Monday, January 31, 2011
Second Writing Prompt
Using the same Proskouriakoff article and podcast and any other art history articles you wish, write a blog post using this prompt: “describe what moves good art history authors use to engage their audience. What moves do you make that belong to art history specifically? How do you organize your writing? How do you decide what details to leave in or take out?” Again, be specific and concise in your answers. See calendar for due date.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
Could you clarify the question, what do you mean by "moves"? Are you referring to what hooks people into the article?
I really haven't noticed anything in art history articles that draws me in, I am generally just really interested in the article. I usually organize my writing in the most logical order I can think of, I explain the visual aspects of the piece in as much detail as I can, and then I analyze the given information drawing in outside sources and the like. When there are page constraints I leave out the information that I can not support as convincingly as I would like, and make sure to leave in my strongest points. Many of the art history articles that I have read have been organized about the same way, because if you just jumped into the analysis, the audience would be confused about the subject. Art historians as far as I can tell don't revert to the gimmicks that some journalists use like leading off with questions or blaring some interesting but insignificant tidbit in the title to draw interest, and only explaining that tidbit at the very end.
I think good art history authors use pictures and graphs to reference back to when they talk about art. Visual representations help engage the reader to have a better understanding of what the author is trying to explain, or at least in my perspective. In my case, I think seeing the art live rather than in pictures helps gather more information because their is much more detail that photographs cannot show. I also like to read a little bit information about the specific art just to have background knowledge so I will know what I am looking at. When I organize my writing I try to make an outline even if it is not required because I do believe they are very helpful. I bring out the strong points in whatever I am writing and then fill in details once I begin the writing. The process of leaving things in or out depends on what the writing is about. I try not to go on a tangent about something irrelevant to the paper. I do like to explain the piece of art summarized in the beginning and then throughout the paragraphs I get into detail. Usually when I go into detail I like to compare and contrast with other arts so that the reader can notice what differs in era. Also, bring in visual representation can engage the reader so that they can compare it to the writing. Background knowledge of the era helps me understand the art I am looking at.
In my opinion, good Art History writing borders on being both scientific and artistic. In my past Art History papers, I've often used very evocative language in describing the art. I usually do this in the beginning o f my paper. Using beautiful language helps the reader paint a picture of the art work I will be discussing later on in my paper. I would follow the description section with a history of the object’s creators. After this section I would analyze the object. Why was it made? What were its uses? What did it mean to the culture that made it? These are the type of questions I would address. When I would analyze the object, I noticed my writing would change from expressive to very straight forward language. I wanted to be very clear in my analysis and evocative can often cause confusing or lead to tangents that often have nothing to do with the analysis or comparison I am writing.
Jamie --
I would definitely have to agree with you in that my approach to art history writing is very similar yours. There is always a fine line that you have to watch with the language you use, especially when you begin to switch from description to analysis, and vice versa. Also, I find that there is a difference in the way that you write when analyzing an object versus analyzing research that you may want to include in your essay.
As far as my organization of writing, it usually depends on different factors (i.e. length of the assignment, what the assignment specifically calls for, etc.), but I try to make my ideas flow but separate them as well for clarity.
Lauren
Studio Facilitator, The Writing Center
I believe that art history writers are moved to engage their audience because the information they are relaying is important. As a visual society, we crave visual stimulation, thus the best way of learning where we came and what history is about is to address it in the form of art history. Also to reinforce their statements, art historians are aided by the use of pictures and graphs which will generally help support the topic. When writing, art historians are striving to engage the reader because knowing the past helps to create a better future. When I write I generally try to make an argument concise and try to be as informative as possible. When building a paper I start with a thesis and then break that down into subsections. Outlining generally will ensue in the beginning of the writing process. In the outline I create at least three to five key points I wish to address. Beneath these points I will incorporate evidence or theories that help to support the ideas and then follow up with any references and sort them beneath their respective ideas. In completing my paper I write the beginning and concluding paragraphs. After the full paper is composed I then go in and edit it also I have a peer edit it and will mark what I find necessary to the piece or unnecessary.
What sets art history writing apart from other disciplines is the responsibility on the writer to provide a compelling visual description and/or analysis.
As with other disciplines, art history scholars frame their arguments from various perspectives--you can interpret the meaning of a work of art from an economic angle, a historical angle, a purely aesthetic angle, a Marxist angle, a feminist angle, etc. However, unlike other disciplines, the art history scholar must connect the theory informing their argument with this existent, tangible, material thing in the world that has been deliberately designed a certain way by a certain person/people in a certain culture in a certain time in history, an object that illustrates a specifically chosen subject matter. In order to draw out the profound implications of all those specifics (why this subject matter? why this material?) it is really imperative that art history writers become proficient in the language of visual description and analysis. Line, color, rhythm, subject matter, material, texture (implied or actual)... each of these aspects of an artwork has a vocabulary all its own.
Samantha
Studio Facilitator
Personally speaking what draws me to an article or a writer is their clarity in writing. Kind of like you said in the lecture on Monday, many people can get lost in unnecessary "jargon," using big fancy words to make themselves seem smart, but in the meantime they lose half their audience. A good writer is able to engage the audience and through their words, actually "paint a picture" of what they are writing about. The Proskouriakoff article was obviously written for people that know a lot about MesoAmerican art already, so for a new person like myself to jump into it without any prior knowledge, her style of writing just ends up getting me lost. The podcast on the other hand was much more able to help me visualize what Proskouriakoff was talking about.
I haven't read much when it comes to art history to be honest. it would probably help me a bit with the final paper to read more. I previously took a Political and Protest Cinema art history class, and one of the writers we read that really stood out to me was Jonathan Beller, who wrote an article called "Dziga Vertov and the Film of Money." A lot of the time he gets lost in his vocabulary, but even so he was really able to explore the movie and to move past the film as a film and break it down as an artistic statement.
As for my own personal style of writing, i usually like to start with an idea or a story and then move into the more technical realm. I think in that way it is a bit easier to engage the audience and give them a reason for wanting to read more and to dive in more. When I am preparing to write, i do like to have an outline and structure in place before so I don't get lost in tangents. I will usually start with a thesis and then have 3 or 4 points I would like to expound on. I do like to get my peers to help in the editing process, so I'm kind of excited to try these writing groups.
I also agree with what Samantha said about the responsibility of the art historian. there is so much more that goes into it other than only our interpretations!
ARogers - moves does mean the strategies you use to convince people of your argument. I really liked your concise recap of your own strategies (perfect response to the question), but I wonder if an art history article had ever struck you as particularly convincing, well-done, or beautifully argued. If you have, what do you think made it so? Why were these works particularly excellent?
I am very pleased and gratified at the comments so far. It is tough to think critically about a writing process that is often taken for granted. The plain fact of the matter is that some art history writing is much better than the rest. Our Writing in the Disciplines angle allows us to tease out this writing and debate its nature. A big shout out to our Writing Facilitators in the Writing Center who left you with much to think about.
Art History, I believe, is a difficult subject to write about. When describing an object every aesthetic detail of the piece can be examined and beautifully described. To me this is not enough; those details need context to have significance. For example, you can look at a shield and see the "stick figures" an "swirls" but unless you know what these symbols mean to that group of people it is for all intents and purposes a piece of wood with a few designs carved in. This leads me to appreciate art history that is extremely descriptive, yet rich in historical information as well.
One article I liked was, by Alfred Gell: "The Gods at Play: Vertigo and Possession in Muria Religion". I believe he did an excellent job in describing some of these religious practices in such detail that, you felt as if you standing in front of one the ceremonial swings. I also really appreciated how made this foreign practice easier to comprehend.
In my own writing I like to begin with a detailed description of the piece followed by previous thoughts on my object, pretty standard. However, when I reach the point of my argument I introduce my own ideas but I really like to use a lot of historical background in support of what I am saying. Or at the very least introduce this information just before I reach my argument. I also find it very important to link the object you’re working with to something more familiar for the audience. This I am very careful with because I do not want to seem as if one culture stole an idea from the other, but just enough so that an object which may seem so “out there” starts to become a little easier to comprehend.
I like Cathleen's idea of the art historian as "translator," if I may simplify her thinking. It is true that art historians often serve as informed and engaged intermediaries between an artwork or building and the public.
I also very much appreciate Cathleen's call for context. If we don't give our audience a richer notion of the lived world of the object, then we tend to fall into our opinions and taste. History is our muse, but it is also our guarantor of not overvaluing our own reaction to a work.
Besides painting a thorough visual depiction of the object being discussed, a good art historian includes detailed relevant historical information about the subject matter's background. In Carole Gold Calo's compilation of 'Writings About Art,' one essay that struck me was Herbert Cole's discussion of the Mother and Child in African Sculpture. He very clearly described various mediums in which the subject matter was depicted (sculpture, ceramics, etc) and connected all of them with integral cultural background that gave the reader a deeper look into not only that subject matter in relation to African arts but also in relation to African culture and society. So basically, what drew me in was learning about an archetypal subject in arts and how that subject developed through its culture as well.
In my writing, I draw in the reader with information pertaining to the surrounding history and culture of whatever my subject; then describe the object at hand in extreme detail so as to easily visualize it. I follow with analyzing aesthetic qualities that are directly related to this item's culture and tradition; and go on to discuss the item's use and hierarchy in society along with any religious connotations.
Put simply, I try to smoothly integrate examination of the object itself into an overall examination of its culture as well.
I believe that a good art history article must be able to “translate” a visual concept to verbal. I think that’s the most challenging part for an art history author when writing. Being able to use the proper language, word with good meanings and description helps us visualize what element is the author trying to portray. When organizing my paper I would first do an outline, this would help me organize my thoughts and ideas about specific subjects. Then I would start writing and try to describe as much as I can what I’m writing about using good language that would help the reader understand and see what I’m trying to say/see. As far as deciding what details to leave in or take out, I think is better if you go over your writing and analyze it well. Depending on how you feel and if it’s convincing to the audience then you decide whether to add or take out any details.
I haven't noticed anything that draws me into art history articles other than the fact I am interested in the topic and that they are clear and concise. When writing my own papers, I organize my thoughts by starting with an outline. I describe the work first then I begin to analyze it based on what is being asked of me. I explain my most important points in as much detail as possible. If there are page constraints I will cut out the information that I can't back up as much as I would like.
I believe that a good art history authors try to convey what they are witnessing at the time that they have discovered or what they have witnessed at a time of importance. Be it, if they where there or if they have discovered and learned about these events, via artwork that has been uncovered or found. They try to show verbally what they are seeing at that moment. They want the reader to be able to see what the image is like or how the artifact feels like.
My type of writing is very simple. I try to show what I am seeing in my head. I try to make it as simple and as understandable as possible so that it won’t get confusing when it is being read. Giving as much detail as possible without the information that I am trying to give being lost. It’s very simple really, I give what I see and work on the information that I can truly develop through the research that I do for the art piece. The information that I give is one that I can validate through different sources of reliable information. As for the details that I give, I want them to be as accurate as possible, if by chance I am not really sure as to what that information is I try to avoid adding it to the body of the paper that I am writing.
Being visually oriented, I tend to lean towards art history authors that include a lot of visual support, either well done hand renderings/paintings, color photographs, and engaging tables/charts, etc. A personal strategy would most likely follow that same format as well. As for examples, John Audubon and his work with North American wildlife, may be an example of very good visual engagement. Chronologically ordering a writing seems to make most sense when it involves history of any type. Maybe spice things up with comparisons to contemporary counterparts to help draw the audience in would help.
As for deciding what to leave out, I think it greatly depends on what the goal is of the writing. Because of the different angle Proskouriakoff took in her paper, I'm sure that she brought in evidence that prior historians left out and vice versa.
I agree with Brigids post of leaving out details that aren't well supported.
I think a well written art history article is one over Rembrandt's work, The Group Portraiture of Holland by Alois Riegl.
The reasons i felt that this work was so good was because of the way it was written. It was easy to understand, very self explained word for word, kind of like how Dr. Koontz literally spells everything out on Blackboard for us to use. This method allows the student to follow along well with the reading.
I like to follow this same type of style when writing my art history papers. They can be extremely difficult to write when you are trying to get your point across and not sound redundant.
What i like to do is before i begin typing my paper i ask myself the questions i want to answer or that are required of us to answer. I then bold out the questions on my paper and write from each questions, later going in and making sure the paper flows. This really helps me organize my thoughts and make sure that i am addressing all the issues and information that needs to be addressed.
In the Rembrandt article, it does just this. The author talks about the form along side with the picture so you can literally find out exactly what they are talking about. each new paragraph has a point and it is well defined in the beginning.
A constant detailed and well spoken article that doesn't need to be to fancy in the diction really allows people with no pervious background to grasp the information. My goal is to describe the object so well that even without having a picture next to the article the reader could actually picture what i am saying, of course a good article would be to have a photo there to allow the reader to follow along right there with them.
I feel the use of imagery as a companion to descriptive yet concise text is an excellent tactic for art history writers seeking the full engagement of their audience. I try to organize my writings as such, trying to find a balance between imagery and text without becoming overbearing or convoluted in my meaning. In my opinion using only descriptive language can definitely have its faults and can be fairly limiting, especially in the shoes of a reader who comes into the subject knowing nothing of the artwork or culture being described. In my mind a writer can only describe to so much detail without completely drowning their audience in flowery rhetoric and losing the clarity of their article.
I haven't found that one art history article that has completely swept me off my feet. I feel that my knowledge of art history as an all-encompassing subject is fairly limited and I know that I haven't read enough articles on the subject to find one that completely 'wows' me...yet.
In my opinion, the good art history authors engage me by giving me a clear and understandable description of the piece they are writing about. If I am able to picture the image (if I am not given an image) than I find it much more interesting to read the rest of the information. When I write about art history, I first describe why I chose to write about that piece. I then describe it the best I can. From there I write about that piece in it's time period, what it was used for, who would have used it, and the importance of it. I then write my evaluation of that piece. Hopefully by my clear explanation of what the piece is like, the reader can understand my evaluation easily.
When considering what details to leave in and take out, I take a break from writing and when I come back to it, I try to approach it as someone who has never read it before. If I have questions, I know others will, too, so I expand or provide more details.
I'm not sure if this is where i suppose to post my question....
For Wk 3, what do we suppose to read? pgs 9-58 from the text?
thanks!
Proskouriakoff uses moves such as extensive research & graphs. The facts are clearly outlined and a progressive argument is made throughout the paper building on the point previously made.
Good art history papers, such as Clement Greenburg's 'Modernist Painting', proclaim truth until proven otherwise. Although Greenburg's essay is highly debatable, it proves its importance by the fact that it is debated.
The moves that I make are similar in that I analyze the subtle entricasies of the peice while not missing the historical context. There is a big picture & a small picture. I usually organize by using a standard outline despcibing each peice involved, then I create another outline that compares the comparissons. The details are selected by factors such as the projected character limit, reliability of information, rebutle to skeptics, & if it helps build the argument I am making.
A good art history authors is clear and concise. When describing a piece, they must be able to provide a mental image to the reader. If possible a picture of the piece should be included with the article. They should still describe aspects or parts of the piece that support their conclusion to highlight them in the readers mind. It is often helpful to include references to other works for comparison. Here the description is also used to highlight similarities or differences in the reader's eye.
When describing a piece, I usually like to give at least a brief introduction to a piece explaining the circumstances at the time it was made. In this description I would provide details such as the materials used and the artist's name and location. After describing the setting I describe the piece itself. As stated before, it is important that the description highlight details for the reader.
Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. Starbucks doesn't necessarily believe in inclement weather...
Since I have not found my prized art history article, it's hard to pick out what "moves" me personally. If anything, I believe it is pertinent that there is some kind of visual. Whether it be literal pictures or detailed descriptions is always helpful, but doesn't everyone think that?
I was speaking to a friend the other day about her many articles she has to read for her own art history class and with those, she talks one on one with one of her classmates, almost like a conversation or debate. She pointed out how it took an extensive amount of time to get to the point of what the subject was. It was frustrating for her because once she got to that point, it finally got interesting.
I suppose a "perfect" art history article of any kind starts with not losing the audience in the first couple of paragraphs.
Another potential issue is if the audience isn't particularly knowledgeable about the article. But when one does know the period of time or culture, etc, that's when it get's interesting.
When I write about art, it always begins with the history because without that cause there'd be no effect. With that, I delve right into facts and so forth. I appreciate the smallest cracks, hints of color and the tiniest details of any work of art, so I appropriately try to leave details.
With Proskouriakoff's article that we've been reading, I find myself not interested at all and as much as the pod cast is helpful, it demotes Proskouriakoff and her hard work.
Besides extensive knowledge, research, and descriptive skills, an art history author's best weapon to use to engage their audience is passion. Readers get lost in lengthy descriptions and it is the job of the writer to instill the same excitement within their audience about their given topic in a clear way.
I begin the organization of my own writing by stating the issue or object of discussion, and I immediately offer a quirky, interesting fact to snare attention and give reason for wanting to read more. I offer important points in detail, coupled by visual stimulation and historical support. It is very important to consider your audience before moving into rich technicalities. Should your writing approach reflect an audience that has no prior knowledge to the issue at hand? Most of the time we are not so lucky to hand pick our readers, and must adjust our methods accordingly. During the editing process I restate my argument to myself, and reexamine each point I have made in comparison. If the point cannot hold its own weight to the issue without support of its fellows, it might not be as relevant or helpful to my reader. Be knowledgable, be concise, be passionate, and you'll win the reader's attention span in no time.
I think several of you have done a good job describing the art of making an argument. First you must outline your argument clearly by stating what has come before, why you think you can add something to the mix, and the structure of the argument “X,Y, and Z will prove my theory.” However, structure, while being essential to any decent argument, is not the key to an outstanding art history paper. Art is inherently an abstract idea. I am sure you have been all been asked the question “what is art, and how do we know it is art?” If we accept that we are dealing with an abstract idea, no matter what the subject of the pieces being discussed is, we can break it down into the core elements that we, as the author, feel are necessary to make our argument. If, say, the piece is ancient and from a primitive culture, the limited amount of knowledge we have leads us into a guessing game based off reason. What is the medium? What is its use? Are there cultural or religious themes being used? Who was it for? Questions like these will pull out the essence of a piece and only then can the construction of an argument begin. As we know more about the time period and author the questions become more specific. What movement does this piece belong to? Does this embody or deviate from the genre? If so, how? A good art history piece has to break down the piece to its core elements and an outstanding art history piece has to weave this evidence on the foundation of prior art historical pieces in order to produce a meaningful contribution.
One last note. Ever since we were young, we have been taught to only include the information that supports our argument. For the most part, this is true. However, good art history, the stuff that has a real effect on the art historical field, not only manages to put together the pieces as best they can to prove their argument, but also shows the holes that are left. It is these holes that others will be able to fill. This is the only way for progress in the field to be made. You cannot give “the answer” to a piece. The best you can hope for is to make people think. If Proskouriakoff hadn’t put her head out there and said “hey this is what I think” without saying “do you think there is something to it?” progress could never have been made.
I think in any article or book for that matter, the story or the information they are trying to give us to has to be clearly thought out and written that way. Reading anything in general, in my opinion, only plays on the readers mind. It is up to the reader to visualize what the author is presenting to them. With that being said great descriptions are necessary especially in an art history article. I also feel that with any writing it is never safe to assume that the person reading it has the same knowledge as the author. I found that in reading Proskouriakoff's article I was for the most part confused through much of it. As an art history minor, I have yet to be exposed to a lot of things in this area of study and so I have not had too much experience in reading art history research articles or in general reading art history aside from the books that are required for the few course I have taken. I unfortunately can't say that I have a favorite article or book in that particular area of study. On the other hand being a psychology major I have definitely read my fair share of those to understand the formats to be very much the same. The research papers we write always follow the same format, title page, abstract, main body and references. I have always thought of the abstract part as a "sneek peek" to what you're going to read and the main body of course as the "true substance" to a paper. I had a professor once tell me to draw interest from a reader into an article it is highly important to give a good, thorough abstract because everyone looks at the "preview" to see if the movie is going to be any good. Now I know movies and art history articles are not the same but I hope that my point is coming across as making sense. Some of my classmates have also said one of the main fundamental teachings of writing and that is to keep the reader on track by giving them the details they need. Every rubric I've ever seen with regards to any style of writing, the professors usually include the part that says "Did the author stay on track? Did the paper flow?" I think to have a good article or book you should keep the reader on track, that is to not give them something that is going to distract them from following whatever message, information or idea you're trying to get across to them.
I have always been a visual person. In Proskouriakoff article I was drawn in by the information and the use of graphs and timelines to support her claims. I find myself drawn in to articles that I have interest in especially topics that I would enjoy learning more about. I am not sure what moves that I make when writing, but I try to back up my arguments with facts. In the thesis I explain what the jest of the article will argue, and the conclusion. I found that making an outline helps with the organization of information presented in the paper. Looking over the topics I choose specific ideas or facts that will not lose the reader. I hate not understanding some thing that Im reading and I become frustrated trying to understand it. Thats why I really liked the podcast because it cleared up some questions in lay mans terms. When writing know your audience.
I believe that in writing before you can decide on a "move" you have to know your audience. For example, in the case of Proskouriakoff the audience was art historians. Any paper should either through its title, or its opening paragraph, raise the interest of the reader. In art history one "move" could be challenging the accepted hypothesis - such as Proskouriakoff did. Your work should be organized by setting forth factual details that supposedly support the existing hypothesis, and then comparing those established details with the author’s new hypothesis. In other words, it is important to compare apples to apples. One of the most difficult challenges is the elimination of details which are important, but not important to proving the hypothesis.
The moves good art history authors use to engage their audience... Hmmm... I once had a teacher tell me to write as though you are writing for an alien race that has no concept of our planet nor our customs. This really resonated with me and when I write papers, I always try to think of this. I always appreciate some basic background information about the subject I'm reading. Therefore, the articles I tend to enjoy the most focus on the basics as well as the details. With Proskouriakoff's article, I struggled to fully grasp the concepts she was discussing. One reason for this was that she was limited in her background information that she offered to the reader.
Obviously in writing you can not put in every piece of information that you find. Elimination and organization are important to a papers ability to keep the readers interest. I tend to organize my writing by what sounds good. What I mean by that is I read back over my papers and reorganize my writing into a sensible manner over time. It works for me. Deciding what details to leave in and take out depends on what is of most interest to me. The more interested I am in a certain piece of art, the better I am going to write about it. I think that is true with all writing.
Because I haven't yet read that many art history articles, I can't say much on the subject matter. However I did like my Art History 1&2 textbook: Gardner's Art through the Ages. I think what good authors do to engage their audience is to tell a story. Some sort of timeline lays down a clear outline so that the idea is easy to follow and the narrative/the background on how the main point of the article came to be is what makes it easiest for me to understand the artwork. It also eases the memorization process because I can see how an idea has developed. That method is obviously used in the Aztec Myths article.
If nothing else, imagery helps as well. Being able to put a picture to the word describing a situation helps tremendously in understanding something. As far as details, I like short and concise articles. If its not pertinent to understanding the point of the text, it would be best left out.
Most of the art history articles that I've read are within published works of one particular artist or web articles. And of the very research reports I've read, they are so focused on a narrrow audience that already is well versed in the subject, I find that I reread it numerous times just to pull out what little I am able to understand.
Until I become more versed in the subject matter, what I do see in such articles and appreciate are the following (which I hope to follow one day in my own paper) to help me get more out of the article:
1) Be organized with a clear scope at the beginning;
2) Do not delve into the jargon and details all at once, but expand from the scope to the outlining the path and why the journey is needed; essentilly to peak the interest of the reader to delve in the details which follow.
3) Logical progression; no sense in getting lost before starting out; and make sure that each statement provides a foundation for the next.
4) Graphics or comparison at each opportunity where needed to assure the reader where they are; it's so easy to make assumptions, but a graph or table can put words into another perspective.
5) Closing is the most difficult, because the author needs to bring the reader to the same conclusion.
Time will tell!!!
I believe that writing for any field balances all of the elements of writing and of the field in which you are writing. Art History writing should be clear and concise, but also visually expressive.
When it comes to organizing my writing I first decided what point I am going to make and then how I will approach it. I try to balance my stronger points and my weaker points so that, in the end, my audience understands the point I am making. I try to balance facts and statistics with meaningful analysis and just enough creativity to pull it all together.
Shannon H.
Studio Facilitator
Art history authors seem to direct thier writings toward those with more experienced and education in the field so I find myself favoring the more recient articles about contemporary art. I am not sure I understand "moves" but i do reference artwork in my own as a image sorce. Again, I'm not sure what that is asking exactly. I approach my writting as if the reader knows nothing about my topic. I begin with a brief history of the artists and details that would help the reader to understand my description, these would be the facts and outside sources. Then I go into a more in dept visual analysis and finally try to analyse the work. I choose my details to match with what I'm trying to say about the piece, and I'll try to focus on the main purpose (if its religious I will focus on facts and sources about religion).
I think art history authors are moved to engage their audience because they are passionate about their subject. They want people to learn more about art history and the meaning behind art work. The way I organize my writing is by making an outline first. I use that outline in order to form more conrete ideas about what I am writing about. I never write my introduction first, because then I feel limited in my paper. I like to take out all the fluff in my paper by rereading it again or having someone read it for me and ask me questions.
One of my favorite art historian books is by Richard Townsend. I like this book because of the amount of pictures of Aztec artifacts and the in depth descriptions he uses throughout the book.
Perhaps one of the reasons why art history, as a subject,is quiet interesting - and different other subjects - is the visually expressive element of it. Just as Shannon referred, being able to visualize an art work for the intended audience is no doubt crucial.
As far as the organization, I believe that a piece of writing should clearly allow the readers to "move through" the ideas that a writing elaborates. In other words, I think through paragraphs, breaks, splices, parenthesis and etc. the style of writing allows the readers to go through the writers mind. Subsequently, an outline before writing the paper is definitely essential in seeing what I will be depicting in my writing. I also make notes on where/how I will be using my references separate from my outline, which allows for me to use my sources more clearly, hence making a more convincing claim throughout the paper.
Aydin Yildirim
Studio Facilitator/Writing Consultant
The art history pieces that I have read that most engage me have a fluidity to them. What I mean by fluidity is that I can clearly see connections between elements of art that are being discussed (whether that be its shape, color, material its made of, history of the people/person who created this, influences, etc). When I struggle to understand the author's meaning, when the author does not clearly impart these connections to me (through relevant information, concise sentences, effective word choice) I am unable to make these connections and, becoming frustrated, am disengaged. Although I don't have experience writing art history pieces, when I write I feel that I follow similar fundamentals of writing. Being concise, having relevant and thought-provoking content, organizing my writing so that it is fluid - all of these are key. Lately, I've been a little word choice obsessed - it seems to me this would be particularly important in art history writing because of the various and complex ways a piece can be described (in terms of appearance, texture, color, visual impact, historical influence, geographical influence, etc.). In order to describe and analyze effectively, I believe a large arsenal of specific and deliberately chosen words is necessary.
The art history pieces that I have read that most engage me have a fluidity to them. What I mean by fluidity is that I can clearly see connections between elements of art that are being discussed (whether that be its shape, color, material its made of, history of the people/person who created this, influences, etc). When I struggle to understand the author's meaning, when the author does not clearly impart these connections to me (through relevant information, concise sentences, effective word choice) I am unable to make these connections and, becoming frustrated, am disengaged. Although I don't have experience writing art history pieces, when I write I feel that I follow similar fundamentals of writing. Being concise, having relevant and thought-provoking content, organizing my writing so that it is fluid - all of these are key. Lately, I've been a little word choice obsessed - it seems to me this would be particularly important in art history writing because of the various and complex ways a piece can be described (in terms of appearance, texture, color, visual impact, historical influence, geographical influence, etc.). In order to describe and analyze effectively, I believe a large arsenal of specific and deliberately chosen words is necessary.
Colleen
Studio Facilitator, The Writing Center
One way an art history writer may attempt to engage their audience is through vivid vocabulary and description. This allows them to transport their reader to the work of art, as if they were seeing it for themselves. Before the writer introduces their analysis, a vivid picture of the work of art must be in the reader's mind; otherwise their analysis may not be understood or appreciated.
An outline or mind map is a convenient way in which to organize my thoughts prior to writing. I have made the mistake of not doing so, which results in a paper which ends with a different argument than the thesis. When proofreading a paper, it is easy to determine which points to take out, because they are usually not relevant to the paragraph in which they are stated or they do not have as much valid support as my other statements. Although it may feel as if you are wasting the effort which you put into the segments of your paper that you are omitting, keep in mind your paper is better without irrelevant or weak points.
Catherine Finley
Studio Facilitator
Post a Comment