This advanced research seminar provides students the opportunity to study the topics of current research by staff and associates of the Centre for Art History and Art Theory. The topic of the seminar will change each semester to align with the course convenor's work, allowing students to develop professional research skills, by aligning their study and assessments with the course convenor's expertise.
Learning Outcomes
Upon successful completion, students will have the knowledge and skills to:
- evaluate the state of a subfield of art history and curatorial studies;
- design an advanced research project;
- question the distinction between research outputs and research outcomes; and
- work collaboratively as part of a research team.
Research-Led Teaching
Seminars will be delivered by staff and associates of the School of Art & Design, and by external creative practitioners, experts and professionals. Course content is consequently informed by the research expertise of academics and the professional experience of individuals working in the field.
Field Trips
There will be field trips in Week 7 and Week 8 to the National Gallery of Australia and to works of land art in various locations around Canberra.
Additional Course Costs
n/a
Examination Material or equipment
n/a
Required Resources
n/a
Recommended Resources
n/a
Staff Feedback
Students will be given feedback in the following forms in this course:
- written comments
- verbal comments
- feedback to whole class, groups, individuals, focus group etc
Student Feedback
ANU is committed to the demonstration of educational excellence and regularly seeks feedback from students. Students are encouraged to offer feedback directly to their Course Convener or through their College and Course representatives (if applicable). Feedback can also be provided to Course Conveners and teachers via the Student Experience of Learning & Teaching (SELT) feedback program. SELT surveys are confidential and also provide the Colleges and ANU Executive with opportunities to recognise excellent teaching, and opportunities for improvement.
Class Schedule
| Week/Session | Summary of Activities | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Enchanting Things
|
|
| 2 | Fossils, Clay, and Deep Time
|
|
| 3 | The Affordances of Oils
|
|
| 4 | Everyday Materials in the Expanded Field
|
|
| 5 | Precious Materials, Luxury, and Excess
|
Assessment 1 (Bibliographic Exercise) due |
| 6 | The Materials of Life
|
|
| 7 | Recreating Traditions
|
|
| 8 | Land Art and Taskscapes
|
|
| 9 | The Affective Labour of Textiles
|
Assignment 2 (Draft Assignment) due |
| 10 | Presentation Week | Assignment 4 (Presentation) due |
| 11 | Data, Dematerialisation, and Distraction
|
|
| 12 | The Post-Medium Condition
|
Tutorial Registration
ANU utilises MyTimetable to enable students to view the timetable for their enrolled courses, browse, then self-allocate to small teaching activities / tutorials so they can better plan their time. Find out more on the Timetable webpage.Assessment Summary
| Assessment task | Value | Due Date | Learning Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bibliographic Exercise (Case-Study Analysis) | 20 % | 17/03/2025 | 1 |
| Draft Assignment (Research Proposal) | 20 % | 28/04/2025 | 1,2,3 |
| Final Assignment (Writing Exercise) | 50 % | 02/06/2025 | 1,2,3 |
| Presentation (Work-in-Progress) | 10 % | 09/05/2025 | 2,3,4 |
* If the Due Date and Return of Assessment date are blank, see the Assessment Tab for specific Assessment Task details
Policies
ANU has educational policies, procedures and guidelines , which are designed to ensure that staff and students are aware of the University’s academic standards, and implement them. Students are expected to have read the Academic Integrity Rule before the commencement of their course. Other key policies and guidelines include:
- Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure
- Student Assessment (Coursework) Policy and Procedure
- Extenuating Circumstances Application
- Student Surveys and Evaluations
- Deferred Examinations
- Student Complaint Resolution Policy and Procedure
- Code of practice for teaching and learning
Assessment Requirements
The ANU is using Turnitin to enhance student citation and referencing techniques, and to assess assignment submissions as a component of the University's approach to managing Academic Integrity. For additional information regarding Turnitin please visit the Academic Skills website. In rare cases where online submission using Turnitin software is not technically possible; or where not using Turnitin software has been justified by the Course Convener and approved by the Associate Dean (Education) on the basis of the teaching model being employed; students shall submit assessment online via ‘Wattle’ outside of Turnitin, or failing that in hard copy, or through a combination of submission methods as approved by the Associate Dean (Education). The submission method is detailed below.
Moderation of Assessment
Marks that are allocated during Semester are to be considered provisional until formalised by the College examiners meeting at the end of each Semester. If appropriate, some moderation of marks might be applied prior to final results being released.
Participation
Participation will be assessed for each student on an individual basis according to the level of engagement they demonstrate in class, measured not only by their attendance but also by the extent to which their contribution to group discussions shows an understanding of key issues in contemporary artistic practice as well as an ability to link those issues to broader debates.
Examination(s)
There are no examinations for this course.
Assessment Task 1
Learning Outcomes: 1
Bibliographic Exercise (Case-Study Analysis)
The goal of this task is for students to critically engage with different approaches to materials in contemporary art, applying one of the following three conceptual frameworks introduced in the first three weeks of the course: enchantment, deep time, or the theory of affordances.
Students will be asked to choose two high-profile contemporary artists as their focus. They will then write a comparative analysis of their chosen case-studies, making sure to consider: which material(s) each artist uses and how they do so; why they use these materials and the themes or meanings they convey, and; how one of the three conceptual frameworks noted above can be used to enhance our understanding of the artist’s work.
As a bibliographic exercise, this task will give students an opportunity to discover and critically engage with the diversity of sources relevant to the study of contemporary art, from academic monographs and scholarly journal articles to magazine reviews and curatorial essays.
Wordcount: 2000 words
Value: 20%
Rubric
| CRITERIA | FAIL | PASS | CREDIT | DISTINCTION | HIGH DISTINCTION |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CHOICE OF CASE-STUDY AND THEORY LO1, LO2 | Case-study and/or theory does not fit the task requirements and displays little relevance to the assessment aims. | Adequate choice of case-study and theory but may not display a clear logic or strong connections with key concepts. | Solid choice of case-study and theory that enables connections with key concepts but that could show a greater depth of critical thinking. | Good choice of case-study and theory with strong connections to key concepts and depth of critical analysis. | Excellent choice of case-study and theory with sophisticated and insightful connections to key concepts and highly perceptive critical analysis. |
ANALYSIS LO1 | Inadequate analysis but lacks required level of detail and depth of understanding. | Analysis is adequate, making use of a limited range of strategies, capacities, and formal elements, but would benefit from further development. | Solid analysis but lacking variety, range, depth and/or consistency. | An insightful and consistent line of analysis that applies a diverse and effective range of strategies, capacities, and formal elements. | A discerning and perceptive line of analysis applying an extensive selection of relevant strategies, capacities, and formal elements. |
CONTEXTUALISATION LO1, LO2 | Does not situate chosen case-study and theory within relevant scholarly, artistic, social, cultural or other contexts. | Some limited positioning of the chosen case-study and theory within relevant scholarly, artistic, social, cultural or other contexts, but brief or lacking in detail. | Solid situation of case-study and theory within relevant scholarly, artistic, social, cultural, or other contexts, demonstrating a good breadth of understanding. | Identifies and selects scholarly, artistic, social, cultural, or other contexts that are highly relevant, showing a clear understanding. | Identifies and selects scholarly, artistic, social, cultural, or other contexts extremely relevant to the case-study and theory, with evidence of a sophisticated level of understanding. |
ARGUMENT LO1, LO3 | Lacks a clear argument. | Some evidence of an argument but needs further development. | Clearly stated argument albeit with potential for greater depth of critical analysis. | A strong argument, supported effectively with critical analysis. | An excellent and perceptive argument, well supported with insightful critical analysis. |
RESEARCH LO1, LO2, LO3 | No evidence of independent and informed research. | Little evidence of independent and informed research, relying on untrustworthy sources. | Solid evidence of independent and informed research, drawing on a good range of relevant and trustworthy sources. | Clear evidence of independent and informed research, drawing on a wide range of relevant and trustworthy sources to support the argument. | Clear evidence of sophisticated and discerning research, making use of a diversity of relevant and trustworthy sources to support and enrich the argument. |
STRUCTURE LO2 | Little to no structure. | Adequate structure, but lacking clarity and purpose. | Good overall organisation, with some lapses in clarity. | Very good organisation and structure. | Excellent organisation and structure. |
WRITTEN EXPRESSION LO2 | Poorly written with spelling and grammatical errors throughout. | Adequately written, with some errors in grammar and spelling. | Well written and usually correct grammar and spelling. | Fluently written with minimal grammatical and spelling errors. | Highly articulate, written in an eloquent style with very few grammatical and spelling errors. |
Assessment Task 2
Learning Outcomes: 1,2,3
Draft Assignment (Research Proposal)
For this task, students will prepare a detailed proposal for their final research project (Task 3). There will be multiple opportunities during the semester to share their ideas with the group for feedback and discussion, notably including our dedicated Presentation Week (Task 4).
Wordcount: 2000 words
Value: 20%
Rubric
| CRITERIA | FAIL | PASS | CREDIT | DISTINCTION | HIGH DISTINCTION |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PROJECT DESCRIPTION LO2 | The project description is unrealistic or lacks a clear framework and/or focus. | The project description is realistic but could be more specific and lacks clarity in framework and/or focus. | Outlines a solid framework for the proposed project, with clear potential for development, though with room for improvement in clarity of focus. | Articulates a realistic and focused framework for the proposed project, clearly and concisely outlined. | The project description is original, realistic, and has a clear focus, presenting a highly convincing rationale for the proposed research. |
PROJECT GOALS LO3 | No goals are outlined for the proposed project, or goals are unclear and lack a clear rationale. | Project goals are outlined in brief but have not been clearly articulated and lack a substantive rationale. | Project goals are outlined clearly and supported with reference to an adequate rationale but lack variety and/or focus. | Project goals are outlined clearly and effectively with a strong rationale, drawing on a good range of criteria (empirical, theoretical, and creative, etc.) | Project goals demonstrate an excellent knowledge of the proposed topic, with a highly convincing rationale and drawing on a diversity of relevant criteria. |
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND LO1, LO2 | Relevant theories and/or concepts have not been identified. | Theories and/or concepts relevant to the proposed project are identified but these haven’t been clearly applied to the topic. | Theories and/or concepts relevant to the proposed project are identified and have been clearly applied to the topic, but with room for improvement in clarity and depth. | Relevant theories and/or concepts are introduced and applied to the project very effectively, showing clearly how these can be used to enhance or extend understanding. | Relevant theories and/or concepts are introduced and applied to the project in a highly sophisticated and insightful manner that greatly enhances or extends understanding. |
FORMAT/AUDIENCE LO2, LO4 | A writing format has not been identified. | A writing format is identified but hasn’t been described, with no discussion of readership or aims. | A writing format has been identified and introduced, clearly outlining main aims and readership, but with a lack of detail or reference to examples. | A writing format has been clearly identified, with the aims and readership outlined in detail and with reference to examples. | A clear understanding of the chosen writing format has been demonstrated, showing great insight into the intended readers and the aims of the style with reference to key examples. |
POTENTIAL LIMITATIONS LO2, LO3 | No attempt to identify the potential limitations or challenges of the project. | Identifies some limitations or challenges, but only in a brief and cursory manner. | Identifies several relevant limitations and challenges, though could have further elaborated the strategies proposed to address them. | Clearly identifies a range of relevant limitations and challenges as well as potential strategies to address them. | Clearly and effectively identifies a wide range of relevant limitations and challenges, with potential strategies to address and overcome them. |
WRITTEN EXPRESSION LO2 | Poorly written with spelling and grammatical errors throughout. | Adequately written, with some errors in grammar and spelling. | Well written and usually correct grammar and spelling. | Fluently written with minimal grammatical and spelling errors. | Highly articulate, written in an eloquent style with very few grammatical and spelling errors. |
Assessment Task 3
Learning Outcomes: 1,2,3
Final Assignment (Writing Exercise)
For the final task, students will be invited to develop a piece of writing in a particular style that responds to the art-historical, theoretical, and artistic themes discussed throughout the course. The goal of this assignment is to critically engage with the social, political, and/or ethical issues that the use of certain materials by contemporary artists can raise or address, and then to write about this in one of the following formats: artist profile, creative response, critical manifesto, curatorial essay, ekphrasis, exhibition review, op-ed, or technical analysis.
Students will be assessed both on their ability to effectively convey the connection between the selected issue(s), the artistic use of certain materials, and a relevant theoretical framework; and on their ability to align with the conventions and aims of the chosen writing style. Students will also be expected to demonstrate attention to feedback received for Task 2 and Task 4.
Wordcount: 3000 words
Value: 50%
Rubric
| CRITERIA | FAIL | PASS | CREDIT | DISTINCTION | HIGH DISTINCTION |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RESEARCH LO1, LO2 | No evidence of research or close engagement with the chosen topic. | Adequate range of sources but many of these are not trustworthy; engagement with the topic is adequate but misses key points. | Draws on a good range of relevant and trustworthy sources but overlooks key references; engagement is good, showing an evident familiarity with key points. | Draws on a wide range of relevant and trustworthy sources, including the key texts, and shows thorough knowledge of main points with a perceptive analysis. | Thoroughly researched, consulting all the major sources, with a high level of understanding of the key issues and awareness of complexities. |
ARGUMENT LO1, LO3 | No evidence of argument or critical engagement. | Sound attempt to write an argument and engage with the chosen topic. | A clearly stated argument that shows a solid grasp of the topic, though lacking a sense of the larger context for the research. | A strong argument that presents a wide range of convincing points, with a clear sense of the larger context for the research. | A highly sophisticated and lucid argument that shows great insight into the topic and effectively situates the key points raised within a broader academic context. |
FORMAT/AUDIENCE LO2, LO4 | A clear writing format has not been adopted. | A writing format has been adopted but key aspects of the style aren’t apparent and the intended readers aren’t clearly addressed. | A writing format has been adopted effectively, with a good awareness of the key aspects of the style and its intended readers. | A writing format has been skilfully adopted, showing close familiarity with key aspects of the style and its intended readers, who are thoughtfully addressed. | A clear understanding of the chosen writing format has been demonstrated, showing great insight into the intended readers and defining stylistic features. |
ORGANISATION LO2 | Little or no structure. | Adequate organisation of ideas with a clear focus on the topic in general terms. | A clear organisation of key ideas and effective use of paragraphing, maintaining clear focus throughout on the chosen topic. | Strong organisation with effective paragraphing, use of topic sentences, and logical sequencing. | Excellent organisation, extremely effective use of paragraphing and of topic sentences to convey the argument in an engaging and sophisticated manner. |
WRITTEN EXPRESSION LO2 | Poorly written with spelling and grammatical errors throughout. | Adequately written, with some errors in grammar and spelling. | Well written and usually correct grammar and spelling. | Fluently written with minimal grammatical and spelling errors. | Highly articulate, written in an eloquent style with very few grammatical and spelling errors. |
Assessment Task 4
Learning Outcomes: 2,3,4
Presentation (Work-in-Progress)
During our seminar in Week 10, students will be invited to introduce the project proposed (Task 2) for their final assignment (Task 3). Each student will be asked to speak for 8-10 minutes and to actively participate in a group discussion, offering feedback and suggestions to their peers.
Duration: 8-10 minutes (equivalent to 1000 words)
Value: 10%
Rubric
| CRITERIA | FAIL | PASS | CREDIT | DISTINCTION | HIGH DISTINCTION |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SITUATING THE RESEARCH LO1, LO4 | Inadequate articulation of the project goals with little or no attempt to introduce relevant theory and issues. | Adequate articulation of project goals with some attempt to introduce the relevant theory and/or issues involved, although lacking clarity and focus. | Thoughtful articulation of project goals that shows a clear understanding of the relevant theories and issues involved, but these could have been outlined in greater depth. | An engaging articulation of the project goals that shows a strong grasp of the relevant theories and issues involved, outlined clearly and effectively. | Excellent articulation of project goals that shows a sophisticated depth of understanding of relevant theory and issues, which are perceptively outlined and explained. |
CONTEXTUAL REVIEW LO1, LO2, LO4 | No evidence presented to demonstrate that research has been undertaken. | Research undertaken to date is summarised but lacks clarity and focus. | Research undertaken to date is clearly introduced, with good rationale and focus, but lacking a clear sense of how the sources cited have been used to shape the project. | Research undertaken to date is introduced clearly and effectively, showing a strong rationale and focus as well as a clear sense of how sources and case-studies have been used to shape the project. | A highly convincing and sophisticated research narrative is introduced, showing a clear sense of rationale, focus, and an insightful engagement with chosen sources and case-studies. |
FORMAT/AUDIENCE LO2, LO4 | A writing format has not been identified. | A writing format has been identified but no attempt is made to define the key stylistic characteristics or intended readership. | A writing format has been identified and introduced with a good emphasis on the defining stylistic traits and readership, but with little detail or reference to illustrative examples. | A writing format has been clearly identified, making sure to outline the aims and readership in detail and making good use of illustrative examples to define stylistic traits. | A clear understanding of the chosen writing format has been demonstrated, showing great insight into the intended readers and the aims of the style with reference to a wide range of supportive examples. |
STRUCTURE & DURATION LO2, LO4 | No sense of structure or logical organisation, does not keep to time. | Adequately structured but needs work and time could have been used more effectively. | Effective structure but key ideas could've been more clearly conveyed and time could've been used more effectively. | Highly effective, clear and well-structured, with very productive use of time. | An extremely effective, imaginative, and well-structured presentation. |
Academic Integrity
Academic integrity is a core part of the ANU culture as a community of scholars. The University’s students are an integral part of that community. The academic integrity principle commits all students to engage in academic work in ways that are consistent with, and actively support, academic integrity, and to uphold this commitment by behaving honestly, responsibly and ethically, and with respect and fairness, in scholarly practice.
The University expects all staff and students to be familiar with the academic integrity principle, the Academic Integrity Rule 2021, the Policy: Student Academic Integrity and Procedure: Student Academic Integrity, and to uphold high standards of academic integrity to ensure the quality and value of our qualifications.
The Academic Integrity Rule 2021 is a legal document that the University uses to promote academic integrity, and manage breaches of the academic integrity principle. The Policy and Procedure support the Rule by outlining overarching principles, responsibilities and processes. The Academic Integrity Rule 2021 commences on 1 December 2021 and applies to courses commencing on or after that date, as well as to research conduct occurring on or after that date. Prior to this, the Academic Misconduct Rule 2015 applies.
The University commits to assisting all students to understand how to engage in academic work in ways that are consistent with, and actively support academic integrity. All coursework students must complete the online Academic Integrity Module (Epigeum), and Higher Degree Research (HDR) students are required to complete research integrity training. The Academic Integrity website provides information about services available to assist students with their assignments, examinations and other learning activities, as well as understanding and upholding academic integrity.
Online Submission
You will be required to electronically sign a declaration as part of the submission of your assignment. Please keep a copy of the assignment for your records. Unless an exemption has been approved by the Associate Dean (Education) submission must be through Turnitin.
Hardcopy Submission
There are no hardcopy assignments in this course.
Late Submission
Late submission of assessment tasks without an extension will be penalised at the rate of 5% of the possible marks available per working day or part thereof. Late submission of assessment tasks will not be accepted more than10 working days after the due date without an approved extension.
Referencing Requirements
The Academic Skills website has information to assist you with your writing and assessments. The website includes information about Academic Integrity including referencing requirements for different disciplines. There is also information on Plagiarism and different ways to use source material. Any use of artificial intelligence must be properly referenced. Failure to properly cite use of Generative AI will be considered a breach of academic integrity.
Returning Assignments
Assessment items will be returned via Wattle with feedback and grades 3 weeks after submission.
Extensions and Penalties
Extensions and late submission of assessment pieces are covered by the Student Assessment (Coursework) Policy and Procedure. Extensions may be granted for assessment pieces that are not examinations or take-home examinations. If you need an extension, you must request an extension in writing on or before the due date. If you have documented and appropriate medical evidence that demonstrates you were not able to request an extension on or before the due date, you may be able to request it after the due date.
Resubmission of Assignments
Resubmission of assignments is not permitted
Privacy Notice
The ANU has made a number of third party, online, databases available for students to use. Use of each online database is conditional on student end users first agreeing to the database licensor’s terms of service and/or privacy policy. Students should read these carefully. In some cases student end users will be required to register an account with the database licensor and submit personal information, including their: first name; last name; ANU email address; and other information.In cases where student end users are asked to submit ‘content’ to a database, such as an assignment or short answers, the database licensor may only use the student’s ‘content’ in accordance with the terms of service – including any (copyright) licence the student grants to the database licensor. Any personal information or content a student submits may be stored by the licensor, potentially offshore, and will be used to process the database service in accordance with the licensors terms of service and/or privacy policy.
If any student chooses not to agree to the database licensor’s terms of service or privacy policy, the student will not be able to access and use the database. In these circumstances students should contact their lecturer to enquire about alternative arrangements that are available.
Distribution of grades policy
Academic Quality Assurance Committee monitors the performance of students, including attrition, further study and employment rates and grade distribution, and College reports on quality assurance processes for assessment activities, including alignment with national and international disciplinary and interdisciplinary standards, as well as qualification type learning outcomes.
Since first semester 1994, ANU uses a grading scale for all courses. This grading scale is used by all academic areas of the University.
Support for students
The University offers students support through several different services. You may contact the services listed below directly or seek advice from your Course Convener, Student Administrators, or your College and Course representatives (if applicable).
- ANU Health, safety & wellbeing for medical services, counselling, mental health and spiritual support
- ANU Accessibility for students with a disability or ongoing or chronic illness
- ANU Dean of Students for confidential, impartial advice and help to resolve problems between students and the academic or administrative areas of the University
- ANU Academic Skills supports you make your own decisions about how you learn and manage your workload.
- ANU Counselling promotes, supports and enhances mental health and wellbeing within the University student community.
- ANUSA supports and represents all ANU students
Convener
|
|
|||
Research InterestsContemporary Art, Material Culture, Chinese Art, Ceramics, Trade & Exchange, Cultural Diplomacy, Travel & Mobility |
||||
Alex Burchmore
|
|
|
||||||
Instructor
|
|
|
|||
Research Interests |
||||
Alex Burchmore
|
|
|
||||||