The topic should relate to material relevant to the course’s content, and can be determined in prior consultation with the instructor. You are encouraged to explore one of the two following options:
A paper focusing on a topic of art history (artist, practice, period, etc.) with an extended literature review. Your discussion should focus on the historiography of the topic (ie. how this topic has been discussed in the past, which methods have been used in these discussions, etc.)
A paper focusing on an aspect of art’s historiography. You can discuss a body of art historical writing (ie. by a single author, on a specific topic, produced within a specific time, place, context, etc.) You can engage with text(s) discussed in class (going into greater depth), or with texts that have inspired you during your studies
The final paper should:
1. Be about 10 double-spaced pages long. This includes the footnotes, but excludes the title page (if any), the illustrations, and the bibliography, which should be added in separate pages. Papers should have 1-inch margins and use a 12-pt font. If you submit less than 8 pages, you probably need to develop your arguments more; if you submit more than 12, you probably have to edit.
2. Include citations in footnotes, formatted according to the Chicago Manual of Style. You should also include a bibliography, added after your paper, which should only include the sources cited in footnotes. For precise formatting, see this: Notes and Bibliography Style (chicagomanualofstyle.org)Links to an external site.
ALSO: If you discuss works, you should reproduce them in your paper. Add the illustrations in a separate section (after the main text), number them, and add captions. Then, refer to them in the body of your text like this (Fig. 2)
PROPOSAL WITH SOURCES
Topic:
Historiographical analysis of the opinion surrounding the claim of the Renaissance being the superior art style
Proposed Title:
The Illusion of the Renaissance: A False Sense of Superiority
Description:
For this paper, I am looking to explore and write about the existing critiques of how the Renaissance is revered as a superior art form. This has been routinely criticized and I am looking to explore these critiques.
I want to focus on the critiques of Jacob Burckhardt. Upon research, I came across his book “The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy” which explores modernity, politics and society within the period. I would like to combine contemporary critiques with Burckhardt’s analysis to disprove the notion of the Renaissance being deemed the superior art form.
I would like to tackle the assessment of style development, influence/iconography (politics, religion, social) as well as the overall validity of the Renaissance on contemporary art practices.
For style, I would like to explore the connection between the notion of scientific and mathematical developments and how it is applied to artworks created at this time and how this was connected to modernity and superiority.
For influence and iconography, the critiques of religion and politics is where I want to focus on. Analyzing the analysis of how the spread and enforcement of Christianity influenced the notion of superiority is curious to me.
Lastly, for deciphering the validity of the Renaissance on contemporary art, I will be focusing on how the proceeding art styles are argued to have some influence from the Renaissance but not as much as it is perceived to be.
Bibliography:
Baron, Hans. “Burckhardt’s `Civilization of the Renaissance’ A Century after Its Publication.” Renaissance News 13, no. 3 (1960): 207–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/2857720.
Burckhardt, Jacob, 1818-1897. The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy. London :Phaidon, 1995.
Ferguson, Wallace K. “JAKOB BURCKHARDT’S INTERPRETATION OF THE RENAISSANCE.” Bulletin of the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America 1, no. 2 (1943): 273–86. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24725330.
Garner, Roberta. “Jacob Burckhardt as a Theorist of Modernity: Reading The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy.” Sociological Theory 8, no. 1 (1990): 48–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/202194.
Grazia, Margreta De. “The Finite Renaissance.” Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies 14, no. 2 (2014): 88–93. http://www.jstor.org/stable/jearlmodcultstud.14.2.88.
Professor feedback: This is a great topic. I think that you could do the entire paper on Burckhardt, his reception, and recent / contemporaries critiques of it. (I don’t think you need to go to contemporary art, and it is fine if you focus on the analysis of texts, without using too many images).
It is also important to note that the very term “Renaissance” (used by people who were responsible for it!) implies itself a superiority: something new that follows something dead…
Anyway, I would use Burckhardt as a guide, and think about recent writings in historiography (ie. look into the Journal of Art historiography, which is open access).
