1
ARTH 3021OL Critical Review (25%)
Word length: 1,000 words (including footnotes and 10% leeway)
Due date: Friday 6 October (before midnight on Turnitin)
Instructions
Learning how to evaluate and synthesise scholarly literature develops strong skills in reading
comprehension and critical thinking. In this context, critical does not mean negative but
requires you to evaluate the stated or implied aim, objectives, evidence, argumentation, and
conclusions articulated by the author(s) in relation to a similar topic.
In writing a summary and critical review, it is recommended to focus on one of the academic
sources, with brief comparative references to one or both of the other two prescribed readings
in weeks 4-10:
Week 4:
Leonardo and Nature – Botany and Geology
Baucon, Andrea. “Leonardo da Vinci, The Founding Father of Ichnology.” PALAIOS
25:5/6 (May-June 2010): 361-367.
Etheridge, Kay. “Leonardo and the Whale.” In Leonardo da Vinci: Nature and
Architecture, eds. Constance J. Moffatt and Sara Taglialagamba (Leiden; Boston:
Brill, 2019), 89-106.
Pizzorusso, Ann. “Leonardo’s Geology: The Authenticity of the Virgin of the Rocks.”
Leonardo 29:3 (1996): 197-200.
Week 5:
Leonardo and Renaissance Bodies – Studies in Anatomy
Clayton, Martin. “Leonardo in 1510: The Anatomical Manuscript A.” In Leonardo da
Vinci: The Mechanics of Man, eds. (London: Royal Collection Enterprises; Los
Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2010), 8-30.
Kemp, Martin. “Dissection and Divinity in Leonardo’s Late Anatomies.’ Journal of
the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 35 (1972): 200-225.
Lombardero, Matilde and María del Mar Yllera, “Leonardo da Vinci’s Animal
Anatomy: Bear and Horse Drawings Revisited.” Animals 9:435 (2019):
doi:10.3390/ani9070435
Week 6:
High Renaissance Art – Leonardo’s Rivals
Azzolini, Monica. “In praise of art: text and context of Leonardo’s ‘Paragone’ and its
critique in the arts and sciences.’ Renaissance Studies 19:4 (September 2005): 487-
510.
Brown, David Alan. “Raphael’s ‘Small Cowper Madonna’ and ‘Madonna of the
Meadow’: Their Technique and Leonardo Sources.” Artibus et Historiae 4:8 (1983):
9-26.
Goffen, Rona. “Mary’s Motherhood According to Leonardo and
Michelangelo.” Artibus et Historiae 20 (1999): 35-69.
2
Week 7:
Leonardo’s Patronage from Sforza Milan to the French Court – Portraiture
Bull, David. “Two portraits by Leonardo: Ginevra de’Benci and the Lady with an
ermine.” Artibus et Historiae 13:25 (1992): 67-83.
Garrard, Mary D. “Leonardo da Vinci: Female Portraits, Female Nature.” In The
Expanding Discourse: Feminism and Art History, eds. Norma Broude and Mary D.
Garrard (New York; Oxford: IconEditions; Westview Press, 1992), 58-86.
Greenstein, Jack M. “Leonardo, Mona Lisa and “La Gioconda”: Reviewing the
Evidence.” Artibus et Historiae 25:50 (2004): 17-38.
Week 8:
On Drawing and Painting – Science and Spirituality in Leonardo’s Last Supper
Ackerman, James. “Science and Art in the Work of Leonardo.” In Leonardo’s
Legacy: An International Symposium, Charles D. O’Malley (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1969), 205-25.
Polzer, Joseph. “Reflections on Leonardo’s ‘Last Supper.’” Artibus et Historiae 32:63
(2011): 9-37.
Wasserman, Jack. “Rethinking Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘Last Supper.’” Artibus et
Historiae 28:55 (2007): 23-35.
Week 9:
Engineering Leonardo’s World – Making Machines
Burke, Jill. “Meaning and Crisis in the Early Sixteenth Century: Interpreting
Leonardo’s Lion.” Oxford Art Journal 29:1 (2009); 79-91.
Rosheim, Mark. Leonardo’s Lost Robots. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, 2006,
“Leonardo’s Programmable Automaton and Lion,” 21-68.
Truesdell, C. The Mechanics of Leonardo da Vinci. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer,
1968, “1. The Mechanics of Leonardo da Vinci,” 1-83.
Week 10:
Leonardo’s Battlefield – Military Technologies
Farago, Claire J. “Leonardo’s Battle of Anghiari: A Study in the Exchange between
Theory and Artistic Practice.” Art Bulletin 76 (1994): 301-30.
Galluzzi, Paolo. “The Career of a Technologist.” In Leonardo da Vinci: Engineer and
Architect, Paolo Galluzzi (Montreal: Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, 1987), 41-109.
Hale, J.R. Renaissance War Studies. London: The Hambledon Press, 1983, “13. War
and Public Opinion in Renaissance Italy,” 359-387.
What makes an effective critical review
An effective review will:
Convey the content of the article, the author’s approach to the topic, and their
conclusions using your own words.
3
Place the work in the context of other academic sources on the same or similar topics
and give a sense of the article’s significance– you are encouraged to consider how the
approach and conclusions in your selected article compares to the second academic
source listed for the week 5 or week 6 tutorial topics.
Avoid using dot points and instead craft a discussion using logically structured
paragraphs that integrate your observations about the article’s strengths and
weaknesses.
Present a balanced evaluation that provides evidence (from within the articles) to
demonstrate your observations concerning points of strength and weakness.
Present a balanced evaluation that is respectful and honest. For example, if you find
the article frustrating or difficult to understand, it is important to reflect and explain
why you think this is the case in your review – is it because the author uses
complicated words without providing definitions
Be written in a clear, concise, and engaging style of writing. While style is not an easy
concept to define in writing, it basically means that the review conveys your voice
and ideas as the author of the review.
Getting started
The following questions should not be used as dot points in your review, but are designed to
guide and stimulate your critical thinking as you read and evaluate your selected journal
articles:
Is the writing clear, concise, and engaging or awkward and reliant on jargon – who do
you think the target audience is (students, scholars, both)
Do the opening paragraphs give the reader an appropriate amount of background, with
a clear idea of the aim and argument
What strategy does the author use to grab the reader’s attention in the introduction to
the article
Are the themes and arguments clearly articulated and easy to follow
How objective is the author’s approach to the topic, can you detect any potential bias
Are you convinced by the interpretations that are presented in the article
