Questions to Guide a Theory Paper in Art History
The purpose of this document is simply to provide you with a series of questions and
ideas for consideration that might help you in conceiving, structuring, and executing a paper that
engages with both art history and theory. The questions are not meant to be exhaustive, but are
intended to provide you with ideas for honing your argument and its organization at any stage of
the writing process. A short bibliography of articles demonstrating different approaches to the
integration of theory follows the questions.
1. Initial Questions
The first question you need to be able to answer (and which you will inevitably ask
yourself no matter what kind of paper you are writing) is:
-What do I want this paper to do? And, more specifically, what do I want the theory
component of this paper to do? Do I want the paper simply to familiarize my audience with a
theory or set of theories that were important to the artist(s) I am writing about? Do I want to
show that a certain theoretical framework (which hitherto hasn't been applied to my subject) is a
particularly good lens for examining the art/artist(s) I am writing about? Are there other
theoretical frameworks that have been applied to my subject that I am concerned to refute or at
least put into question?
-Am I trying to offer a single theoretical interpretation which exhausts the possibilities of
the work(s)—or at least stands as the most compelling interpretation by far—or am I simply
trying to use theory to provide another angle from which to consider the work(s)? Is this new
angle relevant because of recent developments in the scholarship on the artwork/artist in
question, or has it simply never been considered before?
-How will my discussion of particular art/artists relate to the theory component of my
discussion? Will it simply use the theory as an interpretive tool, or will it seek to expand/refine
the theory itself?
-Is the theory component of my paper most concerned with the artwork (explaining what
kind of object/commodity it is, for example); the artist (explaining the expression of particular
ideas, etc.); the viewer (explaining the way the work engages viewer subjectivity, etc.); or the
encounter with the work in general (explaining the work using theories of the event, etc.)?
-Is my paper concerned with the categorization of a work or art or artist? Am I interested
in theories of stylistic or periodic definiton (pre-modern/modern/postmodern, for example)? Is
my analysis aimed at the junction of different conceptual categories (art vs. craft, art vs. design,
etc.) which I wish to understand better or redifine?
2. Theory and Different Disciplines
As you are beginning to write your paper, you will need to consider what sort of
disciplinary framework the 'theory' component of your paper will be drawn from.
-In what discipline does the theory I am applying or discussing originate, and how has it
been applied both inside and outside that discipline? How much explanation does my audience
need about the origin of the theory, different interpretations of it, and the history of its
application in different disciplines? Am I using the theory because the discipline in which it
originated has also taken an interest in the historical period/artistic movements I am examining?
If not, how do I justify my application of the theory?
-Are there key writings (a particular book or article, the work of a single theorist) that
form the core of the theory? If so, does my audience need a summary of these writings in order
to understand what the theoretical framework is? Or has the theory received enough scholarly
attention and refinement that my readers don't need a thorough description of the writings in
which the theory originated?
-If I need to compare different theoretical models or argue for a particular theoretical
approach, how will evaluate different theories? Which disciplinary approaches/standards will I
regard as fundamental for evaluating theories?
-When summarizing the main points of the theory for my audience, will I be offering my
own reading/analysis of a key theorist's ideas? Or will I be relying on secondary literature for a
particular reading/application of a theorist's writings/framework? If the latter is the case: is it
clear in my text when I am directly summarizing/interpreting the ideas of the primary source and
when I am using analyses provided in secondary literature? Is there one particular reading of a
thinkers work which is crucial to my argument? Are there weaknesses to relying too much on
this particular reading?
-Alternately, am I trying to reconstruct an artist's understanding of a theorist/
philosopher's ideas? If so, am I arguing for any coherence in the artist's interpretation, or simply
linking his/her understanding of a theory to works of art?
-Will the 'theory' component of my paper focus on the visual aspects of particular works
of art (or artists' styles) and how they illustrate a particular theory, or will I rely more heavily on
showing what an artist's ideas were (based on writings, interviews, archival materials, etc.) and
how those ideas fit into a theoretical framework which I will elaborate for the reader?
Both of the above approaches have their shortcomings. The first risks simply using what
works of art look like to illustrate someone's theoretical outlook (in which case you may simply
end up advancing a theory without paying much attention to the historical situation of the works
you examine or to the subtleties of their meaning). The second risks focusing on a particular
artist's intentions and ignoring what their works actually looked like (and whether or not the
visual aspect of the works actually fits easily into the artist's 'theoretical' model).
Ideally, of course, a paper might encompass both modes of inquiry. However, it might
well be the case that your focus truly is one or the other. In that case, you will want to delimit
(either in the body of your text or in footnotes) the limitations of your approach. While you don't
want to spend too much time and space doing this, you might consider the following questions as
you decide how to express your limited theoretical focus:
-What kinds of questions won't my paper answer? What kinds of approaches are at odds
with my own? Are these approaches the ones commonly taken to the art/artist(s) I am
examining? (And, if so, how much convincing does my audience need as to why I am taking a
different approach?)
-Am I more concerned with making a statement that will matter to art historians or to
theorists? If you consider yourself an art historian, this question might seem to have a
straightforward answer. However, you might consider the ways in which your reading of
particular artworks/artists might really impact theoretical models. Since a lot of theory often ends
up affecting methods of art historical analysis, you can certainly structure your argument
(especially if you are presenting at particular kinds of conferences or symposia) such that it uses
art historical approaches to suggest new ways of conceiving of a particular theory. This might be
a particularly applicable strategy if you are dealing with a thinker who wrote about certain
artists; can a deeper understanding of the work of those artists give insight into the theoretical
model of the thinker in question? (Given continental philosophy's attraction to art, there are a
plethora of thinkers for whom this strategy might be productive.) Of course, if your audience is
art historians, your paper might end up preaching to the choir. However, it is still worth your
time (especially if you are considering ways to re-structure a paper for
conferences/symposia/journals outside the discipline) to consider what kinds of ramifications
your argument is meant to have for theorists of various camps.
Your paper might also (in contrast to the two approaches delineated above) attempt to
understand the reception of artworks in terms of a theoretical model. You might, for example,
explain the reception that a particular work of art met with in terms of prevailing contemporary
ideas (rhetorical theories that the audience was familiar with, etc.), or you might try to show how
recent theoretical frameworks explain the audience's understanding of the work (in which case
you might apply modern theories to works from much earlier in history). If your approach is of
these, you might ask:
-What does theory have to say about a) the constitution of the audience for this work, and
b) the audience's understanding of the work?
-What avenues of theory are most applicable to my approach? Will my discussion deal
with theories of participatory action? Identity formation? Perception?
-Am I using a theoretical framework to clarify the reception of the work at one particular
time/place, or am I using theory to try to explain why the work met with different receptions at
different times in its history (or simply with different audiences at the same time)? What kinds of
historical information does my theoretical approach use to understand reception/perception of the
work of art, and which ones does it ignore?
-Does the theory I am using relate to the way in which I am engaging with my archival
resources? Do theories of testimony or the archive shape my methodological approach in a way
that is related to my conclusions in the paper, and, if so, how can I make this evident to my
readers? Is my research guided by a new approach to archival materials related to my
artwork/artist, and does the theory component of my paper grow out of or intertwine with this
new approach?
3. Ideology
Although it might not figure strongly in the argument you present in your paper, you
might also consider:
-Do I have an ideological reason for using a particular theoretical framework? What
school of thought am I trying to align myself with, and what do I hope to accomplish by
advancing the viewpoint of that school of thought (or by critiquing another school of thought)? Is
there a particular thinker or interpretation with whom/against whom my essay is situated?
-If so, how obvious is the ideological content of my argument and does it overwhelm or
distract from the validity of the argument I am making? Am I aligning myself with a particular
theoretical framework because I believe my audience shares that way of thinking or because I
want to critique my audience's way of approaching the issue? If my own ideological
underpinnings come across too strongly in the essay, can I place some of my critique in
footnotes—preserving my own viewpoint but making my essay feel less confrontational?
-If my paper does not seem to reflect any ideological reason for my choice of theoretical
framework, should it? What could my essay gain by being more forthright about my 'normative'
reasons for choosing a particular theory as a model for interpretation?
4. Audience and Structure
Keeping one's audience in mind is always important, but it will be particularly crucial in
determining how you structure the integration of theory into your paper. If you are applying a
theoretical framework drawn from another discipline, which has not (or has rarely) been applied
to art historical discourse before, you may have to provide your audience with a fair degree of
justification for why your application of the theory makes sense. If your audience is likely to be
unfamiliar with the theory, you will need to familiarize them with the genesis and previous
applications of the theory. It may be possible to accomplish this in footnotes (at least in terms of
presenting specific prior applications of the theory), but—if your paper is longer and its focus is
the use of a theory not widely applied in art history—it might also be necessary to devote a
section to explaining the theory early on in your paper.
If you are not applying a particular theory, but instead showing how an artist's ideas or
works illustrate a theoretical approach, you may not have to introduce a detailed description of
the theory in question early in your paper. Instead, you might devote a later section of the paper
to fleshing out what kind of theory the works/ideas seem to embody.
Whatever the case may be, you might consider these questions while organizing your
paper and determining how much information your audience needs:
-Am I beginning with specifics (works of art, an artist's writings, etc.) and moving
towards a theoretical framework, or beginning with a theoretical framework and seeing how
specific works fit into this framework?
-Does my paper spend too much time delineating the theory involved before actually
engaging specific artworks? If so, are there particularly exemplary artworks that I can discuss
early in the paper, so that my audience doesn't feel bogged down by theory?
Below are several articles representing different approaches to the integration of art
history, theory, and aesthetics:
Characterizing the Aesthetic Experience of a Type of Art:
Anne Ring Petersen, "Attention and Distraction: On the Aesthetic Experience of Video
Installation Art," RIHA Journal 0009 (7 October 2010) <http://www.rihajournal.org/articles/2010/ring-petersen-attention-and-distraction>.
Aligning Artistic Practices with Certain Theoretical Frameworks:
Sándor Hornyik, "Aestehtics and Politics: Critical Art in Hungary Today," ARTMargins Online
(5 December 2010) <http://www.artmargins.com/index.php/2-articles/615-aesthetics-politicscritical-art-hungary-today-article>.
Creating a Theoretical Framework for a Specific Art Movement:
Wood Roberdeau, "Poetic Recuperations: The Ideology and Praxis of Nouveau Réalisme", RIHA
Journal 0051 (10 August 2012) < www.riha-journal.org/articles/2012/2012-jul-sep/roberdeaupoetic-recuperations>.
Raoul Eshelman, "Performatism in Contemporary Photography: Alina Kisina," ARTMargins
Online (28 May 2010) < http://www.artmargins.com/index.php/2-articles/581-performatismcontemporary-photography-alina-kisina-article>.
Re-thinking Terminologies Used in Specific Art Historical Analises:
Tania Woloshyn, "Colonizing the Côte d'Azur: Neo-Impressionism, Anarcho-Communism and
the Tropical Terre Libre of the Maures, c.1892-1908," RIHA Journal 0045 (14 July 2012) <
http://www.riha-journal.org/articles/2012/2012-jul-sep/special-issue-neoimpressionism/woloshyn-colonizing-the-cote-dazur>
Applying Specific Theories from Outside the Discipline to Art History:
Norman Bryson and Mieke Bal, "Semiotics and Art History," The Art Bulletin Vol. 73, No. 2
(June 1991): 174-208.
Expanding Definitions of Art and Assumptions Associated with Artistic Movements:
Partha Mitter, "Decentering Modernism: Art History and Avant-Garde Art from the Periphery,"
The Art Bulletin, Vol. 90, No. 4 (December 2008): 531-548.
Grant Tavinor, "Video Games as Mass Art," Contemporary Aesthetics 9 (2011)
<http://www.contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=616&searchstr=tavi
nor+video+games>.
Applying an Ideological Theoretical Framework to a Body of Work:
Paul Lindholt, "From Sublimity to Ecopornography: Assessing the Bureau of Reclamation Art
Collection," Journal of Ecocriticism, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2009)
<http://ojs.unbc.ca/index.php/joe/issue/view/6/showToc>.