AHIS Midterm Exam Review

1. Exam Structure & General Guidelines

  1. Part 1: Vocabulary Identification (15 Minutes)

    • Requirements: Six terms provided; choose and define four terms.

    • Format per Term: Approximately 2–3 sentences including:

      • The formal definition of the term.

      • A concrete artwork example (including artist and title; exact year is not required).

      • An explanation connecting the chosen example directly to the definition (e.g., explaining elements of iconography in a specific work, or identifying a triptych as a three-panel painting).

    • Study Resources: Shared Google Doc and lecture PowerPoints.

  2. Part 2: Slide Comparisons (Two Comparisons, 15 Minutes Each)

    • Structure: Two separate pairings shown one at a time.

    • Length & Format: 2–3 paragraphs total per comparison.

    • Immediate Identification: State the artist, artwork title, and general time period/century (e.g., early 16th century, Italian Renaissance, 17th-century Dutch Baroque). Minor spelling errors are not penalized.

    • Analytical Requirements:

      • Visual/Formal Analysis: Address composition, light, color, texture, line, and pose (e.g., contrapposto).

      • Historical & Cultural Context: Function, original location/display context, patronage (civic, religious, or private), and relevant socio-political background.

      • Direct Comparison: Construct a clear, specific comparative argument highlighting meaningful similarities and differences rather than broad generalities.

  3. Part 3: Thematic Essay Reflection

    • Format: 3–4 paragraphs consisting of an introduction, two body paragraphs, and a brief conclusion.

    • Objective: Articulate a clear thesis and argument backed by specific visual examples and course readings (rather than isolated factual memorization).

    • Prompts: Choice between two themes:

      • Theme A (Mitchell & Offending Images): Why images provoke controversy, offense, or iconoclasm, and what censorship/destruction reveals about image power (relevant contexts: the Reformation, Veronese’s trial for Feast in the House of Levi, and modern/contemporary controversies).

      • Theme B (Duncan & Museums): Ritual, power, and display practices in museum spaces (readings by Carol Duncan).

2. Comparative Analysis Case Studies
2.1 Donatello’s David vs. Michelangelo’s David

  1. Basic Identification

    • Donatello’s David: Mid-15th century (Quattrocento), Italian Renaissance; bronze sculpture using the lost-wax casting technique.

    • Michelangelo’s David: Early 16th century (Cinquecento), Italian High Renaissance; colossal carved marble sculpture.

  2. Formal & Visual Differences

    • Physical Depiction:

      • Donatello depicts an adolescent, wiry youth with an introspective, relaxed, and slightly cocky expression.

      • Michelangelo depicts a fully developed, heroic adult male in the prime of physical strength, characterized by muscular tension and visible veins in the hands.

    • Narrative Moment:

      • Donatello captures the moment after the battle, standing with one foot upon Goliath’s severed head, holding Goliath’s sword.

      • Michelangelo captures the moment before the confrontation, psychologically alert and sizing up his opponent.

    • Nudity & Costume:

      • Donatello presents a "naked" figure wearing only boots and a laurel-trimmed shepherd’s hat, introducing an eroticized quality.

      • Michelangelo presents a completely nude figure inspired directly by classical Greek and Roman heroic statuary.

    • Pose: Both employ classical contrapposto, though Michelangelo uses it to convey latent dynamic energy.

  3. Contextual & Civic Differences

    • Patronage & Placement:

      • Donatello's sculpture was commissioned privately by the Medici family for the courtyard of the Palazzo Medici, serving as a private appropriation of civic symbolism.

      • Michelangelo's sculpture was commissioned by the Florentine Republic for a prominent public placement outside the Palazzo della Signoria (town hall).

    • Political Symbolism:

      • Both serve as symbols of the Florentine Republic overcoming stronger adversaries.

      • Michelangelo’s colossal scale reflects Florentine military triumphs and civic independence after expelling rivals and the Medici.

2.2 Lorenzo Ghiberti’s Sacrifice of Isaac vs. Artemisia Gentileschi’s Judith Slaying Holofernes

  1. Basic Identification

    • Ghiberti’s Sacrifice of Isaac: Early 15th century (c. 1401), Italian Renaissance; gilt bronze relief panel cast using the lost-wax method.

    • Gentileschi’s Judith Slaying Holofernes: Early 17th century, Italian Baroque; oil on canvas.

  2. Formal & Visual Comparison

    • Depiction of Violence:

      • Ghiberti represents implied, suspended violence—Abraham’s hand is poised mid-strike just as the angel intervenes to stop the sacrifice.

      • Gentileschi enacts visceral, physical violence in real time—Judith and her maidservant pin down Holofernes amidst spurting blood and active decapitation.

    • Composition & Space:

      • Ghiberti organizes multiple narrative components (servants, donkey, mountain, altar, angel) inside a quatrefoil frame with classical drapery and foreshortening.

      • Gentileschi focuses tightly on the immediate, compact foreground action with dramatic lighting and physical force.

  3. Historical Context & Patronage

    • Civic vs. Private Function:

      • Ghiberti’s panel was a competition entry funded by the Arte di Calimala (cloth merchants’ guild) for the doors of the Florence Baptistery, intended for broad public and civic viewing.

      • Gentileschi’s painting was produced for a smaller, elite audience, painted after her move from Rome to Florence where she established independent professional standing.

    • Florentine Textile Reference: Both works connect to Florentine cloth culture—Ghiberti via guild patronage, Gentileschi through rich textural treatment of drapery, blankets, and garments.

2.3 Caravaggio’s Conversion of St. Paul vs. Johannes Vermeer’s Woman Holding a Balance

  1. Basic Identification

    • Caravaggio: Early 17th century, Italian Counter-Reformation Baroque; oil on canvas.

    • Vermeer: Mid-17th century, Northern/Dutch Baroque; oil on canvas.

  2. Visual & Conceptual Handling of Light

    • Caravaggio (Tenebrism): Employs harsh, theatrical light bursting through dark shadows. Light serves as the direct divine vehicle that knocks Saul off his horse and initiates his spiritual conversion into St. Paul.

    • Vermeer (Natural Light): Employs soft, diffused daylight entering from an upper window, demonstrating an understanding of the colored, atmospheric properties of light.

  3. Subject Matter & Meaning

    • Dynamic Action vs. Contemplation:

      • Caravaggio presents a dramatic, foreshortened composition thrust into the viewer's space, capturing an unstable, immediate narrative event.

      • Vermeer presents a quiet interior genre scene featuring a woman weighing empty scales, set against a painting of the Last Judgment.

    • Spiritual Themes:

      • Caravaggio underscores miraculous divine intervention in line with Counter-Reformation church ideology.

      • Vermeer incorporates moral meditation on balancing transient material wealth (pearls, coins) with eternal spiritual accountability.

2.4 Sofonisba Anguissola’s The Chess Game vs. Judith Leyster’s Self-Portrait

  1. Basic Identification

    • Anguissola’s The Chess Game: Mid-16th century, Italian Late Renaissance; oil on canvas.

    • Leyster’s Self-Portrait: Early 17th century (c. 1630), Dutch Golden Age Baroque; oil on canvas.

  2. Gender, Status, and Self-Fashioning

    • Anguissola:

      • Depicts her sisters engaging in chess—an established game of intellect and strategy rather than domestic craft (like needlework)—to signal aristocratic status and refined education.

      • Features an intricate interplay of gazes between the laughing younger sister, the defeated middle sister, the victorious older sister, and the viewer/artist.

    • Leyster:

      • Depicts herself actively painting in an elaborate, stiff lace collar and dress (attire unsuitable for manual studio work), asserting her elevated social status.

      • Directly confronts the viewer while executing a genre painting of a violinist, advertising the commercial specialty of her independent workshop.