History of Art
History of Art is often pilloried as a subject for dossers and layabouts,
which was the very reason I applied. However, as I found much to my dismay,
this is something of a complete hoax. History of Art is just as
challenging, and if anything, much more complex and expansive than most the
humanties available to study at Cambridge. Its particular selling point is
its sheer diversity of availible intellectual approaches. Some lecturers
take History of Art to mean cultural history, and pursue close readings of
art, architecture and design in conjunction with a close scrutiny of
cultural contingencies and how these influenced the final product. Other
lecturers occupy an extremely insular world of pure aesthetic inquiry,
sticking purely to the images available to them, and deriving information
by outsourcing the various layers of meaning discernable by using different
conceptual tools and frameworks. History of art, as a total discipline,
will potentially include aspects of aesthetic philosopy, linguistics,
chemistry, history, museum theory, cultural history, conservationism,
material forensics, theology, economics, conissuership, semiotics,
practical fine art, literature, praticial criticism, architecture, design,
politics (particularly that concerning the heritage industries), feminism,
psychoanalysis, theoretical physics, evolutionary theory, and much, much
more - I am consistantly amazed about the topics that sometimes come up.
Some essays I've written don't even mention art once! So, students have
plenty of opportunity to direct their interests and specialise in whatever
field takes their fancy. It is one of the more liberating, and less
intellectually hegemonic degrees to cover at Cambridge. It is also an
extremely young subject, meaning that there are many artists and domains of
interest which have yet to be written about or researched. Now this is a
pain if you planned to say write a book on, say Daumier, who has only ever
had two minor books published on him in English, but does, however, leave
scope and exciting prospects for those students who wish to take History of
Art as a postgraduate degree. There is still a lot of exciting gorund to
cover, and a lot of mysteries to solve. By no means is it an easy subject.
The basics are extremely simple, admitted, and its almost an impossbility
to fail art history (unless you die, of course), but to master it and to
really get your hand round all the problems it poses can be absolutely
fiendish. Once again, its pretty much up to you how difficult you want to
make the degree.
History of Art at Cambridge has rather unique features which make it stand tall above other universities offering the subject. The Fitzwilliam Museum, newly refurbished, has a solid collection of fine art, ranging from Dutch still-lifes, to French Impressionism, to Gothic altarpieces, to contemporary British art. It also has the most superlative collection of prints and etchings I have ever seen, however, only little of it is ever of display. As a student, we will be eligible to use the Fitzwilliam library, as well as being treated to seminars where we will be able to inspect art works close up. The same applies for Kettle's Yard, the local modern art museum, which has a really fine colleciton of early 20th century modernist painting and sculpture. The History of Art department is quite small and spare, with two lecture rooms and a nifty little library with almost everything you ever want (although occasisionally it does throw up some startling omissions to its collection). To be honest, though, your lecture and seminar workload is so light, there is little incentive to hang round the department other to get books or talk to architects (we share the same building with the department of Architecture). Essays, on average, work out about 3 every 2 weeks, except for dissertations, which will be considerably longer and count for your exams. Largely, you are left to get on with your own work and organise you own time as appropriate, as long as you attend lectures and supervisions when they call them.
The subject is not without its flaws. The choice of papers is quite limited, and organised so that at least one must be taken on architecture, even if you particularly adverse to architecture, like I am. Also, the quality of lecturers and supervisors will vary considerably. Furthermore, it will be worth brushing up on your French and German because a lot of the seminal texts and articles have yet to be translated, but its often very easy to manage without them. The biggest criticism stems from perhaps the subjects greatest strength: while its all very well to have a wide, expansive, intellectually inclusive degree, this does sometimes mean your direct fields of study will be utterly pointless (eg, looking at spoons made in the Cotswolds between 1900-1914). Be warned, with great freedom comes the occasional Arts and Crafts spoon.
Perhaps the sole reason you should do History of Art at Peterhouse is that it is closest to the department than any other college. In the first year, you will be housed in St Peter's Terrace, where it takes you approximately 37 seconds to get from your room to the lecture hall. Just think of the sleep you will save by comparison with people at Girton.
Will Barrett