Teaching Philosophy, Part 4: The Ir/relevance of Early Medieval Art
According to a recent article in my undergraduate alumni magazine, the imperative to make courses relevant to the lives of students first arose in the late 1960s. While the care of monuments provides a practical application for the study of early medieval art in Europe, the relatively few early medieval objects in North American museums would hardly justify it as a field of study in American universities, if relevance were a requirement.
The Early Middle Ages offers the point of origin for many modern-day realities- of modern European national identities, of a collective European identity, and of the Christian Church, to name but the most obvious - and the tracing of these traditions to their early medieval origin certainly constitutes a valid undertaking. To search for reflections of ourselves, however, in this distant past seems to me a bit problematic. Indeed, I question the need for each and every course to prove itself directly relevant to the lives of students.
Of course, students may apply the skills acquired in an art history class, such as i have detailed in previous postings (see the category of “Teaching Early Medieval Art”), to others areas of their lives, but does that make the Early Middle Ages relevant?
Instead, I see great value in course material that is not all about the student. First, always seeking the relevance of the past to the present somehow denigrates the past, as if it only has meaning if it relates to us and our experience. Furthermore, approaching the past through such a lens distorts our view of it and thereby does not do right by the past.
In fact, the irrelevance of early medieval art (or the art of any other distant period) makes it especially valuable for the development of upper-level thinking skills. In the study of early medieval art, students can develop their upper-level thinking skills with less interference from assumptions and biases.
More importantly, early medieval art demands especially close looking and extended analysis, and returns that effort with the development of an aesthetic sensibility that challenges modern-day assumptions about beauty and about the power of images and the refinement of sight.
All moments of the past bear relevance, and the most obvious need not be the most valuable.
1 May 2008 at 9:10
Aren’t you kind of contradicting yourself here. You suggest that the past need not be immediately relevant to the everyday lives of your students (and I agree generally) but conclude by saying how analysis of early medieval art changes one’s aesthetic sensibility, so isn’t this a “relevant” goal in and of itself?
Relevance need not be about tracing lines of evolution related to identity or institutions, but can be more about understanding (as you hint at) manifest difference in the human experience.
1 May 2008 at 9:45
Thank you Matt for your comment! I will begin my response with the phrase from the article that prompted this post:
“At the end of the turbulent 1960s, students were demanding more “relevance” from the courses they were being offered…” (Princeton Alumni Weekly, 23 April 2008).
I think my contradiction reflects my beginning the post with this immediate relevancy in mind and then ending by questioning, at least in my mind, relevancy as a meaningful descriptor at all. But perhaps we just need a definition of relevance.
Thanks again.
1 May 2008 at 13:32
As some one who is outside of your target audience, I find your comments here quite interesting. The question of why study medieval art or history is one that I have had to face for years. I work in the medical field, but took a bachelor’s degree which was essentially a degree in medieval studies. Since most of my peers at work were studying nursing or pre-med, they were quite baffled by my choice. In practical terms it was very hard to defend. It would not and could not lead to a better job in medicine, or any other field outside a academia.
I would make various arguments for relevance similar to the ones in your first paragraph, but I always felt that they were tenuous, at best. The realization I finally came to is that I wanted to study it because I enjoyed it, and no other reason was necessary.
1 May 2008 at 14:34
Kirsten, my pleasure. Just glad to have discovered your blog!
Anyway, I agree that the problem might simply be that tricky word “relevance” that is so subjective as to (almost) defy definition. I think we basically agree but I think these kinds of “so what?” questions are important and worth hashing out from time-to-time.