Student preferences for discussion leading sessions due to Moodle by 11:59, Monday, September 7

I would love to lead/co-lead either the November 8th session on iconography (first choice) or the October 27th session on materiality (second choice), if possible! I am planning on working extensively with methodologies of iconography and materiality in my thesis, which will likely discuss the evolution and syncretic nature of iconographic patterns within 10th-13th c. eastern European/Byzantine-influenced wall painting and monumental art. I read Panofsky for a couple previous classes, but these were taken many semesters ago, and it would be wonderful to get the opportunity to engage him in more depth through preparation for leading class discussion. I have also more exclusively studied iconographic methods applied to the art of Europe, and Professor Shi's paper on icon theory as applied to Chinese art will challenge my limited perspective, encouraging me to think more creatively about the ways in which icon theory may be applied. Materiality will also factor heavily into my analysis, especially regarding the employment of shine and splendor into church icons and the imperial/political value of eye-catching decorative elements, but I have yet to read any articles exploring the theory behind this methodology: leading discussion would bring me closer to understanding more of materiality—as a methodological focus—has been previously viewed and applied.

I would love to lead/co-lead the October 27 session on Materiality (first choice) as I am attempting to ground my thesis topic (in which I plan to write about artistic censorship, possibly within oppressive governmental structures) through thinking about how the interpretation of art depends on the context of the art's history. I would be thrilled to investigate how materiality communicates messages to each person interacting with the material in ways beyond just the image. I anticipate including works that will be closely related to the ideas that we discuss during this week in my thesis. My second choice is the October 6 session on Social Art History (second choice). As I consider the topic of artistic censorship, I would like to investigate the means through which art is communicated, and how art can be interpreted in a more meaningful way through looking at the cultural, social, and political context of the work.

My first choice to lead/ co-lead is the discussion of Materiality as I am interested in the textile history of Southern Mexico, the physical labor and temporality of it, and its connections to the landscape as well as its continuity of practice. Considering the layers of materiality from the sheep to the wool, from the cotton plant to the spinning and dyeing, the creation of the dyes and the harvesting of the cactus, and cochineal insect, to the weaving and pattern planning. I am interested in the emergence, the altercations, and the fashion that has resulted from the process. My second choice would be to lead/co-lead the discussion of Gender, Sexuality, and the Body as I consider the significance of indigenous Mexican women as both the creators/weavers, particularly in Oaxaca, as well as the main wearers of their clothes rather than the men of their community, and its identifying role and connection to archaeological sites.

I would be interested in leading/co-leading the discussion on connoisseurship (first choice) or materiality (second choice). I am pretty certain that my thesis will include theory or methodology surrounding materiality, but I think that connoisseurship and the study of practices can overlap with/and expand my knowledge about materials. Connecting to my interest in environmental studies, it might be interesting to think about how certain environmental factors (raininess vs dryness, for example) might impact artistic techniques of different regions.

I am interested in leading or co-leading a class discussion on Formalism. In my thesis, I hope to investigate the perceptions of Byzantine forms through glyptic arts, objects of often ambiguous provenance and provenience, and frequently introduced into new forms and objects in their long lifespans. Reigl's use of the Arch of Constantine as evidence of contrasting "ancient Oriental," "Classical," and medieval artistic sensibilities strikes me as a potent case study. Understanding art as the product of its unique cultural context, historical moment, and individual artist is a valuable but complicated methodology, the shortcomings of which I hope to interrogate further. My other choice is leading or responding to the topic of Materiality. My research interests lie in the re-use and collection of precious engraved gemstones, particularly Byzantine glyptics, understood by their users and makers as being imbued with sacred, sometimes medicinal and magical properties. These materials ranged across regions and time periods, but often defined the agential roles of objects like bloodstones on worn, amuletic enkolpia. I am eager to participate in this class discussion, possibly as a responder, because of the potential to contrast my material analysis and study of precious and semi-precious gemstones with other materials.

My first choice would be to lead/co-lead the session on social art history. Many of my ideas for my thesis have to do with investigating late 19th century socioeconomic dynamics. Thinking about Olympia specifically, there is this painting in which one white figure is in the forefront while a historically marginalized figure stands behind them, which I foresee being a large overarching theme in my thesis. This re-examining of a piece of art historical canon is something that greatly interests me. My second choice would be the session on materiality, specifically because of the Winterthur Portfolio reading. After looking into the publication's archives I think it has the potential to be a great recourse for my thesis idea focusing on American decorative arts and possibly aspects of late 19th century-early 20th century interiors.

I would like to lead or co-lead the November 4th session on iconography (first choice) or the November 17th session on semiotics (second choice). My thesis will most likely focus on Byzantine art, where iconography is not only an analytic method but part of the object of study. The iconoclastic controversy was itself an argument about how images signify and what binds an image to its prototype, so a session on Panofsky is also a chance to ask what Byzantine image theory might say back to him. I read Panofsky in a previous course and would like to further understand his arguments. In Prof. Walker's class I researched how Ethiopian artists reworked inherited iconography across several centuries to serve changing rulers, and that project left me with questions about continuity that I expect to carry into my thesis. Semiotics is my second choice for a related reason. Barthes' account of myth and King's reading of marble both concern how sacred or classical forms are recycled for later political ends, which is close to what I was tracking in the Ethiopian case, and to the ways Byzantine imagery continues to be mobilized.

I would like to lead/ co-lead the December 1st session on Gender, Sexuality, and the Body (1st choice) or the November 17th session on Semiotics (2nd choice). I am not entirely sure what direction I would like to go in, but I am very much interested in how portrayals of the body in art (specifically, in the grotesque aesthetic) can both evoke and reject ideas of purity or ideality as well as broaden our understanding of socially constructed roles, identities, or behaviors, which vary cross-culturally. Additionally, I think that exploring the grotesque in relation to these methodologies could take several forms, depending on what visual basis/ tradition the term is defined as evoking, joining, opposing, or deforming.

My first choice for leading/co-leading a discussion would be social art history. I am very interested in the study of Orientalism, which is based on social interaction as well as learned behaviors and perception. Reading about and discussing Manet's Olympia would greatly relate to this interest and help me further prepare to write a large paper about a marginalized group that I do not belong to, and to do so in a respectful and accurate manor.
My second choice is gender/sexuality/the body. In certain works that I've seen in Islamic art classes, gender can be portrayed ambiguously. I think it would be helpful for me to learn more about this kind of expression within other contexts in case I decide to incorporate this topic into my thesis.

I would like to lead/co-lead the discussions on either semiotics or formalism. I'm still working towards a thesis topic decision, but with an inclination towards decorative works I feel that an emphasis on the style and physical properties of art objects would be a useful lens to when think about how they inform the spaces they inhabit. I also find myself curious about how iconoclasm shaped Islamic and later Byzantine works, and I think the same consideration of form and symbolism will be helpful when constructing an argument about such works.