reflection

From the very first day of class, I got the impression that this wasn't going to be the type of art history class I've been exposed to thus far. Where are the slides? Which textbook am I going to buy? The memorization of names, dates, or styles? The long written exam that requires so much parroting back of information?

At first, I felt lost once the standard format of an art history class was taken away. Can this be considered studying history? What was going to be taught? How are we going to learn? There were lots of questions and a healthy dose of skepticism.

It's been quite an interesting experience having this class alongside a textbook example of an art history class. In fact, on Monday mornings, I go from the History of ID to the History of Design class. I go from a 2-hour session of examining cool contemporary examples of design to a 1.5-hour session of looking at slides or sometimes looking at objects from the RISD Museum. To simplify and sum up my experience of these two art history classes, one class is thinking about history and the other is looking at history. Both are worthwhile.

What this ID history class has taught me is that it is important to have an opinion about different design philosophies and that it is important to start thinking and forming my own design philosophy. This is something that hasn't been taught in most art history classes I've taken. Learning by creating timelines and writing blog entries is definitely not what I expected.

What the History of Design has taught me is how to look at and evaluate design elements in objects from antiquity up till the Renaissance. We spent a lot of time discussing the techniques people used in the making of everything from textiles to furniture to cups and plates from various time periods in history. Typical, safe and expected from the course title.

One issue I have with this class is that I think it's more appropriate perhaps as a more advanced history course instead of an intro survey history course. I might have more intelligent responses to each week's prompts if I had a better basic understanding of ID history, which I don't have. I think I could have backed up my opinions and arguments better if I had cited or referenced examples from history.

Another issue I have is that this course encouraged a subjective look at history. It was uncomfortable thinking in this way. It's a very outdated perspective on my part, but my mind still thinks of history as something that tries to be an objective account of what happened in the past. And as my mind tries to wrap around this idea of learning history subjectively, I think that the traditional "objective" view of things takes a lot of the fun and interest out of history. I remember how one of the most interesting history classes I've taken examined history through more popular films about the past. Scholars criticize the inaccuracies of the movies, but historically-based movies make a bigger impact in inspiring interest in history than any scholarly paper about history. So to wrap up my ramblings, I thought this class was unconventional and interesting in its format and it provided teachings as well as sources of inspiration.