So from time to time I get a student or two who I get to tutor. Their art history classes can range from pre-history to Dada, but either way we find a way to make it interesting, fun and easy to digest.
I am currently working with a masters student on a large essay looking at metanarratives. She choose to look at Masaccio’s “Tribute Money” (which it was a coincidence that I have seen that piece in person when I was in Florence back in 2005). Anyway, she’s looking to see how metanarratives share our perspectives of artists and interpretations of art in the Renaissance Period.
While talking with her and developing the thesis, I started to think about what other metanarratives are present throughout art history. I know it’s a broad topic but it’s still worth exploring.
For those who may not know a metanarrative (thank you wikipedia) is: a grand narrative common to all. The term refers, in critical theory and particularly in postmodernism, to a comprehensive explanation, a narrative about narratives of historical meaning, experience or knowledge, which offers a society legitimation through the anticipated completion of a (as yet unrealised) master idea.
So to pose a question for open debate: What metanarratives affect our perceptions of Medieval art?