Guidelines:
Length:
10 pages, double-spaced, Times New Roman 12-pt font, standard 1” margins.
Assignment:
This paper is an opportunity for you to learn more about ways in which meaning of a work of art is constructed and construed in art-historical literature. Ideally, this assignment will help you become a more conscious and critically engaged reader of secondary literature, in art history as well as in other disciplines. Read all the sources (most of them very short) for Donatello’s bronze David (see next page).
Write a paper in response to the following questions: Drawing on all that you have read, has this work always had a single, fixed meaning? Or was it a site of contested meanings promoted by particular writers with particular interests (aesthetic, social, political, etc.)? If you find the latter to be true, how did various sources derive their sense of the work’s meaning and how did they explain and argue it? What were each author’s particular biases and motivations? Within what context did the authors situate the work? Do not only summarize what you have read, but analyze, critique, and contrast the various points of view. How did scholars react to each other’s writings? What kinds of debates have emerged? What kinds of issues have scholars been interested in? How has the body of art historical knowledge on this work grown during the second half of the twentieth century? Keep in mind the chronological sequence in which these texts were written and think about how they have built on one another. Check the footnotes to see whom an author is citing.
Evaluation:
Papers will be graded on the cogency of the analysis and the writing. This is a complex assignment, and you should start working on it right away. Allow plenty of time to do the readings, take extensive notes, “digest” what you have read, and write a well-argued and clearly structured analytical paper. Avoid making your paper a pastiche of direct quotes—present your own, “digested” analysis. Thesis along the lines: how learning is constructed in history of art, how meaning is constructed
Advice:
It is not about who is right or wrong; let’s consider critical and analytical approaches, reflecting on art history and how meaning is constructed.
We are discussing the same topic but with different end goals. It is also important to note the various time periods covered in the article and how this may influence the audience’s interpretation.
Regarding what the professor mentioned:
There are factual elements found in archival documents, which are the closest approximation to scientific truth. However, the remainder consists of interpretations that can vary in their degree of responsibility. These interpretations may rely on objective evidence or employ modern or contemporary theories to offer compelling or less convincing explanations over time. This reflects the nature of intellectual pursuits, where questions evolve as time progresses.
Questions for each reading that can be helpful:
1. Identify the principal argument.
2. Identify secondary arguments, if any.
3. What is new (as opposed to earlier sources) with this interpretation?
4. How is the author using previous interpretations (and which ones?) to build
his/her own case? Which earlier texts are most useful to this author?
5. What sort of visual evidence is used? Which aspects of the statue are
highlighted and what is left out?
6. What other evidence (historical, literary, philosophical, comparative works of
art, etc.) is used?
7. Under which category of principal questions would you place this essay?
(dating, location, patronage, reception, homoeroticism, politics, etc.)
8. How impactful was this essay (in terms of shaping subsequent scholarship)?
9. How apparent was the author’s own bias?
