My First Term of History of Art at University: A Review

Having FINALLY finished my Semester 1 tasks on the Monday just gone, a momentary lapse in work pressure means I am able to write briefly about my experiences studying History of Art at university. I am currently studying for my BA in English and History of Art, and last term my course was weighted so that I took one introductory module for History of Art. 

Honestly, it's been quite a tumultuous and challenging experience. I feel ashamed to say that my experience hasn't been wholly positive for a number of reasons. 

Firstly, as with anything at the moment, COVID pressures have made studying a lot more difficult than usual. I have struggled in particular with socialising on the course - having made a grand total of one (1) friend who also studies Art History. I can't speak for what it would be like normally, but feeling swamped with workload and having very little contact with others to establish how common my plight is has been difficult. Equally, I've found a lot of the reading and subject matter difficult, and fast-paced. Not having the opportunity to sound this out with others has been something I've definitely struggled with - and I still don't feel completely sure of my understanding of certain topics. 

I'd like to touch more on the issue of difficult reading. Obviously, it is a good thing to feel challenged and really have to wrangle with a reading to understand it. It means that your comprehension will be greater and more memorable. However, as somebody who had never studied History of Art in an academic context previously, being pushed head first into the realm of very technical, jargon-ridden and theoretical writing felt particularly cruel. I partially resent that there was not more foundational work for those of us (overwhelmingly state educated) who had no previous experience of studying art history. Even a simple glossary, and the opportunity to talk more directly to convenors and lecturers about readings would have gone a long way. I think this is symptomatic of a lot of problems with history of art as a discipline; excessive gatekeeping of language and ideas makes you feel stupid for understanding concepts that could, really, be explained much more simply. Grayson Perry did a good job of explaining this in "Playing to the Gallery", with his description of what he dubs "International Art English" - a secret language of words and art knowledge you must learn to be able to confidently talk about art, with the alternative being condemned to not "getting it".  Even still, having submitted my first essay, I feel ridden with impostor syndrome that I haven't really "got" much of the content, and sometimes question my place on the course. 

This partially came to a head at some point in November, at which point I was having serious conversations with my tutor about dropping Art History altogether and studying just English Literature instead. I think (?) I am glad to have stuck with it. Certainly, the content became more aligned with my personal interests in later weeks and this definitely swayed my decision. 

I am conscious of being overwhelmingly negative so far, so I think it's fair that I also highlight some of my positives of the course so far. As I've mentioned, the major cause of my decision to stick with History of Art was the content in the later weeks. That's not to say I didn't like the earlier weeks - it was more that the feeling like I was floundering around outweighed the content. I consistently enjoyed the breadth of content and subject matter throughout the module, designed to give us a brief overview of art up to the the end of the early modern period. Particular highlights include weeks on the myth of the unique perfection of Classical art, problems with the geohistorical categories of Japanese and Islamic art, and the conception of the modern architect. In fact, the history of architecture really took me off-guard. I have an embarrassing love of English Country homes and their gothic status, and this week of study was the perfect celebration of this. 

The end of the module was directed towards feminist theory, with analysis of artists such as Artemisia Gentileschi, Lavinia Fontana, Rembrandt, Vermeer and more. What was particularly exciting was applying "feminist" theory to artworks by men, and realising the autonomy of gender politics in an image goes beyond the artist's gender. It had never crossed my mind how much of a disservice we do female artists by conflating them instantly with biography - a tool used to confirm them as (as Griselda Pollock says) an "exception". As such, I found this a section of the course really rewarding and to remind me, at least partially, what I was doing there. 

I'm excited to start working on my next module next week, which explores issues with modern art. Notably, I am looking forward to Soviet art and learning about the art marketplace and valuation of works - something I know very little about! 

I appreciate this has been short and sweet, but perhaps a welcome change from my usual, excessively rambly posts. Thank you for reading, if you've got this far :)

Mia