• Jari Martikainen Ingman College of Crafts and Design, Toivala, Finland University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland




Pedagogy of Art History, Emotions, Drawing, Painting, Sculpting


The paradigm of art history has changed drastically during the past decades. Instead of tracing the intentions of artists or studying works of art in their cultural and social contexts, recent art historical research has increasingly paid attention to the role of the spectator, as well as experiences that arise when perceiving works of art. This paper discusses picture-based methods in teaching art history in the frame of pictorial and emotional turns in recent art history. 25 students majoring in Visual Expression in a Finnish vocational college participated in the research and produced data by reflecting their study experiences. The data was analyzed qualitatively using content analysis and discourse analysis. The results of this study show that picture-based methods generated a variety of emotions activating students to reflect on art historical topics, as well as motivating them to study art history. The results of this study may function as encouragement for teachers of history and art history to apply picture-based methods.


Babad, E. (2009). The social psychology of the classroom. New York, London: Routledge.

Bal, M., & Bryson, N. (1998). Semiotics and art history: Discussion of context and senders. In D. Preziosi (Ed.), The art of art history: A critical anthology (pp. 242-256). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Belting, H. (2002). Das Ende der Kunstgeschichte: Eine Revision nach zehn Jahren. München: Verlag C.H. Beck.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods. Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.

Chanda, J. (1998). Art history inquiry methods: Three options for art education practice. Art Education, 51(5), 17-24. https://doi.org/10.2307/3193717

Chandra, A., Cempellin, L., Chiem, K., Lapin Dardashti, A., Dalal, R. J., Kenney, E., Kamran, S.P., Murayama, N., & Elkins, J. (2016). Looking beyond the canon: Localized and globalized perspectives in art history pedagogy. Art History Pedagogy & Practice 1(1). http://academicworks.cuny.edu/ahpp/vol1/iss1/2

Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1995). Research methods in education. London & New York: Routledge.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.

Dewey, J. (1953). The school and society. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.

Donahue-Wallace, K., La Follette, L., & Pappas, A. (2008). Introduction. In K. Donahue-Wallace, L. La Follette & A. Pappas (Eds.), Teaching art history with new technologies: Reflections and case studies (pp. 1-12). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. In Emotion and Cognition, 6(3/4), 169-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939208411068

Elkins, J. (2008). Introduction: The concept of visual literacy, and its limitations. In J. Elkins (Ed.), Visual literacy (pp. 1-9). New York, London: Routledge.

Erickson, M. (1995). Second and sixth grade students’ art historical interpretation abilities: A one-year study. Studies in Art Education, 37(1), 19-28. https://doi.org/10.2307/1320489

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926592003002004 https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926592003002008

Fernie, E. (1988). Art history and its methods: A critical anthology. London: Phaidon Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8365.1988.tb00304.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8365.1988.tb00292.x

Finnish National Board of Education. (2014). Requirements for vocational qualifications. Vocational qualification in visual expression, visual artisan.

Harris, B., & Zucker, S. (2016). Making the absent present: The imperative of teaching art history. Art History Pedagogy & Practice 1(1). http://academicworks.cuny.edu/ahpp/vol1/iss1/4

Heikkilä, A., Lonka, K., Nieminen, J., & Niemivirta, M. (2012). Relations between teacher students’ approaches to learning, cognitive and attributional strategies, well-being, and study success. In Higher Education 64, 455-471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9504-9

Jay, M. (2011). In the realm of the senses: An introduction. The American Historical Review, 116(2), 307-315. https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr.116.2.307

Koivunen, A. (2010). An affective turn? Reimagining the subject of feminist theory. In M. Liljeström & S. Paasonen (Eds.), Working with affect in feminist readings: Disturbing differences (pp 8-27). Routledge: London.

Kraynak, J. (2007). Art history’s present tense. In E. Mansfield (Ed.), Making art history: A changing discipline and its institutions (pp. 83-101). New York: Routledge.

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage.

Lauwrens, J. (2012). Welcome to the revolution. The sensory turn and art history. Journal of Art Historiography, 7, 1-17.

Lonka, K., & Ketonen, E. (2012). How to make a lecture course an engaging learning experience? In Studies for the Learning Society, 2-3, 63-74. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10240-012-0006-1

Martikainen, J. (2011). Käsitettävä taidehistoria – kuvalähtöinen malli taidehistorian opetukseen kuvallisen ilmaisun ammatillisessa perustutkinnossa. (Grasping art history – a picture-based method for teaching art history in the vocational basic degree in visual expression). Jyväskylä: University Press of Jyväskylä.

Matthews, M. R. (2000). Appraising constructivism in science and mathematics education. In D. C. Phillips (Ed.), Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues (pp. 161-192). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Mitchell, W.J.T. (1994). Picture theory: Essays on verbal and visual representation. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.

Mitchell, W.J.T. (2005). What do pictures want? The lives and loves of images. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Moxey, K. (2008). Visual studies and the iconic turn. Journal of Visual culture, 7(2), 131-146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470412908091934

Muhaiyuddin, N.S.M., Bakar, H.S.A., & Hussin, H. (2016). The multiple approaches of grounded theory: Justification for Straussian version. International Journal of Science and Technology, 2(1), 186-196.

O’Sullivan, S. (2001). The aesthetics of affect. Thinking art beyond representation. Angelaki Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, 6(3), 125-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/09697250120087987

Phillips, D. (2000). An opinionated account of the constructivist landscape. In D. Phillips (Ed.), Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues (pp. 1-16). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Pooke, G., & Newall, D. (2008). Art history: The basics. London, New York: Routledge.

Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1989). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.

Rose, M. E. (2012). Encouraging integrative learning through current events and learning portfolios. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal, 3(2), 1-7.

Rose, M. E. (2016). A new approach to teaching Roman art history. Classical World: A Quarterly Journal on Antiquity, 110(1), 119-136. https://doi.org/10.1353/clw.2016.0071

Sahlberg, P. (2007). Education policies for raising student learning: The Finnish approach. Journal of Education Policy, 22(2), 147-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930601158919

Schön, D. (1988). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Fransisco, London: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Sienkewics, J.A. (2016). Against the “coverage” mentality: Rethinking learning outcomes and the core curriculum. Art History Pedagogy & Practice, 1(1). http://academicworks.cuny.edu/ahpp/vol1/iss1/5

Silverman, D. (2000). Analyzing talk and text. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 821-834). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Simon, H. (2003). Lernen im digitalen Themenraum. Exploratives Lernen im Internet aus kunsthistorischer Sicht. Zeitenblicke 2(2003), Nr. 1.

Temel, M., & Ozkan, Y. (2016). The comparison of the affective strategies used by domestic and international university students in preparatory classes in Turkey to cope with affective filter in speaking English vs. their speaking proficiency. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 2(1), 33-61.

Van Damme, W. (2008). Introducing world art studies. In K. Zijlmans & W. Van Damme (Eds.), World art studies: Exploring concepts and approaches (pp. 26-31). Amsterdam: Valiz.

Wetherell, M. (2012). Affect and emotion: A new social science understanding. London, Los Angeles, New Delhi: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446250945

Zijlmans, K. (2008). The discourse on contemporary art and the globalization of the art system. In K. Zijlmans & W. Van Damme (Eds.), World art studies: Exploring concepts and approaches (pp. 135-150). Amsterdam: Valiz.

Zwijnenberg, R., & Farago, C. (2003). Art history after aesthetics: A provocative introduction. In C. Farago & R. Zwijnenberg (Eds.), Compelling visuality. The work of art in and out of history (pp. vii-xvi). Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press.




How to Cite

Martikainen, J. (2017). TAPESTRY OF EMOTIONS – PICTURE-BASED METHODS IN TEACHING ART HISTORY: A TEACHING EXPERIMENT CARRIED OUT IN A VOCATIONAL COLLEGE IN FINLAND. PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education and Learning, 1(01), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijtel.2017.11.6785