Assignment 3

As with assignment 1 & 2, I have made the assignment as a pdf document which can be downloaded here: Assignment 3 PDF submission. The course notes lists the requirements in A4 page sizes and in a pdf is easier to keep track of that.

The assignment includes.

  • Four pages of notes (for three chapters in WHA, 15th-17th century)
  • Two annotations of paintings (Jan van Eyck’s Arnolfini Portrait and Rubens Samson and Delilah)
  • One 500 word analysis of the stylistic differences between two a seventeenth-century painters.
  • References for assignment 3 (in Harvard referencing style)



On the run up to creating assignment 3 I re-read the feedback from assignments 1 & 2 to heed any advice and check I’m heading down the right pathway. As suggested in the helpful We Are OCA blog article on how to use tutor report I printed out and highlighted all the relevant bits, for now ignoring the reworking suggestions (because I plan to go back and revisit this when I’m not running behind on my assignment date). My take away info was as follows:

In general avoid over-reliance on websites and I need to “Engage with more broadly ‘theoretical’ texts so as to deepen your research and expand your comments” using a wide variety of source materials. “Compare and contrast information and evaluate others’ arguments.” When I started this section I reserved a whole heap of books at the library, getting these up front helped a lot with this as I was able to make use of my train journeys to read and digest. I still have a tendency to over note-take but I’m working on it with reading goals as suggested. I think I did much better with the WHA chapter notes (although I fell off the wagon a bit with the Arnolfini books). As I’ve already reflected (on each post) I tried to condense my material into one set of comments per section. The problem I found with this was I wasn’t sure how long the other chapters would be until I got there so I still overshot a little and had to trim slightly for the assignment.

One of the comments was to synthesise different art historians’ interpretations and explain which you find most convincing and why. I used this advice with the annotation of the Arnolfini portrait as there are many different interpretations of that. There were lots of comments on annotations in both sets of feedback so I obviously needed to work on that. The main point that came across was more depth, words like cursory and brief were used to describe them so hopefully I’ve done a better job this time. I spent a long time researching the Arnolfini portrait across several books (as well as websites). I tried to develop a sustained comparison between the two works I have annotated but I had more space on the second annotation so this is where I’ve mostly compared them. I found space in which to put all the annotations I wanted to say an issue in all three assignments. I expect it boils down to making my comments more concise and far-reaching rather than stating the obvious or anything too long and wordy. To head this off at the pass I created a full blog post for each of works to discuss them individually so I could comfortably get my head around them both (and all my words out) before comparing them and selecting only the salient points for my annotations. This might be the duel note taking approach which was not recommended for the reading notes but I’m not sure how else to approach it. I need to find a place to store all my research and the blog is supposed help me with my learning. I also took a look at the Open University study diamond model as recommended. My two full blogposts on the annotations are here: The Arnolfini portrait and here: Samson & Delilah. For the choice of annotation subjects, I chose the Arnolfini portrait at the beginning of the section (just seemed like it’d be more interesting than Giotto or Duccio frescos) and I choose Rubens but I didn’t know that much about him but the ones I’d seen in the National Gallery were very impressive.

I took a similar post, per topic approach to comparing two artists for the 500-word analysis. One here for Caravaggio and one here for Vermeer, this approach seems to work well for me because for the analysis I was able to stick within the word limit (well 518 words, but that’s probably close enough). The assignment specifies to compare between a seventeenth-century Baroque painter associated with the Catholic Counter Reformation and a seventeenth century painter from the Netherlands, I chose Caravaggio because I really enjoyed his work when I was reading about the Baroque era in the WHA (plus I did the analysis before the annotations and hadn’t decided between Rembrandt or Rubens for that yet and didn’t want crossover). I chose Vermeer because, again I didn’t want to choose Rembrandt, also Frans Hals and Jan van Goyen seemed less interesting in the WHA.

I really enjoyed this section, probably my favourite so far. I find having to cover so many different bits a bit of a rushed whistle-stop tour though, it’s nice to focus on a few in depth, but it takes time (which I’m quite short of, with baby and full time job). I enjoyed the visit too but the write up is quite cursory, I think it fits in much better with the next section of the course anyway so I’m going to come back and review it again.

Overall reflection against the Assessment Criteria:

  • Demonstration of subject-based knowledge and understanding – again there was a lot of reading in this section, and also I tried to use a few more books for the assignment research (as per feedback from assignment 1 & 2). I think I have demonstrated my understanding of the area in this assignment according to the research I have done (see above).
  • Demonstration of research skills – Where possible I tried to go and see the work I was researching in person, but also evaluated the sources I was looking at in books and on the internet for their scholarly worth. I think I was quite through for the Arnolfini Portrait but possibly a bit light on the Rubens, which might be picked up on in the feedback?
  • Demonstration of critical and evaluation skills – I tried to engage with the concepts throughout part three within each of the exercises that I actually completed, I knew I was running short on time so I skipped ahead to the assignment and have yet to do some of the exercises. I did better on sticking to the word count in the assignment analysis this time, putting all my long-winded thoughts and research into ancillary blogposts on my learning log. Also, I found the OU format that my tutor recommended for comparing works allowed me to review the works in my own words before diving into the research parts.
  • Communication – I think my ideas and points are written clearly. I try to reflect on bits as I go along since the assessor cannot be inside my head. I suspect the they won’t have the time to wade through every blogpost though.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s