BuddingScholar

I will be presenting also. Would you guys like to meet perhaps?

I am, I'm presenting in one of the Ancient Americas panels

Is anyone going to SECAC next week?

BB,
 
Look at the Meadows School of Arts at SMU. 

What I've been consistently told is that good scores won't get you in but bad scores will keep you out. Those seem fine.

How important is math to art history? I wouldn't retake the GRE for a math score, though there's certainly room for improvement on the verbal score. Keep in mind that  the GRE won't get you in anywhere, it will only keep you out, but at scores likely much lower than this. 

I suggest concentrating on the more important aspects of of your application (e.g., statement, writing sample).

Williams, Tufts, UPenn, Rutgers, and BU are all good bets- either for the quality of their programs or the presence of faculty who are trained in photo history themselves. Don't forget about the University of Arizona or New Mexico- both have faculty in the specialization as well.

I don't think there's anyone doing photography at UC Davis now that Blake Stimson's out at the University of Illinois, Chicago, and to be honest I haven't seen any added cachet from coming out of there in the past five years. It certainly didn't get me in anywhere last year. That said, it is a really good program if you can deal with the cow smell coming from the dairy farm year round.

Some of these programs do not offer a terminal MA, so make sure you double check.  UC Riverside does have faculty interested in photography, and students often do internships at the California Museum of Photography with the opportunity to curate exhibitions.  Similarly Williams has faculty plus photography collection resources at the Clark and the college museum, both actively collect and exhibit photography.  I think internships at the three museums in the area based on a grad student's area of interest is part of Williams program's overall structure.  UMass Amherst is a wonderful program but without some of the specific collection resources of Riverside or Williams. But, all three have funding and send students on to tier 1 grad schools. The Syracuse MA I think is not terribly well regarded and I never hear much about Tufts (would be interested if anyone on gradcafe has knowledge of that program).  Have you looked into Arizona? I believe that they work with the Center for Creative Photography.  You also might check out Notre Dame, they have a terminal MA with some faculty interested in contemporary photography.  

Accurate summary of how I feel writing emails to all the POIs from last year:
 

 

Also, 1000 word SOP. 

Writing sample, GRE scores, Transcript, 3 LORS, SOP. No CV/resume and no limit on the writing sample. 

Most schools offer a more detailed list of what they required in their application (LoRs, SoPs, GREs, Resumes, # writing samples with size, etc).  Williams College, however, is not listing, at this point, what their requirements will be (other than the GRE, and maybe TOEFL).
 
Though I know that they may change a few of the requirements for the upcoming application cycle, I would still like to find out what have been their requested items in the past. Do you know by any chance? I am particularly interested in finding out about the max length allowed for the SoP, how many and length of the writing sample(s), do they ask for a diversity statement also, etc.
 
Any help will be very much appreciated.
 
Thanks bunches!

You might want to consider a strong MA program first--Williams, or the University of Chicago's MAPH. If you're not aiming for a top program, may I ask why you're considering investing 6+ years of your life into the kind of intensive work a PhD requires? The employment scenario in Art History isn't much better than in most of academia. In sum, if you pursue your PhD at a program that isn't recognised as among the leading ones (both in your specialties and in the discipline), you increase the risk of finding yourself simply edged out by graduates from more competitive programs. 
 
On the other hand, a strong MA program can help you move into a top program. I think that's something you should consider.
 
Also, the kind of questions you implied are usually clearly discussed on most programs' websites. 99% of Art History PhD programs will be fully funded with a stipend, anyway. And if it isn't, I'd say it isn't worth considering. You're not going to do a PhD...in any discipline...part-time. That's just unrealistic, I think, and I definitely don't know anyone who's ever done that. 
 
GPAs can be overcome. My undergraduate GPA was well below 3.0. Doing an MA at Chicago helped me overcome that. More importantly, what matters for PhD applications are the writing sample, the statement of purpose, and the letters of recommendation, really. Good GREs and GPAs can help, but they won't win the game. 

Questions that cannot be reasonably answered by the department's or the graduate school's website, including their FAQ sections, could be appropriate to direct to the DGS or, better yet, the department secretary. The questions you put in parentheses seem like the information typically found on the website and FAQ section. I imagine that if a department does respond, it will simply direct you to the department website. Questions about your fit with a potential adviser are best directed to that individual, and there are several places you can look to see how to write such a letter.
 
Now, for the meat of your question: I think it's inappropriate to direct those kinds of questions to schools or departments. They can't reasonably know because it's relative. You'll be judged in comparison to other applicants, and they haven't reviewed those applications. That doesn't mean you can't have an idea of what school you'd be competitive for based on previous years' statistics, and you should have a good sense of that based on conversations with your professors, but it won't spell your fate. Each department looks at applications holistically. That means that no one number or item will determine whether the department accepts you or not. You can overcome a low GPA by having outstanding letters of recommendation (no, don't provide extra letters. Do exactly as the application asks), a concise and focused statement of purpose, and well researched and well written writing sample (preferably one in the field you'd like to study, but no matter what, it should be your strongest) and a good verbal GRE score. These are all things you should strive for regardless of your GPA. A high GPA certainly won't be your trump for getting into grad school. As a side note, not all departments conduct interviews. Those that do will contact you to schedule one, not the other way around. 
 
More than that, I think those questions betray a lack of confidence on your part. Be sure to not be apologetic about your GPA; if needed, explain the circumstances, but you're there to research, and that should be the focus of your conversations. Frankly, I would surprised if any department sent a detailed response to your line of questioning. Walk it off, and focus on putting together an excellent application. 

La Jetée....

I forgot to add this one.... Shame on me!

You will continue to feel this way for a long time. You should continue to feel this way. They didn't make a mistake in admitting you, but your future professors and advisors know that you have a vast amount still to learn. I think it's healthy for you to know that too. Honestly, right now, you're probably not very good! Even if you've done a MA, if you've spent years in curatorial fellowships, whatever, being a good Ph.D. student is something that you need to learn by immersion.  If you're going to a good program, that's what your next several years of coursework is for. You'll get there. Take risks with your term papers. Try on new methodologies for size as you encounter them. Maybe most importantly, don't worry about "keeping up" with your future peers, or even worse, competing with them. Most likely, some of your classmates will blow you away with how adept they are at certain things. You'll undoubtedly outpace them in certain aspects as well. Treat your colleagues as the most valuable resources that the grad school setting has to offer. When one of your classmates' seminar paper presentations makes yours look like a 3rd grade modeling clay diorama in comparison--this will happen, so many times--take them out for a beer and pick their brain. Instead of comparing your own work to that of your peers, consider work you admire as a model to examine. Why was it so good? What questions were they asking? How was it organized? How, when, and to what effect did they incorporate visual analysis?  It took me longer than it should have to really understand this, but it's so, so good for you to have kickass colleagues. 

Apprehension is pretty normal for any big life event/milestone/change, so I'm pretty sure our anxieties will dissipate once we actually start school.
 
I think that I'm mostly afraid that I won't be able to compete with my academic peers. It didn't take much effort for me to be one of the top students in my undergraduate program (I'm not trying to boast, I think I just figured out the formula for doing well in my classes pretty quickly), and so I'm terrified that I'm not actually as good as I believe I am. I'm thrilled that I got into such a great program, but now I'm anxious that I'm not going to be able to match the academic prowess of my fellow grad students.
 
Blargh! 

I feel as if the thing I'm most having a problem with is the period before moving. Counting down the days before moving, I just want to be there and away from all this. "This" being home, a relaxed/non-productive environment where, whenever I arrive home, I just fall into a routine of immediately sitting on the couch and not doing much besides reading articles online. Mississippi isn't the most exciting or culturally productive state, at least the culture I'm looking for/I'm tired of for so many years, so that may be the problem as well. 
 
Does anyone have the problem of coming home and not feeling very productive, and therefore anxious about the lack thereof? 

I think that, to a certain extent, some of us might be suffering from pre-grad school Impostor Syndrom.
 
From Wikipedia:
 
"The impostor syndrome, sometimes called impostor phenomenon or fraud syndrome, is a psychological phenomenon in which people are unable to internalize their accomplishments. Despite external evidence of their competence, those with the syndrome remain convinced that they are frauds and do not deserve the success they have achieved. Proof of success is dismissed as luck, timing, or as a result of deceiving others into thinking they are more intelligent and competent than they believe themselves to be."
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome
 
 
I mean, think about it. We spend months dealing with the grueling process of applying to schools, being judged, being rejected, feeling worthless when that one school cuts you, being disappointed, only to FINALLY have that perfect school descend down and pluck you from your despair. Okay, maybe that was just me! But really, after being rejected from so many mediocre schools, only to be accepted by one of my top schools? Breeding ground for self-doubt and the feeling that someone there made a mistake!

Are any of y'all nervous or anxious about the upcoming semester? Apprehensive about moving to a new city, worried about how you'll get along with your advisor, or nervous about how you'll compare to your fellow graduate students?
 
I figured that this community could probably provide more effective support/reassurance than most others!
 
So, if you're all like
 

 
we can 
 

 
and be
 

 
because
 

 
 
 
 
 

Well, I would discount a lot of those artists I listed then, with the exception being Christian Boltanski. "Above the poverty line" is quite vast, but I assume just above. 

Seeing that you have Brazilian in your username, I'd guess you already have Vik Muniz -- his documentary Wasteland is exactly what you'd be asking about. I'd also possibly suggest Richard Mosse's new series "Infra" that's being shown at the Ireland pavilion of this year's Biennale. It's about the lives and means of fighters and impoverished in the DRC. 
 
I'd also suggest looking into who the artist was that did the "poor city" at this year's Art Basel. It received a lot of controversy for allowing rich people to play poor and go "slumming." I think Francis Alys might also be applicable to this with his projects like When Faith Moves Mountains and his dOCUMENTA work Reel/Unreel, each incorporating the poor in neighborhoods to change or do something to their environment. 

If I remember correctly Olafur Eliasson was also designing some light that would help poor in Africa better live. 

I also can't believe I almost forgot Subodh Gupta, India, who is basically everything you're looking for rolled into one. 

Ya, maybe that'll help. 

Christian Boltanski for sure, particularly his work for Monumenta. Carsten Holler, Petrit Halilaj, Sarah Sze -- in a more ecological sense. I think Rirkrit Tiravanija has done a lot of installation work in these areas. God, this is such a broad area in Contemporary art. I think in a lot of ways you could count Rachel Whiteread's work in the categories given. These are just the artists off the top of my head; I will get you a longer list once I really think about it. 

Is there an area of the world or region that you might be most interested?

Some of Kiki Smith's nudes miiiight be applicable, particularly those that deal with bodily fluids.

In a sense, Janine Antoni — specifically Lick and Lather comes to mind