![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My masters with open universtiy
Jan. 2nd, 2005 06:42 pmI want to do an exploration of the role of the photographic image in the construction of art history as a discipline
I really need to develope a longer argument than that as its a very broad topic
The OU do a masters in art history, it takes three years and costs about £3,000
you have three papers to do in it
The foundation module, the contemporary issuses and the dissertation. (www3.open.ac.uk/courses/bin/p12.dll?Q01F33_1_0, if interested)
they also do a paper in the Image and Visual culture, which is not part of the masters and costs £540 to do, its a thirty point paper and the year after next I have to do a thirty point paper to finish my BA with hons. (a full paper is 60 points)
The sensible thing to do would be to find out who I have to talk to about whether or not the OU are interested in the topic and see if I could do those two papers in the same year and make the dissertation I would have to do for the 30 point paper the basis of the masters topic. It would be a bit off topic I suspect but would help me greatly.
for those on the art history list do you know of anyone doing work in this area. I know of Walter Benajmin and Andre Marleux (museum without walls), who touch on the sort of thing I want to do.
I want to talk about things like the use of monograph and catalouge in establishing an artist in a canon.
The role of photography in image and scholarly distortion, ie do things that photography badly not get studied.
and how photography allows you to isolate and abstract an image.
Basically having done a degree without ever having seen much art (in NZ) and then seeing it I kinda felt I'd wasted my time
Is art history scholarship done at a level of removal, and does it acknowledge this by being more about theory than art.
whats the realtionship between art history as taught to your average undergraduate world wide and its original form as conuisership.
there are a lot of topics, so I should really sit down and extend my thesis beyond a sentence at some point
I really need to develope a longer argument than that as its a very broad topic
The OU do a masters in art history, it takes three years and costs about £3,000
you have three papers to do in it
The foundation module, the contemporary issuses and the dissertation. (www3.open.ac.uk/courses/bin/p12.dll?Q01F33_1_0, if interested)
they also do a paper in the Image and Visual culture, which is not part of the masters and costs £540 to do, its a thirty point paper and the year after next I have to do a thirty point paper to finish my BA with hons. (a full paper is 60 points)
The sensible thing to do would be to find out who I have to talk to about whether or not the OU are interested in the topic and see if I could do those two papers in the same year and make the dissertation I would have to do for the 30 point paper the basis of the masters topic. It would be a bit off topic I suspect but would help me greatly.
for those on the art history list do you know of anyone doing work in this area. I know of Walter Benajmin and Andre Marleux (museum without walls), who touch on the sort of thing I want to do.
I want to talk about things like the use of monograph and catalouge in establishing an artist in a canon.
The role of photography in image and scholarly distortion, ie do things that photography badly not get studied.
and how photography allows you to isolate and abstract an image.
Basically having done a degree without ever having seen much art (in NZ) and then seeing it I kinda felt I'd wasted my time
Is art history scholarship done at a level of removal, and does it acknowledge this by being more about theory than art.
whats the realtionship between art history as taught to your average undergraduate world wide and its original form as conuisership.
there are a lot of topics, so I should really sit down and extend my thesis beyond a sentence at some point
