De deler av pensum som er ? finne i Unipubskompendiene del 1, 2 og 3 er markert med henholdsvis (1), (2) og (3). (Pensum = 1230s)
CONNOISSEURSHIP
(1) Pope-Hennessy, J.: "Connoisseurship" i Pope-Hennessy, J.: The Study of Criticism of Italian Sculpture, New York, 1980, s. 11- 38.
(1) Maginnis, H.B.S.: "The Role of Perceptual Learning in Connoisseurship: Morelli, Berenson, and Beyond", i Art History, 1990, s. 104 - 117.
KRITISKE KUNSTHISTORIKERE
Podro,M.: The Critical Historians of Art , London 1982: s.1-30,61-98,117-218.
(1) Iversen, M.: ?Dutch Group Portraits and the Art of Attention? A. Riegl: Art History and Theory, London, 1993, s. 92-147,183-189.
(1) Fra Warburg,Aby, The Renewal of Pagan Antiquity. Contributions to the Cultural History of European Renaissance, Getty, 1999. Forster,K.W.: ?Introduction (s. 1-75; Warburg,Aby, ?Francesco Sassetti`s Last Injunctions? (s.222-262,452-466).
(2) Panofsky, E.: a) "Iconography and Iconology", b) "The History of the Theory of Human Proportions as a Reflection of the History of Styles", alle i Meaning in the Visual Arts, University of Chicago Press, 1982 (1995). s.26-107,figs.17-27.
(2) Panofsky, E.: "The Concept of Artistic Volition", i Critical Inquiry, 1981, s. 17 ? 33.
(2) Panofsky, E.: "The Neoplatonic Movement and Michelangelo", i Panofsky, E.: Studies in Iconology, New York, 1967 (1939),s.171-230,plates 125-173.
Holly,M.A.: Panofsky and the Foundations of Art History , London 1984 og senere utg., kap. 3,5 og 6.
(2) Gombrich, E. H.: "Aims and Limits of Iconology", i Gombrich, E. H.: Symbolic Images, Phaidon, 1978 [1972], s. 1 ? 22, 197-198,figs. 1-30.
Gombrich,E.H.:?Psychology and the Riddle of Style?,?Truth and the Stereotype?,?Reflections on the Greek Revolution?, ?The Beholder`s Share?, ?The Analysis of Vision in Art?, I Gombrich,E.H.: Art and Illusion , New York 1961 og senere utg. : s. 55-78,99-125, 154-204 og 246-278.
(2) Krieger, M.: ?The Ambiguities of Representation and Illusion: An E. H. Gombrich Retrospective?, "Critical Inquiry", 1984, s. 181 ? 195.
NYERE METODISKE SYNSPUNKTER
Baxandall, M.: Patterns of Intention , London 1985:s.1-73,105-137.
(2) Starn, R. og Patridge, L.: Arts of Power: Three Halls of State, Oxford, 1992, Introduksjon og kap.1+figs,appendix 1 :s.1-80,261-266,305-324.
(3) Kemp, W.: ?The Work of Art and Its Beholder: The Methodology of the Aesthetic Reception?, i The Subjects of Art History, red. M.A.Cheetham, M.A.Holly, K. Moxey, Cambridge University Press, 1998,s.180-196.
(3) Fried, M.: ?Introduction?; ?Painting and Beholder? i Absorption and Theatricality, Chicago, 1982 og senere utg. ,s.1-5,.107-160,180-182,222-240.
(3) Roskill, M.:?Indeterminacy and the Institutions of Art History?;?Conclusion: Revisionist Interpretation and Art History Today?, i The Interpretation of Pictures, Amherst, 1989, s.62-93,113-119.
(3) Bal, M og Bryson, N.: "Semiotics and Art History", The Art Bulletin, 1991, s. 174 -208 og The Art Bulletin, 1992, s. 522 ? 531.
(3) Bonta, J. P.: An Anatomy of Architectural Interpretation: A Semiotic Review of the Criticism of Mies van der Rohe's Barcelona Pavilion, Barcelona, 1975, s.55-81.
(3) Gouma-Peterson,T. og Mathews, P., ?The Feminist Critique of Art History?, The Art Bulletin, 1987, s.326-357.
(3) Pollock, G., ?Det moderna och kvinnelighetens rum?, i Konst, k?n och blick: Feministiska bildanalyser fr?n ren?ssans till postmodernism, Lindberg, A. L., red., Stockholm: Norstedts, 1995, s.165-210.