, we recognize that a single terrain is already divided from within.
Event staged in collaboration with the Department of Archaeology and History of Art, Sorbonne Université Abu Dhabi. Panel consisted of contributors from New York University Abu Dhabi, Louvre Abu Dhabi, Jean-Paul Najar Foundation Dubai. Sorbonne Université Abu Dhabi
Feb. 6. 2019
The first seminar is organized through collaboration between the Department of Archeology and History of Art (SUAD), the Department of Science and Engineering (SUAD), and the Healthcare Engineering Innovation Center (HEIC) at Khalifa University. The aim is to stage a conversation between the engineer and the art historian around the concept of beauty. Cesare Stefanini, Professor of Biomedical Engineering at Khalifa University, Director of HEIC and active in the field of Human Centered Design, will approach this issue by focusing on the question of function. An object’s aesthetic appeal, he argues, is rooted in the act of production: it assumes a particular shape because it is built with a precise purpose in mind. Dr. Robert Kilroy, lecturer on the Masters in History of Art and Museum Studies at SUAD, will then focus on the question of intention. An object’s aesthetic appeal, he argues, is rooted in the effect it produces: it provokes a feeling of sensible pleasure because it is entirely without purpose.
The ultimate aim is for these seemingly separate viewpoints to combine as a single inter-locking perspective. Looking at art from the perspective of science, we arrive at a renewed appreciation of the beauty of engineering. Approaching science form the position of art, we come to new understanding of how beauty is engineered. Such an overlap marks the ground for a new mode of exchange where the space between disciplines (“inter”) is replaced by a focus on the space within (“infra”). Through this shift, the notion of ‘bridge building’ is radically transformed: rather than strive to simply connect two distant locations, we recognize that a single terrain is already divided from within.