Pensum/læringskrav

De deler av pensum som er å finne i Unipubskompendiene del 1, 2 og 3 er markert med henholdsvis (1), (2) og (3). (Pensum = 1230s)

CONNOISSEURSHIP

(1) Pope-Hennessy, J.: "Connoisseurship" i Pope-Hennessy, J.: The Study of Criticism of Italian Sculpture, New York, 1980, s. 11- 38.

(1) Maginnis, H.B.S.: "The Role of Perceptual Learning in Connoisseurship: Morelli, Berenson, and Beyond", i Art History, 1990, s. 104 - 117.

KRITISKE KUNSTHISTORIKERE

Podro,M.: The Critical Historians of Art , London 1982: s.1-30,61-98,117-218.

(1) Iversen, M.: “Dutch Group Portraits and the Art of Attention” A. Riegl: Art History and Theory, London, 1993, s. 92-147,183-189.

(1) Fra Warburg,Aby, The Renewal of Pagan Antiquity. Contributions to the Cultural History of European Renaissance, Getty, 1999. Forster,K.W.: “Introduction (s. 1-75; Warburg,Aby, “Francesco Sassetti`s Last Injunctions” (s.222-262,452-466).

(2) Panofsky, E.: a) "Iconography and Iconology", b) "The History of the Theory of Human Proportions as a Reflection of the History of Styles", alle i Meaning in the Visual Arts, University of Chicago Press, 1982 (1995). s.26-107,figs.17-27.

(2) Panofsky, E.: "The Concept of Artistic Volition", i Critical Inquiry, 1981, s. 17 – 33.

(2) Panofsky, E.: "The Neoplatonic Movement and Michelangelo", i Panofsky, E.: Studies in Iconology, New York, 1967 (1939),s.171-230,plates 125-173.

Holly,M.A.: Panofsky and the Foundations of Art History , London 1984 og senere utg., kap. 3,5 og 6.

(2) Gombrich, E. H.: "Aims and Limits of Iconology", i Gombrich, E. H.: Symbolic Images, Phaidon, 1978 [1972], s. 1 – 22, 197-198,figs. 1-30.

Gombrich,E.H.:”Psychology and the Riddle of Style”,”Truth and the Stereotype”,”Reflections on the Greek Revolution”, “The Beholder`s Share”, “The Analysis of Vision in Art”, I Gombrich,E.H.: Art and Illusion , New York 1961 og senere utg. : s. 55-78,99-125, 154-204 og 246-278.

(2) Krieger, M.: ”The Ambiguities of Representation and Illusion: An E. H. Gombrich Retrospective”, "Critical Inquiry", 1984, s. 181 – 195.

NYERE METODISKE SYNSPUNKTER

Baxandall, M.: Patterns of Intention , London 1985:s.1-73,105-137.

(2) Starn, R. og Patridge, L.: Arts of Power: Three Halls of State, Oxford, 1992, Introduksjon og kap.1+figs,appendix 1 :s.1-80,261-266,305-324.

(3) Kemp, W.: “The Work of Art and Its Beholder: The Methodology of the Aesthetic Reception”, i The Subjects of Art History, red. M.A.Cheetham, M.A.Holly, K. Moxey, Cambridge University Press, 1998,s.180-196.

(3) Fried, M.: “Introduction”; “Painting and Beholder” i Absorption and Theatricality, Chicago, 1982 og senere utg. ,s.1-5,.107-160,180-182,222-240.

(3) Roskill, M.:”Indeterminacy and the Institutions of Art History”;”Conclusion: Revisionist Interpretation and Art History Today”, i The Interpretation of Pictures, Amherst, 1989, s.62-93,113-119.

(3) Bal, M og Bryson, N.: "Semiotics and Art History", The Art Bulletin, 1991, s. 174 -208 og The Art Bulletin, 1992, s. 522 – 531.

(3) Bonta, J. P.: An Anatomy of Architectural Interpretation: A Semiotic Review of the Criticism of Mies van der Rohe's Barcelona Pavilion, Barcelona, 1975, s.55-81.

(3) Gouma-Peterson,T. og Mathews, P., “The Feminist Critique of Art History”, The Art Bulletin, 1987, s.326-357.

(3) Pollock, G., ”Det moderna och kvinnelighetens rum”, i Konst, kön och blick: Feministiska bildanalyser från renässans till postmodernism, Lindberg, A. L., red., Stockholm: Norstedts, 1995, s.165-210.

Publisert 7. mars 2005 17:02