More on Teaching the Art History Survey
January 9th, 2010
Just back from Rome. And while I was there I googled around on tourism and art history (found a few books and ordered them) and also did some searching on youtube. I found this video after searching “San Pietro in Vincoli “– by someone named zThirdTry:
I love it! It’s very much about his experience of standing in front of the church and entering it – and he speaks directly to us – trying to share that experience with us. He translates the name of the Church for us and explains why it has attracted worshipers for centuries (no, not Moses, but St. Peter’s chains). He talks about the lights going on and off and he shows all the tourists taking pictures. Now I’ve taught Michelangelo’s Moses for many years and never showed the outside of this church. In fact, I’ve never translated the name of the Church and explained the relic that is there. I teach Moses in the context of Michelangelo’s oeuvre and the patronage of Pope Julius II, as I imagine most art historians do. I talk about Julius II’s vision for Rome, for the Papacy and for himself. I show Michelangelo’s ambitious sketches for the tomb of Pope Julius II, and I show what the tomb looks like today – usually with an image like this one – tourist free of course. I talk about the High Renaissance approach to the body – as a vehicle for expressing the spiritual and emotional.
Went I was in Rome visiting San Pietro in Vincoli, I was surprised by how the exterior of the church looked and by the pannini/snack cart permanently parked outside it to serve the throngs of tourists who came to see this Michelangelo masterpiece. I didn’t know where to find the monument within the church. I shot one video to show tourists, and a couple more of the outside of the church, and another one of entering the church and approaching the Tomb – will post those soon, though this one is up now on Smarthistory. Perhaps what I like about zThirdTry’s video is that it shows me a different perspective – a tourist perspective, a tourist who is very interested in art – but who is also a religious person. I think that’s what is missing from the art history textbook – those different perspectives. So, I guess the questions are – do we agree those are important, and if so, what’s the best way to bring those in?
January 13th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
I agree that we need to teach about the ways in works continue to accrue meaning, and three issues come to mind after reading these recent very interesting posts on the textbook:
1) Isn’t the tourist prespective already one of the more dominant modes through which people learn about art outside of an academic setting? I think it is important to acknowledge this context in an academic course, but I am not sure about the degree which this perspective should be incorporated into pedagogy.
2) These recent posts all address works that remain in situ. When I teach Piazza San Pietro, I do find it very helpful to have students who have been there describe their experiences of the space. But many works have already been visually isolated through techniques of museum display. The last time I was with a class at the Met, we talked about how we were seeing Ghirlandaio’s St. Christopher from an “impossible angle,” since the museum brings it so close to the visitor. Do you think that works in museums merit a similar shift in perspective?
3) Is falling in love with a work of art you haven’t “seen” really like falling in love with a lie? Aren’t “Thirty Better Than One”?
http://www.aiwaz.net/uploads/gallery/thirty-are-better-than-one-1625-mid.jpg
(Another way of thinking about how works continue to accrue meaning apart from where they are housed.)
January 13th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
By the way, my favorite part of this video is when the lights go out – brings back some memories of the eternal struggle to keep the monuments lit while visiting. I sunk SO many 500 lire coins into the Sassetti Chapel over the years…
January 14th, 2010 at 7:55 am
Thanks for the comments Chad! I think it’s important for students to see these images while in class in the way that they will experience them if they go to these locations now, not just in some imaginary pure universe. I’m not sure if that’s what you mean by acknowledging or incorporating into pedagogy. And yes, this only works for objects still in situ – but that’s a significant number of objects we teach in the survey course.