Honors Art History
I have liked history, and I have always liked art. In fact, I initially applied to UC through the Design, Art, and Architecture Program (DAAP) program. Shortly after applying I decided to switch majors and pursue something that helps people directly. However I still have an affinity for art. This being said, I figured I knew what type of class I was going into. Other students have had regular art history classes and they all say it is the same; memorize painters, dates, and a few facts before each test and you should do well. This is the traditional style of teaching I was comfortable with. The teacher "teaches" or lectures, and students take notes that they should then promptly memorize for the next test or quiz. As long as facts were stored in short term or declarative long term memory, you were bound to succeed. In my mind art history could be no other way.
This may help to explain why I felt so odd taking this Honors Art History Class. The professor did not place huge emphasis on "learning history", or rather memorizing history. I, being in the McMicken college of Arts and Science, was one of only two non-DAAP majors in the class of 25. The professor knew that DAAP students already had a full load and that 99% of them were not moving on to become art history majors like herself. This being said the class was, according to my expectations, rather easy. We had very little homework. I did not have to spend an hour or two each night reading the text. In fact I only read about a third of the chapters assigned because I knew that we would not be quizzed on them. During the quarter we had three essay tests. All the while I figured this art history class must be the easiest ever. I simply couldn't understand why it was this way. The class was fun and lively. College classes shouldn't be this way, I thought. There must have been some glitch in the system.
It wasn't until much later that I realized what the class actually did. I was talking to the head of the Honors department, Rich Robles, and I explained my concern for this class. I had just finished taking his honors seminar on leadership, and then it hit me. Just as leadership styles vary, so do teaching styles.
Looking back at the art history class I remember a fair amount of detail. In the class we talked about themes more than facts. For example we spent a whole class period on an activity to distinguish Romanesque architecture from Gothic. From memory I can easily predict the general time period, based upon whether it had more rounded arches or surrealistic statuettes and designs or thick walled windows and thick pillars (all common of Romanesque) or whether the work had more points and tall naves and/or rose windows with thinner inner supports and flying buttresses (all common of Gothic architecture). We covered styles of the famous Renaissance artists like Donatello, Raphael, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, and also the work or slightly lesser known artists such as Jan van Eyck. Not only did we have in class discussions about what a work means, but also we talked about the responses of the society at the time and possible further interpretations of the artwork. Even though the threat of a quiz was not present, the class was active and participated in discussions. We also worked on small group projects throughout the quarter.. My group took one of the worlds most famous religious works, The Last Supper by Leondardo Da Vinci, and did a full detail analysis of the painting and its impacts for religion, history, and culture.
This may help to explain why I felt so odd taking this Honors Art History Class. The professor did not place huge emphasis on "learning history", or rather memorizing history. I, being in the McMicken college of Arts and Science, was one of only two non-DAAP majors in the class of 25. The professor knew that DAAP students already had a full load and that 99% of them were not moving on to become art history majors like herself. This being said the class was, according to my expectations, rather easy. We had very little homework. I did not have to spend an hour or two each night reading the text. In fact I only read about a third of the chapters assigned because I knew that we would not be quizzed on them. During the quarter we had three essay tests. All the while I figured this art history class must be the easiest ever. I simply couldn't understand why it was this way. The class was fun and lively. College classes shouldn't be this way, I thought. There must have been some glitch in the system.
It wasn't until much later that I realized what the class actually did. I was talking to the head of the Honors department, Rich Robles, and I explained my concern for this class. I had just finished taking his honors seminar on leadership, and then it hit me. Just as leadership styles vary, so do teaching styles.
Looking back at the art history class I remember a fair amount of detail. In the class we talked about themes more than facts. For example we spent a whole class period on an activity to distinguish Romanesque architecture from Gothic. From memory I can easily predict the general time period, based upon whether it had more rounded arches or surrealistic statuettes and designs or thick walled windows and thick pillars (all common of Romanesque) or whether the work had more points and tall naves and/or rose windows with thinner inner supports and flying buttresses (all common of Gothic architecture). We covered styles of the famous Renaissance artists like Donatello, Raphael, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, and also the work or slightly lesser known artists such as Jan van Eyck. Not only did we have in class discussions about what a work means, but also we talked about the responses of the society at the time and possible further interpretations of the artwork. Even though the threat of a quiz was not present, the class was active and participated in discussions. We also worked on small group projects throughout the quarter.. My group took one of the worlds most famous religious works, The Last Supper by Leondardo Da Vinci, and did a full detail analysis of the painting and its impacts for religion, history, and culture.
This course was by no means the traditional college course. Nonetheless, I can say I learned just as much or perhaps more than I would have if I had taken the standard art history course. Students remained motivated not by pop quizzes, but because they were genuinely interested. I gained a new experience in subject matter but also gained a wider perspective on leadership style. This whole class was another reminder that there is always more than one way to accomplish a task.
Below are two of the essays completed during the course. We were allowed to choose from a list of topics, but had to pick a maximum of three topics to write about.