1

UCL - INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY

ARCL0176 SOCIAL AND MATERIAL CONTEXTS OF ART 2018-19

Core module for MA in Comparative Art and Archaeology – 15 credits

Professor Jeremy Tanner [email protected] Room 105. Tel. 020 7679 1525 Office hours: Tuesday and Wednesday 11-12 or by appointment.

Turnitin Class ID: 3543963 Turnitin Password: IoA1819

Please see the last pages of this handbook for important information about submission and marking procedures, and links to the relevant webpages.

1. OVERVIEW OF COURSE:

This module focuses on a wide range of approaches to the analysis of the social and material contexts of visual art, exploring perspectives from art history, archaeology, anthropology, sociology and material science. Topics will include: viewing and visuality; patronage and the social production of art; artists and creativity; art and technology; art and material agency; the origins of art; art and power; art and change; art collecting and museums. This module is best taken in conjunction with ARCL0174 Nature, Culture and the Languages of Art

MODULE SCHEDULE

Classes will be held on Wednesdays 9-11am, IoA Room 412

SPRING TERM

PART I: ART AND ITS CONTEXTS

9/1/19 1. Viewing, spectatorship and cultures of visuality 16/1/19 2. Patronage Systems and the Social Production of Art 23/1/19 3. Artists, agency and creativity 30/1/19 4. Art and technology: materials, methods and artistry 6/2/19 5. The material turn: art’s agency and object biographies

[13/2/18 Reading Week]

PART II: THE SOCIAL USES OF ART: COMPARATIVE AND EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVES

20/2/19 6. Art and human evolution: anthropology, archaeology and the origins of art 27/2/19 7. Primitive art and simple societies 6/3/19 8. Art and power: elite visions and state formation 13/3/19 9. Time and Change 20/3/19 10. Art in the Museum. Essay draft submission for feedback: Saturday 23rd March, 2pm (Comment will be returned in time for dicussions Thursday 28th March in my office, or via Skyp appointment). (Submission of revised essay for assessment: Wednesday 24th April)

2

METHODS OF ASSESSMENT This module is assessed by means of a total of ca 4000 words of coursework, comprising one standard essay of 3,800-4,200 words. The questions are by weekly topic, and can be found at the end of the bibliography for each week’s class. The dates for submission of both draft and (for formative assessment) and revised essay (for final assessment) are specified on the module schedule. If students are unclear about the nature of an assignment, they should contact the Module Co-ordinator. The Module Co-ordinator will be willing to discuss an outline of their approach to the assessment, provided this is planned suitably in advance of the submission date.

TEACHING METHODS The module is taught through seminars. Seminars have weekly recommended readings, which students will be expected to have done, to be able fully to follow and actively to contribute to discussion. Students may be asked to make short presentations of case study material – in order to maximize the spread of comparative knowledge whilst ensuring the amount of reading is manageable. Such presentations will be negotiated at least a week in advance.

WORKLOAD There will be 20 hours of seminars for this course. Students will be expected to undertake around 110 hours of reading for the course, plus 20 hours preparing for and producing the assessed work. This adds up to a total workload of some 150 hours for the course.

PREREQUISITES Students should have some background in history of art, anthropology of art or art and archaeology

2. MODULE AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES; MODULE ASSESSMENT

AIMS

1. To provide an advanced, inter-disciplinary, exploration of key frameworks for the analysis and interpretation of the art of past societies, with a particular focus on the relationship between art and its social and material contexts. 2. To introduce students to the most important current research questions and the main interpretative paradigms that have dominated approaches to the understanding the relationship between ancient art and its past and present social and material contexts 3. To develop critical faculties both in debate and in written evaluation of current research (problems, method and theory, quality of evidence). 4. To prepare students to undertake original research in the comparative study of art

OBJECTIVES

On successful completion of the module students should be able to: 1. demonstrate a good knowledge and understanding of major themes and debates concerning art as a social and material phenomenon 2. critically analyse and present complex arguments and theories about aspects of the subject orally and in writing 3. show a critical awareness of the contribution made by different academic disciplines and varying approaches to the analysis of visual art of past societies

OUTCOMES

On successful completion of the module students should have developed: 1. Independence in the critical assessment and evaluation of research. 2. Ability to orally communicate and discuss in clear terms complex ideas and theories. 3. Ability to develop sustained and coherent written analysis and evaluation of other people’s research. 4. Ability to apply acquired knowledge in context of independent work.

3

ASSESSMENT DETAILS

METHODS OF ASSESSMENT

This module is assessed by means of a total of ca 4000 words of coursework, comprising one standard essays of 3,800-4,200 words. The questions are by weekly topic, and can be found at the end of the bibliography for each week’s class. The deadlines for handing in essays are listed on the module schedule. In the first place a draft of your essay should be submitted directly to Jeremy Tanner, by email attachment ([email protected],uk), for detailed formative feedback on the basis of which you may then revise your essay for final submission to be assessed: dates as specified on the module schedule above. If students are unclear about the nature of an assignment, they should contact the Module Co- ordinator. The Module Co-ordinator will be willing to discuss an outline of their approach to the assessment, provided this is planned suitably in advance of the submission date.

For Students taking this module as a 20 credit module (e.g. KCL, Classical Archaeology MA): In addition to the standard essay, students taking the module as a 20 credit element will be required to write an additonal 1000 word report. This may take either the form of a review of a book from amongst the readings for the course, or a critical comparison of two articles in the module bibliography approacjhing the same issue (e.g. the artist, art and change, art and the museum) from different points of view. The books and articles chosen must come from a different topic than the one chosen for your standard essay. Your choice of book / articles should be discussed with the module tutor. This essay should be handed in by the same date as the revised version of your essay as submitted for assessment. This report will be assessed on a pass/fail basis. Students are required to pass the report element in order to complete the course.

Word-length Your essay should be between 3800 and 4200 words in length. The lower limit is a guideline foe expected length; the upper limit is strict, and the standard draconian UCL penalities apply for overlength essays. The following should not be included in the word-count: bibliography, appendices, and tables, graphs and illustrations and their captions. Do feel free, within reason, to write detailed captions (not more than 100 words or so), pointing up specific features of images that play a role in the argument of your essay: quite a useful skill for an art historian, and allows a little wiggle room around the word limit.

In the 2018-19 session penalties for overlength work will be as follows:

 For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by less than 10% the mark will be reduced by five percentage marks, but the penalised mark will not be reduced below the pass mark, assuming the work merited a Pass.  For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by 10% or more the mark will be reduced by ten percentage marks, but the penalised mark will not be reduced below the pass mark, assuming the work merited a Pass.

Coursework submission procedures  All coursework must normally be submitted both as hard copy and electronically. (The only exceptions are bulky portfolios and lab books which are normally submitted as hard copy only.)  You should staple the appropriate colour-coded IoA coversheet (available in the IoA library and outside room 411a) to the front of each piece of work and submit it to the red box at the Reception Desk.  All coursework should be uploaded to Turnitin by midnight on the day of the deadline. This will date-stamp your work. It is essential to upload all parts of your work as this is sometimes the version that will be marked.  Instructions are given below. 4

Note that Turnitin uses the term ‘class’ for what we normally call a ‘course’. 1. Ensure that your essay or other item of coursework has been saved as a Word doc., docx. or PDF document, and that you have the Class ID for the module (available from the module handbook) and enrolment password (this is IoA1718 for all courses this session - note that this is capital letter I, lower case letter o, upper case A, followed by the current academic year) 2. Click on http://www.turnitinuk.com/en_gb/login 3. Click on ‘Create account’ 4. Select your category as ‘Student’ 5. Create an account using your UCL email address. Note that you will be asked to specify a new password for your account - do not use your UCL password or the enrolment password, but invent one of your own (Turnitin will permanently associate this with your account, so you will not have to change it every 6 months, unlike your UCL password). In addition, you will be asked for a “Class ID” and a “Class enrolment password” (see point 1 above). 6. Once you have created an account you can just log in at http://www.turnitinuk.com/en_gb/login and enrol for your other classes without going through the new user process again. Simply click on ‘Enrol in a class’. Make sure you have all the relevant “class IDs” at hand. 7. Click on the module to which you wish to submit your work. 8. Click on the correct assignment (e.g. Essay 1). 9. Double-check that you are in the correct module and assignment and then click ‘Submit’ 10. Attach document as a “Single file upload” 11. Enter your name (the examiner will not be able to see this) 12. Fill in the “Submission title” field with the right details: It is essential that the first word in the title is your examination candidate number (e.g. YGBR8 In what sense can culture be said to evolve?), 13. Click “Upload”. When the upload is finished, you will be able to see a text-only version of your submission. 14 Click on “Submit”

. If you have problems, please email the IoA Turnitin Advisers on [email protected], explaining the nature of the problem and the exact module and assignment involved.

One of the Turnitin Advisers will normally respond within 24 hours, Monday-Friday during term. Please be sure to email the Turnitin Advisers if technical problems prevent you from uploading work in time to meet a submission deadline - even if you do not obtain an immediate response from one of the Advisers they will be able to notify the relevant Module Coordinator that you had attempted to submit the work before the deadline

5

MODULE SYLLABUS/SCHEDULE

MODULE SCHEDULE

Classes will be held on Wednesdays 9-11am, IoA Room 412

SPRING TERM

PART I: ART AND ITS CONTEXTS

9/1/19 1. Viewing, spectatorship and cultures of visuality 16/1/19 2. Patronage Systems and the Social Production of Art 23/1/19 3. Artists, agency and creativity 30/1/19 4. Art and technology: materials, methods and artistry 6/2/19 5. The material turn: art’s agency and object biographies

[13/2/18 Reading Week]

PART II: THE SOCIAL USES OF ART: COMPARATIVE AND EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVES

20/2/19 6. Art and human evolution: anthropology, archaeology and the origins of art 27/2/19 7. Primitive art and simple societies 6/3/19 8. Art and power: elite visions and state formation 13/3/19 9. Time and Change 20/3/19 10. Art in the Museum. Essay draft submission for feedback: Saturday 23rd March, 2pm. (Submission of revised essay for assessment: Wednesday 24th April)

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SEMINAR SUMMARIES

The following is a session outline and bibliography for the module as a whole, and identifies essential and supplementary readings relevant to each session. Information is provided as to where in the UCL library system individual readings are available; their location and Teaching Collection (TC) number, and status (whether out on loan) can also be accessed on the eUCLid computer catalogue system. The required readings are considered essential to keep up with the topics covered in the module sessions, and it is expected that students will have read these prior to the session under which they are listed. Copies of individual articles and chapters identified as required reading are in the Teaching Collection in the Institute library (where permitted by copyright). The required readings are marked with an asterisk *, sometimes multiple asterisks to indicate order of priority in particularly broad topics.

The bibliography includes more than you can reasonably be expected to read for this course, and you should probably not try, unless you are happy to sacrifice all the time you should be spending reading for other courses. It should, however, be of use to you both for preparing your essays for this course, and as a handy guide when developing your thesis topic, both at MA and PhD levels.

Please be sure to bring the bibliography with you to each class, so I can update it and suggest priorities/provide further guidance for the following week’s readings.

6

ARCL0176: SOCIAL AND MATERIAL CONTEXTS OF ART - BIBLIOGRAPHY

PART I: ART AND ITS CONTEXTS

1. Viewing, spectatorship and cultures of visuality

Topic outline: This weeks topic shifts our focus from the analysis of objects and the formal languages and cultural meanings objectified in them to the viewers and consumers of objects and the expectations and cultural competences which they bring to them. How can the role of viewers and spectators be reconstructed? What is the relationship between our visual expectations and those of ancient viewers, and to what extent can they be mediated? To what extent can the roles of viewers be inferred from the images themselves and how far must we rely on other sources? How important is the viewer's contribution to the meanings and effects produced by visual imagery? How do cultures produce "visuality" out of vision and what role should the study of cultures of visuality play in our understanding of ancient art systems?

Required Readings for Class Discussion:

1. Solomon, R.C. 1980. "What is phenomenology", pp. 1-43 in idem ed. Phenomenology and Existentialism. (New York, The University Press of America". The important part of this is pp. 13-27 on phenomenological description. (Philosophy GC 190 SOL - 3 copies; IoA TC 2028) 2. Molholt, R. 2011. "Roman labyrinth mosaics and the experience of motion", Art Bulletin 93.3: 287-303 [Online - UCL Electronic Periodicals] 3. Alles, G.D. 1988. "Surface, space and intention: the Parthenon and the Kandariya Mahadeva", History of Religions 8: 1-36 (IoA TC 359; UCL Electronic Periodicals - JSTOR) 4. Bryson, N. 1988. "The gaze in the expanded field", pp. 87-108 in H. Foster ed. Vision and Visuality. (Seattle, Bay Press). (Art BA VIS; IoA TC 2032/3) 5. Thompson, J.B. 1990. Ideology and Modern Culture: Critical Social Theory in the Era of Mass Communication. (Cambridge, Polity). Pp. 235-248 (on the social organisation of receptive activity and the discursive elaboration of media messages), 303-13 "The tripartite approach", 313-319 "the everyday appropriation of mass mediated products" (ANTHROPOLOGY D70 THO - 3 copies - one of these should go to Science Short Loans; SSEES Misc.XIX THO) 6. Winter, I. 1995. "Aesthetics in ancient Mesopotamian art", pp. 2569-2582 in J.M. Sasson ed. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons) (INSTARCH DBA 100 SAS) 7

[7. Baxandall, Michael. 1980. The Limewood Sculptors of Renaissance Germany. (New Haven, Yale University Press). pp. 143-163 "The period eye". [ART KG 21 BAX – overnight; Main Library, Short Loan Collection – BAX – reservable] – If you have time.]

Supplementary Readings

Viewing and spectatorship

Sociologies of the viewer Simmel, G. 1908. "Visual interaction". pp. 356-361 in R.E. Park and E.W. Burgess eds. 1924. Instroduction to the Science of Sociology. Bourdieu, P. 1968. "Outline of a sociological theory of art perception", International Social Science Journal 20: 589-612; repr. pp. 215-237 in Bourdieu 1993 The Field of Cultural Production. (Cambridge, Polity). *Thompson, J.B. 1990. Ideology and Modern Culture: Critical Social Theory in the Era of Mass Communication. (Cambridge, Polity). Pp. 235-248 (on the social organisation of receptive activity and the discursive elaboration of media messages), 303-13 "The tripartite approach", 313-319 "the everyday appropriation of mass mediated products" (ANTHROPOLOGY D70 THO - 3 copies - one of these should go to Science Short Loans; SSEES Misc.XIX THO) Wolff, J. 1981. "Interpretation as recreation", pp. 95-116 in The Social Production of Art. (London, MacMillan). Forge, Anthony. 1970. "Learning to see in New Guinea", pp. 269-292 in P. Mayer ed. Socialization: the View from Social Anthropology. Tavistock. (Classic paper in the anthropology of art, which you really should read at some point).

Structuralist psychoanalsis, the viewer and visuality Lacan, J. 1977. "Of the gaze", pp. 67-122 in idem The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis. (New York, Norton). (*)Mulvey, L. 1975. "Visual pleasure and narrative cinema", Screen 16.3, 6-18. *Bryson, N. 1988. "The gaze in the expanded field", pp. 87-108 in H. Foster ed. Vision and Visuality. (Seattle, Bay Press). (Art BA VIS; IoA TC 2032/3) Olin, Margaret. 2003. “Gaze”, 318-329 in Robert S. Nelson and Richard Shiff eds.Critical Terms for Art History. Chicago: University if Chicago Press.

8

Phenomenology

*R.C. Solomon, 1980. "What is phenomenology", pp. 1-43 in idem ed. Phenomenology and Existentialism. (New York, The University Press of America". The important part of this is pp. 13-27 on phenomenological description. (Philosophy GC 190 SOL - 3 copies; IoA TC 2028) Schutz, A. 1962. "On multiple realities" pp. 207-259 in idem. The Problem of Social Reality: Collected Papers, vol 1. (most important part pp. 229-234 , worth reading the following sections on dreams and scientific attitude as well, to fill out the theoretical frame). Iser, W. 1972. "The reading process: a phenomenological approach", New Literary History 3.2: *Alles, G.D. 1988. "Surface, space and intention: the Parthenon and the Kandariya Mahadeva", History of Religions 8: 1-36 (IoA TC 359; UCL Electronic Periodicals - JSTOR) Alles, Gregory. 1993. “Approach to god: on entering the western temples at Khajuraho”, History of Religion 33,2: 161-86 *Molholt, R. 2011. "Roman labyrinth mosaics and the experience of motion", Art Bulletin 93.3: 287-303 [Online - UCL Electronic Periodicals] Weismantel. 2014. "Encounters with dragons, stones of Chavin". Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 65/6: 37-58 *Hamilakis, Yannis. 2011. "Archaeologies of the senses", 208-221 in Timothy Insoll ed. The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion. Oxford. [Online] {good bibl. on archaeology of senses} *Bailey, D.W. 2016. "Touch and the cheirotic apprehension of prehistoric figurines". In P. Dent ed. Sculpture and Touch. New York: Routledge. 27-44. [ART BE DEN; also available as PDF from his AcademiaEdu page]

Hermenutics

(*)Bleicher, J. 1980. "Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutic" and "Hermeneutic philosophy and hermeneutical theory", pp. 117-127 in idem Contemporary Hermeneutics: Hermeneutics as Method, Philosophy and Critique. (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul). (Philosophy GD 6BLE; IoA TC 2034/5) (*)Tilley, C. 1991. Material Culture and Text: the Art of Ambiguity, pp. 114-148 "A hermeneutics of meaning". (Anth C9 TIL; IoA AH TIL) Habermas, J. 1988. "The hermenutic approach", pp. 143-170 in idem. On the Logic of the Social Sciences. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) 9

Dilthey, W. 1972. "The rise of hermenutics", New Literary History 3.2 Gadamer, H.G. 1974/5. "Hermeneutics and social science", Cultural Hermeneutics 2:

Case studies: cultures of visuality

India (*)Eck, Diana L. 1985. Darsan: Seeing the Divine Image in India. pp. 3-31 "Seeing the sacred". (IoA ISSUE DESK ECK; INSTARCH DBMA 200 ECK) Babb, Lawrence A. 1981. "Glancing: visual interaction in Hinduism", Journal of Anthropological Research Scott, David. 1991. "The cultural poetics of eyesight in Sri Lanka: composure, vulnerability and the Sinhala concept of Distiya", Dialectical Anthropology 16: 85- 102

Ancient Greece and Rome Stewart, A. 1997. Art, Desire and the Human Body in Ancient Greece. (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Pp. 13-23 "Visuality, gaze and glance; The Public eye; Looking around the city". Frischer, B. 1983. "A Sociopsychological and Semiotic Analysis of Epicurus' Portrait", Arethusa 16, 247-265 Elsner, J. 1995. Art and the Roman Viewer: The Transformation of Art from the Pagan World to Christianity. Miles, M.R. 1985. Image as Insight: Visual Understanding in Western Christianity and Secular Culture. (Boston, Beacon Press), pp. 41-62 "'The evidence of our eyes': fourth- century Christian churches". _____. 1983. "Vision: the eye of the body and the eye of the mind in Augustine's de Trinitate and other works", Journal of Religion 14: 125-142.

Ancient Mesopotamia *Winter, I. 1995. "Aesthetics in ancient Mesopotamian art", pp. 2569-2582 in J.M. Sasson ed. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons) (INSTARCH BDA 100 SAS) (*)_____. 1996. "Sex, rhetoric and the public monument: the alluring body of Naram-Sin of Agade", pp. 11-26 in N.B. Kampen ed. Sexuality in Ancient Art. (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.) (Yates A60 KAM)

10

Renaissance and Reformation Europe *Baxandall, M. 1972. Painting and Experience in Fifteenth Century Italy. (Oxford, Oxford University Press), pp. 29-109 "The period eye". (as required for semiotics class, ARCL0174 - I shall assume knowledge, so you may wish to refresh your acquaintance) _____. 1980. The Limewood Sculptors of Renaissance Germany. (New Haven, Yale University Press). pp. 143-163 "The period eye". Tanner. Jeremy. 2010. "Michael Baxandall and the sociological interpretation of art", Cultural Sociology 4.2: 231-56 Miles, M.R. 1985. Image as Insight: Visual Understanding in Western Christianity and Secular Culture. (Boston, Beacon Press), pp. 95-125 "Vision and sixteenth century Protestant and Roman Catholic Reforms".

Others Swinton, George. 1978. "Touch and the real: contemporary Inuit aesthetics - theory, usage and relevance", pp. 71-88 in Greenhalgh and Megaw eds. Art in Society: Studies in Style, Culture and Aesthetics. Duckworth. Carpenter, Edmund. 1971. "The eskimo artist", pp. 163-171 in C.M Otten ed. Anthropology and Art. American Museum of Natural History. (on ear as the primary sense for eskimoes, and how it effects their art). Tyler, Stephen. 1984. "The vision quest in the West: or, what the mind's eye sees", Journal of Anthropological Research 40 (1): 23-40. Ong, W.J. 1969. "World view as world event", American Anthropologist 634-647 Miles, M.R. 1985. Image as Insight: Visual Understanding in Western Christianity and Secular Culture. Boston, Beacon Press. Chs 2 and 3. Jay, Martin. 1988. "Scopic regimes of modernity", pp. 3-26 in H. Foster ed. Vision and Visuality. Dia/Bay Press. Jencks, C. 1995. "The centrality of the eye in Western culture: an introduction", in idem ed. Visual Culture. Routledge. Jay, M. 1989. "In the empire of the gaze" in L. Appingnanesi ed. Postmodernism. London, Free Association Books.

Essay question: How can we best approach and reconstruct practices of viewing and spectatorship in past societies? Answer with reference to materials from at least two cultures.

11

2. Patronage Systems and the Social Production of Art

Topic outline: This week we are going to think about how one goes about analysing the institutional frameworks within which art is produced, and in particular how structures and changes in such frameworks - changes in the social organisation of cultural production - shape artistic outcomes. Equally we shall be looking at the extent to which artists are able to control/negotiate such frameworks, and the kinds of resources they draw upon in trying to do so. Key issues are the questions as to 1) whether such organisational analysis can actually play a very large role in explaining the aesthetic form particular works of art take, or whether a concentration on patronage systems is really only the background to real art history; 2) to what extent one can compare the structure and effects of different patronage and production systems. Case studies on European Renaissance, Achaemenid Persian and Chinese Imperial art - probably concentrating on the former two. Make sure you read the core theory texts. We will share out the case studies (Renaissance, A-B and China, C-D), but for Root – which probably everyone should read.

Required readings for class discussion:

1. Becker, H. 1974. "Art as collective action", American Sociological Review 39, 767-76. (UCL Electronic Periodicals - JSTOR) 2. Wolff, J. 1981. The Social Production of Art. Pp. 26-48 "The social production of art". (ANTH E10 WOL - 4 copies; Main Library: ISSUE DESK WOL) 3. Williams, R. 1981.Culture. (London: Fontana). pp. 33-56 "Institutions". (IoA TC 2036/7) 4. Root, M.C. 1990. "Circles of artistic programming: strategies for studying creative process at Persepolis", pp. 115-139 in A.C. Gunter ed. Investigating Artistic Environments in the Ancient Near East. Washington, Smithsonian Institution. (IoA TC 1962) A. Baxandall, M. 1972. Painting and Experience in Fifteenth Century Italy: A Primer in the Social History of Pictorial Style, pp. 1-28 "Conditions of trade".(leads nicely in to topic 3 on artist as creator). (ART KI 12 BAX; MAIN LIBRARY ISSUE DESK BAX) B. _____. 1980. The Limewoood Sculptors of Renaissance Germany. Pp. 95-122 "The market". (ART KG 21 BAX; MAIN LIBRARY ISSUE DESK BAX) C. Weidner, M.S. 1989. "Aspects of painting and patronage at the Mongol court, 1260- 1368", pp. 37-59 in Li, C ed. Artists and Patrons. Lawrence, Kans. (Main Library Issue Desk Li – Copies also available from JT) D. Cahill, J. 1989. "Types of artist-patron transactions in Chinese painting", pp. 7-20 in Li,C ed. . Artists and Patrons. Lawrence, Kans. (IoA TC 2284)

12

Supplementary readings:

Some theoretical orientations and problems: **Becker, H. 1974. "Art as collective action", American Sociological Review 39, 767-76. (IoA 2040/1; UCL Electronic Periodicals - JSTOR) Peterson, R. 1994. "Culture studies through the production perspective: progress and prospects", pp. 163-189 in D. Crane ed. The Sociology of Culture: Emerging Theoretical Perspectives. **Wolff, J. 1981. The Social Production of Art. Pp. 26-48 "The social production of art". (ANTH E10 WOL - 4 copies; Main Library: ISSUE DESK WOL) Peterson, R. 1976. "The production of culture: a prolegomenon", pp. 7-22 in idem ed. The Production of Culture. **Williams, R. 1981.Culture. (London: Fontana). pp. 33-56 "Institutions". (IoA TC 2036/7) (*)Di Maggio, P. and Hirsch, P.M. 1976. "Production organisations in the arts", in R. Peterson ed. The Production of Culture, pp. 73-90. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Fine, G.A. 1992. "The culture of production: aesthetic choice and constraints in culinary work", American Journal of Sociology 95: 1269-94 Weber, M. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation. Oxford.

Case studies:

Renaissance *Baxandall, M. 1972. Painting and Experience in Fifteenth Century Italy: A Primer in the Social History of Pictorial Style, pp. 1-28 "Conditions of trade".(leads nicely in to topic 12 on artist as creator). (ART KI 12 BAX; MAIN LIBRARY ISSUE DESK BAX) *_____. 1980. The Limewoood Sculptors of Renaissance Germany. Pp. 95-122 "The market". (ART KG 21 BAX; MAIN LIBRARY ISSUE DESK BAX) Welch, E. 1997. Art and Society in Italy. 1350-1500. Pp. 79-102 "The organisation of art", 103-130 "Defining relationships: artists and patrons" Burke, P. 1986. The Italian Renaissance: Culture and Society in Italy. Pp. 43-87 "Artists and writers", 88-123 "Patrons and clients". Bock, Nicholas. 2008. “Patronage, standards and transfert culturel : Naples between art history and social science theory”, Art History xxxi.4: 574-97

13

Achaemenid Persia **Root, M.C. 1990. "Circles of artistic programming: strategies for studying creative process at Persepolis", pp. 115-139 in A.C. Gunter ed. Investigating Artistic Environments in the Ancient Near East. Washington, Smithsonian Institution. (IoA TC 1962) Roaf, M. 1990. "Sculptors and designers at Persepolis", pp. 105-114 ibid. Metzler, D. 1990. "Historical perspectives on artistic environments", pp. 143-7 ibid.

Imperial China Li, C. ed. 1989. Artists and Patrons. Lawrence, Kans. (on Chinese art and patronage) (Main Library Issue Desk Li) *Weidner, M.S. 1989. "Aspects of painting and patronage at the Mongol court, 1260- 1368", pp. 37-59 in Li, C ed. Artists and Patrons. Lawrence, Kans. (Main Library Issue Desk Li – Copies also available from JT) *Cahill, J. 1989. "Types of artist-patron transactions in Chinese painting", pp. 7-20 in Li,C ed. . Artists and Patrons. Lawrence, Kans. (IoA TC 2284) _____. 1994. "The painter's studio" pp. 71-112 in The Painter's Practice: How Artists Lived and Worked in Traditional China. New York, Columbia University Press Michealson, C. 1992. "Mass production and the development of the lacquer industry during the Han dynasty" Orientations November: 60-5. Ledderose, L. 1992. "Module and mass production" pp. 826-47 in International Colloquium on Chinese Art History 1991, Proceedings, Antiquities Part 1 (Taipei, 1992),

Others White, H.C. and White, C.A. 1993 (1965). Canvasses and Careers: Institutional Change in the French Painting World. Dubin, S.C. 1987. Bureucratising the Muse: Public Funds and the Cultural Worker. (Chicago).

Essay Question: To what extent can variations in the structure of patronage systems and in the social networks through which art is produced explain variation in the types and forms of art produced in different societies or different periods of time? 14

3. Art, the artist and individual creativity

Topic outline: From being the central focus of attention in traditional art history the figure of the artist has been subject to considerable attack in recent theoretical writing. Sociologists and anthropologists have celebrated the death of the author/artist. Art historians have called for an art history without names. The very concept of an "artistic role" has been questioned as an imposition of eurocentric aesthetic frameworks on the art of other cultures. In this session we shall explore various ways in which different cultures and societies have constructed the role of producers of visual imagery, and the variable status that is accorded to such producers. What parameters affect the status of visual-artists and the level of autonomy they enjoy in the production of images. How do these considerations affect the role that the individual artist should play in our accounts of image -production? What place, if any, should the concept of creativity have in cotemporary art history writing? Core theoretical readings as specified, plus Drenkhahn. We will share out the other two case studies: Gardner and Fernandez . Required readings for class discussion:

1. Wolff. J. 1981. The Social Production of Art, pp. 9-25 "Social structure and artistic creativity", 117-136 "The death of the author". (ANTHROPOLOGY E10 WOL - 4 copies; Main Library ISSUE DESK WOL) 2. Parsons, T. 1951. The Social System. Pp. 408-14 "The role of the artist". (worth reading the whole chapter if you do this topic for an essay - nice analytic formalisation of some of the insights in Fernandez - below) (IoA TC 627 ‘Expressive Symbolism and the social system is the whole chapter) (ANTHROPOLOGY D 30 PAR – 2 copies; Bartlett TOWN PLANNING G50 PAR) 3. Layton, Robert. 1991. "The creativity of the artist", pp. 193-239 in The Anthropology of Art. (IoA BD LAY - 2 copies; IoA ISSUE DESK LAY 2; ANTHROPOLOGY E10 LAY - 4 copies) 4. Gombrich, E. 1978. "The Renaissance conception of artistic progress and its consequences", pp. 1-10 in idem. Norm and Form: Studies in the Art of the Renaissance 1. Phaidon. (ART KI7 GOM - 4 copies; ART K5 GOM; ARCHITECTURE B 6:27 GOM) 5. Drenkhahn, R. 1995. "Artists and artisans in phaoronic Egypt", pp. 331-343 in J.M. Sasson ed. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. New York, Simon and Schuster. (INSTARCH DBA 100 SAS) A. Gardner, P.M. 1982. "Creative performance in South Indian sculpture: an ethnographic approach", Art History 5.4, 472-479 (compare with Gombrich for sense of artistic role) (IoA 1960/1) 15

B. Fernandez, J. 1973. "The exposition and imposition of order: artistic expression in Fang Culture", pp. 194-220 in Warren L. d' Azvedo ed. The Traditional Artist in African Societies. (Anth Q63 AZE; Science short loan coll; IoA TC 1964/5)

Supplementary readings:

The individual artist and creativity **Wolff. J. 1981. The Social Production of Art, pp. 9-25 "Social structure and artistic creativity", 117-136 "The death of the author". (ANTHROPOLOGY E10 WOL - 4 copies; Main Library ISSUE DESK WOL) **Parsons, T. 1951. The Social System. Pp. 408-14 "The role of the artist". (worth reading the whole chapter if you do this topic for an essay - nice analytic formalisation of some of the insights in Fernandez - below) (IoA TC 627 ‘Expressive Symbolism and the social system is the whole chapter) (ANTHROPOLOGY D 30 PAR – 2 copies; Bartlett TOWN PLANNING G50 PAR) (*)Barthes, R. 1977. "The death of the author", pp. 142-8 in S. Heath ed. Image, Music,Text. (ART BA BAR) Foucault, M. 1979. "What is an author?", Screen 20.1 Also in Language, Memory, Counter- Practice. Eliot, T.S. 1932. "Tradition and the individual talent", Selected Essays 1917-1932. Krauss, R. 1985. "The originality of the avant-garde and other modernist myths", 151-70 in idem. The Originality of the Avant Garde. MIT Press. **Layton, Robert. 1991. "The creativity of the artist", pp. 193-239 in The Anthropology of Art. (IoA BD LAY - 2 copies; IoA ISSUE DESK LAY 2; ANTHROPOLOGY E10 LAY - 4 copies) **Gombrich, E. 1978. "The Renaissance conception of artistic progress and its consequences", pp. 1-10 in idem. Norm and Form: Studies in the Art of the Renaissance 1. Phaidon. (ART KI7 GOM - 4 copies; ART K5 GOM; ARCHITECTURE B 6:27 GOM) Heinich, N. 1996. The Glory of Van Gogh: An Anthropology of Admiration., pp. 61-75 "Van Gogh versus Vincent: the antinomies of heroism", 76-95 "Madness and sacrifice: the ambivalence of singularity". Bourdieu, P. 1971. "Intellectual field and creative project", pp. 161-188 in M.K. Young ed. Knowledge and Control. London, MacMillan. Wimsatt, W.K. Jr. and M.C. Beardsley. 1946. "The intentional fallacy", The Sewanee Review 54, 468-88 Vansina, J. 1984. "The creative process", pp. 136-158 in idem Art History in Africa. London, Longman.

16

Theories of agency Alexander, J. 1978. "Formal and substantive voluntarism in the work of Talcott Parsons: a theoretcal and ideological reinterpretation", American Sociological Review 43, 177- 98 Sewell, W. 1992. "A theory of structure: duality, agency and transformation" American Journal of Sociology 98.1: 1-29

Primary Case Studies: Traditional Artists in Africa, India and Ancient Egypt; New Deal Architects in America **Drenkhahn, R. 1995. "Artists and artisans in phaoronic Egypt", pp. 331-343 in J.M. Sasson ed. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. New York, Simon and Schuster. (INSTARCH DBA 100 SAS) *Gardner, P.M. 1982. "Creative performance in South Indian sculpture: an ethnographic approach", Art History 5.4, 472-479 (compare with Gombrich for sense of artistic role) (IoA 1960/1) Brain, D. 1994. "Cultural production as society in the making: architecture as an exemplar of the social construction of cultural artifacts", in D. Crane ed. The Sociology of Culture: Emerging Theoretical Perspectives, 191-220. Oxford: Blackwell. _____. 1989. "Structure and strategy in the production of culture: implications of a post- structuralist perspective for the sociology of culture", Comparative Social Research 11, 31-74. (*)Crowley, Daniel J. 1973. "Aesthetic value and professionalism in African art: three case studies from the Katanga Chokwe", pp. 221-249 in Warren L. d' Azevedo ed. The Traditional Artist in African Societies. Indiana University Press. (Anth Q63 AZE; Science short loan coll) *Fernandez, J. 1973. "The exposition and imposition of order: artistic expression in Fang Culture", pp. 194-220 in Warren L. d' Azvedo ed. The Traditional Artist in African Societies. (Anth Q63 AZE; Science short loan coll; IoA TC 1964/5) (*)D' Azvedo, 1973. "Introduction", pp. 1-15 in idem ed. The Traditional Artist in African Societies. Bloomington, Indiana University Press. (Anth Q63 AZE; Science short loan coll) (*)Thompson, R.F. 1969. "Abatan: a master potter of the Egbado Yoruba", pp. 120-162 in D. Biebuyck ded. Tradition and Creativity in Tribal Art. Berkeley. Bascom, William. 1969. "Creativity and style in African art", pp. 98-119 in D. Biebuyck ed. Tradition and Creativity in Tribal Art. University of California Press. Silver, H.R. 1981. "Calculating risks: the socio-economic foundations of aesthetic innovations in an Ashanti carving community" Ethnology 20: 101-114. 17

Tanner, Jeremy. 2006. "Culture, social structure and artistic agency in classical Greece", 141-204 in idem The Invention of Art History in Ancient Greece: Religion, Society and Artistic Rationalisation. Cambridge. _____. 2018. "Revixit ars: artistic 'rebirth' in Greco-Roman antiquity and Early Modern China and Europe", 197-222 in Lisa Nevett and James Whitley eds. An Age of Experiment: Classical Archaeology Transformed (1976-2014). Cambridge: McDonald Institute. Bohannon, P. 1971. "Artist and critic in an African society", in C.M. Otten ed. Anthropology and Art: Readings in Cross Cultural Aesthetics (American Museum of Natural History); also pp. 85-94 in M.W. Smith ed. 1961. The Artist in Traditional Society.

Supplementary case studies

Aboriginal Australian Art Myers, Fred R. 1994. "Beyond the intentional fallacy: art criticism and the ethnography of Aboriginal acryllic painting", Visual Anthropology Review 10.1: 10-43 Mountford, C.P. 1961. "Th artist and his art in Australian aboriginal society", pp. 1-24 in M.W. Smith ed. The Artist in Tribal Society. London, Royal Anthropological Institute Occassional Paper, 15. Golvan, C. 1989. "Aboriginal art and copyright: the case for Johnny Bulun". European Intellectual Property Review. 10 _____. 1992. "Aboriginal art and the protection of indigenous cultural rights", European Intellectual Property Review 14

Mesoamerican Art Coe, M.D. 1978. "Supernatural patrons of Maya scribes and artists, in N. Hammond ed. Social Process in Maya History. New York, Academic Press. Bernal, Ignacio. 1969. "Individual artistic creativity in pre-columbian Mexico", pp. 71-83 in D. Biebuyck ed. Tradition and Creativity in Tribal Art. University of California Press. *Houston, Stephen. 2016. "Crafting credit: authorship among Classic Maya painters and sculptors", in Costin, Cathy Lynne ed. 2016. Making Value, Making Meaning: Techne in the Pre-Columbian World. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks. 391-431 [IoA DF100 COS] Inomata, T. 2001. “The power and ideology of artistic creation: elite craft specialists in Classic Maya society”, Current Anthropology 42.3

18

Early Modern European Art Wittkower, R. and M. Wittkower, 1963. Born Under Saturn - the Character and Conduct of Artists. A Documented History from Antiquity to the French Revolution. New York, Norton. Kempers, B. 1992. Painting, Power and Patronage: The Rise of the Professional Artist in Renaissance Italy. Allen Lane, London. Elias, N. 1993. Mozart: Portrait of a Genius. Fyfe, G. 1985. "Art and reproduction: some aspects of the relations between painters and engravers in London", Media, Culture and Society 7: 399-425.

China Burkus-Chasson, A. 1994. "Elegant or common? Chen Hongshou's birthday presentation pictures and his professional status", Art Bulletin 26.2 279-300. Sullivan, M. 1983. "Some notes on the social history of Chinese art", repr. pp. 86-97 in idem 1991 Studies in the Art of China and South East Asia, Volume 1. London, Pindar Press. Cahill, J. 1994. The Painters Practice. How Artists Lived and Worked in Traditional China. New York, Columbia University Press. _____. 1993. "Tang Yin and Wen Zhengming as artist types: a reconsideration", Artibus Asiae LIII/1-2.

Others Gunter, A.C. 1990. "Artists and ancient Near Eastern art", pp. 9-17 in idem ed. Investigating Artistic Environments in the Ancient Near East.

Essay questions: 1. Is the concept of artistic creativity a helpful category in the analysis of past societies? 2. Can it still make sense today for the individual artist to be the analytic focus of a study of art? 3. Can the concept of an "artistic role" be safely used in the analysis of the art of non-western cultures? 4. What are the main dimensions across which artists roles vary cross- culturally? Does it make sense to speak of "the artist's role"? 19

4. Art and technology: materials, methods and artistry

Topic outline: in this seminar we shall be exploring the material foundations of art: tools, techniques, technologies and the substances used for making art objects. Following Semper's classic study, techniques and technology have played a rather minor role in mainstream art history. We shall be thinking about some of the reasons why they might have played so marginal role, and look at more recent studies which afford techniques and technologies a more central place. Questions for thought and discussion might include: How does technology determine art? Can one distinguishing technical from social or cultural determinants? How and why does the importance of technical determination of art vary?

Required readings for class discussion:

1. Podro, M. 1982. The Critical Historians of Art, pp. 44-58 "From Semper to Goller". (ART A8 POD - 4 copies) 2. Penny, N. 1993. The Materials of Sculpture. New Haven, Yale University Press, pp. 21- 24 "Granite and porphyry", 35-48 "White marbles and alabasters, part 1", 69-80 "The versatility of marble", (only if time, or for essay: 49-68 "White marbles and alabasters, part 2", 81-92 "The traces of the tool") (ART TH PEN - 3 copies, includeing one Reference, one Overnight) 3. Lechtman, H. 1975. "Style in technology: some early thoughts", pp. 3-20 in H. Lechtman and R.S. Merrill eds. Material Culture: Styles, Organisation and Dynamics of Technology. (ANTHROPOLOGY E50 LEC; IOA ISSUE DESK LEC 5) 4. Steinberg, A. 1975. "Technology and culture: technological styles in the bronzes of Shang China, Phrygia and Urnfield central Europe", pp. 53-85 in H. Lechtman and R.S. Merrill eds. Material Culture: Styles, Organisation and Dynamics of Technology. (ANTHROPOLOGY E50 LEC; ISSUE DESK IOA LEC 5) 5. Kingery, W. D. 1993. "Painterly maiolica of the Italian Renaissance", Technology and Culture 34.1, 28-48. (Online - UCL Electronic Periodicals) 6. Uribe Villegas, M.A. and Martinón-Torres, M. 2012. "Composition, colour and context in Musica votive metalwork (Colombia AD 600-1800", Antiquity 86: 772-91 [Online - UCL Electronic Periodicals]

20

Supplementary Readings:

Perspectives

Classics **Podro, M. 1982. The Critical Historians of Art, pp. 44-58 "From Semper to Goller". (ART A8 POD - 4 copies) (*)Boas, F. 1955. Primitive Art, pp. 9-17 "Introduction", 17-63 "The formal element in art", 81-7 "influence of technique on style of representation", 144-153 (Technique and style"), 349-56 "Conclusion" (Anth E10 BOA - 3 copies; Science short loan coll BOA - 1 copy) Most important pages are: 9-22, 38-42, 144-6, 152-4, 160-2. Smith, C.S. 1970. "Art, technology and science: notes on their historical interaction", Technology and Culture 11.4: 493-549.

Art historical approaches Baxandall, M. 1980. "Material", pp. 27-49 in idem The Limewood Sculptors of Renaissance Germany. New Haven, Yale University Press. **Penny, N. 1993. The Materials of Sculpture. New Haven, Yale University Press, pp. 21-24 "Granite and porphyry", 35-48 "White marbles and alabasters, part 1", 69-80 "The versatility of marble", (only if time, or for essay: 49-68 "White marbles and alabasters, part 2", 81-92 "The traces of the tool") (ART TH PEN - 3 copies, includeing one Reference, one Overnight) *Bryson, N. 1983. Vision and Painting: the Logic of the Gaze. pp 13-17 (on technique and painting as material practice vs Plinian etc account of naturalism). (ART BA BRY - 6 copies) Williams, R. 1981. "Means of production", pp. 87-118 in idem Culture.

Scientific and anthropological approaches Lemonnier, P. 1986. "The study of material culture today: towards an anthropology of technological systems." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5.2: 147-86 (best introduction to contemporary work on anthropology of technical systems, although not centrally concerned with art as such) **Lechtman, H. 1975. "Style in technology: some early thoughts", pp. 3-20 in H. Lechtman and R.S. Merrill eds. Material Culture: Styles, Organisation and Dynamics of Technology. (ANTHROPOLOGY E50 LEC; IOA ISSUE DESK LEC 5) (*)_____. 1993. "Technologies of power: the Andaean case" pp. 244-80 in J.S. Henderson and P.J. Netherly eds. Configurations of Power in Complex Societies. Ithaca, Cornell University Press. (IoA BD HEN Issue desk) 21

____. 2007. "The Inka and Andean metallurgical tradition", in RL Buger, C. Morris et al eds. Variations in the Expression of Inka Power: a Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks, 18 and 19 October 1997. Dumbraton Oaks, WA: 313-356 Hosler, D. 1996. "Technical choices, social categories and meaning among the Andean potters of Las Animas", Journal of Material Culture 1.1: 63-92. **Uribe Villegas, M.A. and Martinón-Torres, M. 2012. "Composition, colour and context in Musica votive metalwork (Colombia AD 600-1800", Antiquity 86: 772-91 [Online - UCL Electronic Periodicals] Martinón-Torres, M and Uribe Villegas, M.A. 2015. "Technology and culture in the Invention of lost-wax casting in South America: an archaeometric and ethnoarchaeological perspective", Cambridge Archaeological Journal 25.1: 377-90.

Anthropology of Techniques (not much of any of this is directly concerned with art, but it represents by far the most interesting literature on techniques and technology at the moment, and worth thinking through its implications for art and technology). Ingold, T. 1988. "Tools, minds and machines", Techniques et Cultures 12: 151-176. Schlanger, N. 1990. "Techniques as human action: two perspectives", Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9.1: 19-26. Lemonnier, P. 1990' "Topsy turvy techniques: remarks on the social representation of techniques", Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9.1: 27-37. Cresswell, R. 1990. " 'A New Technology' revisited", Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9.1: 39-54.

Case studies **Steinberg, A. 1975. "Technology and culture: technological styles in the bronzes of Shang China, Phrygia and Urnfield central Europe", pp. 53-85 in H. Lechtman and R.S. Merrill eds. Material Culture: Styles, Organisation and Dynamics of Technology. (ANTHROPOLOGY E50 LEC; ISSUE DESK IOA LEC 5) Bagley, R.W. 1993. "Replication techniques in Eastern Zhou bronze-casting", pp. 231- 241 in S. Lubar and W.D. Kingery eds. History from Things: Essays on Material Culture. *Costin, Cathy Lynne ed. 2016. Making Value, Making Meaning: Techne in the Pre- Columbian World. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks. [IoA DF100 COS] {nb esp. Intro by Costin on artists and techne; Nadal on lapidary ensembles; Brittenham - materiality of colour in Cacaxtla murals} Hosler, D. 1994. The Sounds and Colours of Power: the Sacred Metallurgical Technology of Ancient West Mexico. (Boston, MIT Press); esp. 2-19 "The persoective and the region", 226-251 "The sounds and colours of power". 22

_____. 1995. "Sound, colour and meaning in the metallurgy of ancient West Mexico", World Archaeology 27.1: 100-15. Guidart, J. 1969. "The concept of norm in the art of some Oceanian societies", pp. 84-97 in D. Biebuyck ed. Tradition and Creativity in Tribal Art. Adams, J.M. 1975. "Style in Southeast Asian material processing: some implications for ritual and art", pp. 21-52 in H. Lechtman and R.S. Merrill eds. Material Culture: Styles, Organisation and Dynamics of Technology. Gunter, A.C. 1995. "Material, technology and techniques in artistic production", pp. 1539-1551 in J.M. Sasson ed. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East.

Renaissance Maiolica **Kingery, W. D. 1993. "Painterly maiolica of the Italian Renaissance", Technology and Culture 34.1, 28-48. (Online - UCL Electronic Periodicals) _____ and M. Aronson. 1990. "On the technology of Renaissance maioloca glazes", Faenza 5: 226-34. _____. 1990. "The glazes of Luca della Robbia" Faenza 5: 221-224. (*)Goldthwaite, R. 1989. "The economic and social world of Renaissance maiolica", Renaissance Quarterly xlii: 1-32. (IoA TC 1968/9)

Essay question: How important a determinant of art is technology, and how should we best seek to understand its role? 23

5. THE MATERIAL TURN: ART AS AGENCY, AND OBJECT BIOGRAPHIES

Topic outline: one of the most significant trends in recent work in archaeology and anthropology of art has been the so-called material turn. This comprises a number of strands of research, which shared in common an emphasis on the intrinsic materiality of objects, and material processes of objectification, rather than looking at objects as tokens of something else, with social structure or cultural meaning. In this week's class we will be looking at some of the more important research programmes informed by this material turn, notably Alfred Gell's approach to art as agency, and the 'object biography' approach, which seeks to rethink the 'meaning' of art objects in terms of their life-histories.

Required readings for class discussion:

1. Tanner, J. and Osborne, R. 2007. "Introduction: Art and Agency and art history", 1-27 in R. Osborne and J Tanner eds. Art's Agency and Art History. Oxford: Blackwell. [Online] 2. Kendall, Laurel. 2007. "The material efficacy of the Elizabethan jewelled miniature: a Gellian experiment", 114-134 in R. Osborne and J Tanner eds. Art's Agency and Art History. Oxford: Blackwell. [Online] 3. Gosden, C. and Y Marshall. 1999. "The cutural biography of objects", World Archaeology 31.2: 179-87. [Online] 4. Hamilakis, Y. 1999. Stories from exile: fragments from the cultural biography of the Parthenon (or 'Elgin') marbles. World Archaeology, 31(2): 303-20. [Online] 5. Mukerji, Chandra. 2010. "The landscape garden as material culture: lessons from France", in D. Hicks and M. Beaudry eds. The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies. [Online] 6. Knappett, Carl and Lambros Malafouris & Peter Tomkins. 2010. "Ceramics as containers", in Dan Hicks and Mary C. Beaudry eds. The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies. 588-612. Oxford. [Online]

Supplementary Readings

Art and Agency

Ahearn, L., 2001. Language and Agency. Annual Review of Anthropology 30,109-137 Allerton, C., 2012. Landscape, Power and Agency in Eastern Indonesia. In: L. Chua, J. Cook, N. Long and L. Wilson (eds.). Southeast Asian Perspectives on Power: The Modern Anthropology of Southeast Asia. Routledge, Abingdon, 67-80 24

*Chua, Liana and Mark Elliot. eds. 2013. Distributed Objects: Meaning and Mattering after Alfred Gell. Oxford: Berghahn. [Introduction has good review of critical responses to Gell, esp. Layton and Morphy; good collection of essays] *Gell, Alfred. 1992. "The technology of enchantment and the enchantment of technology", in J. Coote and A. Shelton eds. Anthropology, Art and Aesthetics. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 40-66 *_____. 1998. Art and Agency: an Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Carlson, Jack. 2011. "A symbol - but of what? Iron age daggers, Alessi corkscrews and anthropoid embellishment reconsidered", Antiquity 85: 1312-1324 Hoskins, J. 2006. "Agency, biography and objects", in C. Tilley et al eds. Handbook of Material Culture. [INST ARCH AH TIL – 4 copies; ANTHROPOLOGY C 9 TIL 4- copies; also as ebook online] Kendall, L. 2017. "Things fall apart: material religion and the problem of decay" The Journal of Asian Studies Vol. 76, No. 4 (November) 2017: 861–886 *Layton, R. 2003. "Art and Agency: a reassessment", Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (n.s.) 9: 447-64 *Morphy, H. 2009. "Art as a mode of action: some problems with Gell's Art and Agency", Journal of Material Culture 14.1: 5-27 Osborne, R. and J Tanner eds. 2007. Art's Agency and Art History. Oxford: Blackwell. [Collection of case studies, primarily of ancient art] [UCL - ebook] Pongratz-Leisten, B. and K. Somik. 2015. "Between cognition and culture: theorizing the materiality of divine ageny in cross-cultural perspective", in idem eds. The Materiality of Divine Agency. Berlin: de Gruyter. Rampley, M. 2005. "Art history and cultural difference: Alfred Gell's anthropology of art", Art History 28.4: 524-51 Sillar, B. 2009. "The social agency of things? Animism and materiality in the Andes", Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19.3: 367-77 *Tanner, J. 2007. "Portraits and agency: a comparative view", 70-94 in R. Osborne and J Tanner eds. Art's Agency and Art History. Oxford: Blackwell. [Online] _____. 2013. "Figuring out death: sculpture and agency at the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus and the Tomb of the First Emperor of China" in Chua, Liana and Mark Elliot. eds. 2013. Distributed Objects: Meaning and Mattering after Alfred Gell. Oxford: Berghahn *Vũ Thị Thanh Tâm & Nguyễn Thị Thu Hu'o'ng. 2010. "Beautiful and efficacious statues: magic, commodities, agency and the production of sacred objects in popular religion in Vietnam", Material Religion, 6:1, 60-85. [Online]

25

Object Biographies

Burström, Nanouschka M. 2014. “Things in the Eye of the Beholder: A Humanistic Perspective on Archaeological Object Biographies”, Norwegian Archaeological Review, 47:1, 65-82 Gosden, Chris and Chantal Knowles. 2001. Collecting Colonialism: Material Culture and Colonial Change. Oxford: Berg Davis, R.H. 1997. Lives of Indian Images. Princeton. Helms, Mary W. 1993. Craft and the Kingly Ideal: Art, Trade and Power. Austin: University of Texas Press. Hughes, Jessica. 2016. "Fractured narratives: writing the biography of a votive offering", 23- 48. Weinryb, Ittai ed. Ex Voto: Votive Giving Across Cultures. Bard Graduate Center - Cultural Histories of the Material World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 23– 48. [PDF available on Hughes AcademiaEd page] Joy, Jody. 2009. "Reinvigorating Object Biography: Reproducing the Drama of Object Lives", World Archaeology, Vol. 41.4: 540-556. *Kopytoff, I. 1986. "The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process", 64-91 in A. Appadurai ed. The Social Life of Things: Commodities In Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Saunders, N. J. 1999. Biographies of brilliance: pearls, transformations of matter and being, c. AD 1492. World Archaeology, 31(2): 243-57. Steiner, Christophr B. 2001. "Rights of passage: on the liminal identity of art in the border zone", 207-31 in Fred Myers ed. The Empire of Things: Regimes of Value and Material Culture. Crouwers, I. 2015. "The biographies and audiences of Late Viking-Age and Medieval Stone crosses and cross-décorated stones in Norway", in H.M.N. Williams et al eds. Early Medival Stone Monuments: Materiality, Biography, Landscape. Woodbridge: Boydell Press.

Objects and Objectification: the material turn

Miller, Daniel. 1987. Material Culture and Mass Consumption. Oxford: Backwell. [Key text for beginnings of material turn in archaelogy and anthropology] *Miller, D., 2005. Materiality: An Introduction. In: D. Miller (ed.). Materiality. London: Duke University Press, 1-50 Conneller, Chantal. 2011. An Archaeology of Materials: Substantial Transformation in Early Prehistoric Europe Oxford: Routledge *Hicks, D., 2010. The Material-Cultural Turn: Event and Effect. In: D. Hicks and M. C. Beaudry (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 25-98 26

Hodder, J. 2011. Human thing entanglement, an integrated archaeology perspective JRAI 17, 154-77 Hodder, I. 2014. The entanglement of objects and things, a long term history. New Literary History 45, 19-36 *Ingold, T. 2010. "The Textility of Making", Cambridge Journal of Economics 34: 91–102. _____. 2012. Toward an Ecology of Materials. Annual Review of Anthropology 41/1: 427–442. *_____. 2007. "Materials against materiality", Archaeological Dialogues 14: 1-16 Knappett, C. 2004. The Affordances of Things: A Post-Gibsonian Perspective on the Relationality of Mind and Matter Carl. In: E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden, and C. Renfrew (eds.), Rethinking Materiality the Engagement of Mind with the Material World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 43–51 Knappett, Carl and Lambros Malafouris & Peter Tomkins. 2010. "Ceramics as containers", in Dan Hicks and Mary C. Beaudry eds. The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies. 588-612. Oxford. [Online] *Robb, J. 2015. What Do Things Want? Object Design as a Middle Range Theory of Material Culture. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 26/1. 166–180. [Online] Tilley, C., 2006. Objectification. In: C. Tilley, W. Keane, S. Küchler, M. Rowlands and P. Spyer (eds.). Handbook of Material Culture. London: Sage, 60-73

Georg Simmel [key theoretical influence on Daniel Miller's work, still fruitful]

Simmel, Georg. 1958. "Two essays", The Hudson Review 11: 371-85 (the handle) de la Fuente, E., 2016. “Frames, Handles and Landscapes: Georg Simmel and the Aesthetic Ecology of Things”. In: T. Kemple and O. Pyyhtinen (eds.). The Anthem Companion to Georg Simmel. London: Anthem Press, 161-184.

Related work on objects and materiality Boradkar, Prasad. 2006. "Theorizing things: status, problems and benefits of the critical interpretation of objects", The Design Journal 9:2, 3-15 Dant, Tim. 2006. "Material civilization: things and society", British Journal of Sociology 57:2, 289-308 {legacy of Braudel - the essay a bit disappointing, but Braudel ought to be worth exploring In relation to this topic} González-Ruibal, A., 2012. Archeology and the Study of Material Culture: Synergies With Cultural Psychology. In: J. Valsiner (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Culture and Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 132-162 Latour, B., 2000. The Berlin Key or How to Do Words with Things. In: P. M. Graves- Brown (ed). Matter, Materiality and Modern Culture. London: Routledge, 10- 21. 27

Law J., (2008). ‘Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics’ In Turner, B.S. ed. The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition. Oxford: Blackwell pp. 141- 158 Molotch, Harvey. 2003. Where Stuff Comes From: How Toasters, Toilets, Cars, Computers and Many Other Things Come to be as They Are. New York: Routledge Mukerji, C. 1990. “Reading and writing with nature: social claims and the French formal garden”, Theory and Society 19: 651-79 _____. 1994. “The Political Mobilization of Nature in Seventeenth-Century French Formal Gardens”, Theory and Society Vol. 23, No. 5 (Oct., 1994), pp. 651-677 Mukerji, C., (1997) Territorial ambitions and the gardens of Versailles, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Mukerji, Chandra. 2010. "The landscape garden as material culture: lessons from France", in D. Hicks and M. Beaudry eds. The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies. [Online]

Essay topics: Either: Is it analytically fruitful, or a category mistake,when art historians and anthropologists attribute agency to material objects? Or: What entailments does the attribution of 'biography' to objects have for the ways in which we understand the 'meaning' of works of art? 28

II: THE SOCIAL USES OF ART: COMPARATIVE AND EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVES

6 . Art and human evolution: anthropology and the origins of art

Topic outline: the question of the "origins of art" continues to be an issue of hot debate even amongst those who do not believe that the question should be posed in such terms at all. In this seminar we shall explore a variety of issues in and approaches towards early human aesthetic representation. To what extent does formulating our approach to palaeolithic art in terms of "origins" and "art" prejudge our interpretation and explanation of the relevant material culture remains? What kind of models should we be developing to explain the efflorescence of aesthetic representation in the palaeolithic? Are we looking at questions of human species evolution or at cultural evolution of an already biologically given modern human? To what extent are human-biological and cultural evolutionary models compatible? What role might changing patterns of social organisation play in the development of palaeolitihic art? How can we evaluate competing models and approaches?

Required readings for class discussion: 1. White, R. 1989. "Visual thinking in the ice age", Scientific American 260.7: 92-99. [Best starting point for those not familiar with this material] (IoA TC 1980/1) 2. Conkey, M. 1984. "To find ourselves: art and social geography of prehistoric hunter gatherers", pp. 253-276 in C. Schrire ed. Past and Present in Hunter Gatherer Studies. (London, Academic Press Inc). (IoA TC 1972/3) [Good review of earlier approaches] 3. Mithen, S. 1997. The Prehistory of Mind. (London, Thames and Hudson) Pp. 171-210 "the big bang of human culture: the origins of art and religion", 211-222 "So how did it happen". (INSTARCH BB 1 MIT - 10 copies; ISSUE DESK IOA MIT 3; ANTHROPOLOGY B30 MIT) 4. Davies, W. 1986. "The origins of image making", Current Anthropology 27.3, 193-215. [UCL Electronic Periodicals JSTOR] 5. Collins, D. and J. Onians. 1978. "The origins of art", Art History 1.1: 1-25. [UCL Electronic Periodicals] 6. Lewis-Williams, D. 2002. The Mind in the Cave: Consciousness and the Origins of Art; 181- 203 “An origin of image making” (and if you have time 204-227 “The cave in the mind”, very easy read). ISSUE DESK IOA LEW2; INSTARCH BC300 LEW - 2 copies). 7. Preziosi, D. 1982. "Constructing the origins of art", Art Journal 42: 320-325. (UCL Electronic Periodicals, JSTOR; easiest way in is via google scholar, since Art Journal difficult to identify through UCL catalogue)

29

Strongly Recommended *White, R. 1989. "Visual thinking in the ice age", Scientific American 260.7: 92-99. [Best starting point for those not familiar with this material] (IoA TC 1980/1) Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1993. Gesture and Speech. (Cambridge, MIT Press). (*)Dissanayake, E, 1988. What is Art For. pp. 107-131 "The evolution of a behaviour of art". *Mithen, S. 1997. The Prehistory of Mind. (London, Thames and Hudson) Pp. 171-210 "the big bang of human culture: the origins of art and religion", 211-222 "So how did it happen". (INSTARCH BB 1 MIT - 10 copies; ISSUE DESK IOA MIT 3; ANTHROPOLOGY B30 MIT) Conkey, M. 1983. "On the origins of palaeolithic art: a review and some critical thoughts", pp. 201-227 in E. Trinkaus ed. Human Biocultural Change in the Upper Pleistocene. (BAR International Series 164). [Excellent review of the main positions and debates] *Conkey, M. 1984. "To find ourselves: art and social geography of prehistoric hunter gatherers", pp. 253-276 in C. Schrire ed. Past and Present in Hunter Gatherer Studies. (London, Academic Press Inc). (IoA TC 1972/3) *Davies, W. 1986. "The origins of image making", Current Anthropology 27.3, 193-215. (IoA TC 1976/7; UCL Electronic Periodicals JSTOR) *Collins, D. and J. Onians. 1978. "The origins of art", Art History 1.1: 1-25. (IoA TC 1978/9) *Lewis-Williams, D. 2002. The Mind in the Cave: Consciousness and the Origins of Art; 181- 203 “An origin of image making” (and if you have time 204-227 “The cave in the mind”, very easy read). ISSUE DESK IOA LEW2; INSTARCH BC300 LEW - 2 copies). *Preziosi, D. 1982. "Constructing the origins of art", Art Journal 42: 320-325. (UCL Electronic Periodicals, JSTOR; easiest way in is via google scholar, since Art Journal difficult to identify through UCL catalogue) (*)_____. 1989. Rethinking Art History: Meditations on a Coy Science. (New Haven, Yale University Press). Pp. 122-153 "Reckoning with the world". (Art A8 PRE) White, R. 1992. "Beyond art: towards an understanding of the origins of material representation in Europe", Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 537-64. (*)Knight, C. , Powers, C, and Watt, I. 1995. "The human symbolic revolution: a Darwinian account", Cambridge Archaeological Journal 5: 75-114.

30

Supplementary Mithen S. 1988. "Looking and learning: upper palaeolithic art and information gathering", World Archaeology 19, 297-327. _____. 1989. "To hunt or paint? Animals and art in the upper palaeolithic", Man 23: 671- 95. Alexander, Richard D. 1989. "The evolution of the human psyche", pp. 455-513 in Paul Mellars and Chris Stringer eds. The Human Revolution: Behavioral and Biologicak Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans. Lewis-Williams, J.D. 1997. "Agency, art and altered consciousness: a motif in French (Quercy) Upper Palaeolithic parietal art", Antiquity 71: 810-30. Lewis-Williams, J.D. and T.A. Dowson. 1988. "The signs of all times: entoptic phenomena in upper palaeolitihic art", Current Anthropology 29.2: 201-245. Conkey, M. 1978. "Style and information in cultural evolution: toward a predictive model for the Palaeolithic", pp. 61-85 in C. Readman ed. Social Archaeology. (Academic Press, New York). _____. 1980. "Context, structure and efficacy in Paleolithic art and design", pp. 225-248 in Mary le Cron Foster and Stanley H Brandes eds. Symbol as Sense. _____. 1982. "Boundedness in art and society", pp. 115-28 in I. Hodder ed. Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Gamble, C. 1982. "Interaction and alliance in Palaeolithic society", Man 17: 92-107. _____. 1991. "The social context for European Palaeolithic art", Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 57.1: 3-15. Kogan, N. 1994. "On aesthetics and its origins: some psychobiological and evolutionary considerations", Social Research 61.1: 139-165. White, R. 1989. "Production complexity and standardisation in early Aurignacian nead and pendant manufacture: evolutionary implications", pp. 366-90 in P. Mellars and C. Stringer ed. The Human Revolution. (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press). _____. 1993. "A social and technological view of Aurignacian and Castelperronian personal-ornaments in S.W. Europe", pp. 327-57 in V. Cabrera Valdés ed. El Origin del Hombre Moderno en el SSuroeste de Europa. (Madrid: Ministerio des Educacion y Ciencia). _____. 1993. "Technological and social dimensions of Aurignacian age body-ornaments across Europe" , pp. 247-99 in H. Knecht, A. Pike-Tay and R. White eds. Before Lascaux: The Complex Record of the Early Upper Palaeolithic. (Boca Raton, CRC Press) Layton, R. 1989. "Are sociobiology and social anthropology compatible? The significance of socio-cultural resources in human evolution", pp. 433-455 in V, 31

Standen and R.A. Foley eds. Comparative Socioecology: the Behavioral Ecology of Humans and Other Animals. Oxford, Blackwell. Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1975. "The flowers found with Shanidar IV, a neanderthal burial in Iraq", Science 190, 562-564 ______. 1968. "The evolution of palaeolithic art", Scientific American 218.2, 58-70. Marshack, A. 19912. The Roots of Civilization: The Cognitive Beginnings of Man's First Art, Symbol and Notation. New York, Moyer Bell _____. 1985. "Theoretical concepts that lead to new analytic methods, modes of inquiry and classes of data", Rock Art Research 2: 95-111. _____. 1990. "Early hominid symbolism and the evolution of human capacity" pp. 457-98 in P. Mellars ed. The Emergence of Modern Humans. (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press). Oakley, Kenneth P. 1981. "The emergence of higher thought, 3.0-0.2 Ma BP", pp. 205-11 in The Emergence of Man. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London. B. 292. Oakley, K.P. 1973. "Fossil shell observed by Acheulian man", Antiquity 47, 59-60. _____. 1971. "Fossils collected by the earlier palaeolithic men", pp. 581-584 in Mélanges de préhistoire, d'archéologie et d'ethnologie offerts à André Varagnac (Paris: Serpen) Pfeiffer, J. 1982. The Creative Explosion. Sebeok, T.A. 1979. "Prefigurements of art", pp. 3-74 in Irene P. Winner and Jean Umiker- Sebeok eds. Semiotics of Culture. The Hague, Mouton. (animals and art) Whiten, A. 1976. "Primate perception and aesthetic", pp. 18-40 in D. Brothwell ed. 1976. Beyond Aesthetics. Wynn, T. 1979. "The intelligence of later Acheulian hominids", Man 14: 371-91 _____. 1981. "The inteligence of Olduvian hominids", Journal of Human Evolution 10: 529- 541. Brothwell, D. 1976. "Visual art, evolution and environment", pp. 41-63 in idem ed. Beyond Aesthetics: Investigations into the Nature of Visual Art. Bahn, P. 1994. "New advances in the field of ice-age art", pp. 121-132 in M.H. Nitecki and D.V. Nitecki eds. Origins of Anatomically Modern Humans. (New York, Plenum Press). Duhard, J.P. 1993. "Upper palaeolithic figures as a reflection of human morphology and social organisation", Antiquity 67, 83-91. Lindly, J. and Clark G. 1990. "Symbolism and modern human origins", Current Anthropology 31, 233-61. Bedarnik, R.G. 1992. "Palaeoart and archaeological myths", Cambridge Archaeological Journal 2: 27-57 _____. 1994. "A taphonomy of palaeoart", Antiquity 68: 68-74. 32

_____. 1995. "Concept mediated marking in the lower palaeolithic" Current Anthropology 36: 605-34. Bedarnik, R.G. and Yuzhu. Y. 1991. "Palaeolithic art in China", Rock Art Research 8: 119- 123. Renfrew, C. & Morley, I. (eds.) (2007) Image and Imagination: A Global Prehistory of Figurative Representation. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge. [INST ARCH BC 300 REN]

Neanderthal Art: Finlayson C. et al. (2012). “Birds of a feather: Neanderthal exploitation of raptors and corvids”, PloS One 7 (9): e45927. Hoffmann D. et al. (2018) U-Th dating of carbonate crusts reveals Neandertal origin of Iberian cave art. Science 359: 912-915. Jaubert J. et al (2016) Early Neanderthal constructions deep in Bruniquel Cave in southwestern France. Nature 534: 111-114. Marquet J & Lorblanchet M. (2003) A Neanderthal face? The proto-figure from La Roche-Cotard, Laneais (Indre-Loire, France). Antiquity 77: 661-670. Rodriguez-Vidal J. et al. (2014) A rock engraving made by Neanderthals in Gibraltar. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111: 13301-06. Roebroeks, W. et al. (2012) Use of red ochre by early Neanderthals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 1889-1894. Zilhao J. et al. (2010) Symbolic use of marine shells and mineral pigments by Iberian neandertals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 1023-1028.

Essay question: “The endless debates about why ‘art’ arose and about the psychological, sociological or cultural factors at work are purely theoiretical and largely pointless” (Paul Bahn). Do you agree?

33

7. "Primitive" art and "simple" societies.

Topic outline: This seminar and the following one explore the relationship between art and social complexity. Today we look at "primitive" art in the context of "simple" societies. We shall consider two primary issues. First, is the concept of "primitive art" analytically meaningful? Does it describe and group together certain kinds of art which have distinctive properties in common which distinguish it from the art of complex or "advanced" societies? Or is the concept of "primitive art" simply a function of the cultural and social relationships between western imperial nations and colonised peoples during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries? The second issue we shall explore is the nature and role of art in "simple" societies, primarily hunter-gatherers. To what extent can one generalise about the role and structure of art in these kinds of societies? Is their art more similar to that of other hunter-gatherer societies than to complex societies, either in terms of its uses and functions, or in terms of its patterning and structure? If so, what are the most appropriate levels at which to compare such artistic systems? If not, what does this suggest about the viability of studying art comparatively?

Required readings for class discussion: 1. Price, S. 1989. Primitive Art in Civilised Places. (Chicago, Chicago University Press). Pp. 37-55 "The night side of man", 56-67 "Anonymity and timelessness". (Also, not required, but if you have time: 108-123 "A case in point"). (INSTARCH BD PRI; IoA Issue Desk PRI 6; ANTH E10 PRI - 5 copies) Very important 2. Shelton, Anthony. 2009. “The public sphere as wilderness: Le Musée de Quai Branly”, Museum Anthropology 32.1: 1-16 [Online] 3. Claerhout, A.G.H. et al. 1965. "The concept of primitive applied to art", Current Anthropology 6.4: 432-8. (UCL Electronic Periodicals - JSTOR) Very important. 4. Layton, R. 1985. "The cultural context of hunter-gatherer rock art", Man (n.s.) 20: 434- 453 (UCL Electronic Periodicals, JSTOR) 5. Munn, N.D.. 1973. "The spatial presentation of order in Walbiri iconography", pp. 193- 220 in A. Forge ed. Primitive Art and Society. (Oxford, Oxford University Press). (ANTHROPOLOGY E10 FOR; IoA Issue Desk FOR 2) 6. Lewis-Williams, J.D. 1982. "The economic and social context of Southern San Rock art", Current Anthropology 23.4: 429-449 (UCL Electronic Periodicals). If you have time also take a look at these: more on the concept of 'primitive': 7. Wingert, P. 1962. Primitive Art: its Traditions and Styles. (Oxford, Oxford University Press.), pp. 3-11 “Introduction”.(Anth E10 WIN; IoA TC 1982) 8. Anderson, R.L. 1979. Art in Primitive Societies. (Prentice Hall) pp. 2-8 "The meanings of primitive". (IoA TC 1813; ANTHROPOLOGY E10 AND)

34

Supplementary Readings

Concept of the Primitive Antliff, Mark and Patricia Leighten. 2003. "Primitive", 217-233 In Robert S. nelson and Richard Shiff eds. Critical Terms for Art History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. *Price, S. 1989. Primitive Art in Civilised Places. (Chicago, Chicago University Press). Pp. 37-55 "The night side of man", 56-67 "Anonymity and timelessness". (Also, not required, but if you have time: 108-123 "A case in point"). (INSTARCH BD PRI; IoA Issue Desk PRI 6; ANTH E10 PRI - 5 copies) Very important *Claerhout, A.G.H. et al. 1965. "The concept of primitive applied to art", Current Anthropology 6.4: 432-8. (UCL Electronic Periodicals - JSTOR) Very important. *Wingert, P. 1962. Primitive Art: its Traditions and Styles. (Oxford, Oxford University Press.), pp. 3-11 “Introduction”.(Anth E10 WIN; IoA TC 1982) *Anderson, R.L. 1979. Art in Primitive Societies. (Prentice Hall) pp. 2-8 "The meanings of primitive". (IoA TC 1813; ANTHROPOLOGY E10 AND) *Halle, D. 1993. "The audience for primitive art in houses in the New York region", Art Bulletin 75.3: 397-414 [Online] Dutton, D. 1993. "Tribal art and artifact", Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 51.1: 13-21 [Online] _____. 1995. "Mythologies of tribal art", African Arts 28.3: 32-43, 90-91. [Online] Jones, P. 1988. "Perceptions of Aboriginal art: a history", in P. Sutton ed. Dreamings: the Art of Aboriginal Australia. (New York, Brazillier). Bihalji-Merin, O. 1972. "Art as a universal phenomenon" pp. 2-11 in S. Wichmann ed. World Cultures and Modern Art. (Munich, Bruckmann Publishers) Christensen, E.O. 1955. Primitive Art. (London, Thames and Hudson) intro Kuper, A. 1988. The Invention of Primitive Society. (London, Routledge). Pp. 1-14 "The idea of primitive society", 231-244 "Conclusion" Fabian, J. 1983. Time and Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object. New York: Columbia University Press. Gombrich, E.H. 1984. The Story of Art (London, Phaidon), pp. 19-30 "Strange beginnnings". Manning, P. 1985. "Primitive Art and modern times", Radical History Review 33: 165-81. Megaw, V. 1986. "Something, but for whom? Ethics and transitional art". Cultural Survival Quarterly 10.3: 64-69 35

Muensterberger, W. 1971. "Tools of primitive art", pp. 106-28 in C.M. Otten ed. Anthropology and Art: Readings in Cross Cultural Aesthetics. (New York, Natural History Press). Paudrat, J-L. 1972. "The negative reception of the art of the traditional societies of Africa", pp. 252-254 in S. Wichmann ed. World Cultures and Modern Art. (Munich, Bruckmann Publishers). Price, S. and R. Price. 1980. Afro-American Arts of the Suriname Rain Forest. (Berkeley, University of California Press). Rubin, W. ed. 1984. Primitivism in Twentieth Century Art: Affinity of the Tribal and the Modern. )New York: Museum of Modern Art) *Errington, Shelly. 1998. The Death of Authentic Primitive Art and Other Tales of Progress. Berkeley: University of California Press. [IoA MG3 ERR] {reallly worth reading if you have time}

Musée Quai Branly, Paris. Postcolonialism and ethnographic art *Lebovics, Herman. 2009. "Will the Musée du Quai Branly show France the way to postcoloniality?" African and Black Diaspora: An International Journal, 2:2, 231-244. [Online] Levitz, Tamara. 2006. "The aestheticization of ethnicity. Imagining the Dogon at the Musée de Quai Branly”, Music Quarterly 89: 600-42 [Online] Price, Sally. 2007. Paris Primitive: Jacques Chirac’s Museum on the Quai Branly. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. *_____. 2010. “Return to Quai Branly”, Museum Anthropology 33.1: 11-21 [Online] **Shelton, Anthony. 2009. “The public sphere as wilderness: Le Musée de Quai Branly”, Museum Anthropology 32.1: 1-16 Strand, Dana. 2013. "Aesthetics, Ethnography, and Exhibition at the Quai Branly", Symposium: A Quarterly Journal in Modern Literatures, 67:1, 38-46 [Online[

Art in hunter-gatherer societies

General *Layton, R. 1985. "The cultural context of hunter-gatherer rock art", Man (n.s.) 20: 434- 453 (UCL Electronic Periodicals, JSTOR) Conkey, M. 1984. "To find ourselves: art and social geography of prehistoric hunter- gatherers", pp. 253-76 in C. Schrire ed. Past and Present in Hunter-Gatherer Societies. New York, Academic Press. 36

_____. 1985. "Ritual communication, social elaboration and the variable trajectories of palaeolithic material culture", pp. 299-323 in T. DouglasPrice and J.A. Brown eds. Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence of Social and Cultural Complexity. (new York, Academic Press).

Australian Hunter-Gatherers (*)Morphy, H. 1988. "Maintaining cosmic unity: ideology and the reproduction of Yolngu clans", pp. 249-271 in T. Ingold, D. Riches and J. Woodburn eds. Hunters and Gatherers: Property, Power and Ideology. Oxford, Berg. (IoA 1988/9) Excellent study, but will not have time to discuss in class; those doing the essay should certainly read. _____. 1989. "On representing ancestral beings", pp. 144-160 in idem ed. Animals into Art. (London, Unwin-Hyman). (*)Munn, N.D. 1964. "Totemic designs and group continuity in Walbiri cosmology", pp. 83-100 in M. Reay ed. Aborigines Now: New Perspective in the Study of Aboriginal Communities. (Angus and Roberston, Sydney). (IoA 1986/7) If pressed for time, most important part pp. 91-3 on dreamtime) _____. 1971. "The transformation of subjects into objects in Warlbiri and Pitjantjatjara myth", in R. Berndt ed. Australian Aboriginal Anthropology. (Perth, University of Western Australia Press). *_____. 1973. "The spatial presentation of order in Walbiri iconography", pp. 193-220 in A. Forge ed. Primitive Art and Society. (Oxford, Oxford University Press). (ANTHROPOLOGY E10 FOR; IoA Issue Desk FOR 2) _____. 1973. Walbiri Iconography: Graphic Representation and Cultural Symbolism in a Central Australian Society. (Ithcaca, Cornell University Press). Layton, R. 1992. Australian Rock Art: a New Synthesis. (Cambride, Cambridge University Press). Dubinskas, F.A. and S. Traweek. 1984. "Closer to the ground" a reinterpretation of Warlpiri iconography", Man 19: 15-30. ( post-structuralist critique of Munn) Maddock, K. 1970. "Imagery and social structure at two Dalabon rock art sites", Anthropological Forum 2: 444-463. Merlan, F. 1982. "A Mangarrayi representational system: environment and cultural symbolisation in Northern Australia", American Ethnologist 9: 145-66. Peterson, N. 1972. "Totemism yesterday: sentiment and local organisation among the Australian Aboriginines", Man (n.s.) 7: 12-32.

South African Hunter-Gatherers *Lewis-Williams, J.D. 1982. "The economic and social context of Southern San Rock art", Current Anthropology 23.4: 429-449 (UCL Electronic Periodicals) 37

_____. 1984 "Ideological continuities in prehistoric southern Africa: the evidence of Rock art", 225-252 in C. Schrire ed. Past and Present in Hunter-Gatherer Societies. (London, Academic Press). _____. 1988. "'People of the eland': an archaeo-linguistic crux", 203-211 in T. Ingold et al. eds. Hunters and Gatherers. (Oxford, Berg). Guenther, M. 1988. "Animals in Bushman thought, myth and art", pp. 192-202 in T. Ingold et al. eds. Hunters and Gatherers. (Oxford, Berg).

Hunter-gatherers: culture, social structure and adaptation Riddington, R. 1982. "Technology, world-view and adaptive strategy in a Northern hunting society", Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 19: 469-481. Bird-David, N. 1990. "The giving environment : another perspective on the economic system of hunter-gatherers", Current Anthropology 31, 189-96. Williams, E. 1987. "Complex hunter-gatherers: a view from Australia", Antiquity 61: 310- 321. Peterson, N. 1975. "Hunter-gatherer territoriality: the perspective from Australia", American Anthropologist 77: 53-68 Blundell, V. 1980. "Hunter-gatherer territoriality: ideology and behaviour in northwest Australia", Ethnohistoty 27: 103-117 Cashdan, E. 1983. "Territoriality among human foragers: ecological models and an application to four Bushman groups", Current Anthropology 24: 47-66.

Essay question: Do notions of "primitive art" or the art of "simple societies" tell us more about the users of those concepts than the art they wish to analyse or are they meaningful categories of analysis; (and if so, how)? 38

8. Art and power: art, elites and state formation

Topic outline: This seminar continues to explore the relationship between art and social complexity, with an examination of the relationship between art and power, primarily in societies with some kind of differentiated rulership apparatus, whether "states" or "chiefdoms". Much has been written about the relationship between art and power, mostly under the rubric of "propaganda". In addition to considering various conceptual frameworks for articulating the relationship beween art and power - ideas of legitimation, propaganda, ideology and so on - we shall look at a number of specific case studies of the particular visual strategies adopted by leaders, elites and states in the aesthetic construction of power. How can we explain similarities and differences in these visual strategies? Are visual strategies a function of culturally specific ideologies (and hence largely incomparable), or are their cross-cultural similarities that can be attributed to - for example - anthropological constants in the construction of languages of power or similarities in political structures generating similar visual strategies? The first three readings offer a range of approaches for thinking about the relationship between art and power in broadly comparative perspective. Each of the case studies offers a more focussed analysis, but they all also involve a comparative dimension: worth giving some thought to the character of that comparison and how fruitful it is or is not.

Required readings for class discussion:

1. Layton, Robert. 1991. The Anthropology of Art. pp. 42-92 "Art and social life" (comparison of function of art in the production of power in acephalous societies and traditional kingdoms in Africa).(INSTARCH BD LAY - 2 copies; ISSUE DESK IOA LAY 2; ANTHROPOLOGY E10 LAY - 5 copies) 2. Cohen, Abner. 1969. "Political anthropology: the analysis of the symbolism of power relations", Man 4: 215-235. (UCL Electronic Periodicals, JSTOR) 3. Fraser, D. and H. Cole. 1972. "Art and leadership: an overview", pp. 295-328 in idem African Art and Leadership. Wisconsin. (IoA ISSUE DESK FRA 4; ANTHROPOLOGY Q 63 FRA) 4. Flannery, K.V. 1999. "Process and agency in early state formation", Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9.1: 3-21. (UCL Electronic Periodicals - JSTOR) 5. Winter, I.J. 1981. "Royal rhetoric and the development of historical narrative in neo- assyrian reliefs", Studies in Visual Communication 7.2: 2-38. (Reprinted in her collected papers - will be available on Teaching Collection) 6. Houston, S. and D. Stuart. 1996. "Of gods, glyphs and kings: divinity and rulership among the classic Maya", Antiquity 70: 289-312. (UCL Electronic Periodicals JSTOR)

39

Supplementary Readings:

General Perspectives: **Layton, Robert. 1991. The Anthropology of Art. pp. 42-92 "Art and social life" (comparison of function of art in the production of power in acephalous societies and traditional kingdoms in Africa).(INSTARCH BD LAY - 2 copies; ISSUE DESK IOA LAY 2; ANTHROPOLOGY E10 LAY - 5 copies) **Cohen, Abner. 1969. "Political anthropology: the analysis of the symbolism of power relations", Man 4: 215-235. (UCL Electronic Periodicals, JSTOR) **Flannery, K.V. 1999. "Process and agency in early state formation", Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9.1: 3-21. (UCL Electronic Periodicals - JSTOR) **Fraser, D. and H. Cole. 1972. "Art and leadership: an overview", pp. 295-328 in idem African Art and Leadership. Wisconsin. (IoA ISSUE DESK FRA 4; ANTHROPOLOGY Q 63 FRA) Current Anthropology 37.1 1996. Symposium on Agency, Ideology and Power in Archaeological Theory. Pp. 1-14, R.E. Blanton et al, "A dual proessual theory for the evolution of Mesoamerican civilisation"; 15-32 E. de Marrais et al. "Ideology, materialisation and power strategies"; pp. 33- 47 "Ideology, power and urban society in prehispanic Oaxaca". Comments on the papers (pp. 47-73) as valuable as the papers themselves; excellent bibliography. Analytically the best paper is that of Blanton et al, although those of De Marrais at el and Joyce & Winter are more directly concerned with art). Mann, M. 1986. The Sources of Social Power: Volume 1 - A History of Power from the Beginning to A.D. 1760. (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). By far the most sophisticated recent sociological treatment of power; realteively little on art as such, but plenty more generally on the role of ideology in the generation of social power. Larsen, M.T. ed. 1979. Power and Propaganda: a Symposium on Ancient Empires. Snow, D., E.B. Rochford, S.K. Worden, and R.D. Benford, 1986. "Frame alignment processes, micromobilisation and movement participation", American Sociological Review 51: 464-81. Da Costa Kaufmann, T. 1989. "Images of rule: issues of interpretation", Art Journal 48.2: 119-122. Eisenstadt, S.N. 1979. "Observations and queries about sociological aspects of imperialism in the ancient world", pp. 21-33 in M. Trolle Larsen ed. Power and Propaganda: a Symposium on Ancient Empires. Mesopotamia: Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology, vol 7. (Copenhagen, Akademisk Forlag.) 40

Geertz - Theatre State

Case studies:

Ancient Near East *Winter, I.J. 1981. "Royal rhetoric and the development of historical narrative in neo- assyrian reliefs", Studies in Visual Communication 7.2: 2-38. (Reprinted in her collected papers - will be available on Teaching Collection) _____. 1989. "The body of the able ruler: toward an understanding of the statues of

Gudea:, pp. 573-583 in H. Behrens et al. eds. Dumu-E2-Dub-Ba-A: Studies in Honour of Ake W. Sjöberg. (Philadelphia: Occassional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, 11.) (*)Reade, J. 1979. "Ideology and propaganda in Assyrian art", pp. 329-343 in M. Trolle Larsen ed. Power and Propaganda: a Symposium on Ancient Empires. Mesopotamia: Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology, vol 7. (Copenhagen, Akademisk Forlag.) (IoA TC 1998/9) *Marcus, M.I. 1995. "Art and ideology in ancient western Asia", pp. 2487-2505 in J.M. Sasson ed. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. (New York, Charles Scribner). Pp. 2487-2493 the relevant section for this class. (INSTARCH DBA 100 SAS – 3 copies) Nylander, C. 1979. "Achaemenid imperial art", pp. 345-359 in M. Trolle Larsen ed. Power and Propaganda: a Symposium on Ancient Empires. Mesopotamia: Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology, vol 7. (Copenhagen, Akademisk Forlag.)

Africa (*)Rudy, S. 1972. "Royal sculpture in the Cameroons grasslands", pp. 123-135 in D. Fraser and H. Cole. 1972. African Art and Leadership. (*)Cole, H.M. 1972. "Ibo art and authority", pp. 79-97 in D. Fraser and H. Cole. 1972. African Art and Leadership. Blier, S.P. 1998. Royal Arts of Africa. (London, Laurence King). Willett, F. 1972. "Ife: the Art of an Ancient Nigerian Aristocracy", pp. 209-226 in D. Fraser and H. Cole. 1972. African Art and Leadership. Bravmann, R.A. 1972. "The diffusion of Ashanti political art", pp. 153-171 in D. Fraser and H. Cole. 1972. African Art and Leadership. Fraser, D. 1972. "The symbols of Ashanti kingship", pp. 137-153 in D. Fraser and H. Cole. 1972. African Art and Leadership. Vansina, J. 1972. "Ndop: royal statues among the Kuba", pp. 41-53 in D. Fraser and H. Cole. 1972. African Art and Leadership. 41

Mesoamerica (*)Umberger, E. 1996. "Art and imperial strategy in Tenochitlan", pp. 85-106 in F.F. Berdan ed. Aztec Imperial Strategies. (Washington, Dumbarton Oaks). (IoA TC 1996/7) *Houston, S. and D. Stuart. 1996. "Of gods, glyphs and kings: divinity and rulership among the classic Maya", Antiquity 70: 289-312. (UCL Electronic Periodicals JSTOR) _____. 1998. "The ancient Maya self: personhood and portraiture in the classic period", Res 33: 73-101. Stuart, D. 1996. "Kings of stone: a consideration of stelae in ancient Maya ritual and representation", Res 29/30: 149-171. Marcus, J. 1974. "The iconography of power among the classic Maya", World Archaeology 6.1:83-94. Brumfiel, E. 1998. "Huitzopochtil's conquest" Aztec ideology in the archaeological record", Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8: 3-13. Pasztory, E. 1988. "Abstraction and the rise of a utopian state at Teotihuacan", pp. 281- 320 in J.C. Berlo ed. Art, Ideology and the City of Teotihuacan. (Washington, Dumbarton Oaks).

Others Stietencron, H. von. 1985/6 "Political aspects of Indian religious art", Visible Religion 4/5: 16-36. Hannestad, N. 1979. "Rome: ideology and art - some distinctive features", pp. 361-389 in M. Trolle Larsen ed. Power and Propaganda: a Symposium on Ancient Empires. Mesopotamia: Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology, vol 7. (Copenhagen, Akademisk Forlag.) Rollason, David. 2016. The Power of Place. Rulers and their Palaces, Landscapes, Cities and Holy Places. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Essay topic: To what extent does the use of art for the legitimiation of power lead to similar visual strategies in different cultures and societies? 42

9. Time and Change:

Topic outline: This class explores two closely related issues, first how we periodise histories of art, and, second, different approaches to describing and analyzing change in art; Time and perodisation: Art historians have long been concerned with the problem of periodisation. Should periods be based on internal artistic criteria (style changes) or external criteria (for example of political history - dynasties)? How should one draw boundaries between periods? What are the justifications for marking boundaries between periods at one time rather than another? Are period boundaries artificial historical constructs or do they reflect realities given in art? Recent work in both history (Braudel and the Annales school) and art history (Kubler) has broadened these debates by exploring the nature of time and its flow. Change: is it possible to generalise about artistic change or are processes of artistic change each unique and incomparable? Are some kinds of change more fundamental than others, and if so why? Can we compare certain dimensions of artistic change or generalise about certain kinds of patterns of change (revolutionary change as against incremental change or drift, for example)? Should our accounts of change be historically specific and contextual or is there a place for long-term generalising social and cultural evolutionary accounts of art? Because of the range of material involved for each of these issues, this week there are two alternative essay topics, one focused on the issue of time and periodization, the other on change, and the recommended bibliography is organized accordingly.

Required readings for in class discussion:

1. Schapiro, M., Janson, H.W., and E.H. Gombrich. 1970. "Criteria of periodisation in the history of European art". New Literary History 1, 113-126. (IoA TC 2030/1; UCL Electronic Periodicals, JSTOR) 2. Braudel, F. 1980a. "History and the social sciences: the Longue Durée", pp. 25-54 in idem On History. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. (HISTORY 6a BRA; SCIENCE TEACHING COLLECTION 317 - 5 copies) 3. Kracauer, S. 1966. "Time and history", History and Theory Supplementary vol 6 pp. 65- 78. ( IoA Teaching Collection 2002/3) 4. Kubler, G. 1962. The Shape of Time: Remarks on the History of Things. (New Haven, Yale); pp. 31-61 "The classing of things", [83-122 "Some kinds of duration", also very much worth reading if you have time]. (ART BA KUB; ISSUE DESK IOA KUB) (“Kinds of duration available as IoA TC 2006] 5. Gablik, S. 1976. Progress in Art. (London, Thames and Hudson). Pp. 145-174 "Art knowledge and science" (A good review of various theories of art and their implications for 43

questions of change - Riegl, Wölfflin, Gombrich - in context of justifying Gablik's own Piagetian approach - also worth reading but not required, cf. Witkin's more sophisticated version below - not as long as it looks, mostly pictures - pp. 39-144 "The three stages of art".) (ART BA GAB; IoA TC 2008). 6. Witkin, R. 2004. "A 'new' paradigm for the sociology of aesthetics", pp. 57-72 In D. Inglis and J. Hughson ed. The Sociology of Art: Ways of Seeing. London: Macmillan. [ANTH E10 ING - copies will be placed on teaching collection] 7. Robb, John and Olivier J.T. Harris. 2014. The Body in History: Europe from the Palaeolithic to the Future. Cambridge. chapter 9 (213-234) "The body in history: a concluding essay". (Chapter 2, pp.7-31, "Body worlds and their history: some working concepts" also worth reading if you have time), [INST ARCH DA 100 ROB – 2 copies; ISSUE DESK IOA ROB 4 – 1 copy] [8. Kubler, G. 1967. "Style and the representation of historical time", Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 138: 849-855. If you have time, take a look at this article also, particularly the little diagram which Kubler uses to represent time as an alternative to the standard archaeological model.]

Supplementary readings – focus on Time:

Essay question: "A clear awareness of the plurality of social time is indispensable to the communal methodology of the human sciences" (Braudel). Discuss with reference to the problem of time in art history.

Perspectives on time in history, philosophy and social theory *Braudel, F. 1980a. "History and the social sciences: the Longue Durée", pp. 25-54 in idem On History. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. (HISTORY 6a BRA; SCIENCE TEACHING COLLECTION 317 - 5 copies) _____. 1980b. "History and sociology", pp. 64-82 ibid. *Kracauer, S. 1966. "Time and history", History and Theory Supplementary vol 6 pp. 65- 78. ( IoA Teaching Collection 2002/3) _____. 1968. "General history and the aesthetic approach", Poetik und Hermeneutik 3, 111- 217. Mead, G.H.M. 1956 (1932). "Time", pp. 328-341 in idem On Social Psychology. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Gosden, C. 1994. Social Being and Time. Oxford, Blackwells. Heidegger, M. 1962. Being and Time. (New York, Harper and Row.) Esp. "Dasein and Temporality". Elias, N. 1992. Time: an Essay. Oxford, Blackwell. 44

Sewell, W.H. 1996. "Three temporalities" pp. 245-280 in T. McDonald ed. The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press. Ricoeur, P. 1984. Time and Narrative. Vol 1, pp. 91-225 "History and narrative". Fackenheim, E.L. 1956/7. "Kant's concept of history", Kant- Studien Band 48, Heft 3, 381- 96 Gerhard, D. 1955/56. "Periodisation in European History", AHR 61 Giddens, A. 1981. "Agency, institution and time-space analysis", pp. 161-174 (esp. 171ff) in K. Knorr-Cetina and A. Cicourel eds. Advances in Social Theory and Methodology. Gurevich, A.J. 1976. "Time as a problem of cultural history", pp. 229-245 in P. Ricoeur ed. Cultures and Time. Huizinga, J. 1959. "The task of cultural history", pp. 67-76 in idem Men and Ideas. (on time and periodisation) Leccardi, C. 1996. "Rethinking social time: feminist perspectives", Time and Society 5 (2): 209-235. Sorokin, P.A. and Merton, R.K. 1937. "Social time: a methodological and functional analysis", American Journal of Sociology 42: 615-629 Roth, Gunther. 1979. "Duration and rationalization: Fernand Braidel and Max Weber", In G. Roth and W. Schluchter eds. MaxWeber's Vision of History. Berkelely: University of California Press.

Time in archaeology Hodder, I. 1995. "Material culture in time", pp. 114-168 in idem ed. Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past. Bailey, G.N. 1981. "Concepts, time-scales and explanations in economic prehistory" in A. Sheridan and G. Bailey eds. Economic Archaeology. British Archaeological Reports, BAR International Series 96, Oxford. Bender, J. and Wellbery, D.E. eds. 1991. Chronotypes: the Construction of Time. Bintliff, J. 1991. The Annales School and Archaeology. Hodder, I. 1987. "The contribution of the long term", pp. 1-8 in I. Hodder ed. Archaeology as Long Term History.

Time and change, periodisation and seriation in art history *Kubler, G. 1962. The Shape of Time: Remarks on the History of Things. (New Haven, Yale); pp. 31-61 "The classing of things", 83-122 "Some kinds of duration". (ART BA KUB; ISSUE DESK IOA KUB) (“Kinds of duration available as IoA TC 2006) *Kubler, G. 1967. "Style and the representation of historical time", Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 138: 849-855 45

Kubler, G. 1961. "On the colonial extinction of the motifs of precolumbian art", in Essays in Precolumbian Art and Archaeology for S.K. Lothrop. Camb. Mass. *Schapiro, M., Janson, H.W., and E.H. Gombrich. 1970. "Criteria of periodisation in the history of European art". New Literary History 1, 113-126. (IoA TC 2030/1; UCL Electronic Periodicals, JSTOR) Sparshott, F.E. 1970. "Notes on the articulation of time", New Literary History 1.2: 311-334. Boas, G. 1952/3. "Historical periods", Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 11: 248-54 Pochay, G. 1985. "Der Epochenbegriff und die Kunstgeschichte", pp. 129-167 in L. Dittmann ed. Kategorien und Methoden der deutschen Kunstgeschichte, 1900-1930. Fowler, A. 1970. "Periodisation and interart analogies", New Literary History 1: 487-509

Case studies Previtali, G. 1994. "The periodisation of Italian art", pp. 1-118 in P. Burke ed. History of Italian Art, volume II. Cambridge, Polity. *Kubler, G. 1970. "Period, style and meaning in Ancient American art", New Literary History 1, 127-44 (IoA TC 2004/5; UCL Electronic Periodicals JSTOR) Hay, J. 1994. "The suspension of dynastic time", pp. 171-197 in idem ed. Boundaries in China. London, Reaktion.

Supplementary readings - focus on Change

Essay question: Either: How far is it helpful to try to develop general models of artistic change, or are processes of artistic change always irreducibly context specific? Or: "We do not know any universal principles of historical change because the mechanisms of change [] vary with the social structure we are examining..[] Just as there is a variety of social structures, there is a variety of principles of historical change". (C. Wright Mills.). How far do you think this is also true of change in the visual arts?

Art and change: *Gablik, S. 1976. Progress in Art. (London, Thames and Hudson). Pp. 145-174 "Art knowledge and science" (A good review of various theories of art and their implications for questions of change - Riegl, Wölfflin, Gombrich - in context of justifying Gablik's own Piagetian approach - also worth reading but not required, cf. Witkin's more sophisticated version below - not as long as it looks, mostly pictures - pp. 39-144 "The three stages of art".) (ART BA GAB; IoA TC 2008) (*)Becker, H. 1982. "Change in art worlds", pp. 300-350 in idem Art Worlds. (Berkeley, University of Californa Press.) (Anth E10 Bec) 46

Morphy, H. and R. Layton. 1981. "Choosing among alternatives: cultural transformations and social change in Aboriginal Australia and French Jura", Mankind 13.1: 56-73. (first half on production and marketing of art amongst the Yolngu). Zolberg, V. 1990. "How the arts change and why", pp. 162-191 in idem Constructing a Sociology of the Arts. (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Clignet, R. 1985. The Structure of Artistic Revolutions. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press. Burke, P. 1986. The Italian Renaissance: Culture and Society in Italy. (Cambridge, Polity) Pp. 229-241 "Cultural and social change", 242-250 "Comparisons and conslusions". Sorokin, P.A. 1951. "Sociology of aesthetic systems", pp.365-383 in idem Sociological Theories of Today. (New York, Harper and Row). Kroeber, A.L. 1969. Configurations of Culture Growth. (Berkeley, University of California Press). Pp. 3-31 "Problem and procedure", 239-318 "Sculpture", 319-408 "Painting", 761-848 "Review and conclusions". Meyer, L.B. 1967. Music, the Arts and Ideas: Patterns and Predictions in Twentieth-Century Culture. (Chicago, Chicago University Press). Pp. 89-103 "History, stasis and change", 104-133 "Varieties of style change", 134-169 "The probability of stasis", 170-232 "The aesthetics of stability".

Cognitive-evolutionary Witkin, R.W. 1995. Art and Social Structure. (Cambridge, Polity Press), Pp. 29-53 "Abstraction and social relations", 54-82 "Perceptual systems and presentational codes" (ART BG WIT; On Order for IoA) **_____. 2004. "A 'new' paradigm for the sociology of aesthetics", pp. 57-72 In D. Inglis and J. Hughson ed. The Sociology of Art: Ways of Seeing. London: Macmillan. [ANTH E10 ING - copies will be placed on teaching collection] ____. 1997. "Constructing a sociology for an icon of aesthetic modernity", Sociological Theory 15.2, 101-125. Gablik - as above Piaget, J. 1962. Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood. (New York, Norton). Parsons, M. 1987. How We Understand Art: a Cognitive Developmental Account of Aesthetic Experience. (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).

Gestalt Psychology and artistic change (*)Arnheim, R. 19742. "Growth", pp. 162-217 in Art and Visual Perception: a Psychology of the Creative Eye. (ART BE ARN - 3 copies, plus 2 in store; GEOGRAOHY H 10 ARN; IoA TC 2014) _____. 1988. "Universals in the arts", Journal of Social and Biological Structures 11: 60-65. 47

Andersen, W.V. 1962. "A neglected theory of art history", Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 20: 389-404

Darwinist evolutionary Martindale, C. 1986. "Aesthetic evolution", Poetics 15, 439-73. (*)Ackerman, J.S. 1965. "Art and evolution" pp. 32-40 in G. Kepes ed. The Nature and Art of Motion. George Brazilier, NY. (IoA TC 2010, 2011)

Functionalist Parsons, T. 1961. "Culture and the social system", pp. 963-993 in idem et al eds. Theories of Society. (New York, The Free Press). Esp. pp. 966-9, 987-8 (on cultural cumulation in art as compared with science). (*)Kavolis, V. 1964a. "Community dynamics and artistic creativity", American Sociological Review 31.2: 209-217. (IoA TC 2012/3) _____. 1964b. "Economic conditions of artistic creativity", American Journal of Sociology 70: 332-341. Tanner, Jeremy. 2016. "Narrative, naturalism and the body in classical Greek and early Imperial Chinese art", pp. 180-224 in J. Elsner ed. Comparativism In Art History. London: Routledge. [Also draws on Witkin]

Case studies: Vansina, J. 1984. Art History in Africa. Pp. 136-158 "The creative process I: originality, replications, drift, primeworks", 159- 173 "The creative process II: foreign inputs and diffusion". Francastel, P. 1963. (o.v. 1951). "The destruction of plastic space", pp. 378-98 in W. Sypher ed. Art History. (New York). _____. 1963. "Main trends in European art". pp. 370-400 in W.G. Metraux and F. Crouzet eds. The Nineteenth Century World.

General perspectives on change in social sciences: Jacobs, R.C. and D.T. Campbell. 1965. "The perpetuation of an arbitrary tradition through several generations of a laboratory micro-culture", pp. 309-20 in I.D. Steiner and M. Fishberth (??) eds. Current Studies in Social Psychology. New York. Weick, K.E. and D.P. Gilfillien. 1971. "Fate of arbitrary traditions in a laboratory micro- culture", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 17: 179-91 Dietz, T. and Burns, T.R. 1992. "Human agency and the evolutionary dynamics of culture", Acta Sociologica 35: 187-200. 48

Goody, J. 1973. "Evolution and communication: the domestication of the savage mind" British Journal of Sociology 24: 1-12. Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. 1971. "Similarities and dissimilarities of socio-cultural and biological evolution", pp. 535-41 in F.R. Hodson et al. eds. Mathematics in the Archaeological and Historical Sciences. (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press). Moore, W.E. 1963. Social Change. (New York, Prentice Hall). Esp. pp. 22-44 "The qualities of change". Chirot, D. 1994. How Societies Change. (Pine Forge Press, London.) Wuthnow, R. 1989. Communities of Discourse: Ideology and Social Structure in the Reformation, the Enlightenment and European Socialism. (Harvard, Harvard University Press"; pp. 515-84 "Sociology and cultural change".

Change in archaeology van der Leeuw, S.E. and J. McGlade. 1997. Archaeology, Time and Structured Transformation. Allen, P.M. 1989. "Modelling innovation and change", pp. 258-80 in S.E. van der Leeuw and R. Torrence eds. What's New: A Closer Look at Innovation. London, Unwin. Shanks, M. and Tilley, C. 1987. "Societal evolution and societal change" pp. 137-185 in idem Social Theory and Archaeology. Shennan, S. 1989. "Cultural transmission and cultural change", pp. 330-346 in S.E. van der Leeuw and R. Torrence eds. What's New: a Closer Look at the Process of Innovation. Tschauner, H. 1994. "Archaeological systematics and cultural evolution: retrieving the honour of culture history", Man 29: 77-93. *Robb, John and Olivier J.T. Harris. 2014. The Body in History: Europe from the Palaeolithic to the Future. Cambridge. Chapter 2 (7-31) "Body worlds and their history: some working concepts", chapter 9 (213-234) "The body in history: a concluding essay". [INST ARCH DA 100 ROB – 2 copies] Flannery, K.V. 1972. "The cultural evolution of civilizations", Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 3: 399- 426. Shennan, S. 1989. "Cultural transmission and cultural change", pp. 330-346 in S.E. van der Leeuw and R. Torrence eds. What's New: a Closer Look at the Process of Innovation. 49

10. ART IN THE MUSEUM

Topic outline: Perhaps the most influential contemporary context which shapes our understanding of the art of the past is the modern museum. This week we will look at a number of different approaches to understanding the social, cultural and material factors which shape museums as contexts for the dispay of art, and our engagement with art in the museum: iconographical readings of the museum (Duncan and Wallach); anthropology of museum display (Isaac), institutional history of museums (Fyfe)), museums and 'other cultures' (Suzuki), studying museum visitors and museum communication (Hooper-Greenhill). Much of the critical literature on museums as institutions and museum displays has been concerned with museums as agents of the reproduction of class hierarchy and the appropriation of other cultures to the western gaze: how far do such perspectives adequately account for what happens in museums, and what, if anything, remains over after museums have fulfilled these (dubious) social functions? How far is the museum an ethnocentric western institution, how far an institution with analogues in other cultural traditions, and with what implications for the museum as the site of cross-cultural interactions, whether ‘authentic’ dialogues or hegemonic impositions?

Required readings for class discussion: 1. Duncan, C. and A. Wallach. 1980. "The universal survey museum", Art History 3.4: 448-69 [Online] 2. Fyfe. Gordon. 1998. "On the relevance of Basil Bernstein's theory of codes to the sociology of art museums", Journal of Material Culture 3.3: 325-54, [Online] 3. Suzuki, Yuoi. 2007. "Temple as museum, Buddha as art: Horyuji's 'Kudara Kannon' and its great treasure", Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 52: 128-40. [Online] 4. Isaac, G. 2005. “Mediating knowledges: Zuni negotiations for a culturally relevant museum”,. Museum Anthropology 28: 3-18. [Online] 5. Stallabrass, Julian. 2014. "The branding of the museum", Art History 37.1: 148-65 [Online] 6. Brodie, Neil. 2018. "Problematizing the encyclopaedic museum: the Benin Bronzes and ivories in historical context", 61-82 in Bonnie Effros and Guolong Lai. Eds. 2018. Unmasking ideology in imperial and colonial archaeology : vocabulary, symbols, and legacy. Los Angeles : Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, University of California. [IoA AH EFR] Will be Xeroxed for teaching collection

50

Supplementary Readings:

Sociologies of the Museum Bourdieu, P. and A. Darbel. 1990 (1969). The Love of Art: European Art Museums and their Public. *Fyfe, Gordon. 2006. "Sociology and the social aspects of museums", in Sharon MacDonald ed. A Companion to Museum Studies. Blackwell. [Online] Fyfe, G. J. (2016) Established-outsider relations and the socio-genesis of the museum. Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung. [Online] 41 (3), 54-80. Heinich, N. 1996. The Glory of Van Gogh: an Anthropology of Admiration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. *Di Maggio, P. 1982a. "Cultural entrepreneurship in nineteenth-century Boston, I: the creation of an organisational base for high culture in America", Media, Culture and Society 4, 33-50 *_____. 1982b. "Cultural entrepreneurship in nineteenth-century Boston, II: the classification and framing of American art", Media, Culture and Society 4, 303-22 Pietersen, J. 1997. "Multiculturalism and museums. Dismodule about others in the age of globalization",Theory, Culture and Society 14.4: 123-46 [Online] Dominguez Rubio, F. 2016. "Discrepancy between things and objects: an ecologica approach" Journal of Material Culture, 21(1), 59-86 Tanner, J. 2005. "Rationalists, fetishists and art lovers: action theory and the comparative analysis of high cultural institutions", in R.C. Fox, V.M. Lidz and H.J, Bershady eds. After Parsons: a Theory of Social Action for the Twenty First Century. New York: Russel Sage Foundation. 179-207 Tanner. J. ed. 2003. The Sociology of Art: a Reader. "Museums and the social construction of high culture", pp. 147-155. London: Routledge. [Introduction to the key sociological literature up to cs. 2000 with references] Zolberg, V. 1981. "Conflicting visions in American art museums", Theory and Society 10: 103-25

Art History and the Museum Aronson, Peter. 2010. "Exploring comparative approaches to the study of national museums", 29-54 in Aronsson P., Bugge Amundsen A. & Knell S. (eds), National Museums. London: Duncan, C. 1991. "Art museums and the rituals of citizenship", in I. Karp and S.D. Lavine eds. Exhibiting Cultures: The Politics and Poetics of Museum Display. Washington DC, Smihtsonian Institution Press. 88-103. 51

Ernst, Wolfgang. 1993. “Frames at work: museological imagination and historical dismodule in nineteenth century Britain”, Art Bulletin 75.3: 481-498 Baker, Malcolm. 2016. “Writing about displays of sculpture: historiography and some current questions”, Cahiers de l’École du Louvre. Recherches en histoire de l’art, histoire des civilisations, archéologie, anthropologie et muséologie [en ligne] no 8, mai 2016, p. 2 à 16.. *Berlo, Duncan, Preziosi et al. 1995. “The problematics of collecting and display, part 1”, Art Bulletin 77.1: 6-23 [Online] {nb esp. good discussion by Berlo om collecting and display of native American art, pp. 6-9} Greenhalgh, P. (1989) Education, entertainment and politics: lessons from the great international exhibitions. In: Vergo, P. (ed.) The New Museology. London Reaktion Books, pp. 74-98 *McClellan, A. 1984. “The politics and aesthetics of display: museums in Paris 1750- 1800”, Art History 7439-64 _____. 1999. Inventing the Louvre: Art, Politics and the Origins of the Modern Museum in Eighteenth Century Paris. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Whitehead, Christopher. 2010. “National art museum practice as political cartography in nineteenth century Britain”, 105-122 in Aronsson P., Bugge Amundsen A. & Knell S. (eds), National Museums. London:

'New Museology'and Critical Museologies Bennett, T. 1998. "The exhbitionary complex", New Formations 4.1: 73-101 Best. Katie. 2012. “Making museum tours better: understanding what a guided tour really is and what a tour guide really does”, Museum Management and Curatorship, 27:1, 35-52. *Buggeln, Gretchen T. 2012. “Museum space and the experience of the sacred”, Material Religion, 8:1, 30-50. Cannizzo, J. (1991) Exhibiting cultures: “into the heart of Africa”. Visual Anthropology Review. [Online] 7(1), 150-160. Coxall, H. (1991) How language means: an alternative view of museums texts. In: Kavanagh, G. (ed.) Museum languages objects and texts. Leicester, Leicester University Press, pp. 83-100. Coxall, H. (2000) ‘Whose story is that anyway?’ Language and museums. Journal of Museum Ethnography. [Online] 12, 87-100. Fabian, J. (2004) On recognising things. The “ethnic artefact” and the “ethnographic object”. L’Homme. [Online] 170, 47-60 *Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean. 2000. “Changing Values in the Art Museum: rethinking communication and learning”, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 6:1, 9-31. Lankford, E. Louis . 2001. “Aesthetic Experience in Constructivist Museums”, Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol. 36, No. 2 pp. 140-153. 52

*Phillips, Ruth B. 2007. “Exhbiting Africa after modernism”, in Griselda Pollock and Joyce Zemans eds. Museums after Modernism: Strategies of Engagement. Oxford: Blackwell. [Online]

Visitor Studies **McCarthy, S. 2013. “The rules of [Maori] art: Bourdieu’s cultural sociology and Maori visitors in New Zealand museums”, Journal of Sociology 49(2-3): 173–193 [Online]. {nb esp. for essay – unusual case study on how museum can act against reproduction of stratification} Prior, N. 2005. “A question of perception: Bourdieu, art and the postmodern”, British Journal of Sociology 56.1: 123-139 Schorch, P. 2013. “The experience of a museum space”, Museum Management and Curatorship, 28:2, 193-208. Steier, R. 2014. “Posing the Question: Visitor Posing as Embodied Interpretation in an Art Museum”, Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21:2, 148-170. Todd, C. et al. 2017. “Museum-based programs for socially isolated older adults: Understanding what works”, Health and Place 48: 47-55 Thomson, L.J, & Chatterjee, H.J. 2015. “Measuring the impact of museum activities on well-being: developing the Museum Well-being Measures Toolkit”, Museum Management and Curatorship, 30:1, 44-62. Tröndle, M, and Tschacher, R. 2012. “The physiology of phenomenology: the effects of artworks”, Empirical Studies of the Arts, Vol. 30(1) 75-113, Vom Lehn, D., Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J. 2001. "Exhibiting Interaction: Conduct and Collaboration in Museums and Galleries" Symbolic Interaction, Vol. 24, No. 2 189-216. Yoshimura,Y. et al. 2014. “An analysis of visitors’ behavior in The Louvre Museum: a study using Bluetooth data”. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 41: 1113 – 1131.

Anthropology and the Museum *Karp, I. and S. Lavine eds. 1991. Exhibiting Cultures: the Poetics and Politics of Museum Display. Pp. 1-9 "Museums and multiculturalism", 11-24 "Culture and representation", 151-8 "Museum practices", 373-388 "Other cultures in museum perspective". (IOA ISSUE DESK MB3 KAR) [Other recommended articles in Karp and Lavine are: "The museum as a way of seeing" (25-32, Alpers), "Resonance and wonder" (42-56, Greenblatt), "The poetics of exhibition in Japanese culture" (57-67, Yamaguchi), "Another cast, another context: exhibiting Indian art abroad" (68-78, Goswamy). *Isaac, G. 2005. “Mediating knowledges: Zuni negotiations for a culturally relevant museum”,. Museum Anthropology 28: 3-18 53

*Clifford, J. 1991. “Four North West Coast museums: travel reflections”, 212-254 in I. Karp and S.D. Lavine eds. Exhibiting Cultures: The Politics and Poetics of Museum Display. Washington DC, Smihtsonian Institution Press **Faris, James C. 1988. " 'ART/Artifact': on the Museum and Anthropology", Current Anthropology 29 (5): 775-779 [UCL Electronic Pers - JSTOR] McCarthy, Conal. 2007. Exhbiting Maori: a History of Colonial Cultures of Display. Esp. Ch 3 "Art Apart, 1949-79", 4 "Emblems of Identity, 1980-1990", 5 "Mana Taonga 1991- 2001"

Classical Archaeology and the Museum Elsner, John. 1994. “A collector’s model of desire: the museum of Sir John Soane”, in Roger Cardinal and John Elsner eds. Cultures of Collecting. London: Reaktion [Online] Jenkins, I. 1986. "Greek and Roman life at the British Museum", Museums Journal 82.2, 67-9. *_____. 1992. Archaeologists and Aesthetes in the Sculpture Galleries of the British Museum, 1800-1939. esp. pp. 56-74 "The chain of art", 75-101 "Arcadia in Bloomsbury: the Elgin and the Phigaleian marbles", 211-230 "The chain is broken". (YATES C10 BRI – 2 copies, 1 ref only; IoA MA 41 JEN) Beard, Mary. 2012. “Cambridge’s Shrine of the Muses: the display of Classical Antiquities in the Fitzwilliam Museum, 1848-1898”, Journal of the History of Collections 24.3; 289-308 [Online] Cooper, C.L. 2013. “A case study in collaboration: displaying Greece and Rome at the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, UK”, Museum Management and Curatorship 28.5: 467-90. [Online] Beard, W.M. 1993. "Casts and cast offs: the origins of the museum of classical archaeology", Proceeedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 39, 1-29. (IoA TC 2634; CLASSICS PERS) O’Neill, M. 2004. Enlightenment Museums: universal or merely global? Museum and Society 2.3: 190-202.

Art Museums and Art Collecting in (and of) East Asia Barnes, Amy Jane. 2010. "Exhbiting China in London", 386-399 in Aronsson P., Bugge Amundsen A. & Knell S. (eds), National Museums. London: Brown, Shana J. 2001. Pastimes: from Art and Antiquarianism to Modern Chinese Historiography. Honolulo University of Hawaii Press. [Online] Chang Lin-sheng. 1996. "The National Palace Museum, a History", 3-25 In Wen Fong and James Watt eds. Possessing the Past: Treasures from the National Palace Museum. Chu, Chi-jung. 2010. "Political change and the National Museum In Taiwan", 180-192 in in Aronsson P., Bugge Amundsen A. & Knell S. (eds), National Museums. London: 54

**Guth, CME. 1996-7. Kokuho, from dynastic to artistic treasure. Japan. Cahiers d'extreme Asie 9: 313-322. [Online] {nb extremely good} McDaniel, Justin Thomas. 2017. Architects of Buddhist Lesiure: Socially Disengaged Buddhism in Asia's Museums, Monuments and Amusement Parks. esp. Ch 3 "Buddhist museums and curio cabinets". Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. [IoA MG2 MCD] McDermott, Hiroko T. 2006. "The Horyuji treasures and early Meiji cultural policy", Monumenta Nipponica 61.3: 339-374. [Online] *Suzuki, Yuoi. 2007. "Temple as museum, Buddha as art: Horyuji's 'Kudara Kannon' and its great treasure", Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 52: 128-40. [Online] Tythacott L (2012) “Classifying China: Shifting interpretations of Buddhist bronzes in Liverpool Museum, 1867–1997”. In: Hill K (ed.) Museums and Biographies: Stories, Objects, Identities. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 173–185. *Varutti, Marzia. 2010. “The aesthetics and narratives of national museums in China”, 302-311 in in Aronsson P., Bugge Amundsen A. & Knell S. (eds), National Museums. London: Routledge., 2010. [PDF available Varutti’s Academia Edu page] *_____.2014. “Cultural heritage in China”, “Museum objects and the Chinese nation”, Chs 1 and 4 in idem Museums in China: the Politics of Representation after Mao. London: Boydell and Brewer. [Ebook – Online UCL Library] Wang Tao. Ed. 2018. Mirroring China’s Past: Emperors, Shcolars and their Bronzes. Chicago. [IoA DBL Qto WAN] {on Chinese antiquarianism and collection of Bronzes, from Song dynasty on

Various other Area Studies: Doyon, Wendy. 2008. "The poetics of Egyptian museum practice", British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 10: 1-37 Rigg, C. 2010. "Ancient Egypt in the Museum", in A.B. Lloyd ed. A Companio to Ancient Egypt, 2 vols. [Backwell Companions to the Ancient World], vol II: 1129-1153. [Online] Bohrer, F.N. 2004. "Inventing Assyria: exoticism and reception in Nineteenth-Century England and France", in D. Preziosi and C. Farago eds. Grasping the World: the Idea of the Museum. Ashgate. 278-97 Crinson, M. 2001. "Nation building and politics of display. National Museum Ghana". JHistColl 13.231-50. Davis, R. 1997. Lives of Indian Images.

Contemporary transformations of the museum (shopping, commodification etc) To add 2019/20.

55

Essay question: Either: "The relic room, the art gallery, the exhibition hall, anthropology halls… All invoke formal, aesthetic and intellectual templates that are equally arbitrary in relation to other systems of priority and prerogative" (Berlo and Phillips, in Preziosi 1995, 6). Do you agree, and what would you regard as the implications of this view point for choices made by curators in displaying the art of past societies? Or: How far are museums' efforts to give visitors an authentic experience of the art of past cultures and societies inevitably compromised by the broader social and political functions of museums? 56

APPENDIX A: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 2018-19 (PLEASE READ CAREFULLY) This appendix provides a short précis of policies and procedures relating to courses. It is not a substitute for the full documentation, with which all students should become familiar. For full information on Institute policies and procedures, see the following website: http://wiki.ucl.ac.uk/display/archadmin For UCL policies and procedures, see the Academic Regulations and the UCL Academic Manual: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-regulations ; http://www.ucl.ac.uk/academic-manual/

GENERAL MATTERS ATTENDANCE: A minimum attendance of 70% is required. A register will be taken at each class. If you are unable to attend a class, please notify the lecturer by email. DYSLEXIA: If you have dyslexia or any other disability, please discuss with your lecturers whether there is any way in which they can help you. Students with dyslexia should indicate it on each coursework cover sheet.

COURSEWORK LATE SUBMISSION: Late submission will be penalized in accordance with current UCL regulations, unless formal permission for late submission has been granted. Please note that these regulations have changed for the 2016-17 session. The UCL penalties are as follows:  The marks for coursework received up to two working days after the published date and time will incur a 10 percentage point deduction in marks (but no lower than the pass mark).  The marks for coursework received more than two working days and up to five working days after the published date and time will receive no more than the pass mark (40% for UG modules, 50% for PGT modules).  Work submitted more than five working days after the published date and time, but before the second week of the third term will receive a mark of zero but will be considered complete.

GRANTING OF EXTENSIONS: Please note that there are strict UCL-wide regulations with regard to the granting of extensions for coursework. You are reminded that Module Coordinators are not permitted to grant extensions. All requests for extensions must be submitted on a the appropriate UCL form, together with supporting documentation, via Judy Medrington’s office and will then be referred on for consideration. Please be aware that the grounds that are acceptable are limited. Those with long-term difficulties should contact UCL Student Disability Services to make special arrangements. Please see the IoA website for further information. Additional information is given here http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c4/extenuating-circumstances/

RETURN OF COURSEWORK AND RESUBMISSION: You should receive your marked coursework within one month of the submission deadline. If you do not receive your work within this period, or a written explanation, notify the Academic Administrator. When your marked essay is returned to you, return it to the Module Co-ordinator within two weeks. You must retain a copy of all coursework submitted.

CITING OF SOURCES and AVOIDING PLAGIARISM: Coursework must be expressed in your own words, citing the exact source (author, date and page number; website address if applicable) of any ideas, information, diagrams, etc., that are taken from the work of others. This applies to all media (books, articles, websites, images, figures, etc.). Any direct quotations from the work of others must be indicated as such by being placed 57 between quotation marks. Plagiarism is a very serious irregularity, which can carry heavy penalties. It is your responsibility to abide by requirements for presentation, referencing and avoidance of plagiarism. Make sure you understand definitions of plagiarism and the procedures and penalties as detailed in UCL regulations: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/current- students/guidelines/plagiarism

RESOURCES MOODLE: Please ensure you are signed up to the module on Moodle. For help with Moodle, please contact Charlotte Frearson ([email protected]).