This reading reminded me a lot of the conversations we had in “Theories and Methods of Art History” last semester. One of the main goals of the reading was to establish a definition of ‘theory’ and put it in context with ‘methods’. An interesting moment for me was when the author stated they wanted to be careful to define a canon for critical theory. By doing so, we would include and exclude different works. Creating a theory is about an exploration of your own intellectual interests and questions, rather than following what is trendy.<\/p>\n
The second chapter in our reading discussed how art works produced and reflected meaning. What is so obvious about art history, is that a lot of it is based on comparison. I have never really thought about how foundational comparison is within this field of study. Iconographic\/iconological analysis is almost entirely rooted in comparison. We use similarities and differences to weight importance and get a better understanding of the history of the work. It is interesting to think how art history has changed simply because we have more works to compare to.<\/p>\n
The third chapter<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This reading reminded me a lot of the conversations we had in “Theories and Methods of Art History” last semester. One of the main goals of the reading was to establish a definition of ‘theory’ and put it in context with ‘methods’. An interesting moment for me was when the author stated they wanted to … <\/p>\n