When art history goes wrong, ctd.
September 17 2012
A sad indictment of some modern art history teaching from Lynne Truss.* Writing in The Telegraph of her experience of a graduate art history degree at the Courtauld, she reveals that she gave up:
To be honest, I didn’t even like art history. The course was designed not to teach us about art, but to drill us in the techniques and dogmas of art-history scholarship, most of which I had no patience with.
I've heard similar tales from many students. They sign up for a course at the Courtauld thinking they're going to look at paintings and learn about art. But alas...
*via The Association of Art Historians and Ayla Lepine.
Update - a reader tweets:
Yes, well I find this to be more evident at the Institute of Fine Arts. It is not about the Art, but the theory applied.
While another leaps to the Courtauld's defence:
I did my MA at the Courtauld so my experience might differ from the Graduate Diploma course. Having said that, I experienced a similar start of term; the long reading list, searching for books, photocopying reams worth of chapters and articles, carrying heavily laden book bags home, visiting other libraries to try track down books, having to read books in tandem with a course mate at the National Art Library because it was the only copy in London. But I don't see what the big problem is? The MA course is only 9 months so there's a lot to read in a short time; the aim is to be prepared and informed to later discuss themes in class.
My MA course was in the 'History and theory of the art museum', led by Giles Waterfield. Even though we weren't studying pictures per se, rather the history of their display, we had many encounters with paintings. We had sessions in the Courtauld's print room with a curator and in the main gallery spaces with Ernst Vegelin. We had field trips to Petworth House, Berlin and Florence. We visited the conservation department at the National Gallery in London and the Opificio delle Pietre Dure in Florence with Helen Glanville (who also gave us seminars in painting conservation). We absolutely got to look at paintings! [...]
I will admit that not all my friends at the Courtauld enjoyed their course as much as my 'History and theory of the art museum' peers and I did. My own experience at the Courtauld was the complete opposite of what you claim in your post! I found my course to be well structured, comprehensive, challenging, engaging (in debate and face to face with art) and inspiring (my PhD research was developed directly from my MA dissertation). Good or bad experiences at the Courtauld seem to depend very much on the individual course specialisation and the tutor. I did my research and looked very carefully at the course contents and who was teaching it. If only all tutors could by like the wonderful Giles Waterfield!
So there you have it - if you do a course at the Courtauld, a tutor to aim for is Giles Waterfield. And I can speak first hand of his enthusiasm for showing pictures to pupils, as he's been to our gallery with groups before.
Of course, really the Courtauld is full of excellent tutors, and courses. Please note that at the start of my post I said 'some teaching'...! (Tho' that said I still haven't recovered from the Courtauld's attempt to close the Witt Library...)
