BuddingScholar

Carol Armstrong (Yale), Robin Kelsey (Harvard), Anne McCauley (Princeton), Eduardo Cadava (Princeton), John Tagg (Binghamton), Ariella Azoulay (Brown), Geoffrey Batchen (CUNY), Alex Nemerov (Stanford), Louis Kaplan (Toronto), Alexander Alberro (Columbia), Joel Snyder (Chicago), WJT Mitchell (Chicago), Blake Stimson (UC Davis), Kaja Silverman (Penn).
 
These are the scholars that come to the top of my mind. As far as I know they're all tenured and accepting (or have accepted) PhD students. I am definitely overlooking quite a few scholars, particularly newer ones. It would probably be useful as well to look for scholars outside of Art History programs, like Azoulay (Modern Media and Culture/Comp. Lit) and Cadava (English/Comp. Lit/IHum). 

Haha! I was just on Facebook, and I observed Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art wrote the following:
 
"If you've watched THE LITTLE MERMAID recently, and we know that you have, you probably recognized this piece which is in our Caravaggio exhibition! [image] Ariel had good taste."
 
:-)
 
Here's the museum exhibition, the image referred to is the first on the left (of three) on the website.

There's probably a reason why you're sitting on a pile of rejections.

ProspectStu, 
 
 
Mary offered a very reasonable response to your pretentious question, and owing to the fact that no one else has responded, I think that many of us agree with her assertion but haven't had the patience to articulate it ourselves.  Congratulations on your many acceptances: I wish your future colleagues the best of luck in dealing with you!
 
cheers,
mrb1145

Have you guys seen "Into Great Silence" by Philip Gröning yet?  If not, you should.
 
This documentary was released in 2005, and it is, in my opinion, one of the most visually arresting contemporary films I've ever seen.  I watch it as though I'm attending a beautifully curated group of photographs on a museum wall.  Every frame and moment of this film is a gorgeous [sort of] tableaux vivant.

Friendships forming here and being carried on into graduate school.  I LOVE IT!  Glad to hear that you guys chose the same school.

I second people here... I am not in grad school yet, but I am in a similar situation also. I am a single parent of a child afflicted with a severe non-curable degenerative and rare disease, so I understand the difficulties of getting organized to go to graduate school.  We need to take into account many more variables than most people here understand. I ABSOLUTELY sympathize with you.
 
With that in mind, I think you might need to think [even more] about why you want to go to grad school.  Even without experience, I know that grad school will take up a lot of your time and will require an insurmountable amount of effort and dedication from you.  So my questions to you are: Can you do that? Do you have that to offer?  I am confident you have the will and drive to do it, but CAN YOU really do it?  I continue to ask myself this question, and am more and more convinced that I can and will.
 
I do not think that your unwillingness to retake the GRE bespeaks your intellectual readiness to take on the challenge. I do, however, question if you are ready [psychologically and time-wise] for it since you cannot even study for the GRE.  I recently bought a Princeton Review book and it cost me under $20.00, so I think you are likely to afford one [i don't know your financial situation well enough though].  After that, just set up a study schedule and stick to it.  Unlike many people here, I do not have the luxury of cramming for the test as I am busy with my daughter, work and school (still) for long periods of time, so I have to sparse out my efforts and have a lot of self-discipline to stick with a study program.  YOU CAN DO IT!  Go for it, if you really want this.
 
We will likely need to make more sacrifices than most people but it can be done. It has been done before, and I know many people who are in the middle of it right now.  They say it's VERY hard, but also very rewarding.  If this is your dream, as it is certainly mine, we should be willing to do whatever it takes. 
 
Please feel free to PM at anytime if you would like to talk more about this.  I have found reassuring to meet and talk with people that is going or have gone through similar situations.
 
The bottom line: don't rule yourself out of great programs just because of the GRE.

@Swagato, I find that fact intriguing and would love to talk to you about it in the fall! I'm curious to hear from you as a film student why you are so passionately critical of his work. It's exponentially more interesting to discuss ideas with people who disagree with you. Looking forward! 

Having now successfully weathered the storm that is the application process, if I were to do it over again I would do three things differently:
 
- Apply to 10 schools. Thankfully I was accepted to my top choice, but having chosen to only apply to six I was not left with as many options as I had hoped for. I realize that for many ten seems excessive (it did to me at least), but if you want options and potential "bargaining chips" cast a wide net. PhD applications are a crap shoot.
 
- Master the art of being generally specific. While not confirmed, I have a strong feeling that although my Statement was well written and tight, for a number of programs the way in which I articulated my interests may have been too temporally/geographically specific.
 
- Embrace the fact that rejections do not determine your self-worth. This is echoed over and over on the forums, but it is so true that it doesn't hurt to say it again.

Greetings all! First-time poster here - I must say, finding this forum has made me feel much better (well, most of the time!) about everything.  Brazilianbuddy, I am right with you - I wish I had come across these conversations sooner, as I feel that I could have made improvements or done things a bit differently if I had known certain things from the get-go.  And it helps diminish the sense of anxiety or disappointment to know that this is an intense and stressful process for everyone, no matter what the outcome, and there's something to be said for strength in numbers.   
I have been wait-listed at my first choice, but have no clue what the chances are of getting admitted from the wait list, of course.  Other than that, I have wallowed through a bevy of rejections, and as for the still "pending" apps, I am in the "no news is bad news" zone, and trying to mentally move on, make new plans for next year, and think about what I can do to improve my chances for the next round.  
Thanks to everyone for the helpful comments and support!  

La Jetée....

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

Seriously, I was like "NOOO! Go call the police or something!!"

La Jetée....

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

This is a great thread with some excellent reading suggestions, but I'm getting exhausted just reading it. brazilianbuddy, there is no magic list of books that MUST be read. but if you're feeling like there are gaps in your knowledge, I'd do the following:
 
1. do a google search for methods syllabi from reputable universities.
2. read what grabs you. Of the books mentioned here, I think Sontag, Barthes, and Benjamin (in translation is fine, really) are the most essential. If you've never read Freud's Uncanny and at least some Foucault, cover that too. Am I right that you're interested in WWI? In that case I second Anderson's Imagined Communities.
3. For everything you don't have time to read, skim if you have a copy. If applicable, skim the footnotes/endnotes to get an idea of how this work relates to those that preceded it. Then google the author and look for the following:
     - Year and institution from which they earned their PhD;
     - Where they are now (if applicable);
     - What else they've written, who they've published with, etc. 
     - Who's responded to them, dis/agreed with them, etc. 
Basically, the same thing you'd do to find POI. If you're missing an idea of who knew and influenced whom, you'll quickly start to fill in the gaps.
 
NB: Almost all of these really canonical texts are easy to find in PDF form on google. Save your money for the obscure stuff.
 
Apologies if this all seems pretty basic (because it is) but I hope that it might be helpful for anyone reading this who didn't have a chance to take a methods course in undergrad.
 
Remember, half of grad school is being able to fake it through reading material that you simply don't have time to read. That's where skimming and simply knowing important names and the concepts associated with them can make a huge difference.
 
I was successful this cycle and I've read 1/3-1/2 of the texts mentioned here. I've also read some really essential stuff that's important to my work but probably irrelevant to the majority of people here. One size doesn't fit all, but I think the above method is a useful form of self-study for filling in any gaps you can identify in your own knowledge.
 
Also, one thing nobody's mentioned yet: it's not just about reading, but also about looking! Utilize whatever museum resources you have at your fingertips to gain a more encyclopedic knowledge of art outside your period. And/or go to the library and skim through some exhibition catalogs from exhibitions outside your subfield. There's a lot of information you can glean this way, and more quickly/efficiently than reading a monograph. This thread is pretty theory heavy, and I think it's important not to ignore other facets of our work as art historians, too.

Da Vinci Code!! *throws head back and laughs*

In all seriousness:

The Return of Martin Guerre, The Agony and the Ecstasy, Pollock, Fur, Basquiat, Frida, PBS's Art21 series...

Lol at reading 
 
 
Seriously, this. Obviously it's helpful to be able to cross-reference between German and English, but the only Benjamin you need to read in German is the untranslated stuff. 

It's a waste of your time to try to read all of Freud, Marx, the Frankfurt School etc—especially before grad school. In addition, there are so many theorists missing from Cleisthenes' list. You could very well add Spivak, Said, Althusser, Gramsci, de Man, Weber, Habermas, Fanon, Husserl, Gadamer, any of the autonomists, Butler, Sontag, Wittgenstein, Laplanche, Cixous, Kristeva, Irigaray, Bataille, Sloterdijk, Latour, Badiou, Bakhtin, Shklovsky etc. That doesn't include earlier philosophers, even—all of the aforementioned thinkers are 20th century. One could very well start another list, with everything from Schiller to Riegl. 

My point is that one could very well put together another list of thinkers comparable to that posted by Cleisthenes', and claim that they are necessary reading. Yet, it is humorous to think of Derrida confessing to have never read Wittgenstein—particularly because he did not have the time to grapple with him properly. I think the same can be said about anyone wanting to go to graduate school. Deal with what you are able to properly grapple with, and with what is particularly pertinent to your sub-field. 

P.S. Interesting that Cleisthenes' list is almost entirely void of thinkers of gender/race/sexuality, no? Would produce a very white-washed, heteronormative, patriarchal Art History. 
 
P.P.S. As soon as you start considering things mandatory, you will become a raging lunatic. New theoretical fields with vital texts pop up every now and then, and you're sure as hell not going to be able to run around trying to learn Affect Theory, OOO and world-systems theory. If you try that you'll end up producing shit scholarship. 
 
P.P.P.S. Literature rocks too. Frank O'Hara can tell you as much about AbEx as any theorist. Try it. 

What a great topic!  I study Renaissance art, so I can think of a ton on that topic, but I think a good general one is Panofsky's Meaning in the Visual Arts  as well as his Studies in Iconology.  Gombrich's The Story of Art is pretty great.  I could also think of a lot of fiction that's relevant to what I do too, such as The Iliad and The Divine COmedy, though maybe not so much for you.
 
Would love to hear what others have to say!  

I second people here... I am not in grad school yet, but I am in a similar situation also. I am a single parent of a child afflicted with a severe non-curable degenerative and rare disease, so I understand the difficulties of getting organized to go to graduate school.  We need to take into account many more variables than most people here understand. I ABSOLUTELY sympathize with you.
 
With that in mind, I think you might need to think [even more] about why you want to go to grad school.  Even without experience, I know that grad school will take up a lot of your time and will require an insurmountable amount of effort and dedication from you.  So my questions to you are: Can you do that? Do you have that to offer?  I am confident you have the will and drive to do it, but CAN YOU really do it?  I continue to ask myself this question, and am more and more convinced that I can and will.
 
I do not think that your unwillingness to retake the GRE bespeaks your intellectual readiness to take on the challenge. I do, however, question if you are ready [psychologically and time-wise] for it since you cannot even study for the GRE.  I recently bought a Princeton Review book and it cost me under $20.00, so I think you are likely to afford one [i don't know your financial situation well enough though].  After that, just set up a study schedule and stick to it.  Unlike many people here, I do not have the luxury of cramming for the test as I am busy with my daughter, work and school (still) for long periods of time, so I have to sparse out my efforts and have a lot of self-discipline to stick with a study program.  YOU CAN DO IT!  Go for it, if you really want this.
 
We will likely need to make more sacrifices than most people but it can be done. It has been done before, and I know many people who are in the middle of it right now.  They say it's VERY hard, but also very rewarding.  If this is your dream, as it is certainly mine, we should be willing to do whatever it takes. 
 
Please feel free to PM at anytime if you would like to talk more about this.  I have found reassuring to meet and talk with people that is going or have gone through similar situations.
 
The bottom line: don't rule yourself out of great programs just because of the GRE.

Two things: Purchase College does not require the GRE.  It is a great program for early-modern and forward and has a more curatorial emphasis so it would fit well with the museum studies path you would like to take.
 
The second thing is that I had bronchitis when I took my GRE, but as I graduated in fall rather than spring and have to travel 4 hours to my closest testing center, there was no time to retake and meet deadlines.  I scored barely over 300, but I did get a 5 on my written portion.  I only applied to 6 programs because I know exactly what it is I want and would rather wait for the right program than take a spot at one which does not fit my needs.  I was soooo sure I wouldnt be accepted anywhere because I didnt vary my options enough and didnt have the scores to get into the programs I want.  So far Ive heard from 4 schools, all 4 were acceptances, one with funding even though I didnt ask for it.  So, even with the worst possible GRE scores I would still apply and see where it gets you, you might be pleasantly surprised.

Easy as that, huh? I think that if I was primarily responsible for taking care of two toddlers, and working as a museum docent, it would be very challenging for me to invest the time necessary to prepare for and take the GRE, let alone the new GRE! Moreover, not everyone has the means to afford "a good prep course;" both Kaplan and Princeton Review charge a small fortune for their respective GRE prep courses. 
 
Danimacg, given your situation, you certainly do not come across as uncommitted, and I think you're making a sensible decision in waiting for when your children are enrolled in primary school before you pursue graduate studies. However, as much as you dislike the GREs (I also loath them), I think it is wise to invest in GRE review books and work through them at your convenience. When you feel comfortable enough with the material, then register for the exam. Even if you do not perform well on it, at least admissions committees will see you're making a concerted and recurrent effort to improve your scores. I wish I could say, "The GRE doesn't matter," but in truth, some programs weigh it more than others. My scores are rather marginal, and I personally believe the Prometric testing centers where I took the GRE offer a rather unfriendly and uncomfortable environment for test-takers. Nonetheless, I am currently studying for the exam again, and I do hope to do better the next time I take it. 
 
In regards to accredited schools that do not require the GRE for acceptance into an Art History MA program, CUNY Queens sounds like it may be a good fit for you. UMass-Amherst also has a terminal MA program in Art History, and the program is one of the few that I am familiar with that is publicly funded. Yet, I am almost positive U-Mass Amherst requires the GRE for admission: http://www.umass.edu/arthist/ . University of British Columbia and University of Toronto are both excellent universities, and neither require the GRE for admission since they are both Canadian schools, so perhaps you should investigate those two institutions even though they're a bit further away from you. 
 
I just want to point out that losemygrip is well intentioned, but sometimes has a tendency to sound curt and harsh. When he/she wrote, "If you're not committed enough to do even that..." I think he/she was using "you're" generally, and probably didn't mean to address just you, Danimacg. 

Just take a good prep course and do the GRE over again. If you're not committed enough to do even that, then you're not committed enough to be successful in graduate school.

Also, go buy yourself some Freud, stat.

I'll drink [starbucks] to that!

I am going to take a moment to congratulate myself on being the first posted Yale rejection, and go drown my sorrows in pizza.

Ok, knowing even more, if it were me, I would choose Oxford.  Even if Gandhi attended UCL's School of Law   Seriously though, both schools have turned out many fine lawyers, but if you are thinking about a traditional field a traditional education might better serve your needs.  It is not only about looking better to law schools, but about the contacts you will make outside your department and the opportunities available.  UCL has a lot to offer and is also an old institution, but they are more modern, Oxford is more traditional, both have awesome benefits depending on your field, and in law tradition will get you much further.
 
Haha, the location is the one thing I hate about UCL.  The campus is lovely, and I do like London, but in small doses.  Im from San Diego, but have been living in Nuremberg for 11 years now.  I travel to London often, but I find the sheer mass of people and largeness of it to be a bit overwhelming after a few days.  Im planning on living out of the city and commuting.  I would almost prefer Oxford in that way.
 
I wish I could just study while Im in university.  Im glad that you dont have to make a decision based on whether or not you can work; a little part of me dies each time I hear about a student who got into the program they want and cant find funding or work while in school.  I guess it is common for many top notch schools to frown on it.  I dont mean to sound preachy, but I wish a great education could be open to anyone who could get in regardless of finances.
 
Either way you decide to go I wish you the best of luck, and if you choose UCL Ill see you in class