mitzydoodle

Since you mention "research abilities", I'm assuming you're applying to doctoral programs or research intensive masters programs. This post is going to seem harsh, because it seems as if you're going about your preparation in the wrong way.
 
 
Just remember that the GRE is much less important than you think. It's good to do as well as you can, but it's generally not considered all that much when it comes to the actual decision makes. That said, you want to at least be in the ballpark of the schools you're applying to so you're applications aren't thrown out by administrative staff.
 
 
Complete and utter waste of time. A blog will not "reflect your research abilities". Admissions committees will not consider a blog as evidence of such, and will likely find it humorous that you think it is if you ever list it as a thing in your applications. What you need to demonstrate your research abilities is actual research experience. Research experience that will allow you to get strong letters of recommendation and that you can write about in your statement of purpose.
 
 
I'm not in the history field, but "extra-curriculars", volunteering etc. generally isn't considered at all for the graduate level. Can you get this museum to officially designate you as being part of an internship program? Are there PhD level respected researchers working at this museum? Would you be working closely enough with them that they could write you a letter of recommendation? Can you actively participate in research work that can be written about in your letters and statement of purpose? If the answer to any of these questions is no, it's also a waste of time.
 
 
Strengthening your base application (the people giving you recommendations, your actual research experience, published papers, your statement of purpose etc) is much more important than the things you're mentioning. The blog thing in particular would likely be a net negative against your application. It says you're passionate enough to have written thoughts on various topics, but not good enough to have had those thoughts published. It's also so unusual that they'll think you aren't a serious applicant if only because you thought it was a good idea.

ProspectStu, for someone so quick to cruelly judge others for not participating in the discussion put forth, you have not actually contributed anything substantial yourself. I actually disagree with some people here that this is nothing but semantics and I was intrigued when the topic initially popped up. However, I felt that the question was too vague to really engage with it. I think the term is problematic in many ways, for example, the types of objects it privileges, the types of (entrenched canonical) histories constructed around the term, its openness to the attachment of even vaguer terms like "visuality." Where were you hoping to go with this discussion Prospectstu? Instead of continuing to be a jerk on this forum, you might have saved a bit of face by explaining your thoughts on the matter. Also, an apology wouldn't hurt either.

Obviously, if you have no interest in discussing the fundaments of your field, you have no interest in participating in it.

You poor kids, this definition or defense of art history, more likely than not, will be one of the first papers you write in your art historiography course. 

See title.

I am going to lock this thread, as it clearly is not being used to discuss the original question that it raised.
 
For future reference, both publishing a personal message in a public forum (kokoschka) and sending someone an insulting personal message (ProspectStu) don't really say much of anything positive about your character. You are in for a rude awakening in graduate school if you think your "abrasive" character will be appreciated as a positive trait. Stop this back and forth at once, or you'll both be suspended from the forums.

The absurd over-analysis of a basic term that will never leave our study's vernacular is representative of the downfall of academia. If we are going to sit around and argue semantics, rather than contributing important research or aiding in conservation and protective efforts for the monuments we have in this world, then we deserve to be the butt of every joke directed towards us.
 
I loathe this sort of discourse when it has no obvious end goal. It's so unproductive. 

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

ProspectStu,,
 
 
This is uncalled for and unnecessarily hurtful. The reply you got to your original question from Mary Queen of Scotch is thoughtful, unlike your reply to it here. Stop using such language, as it will not be tolerated any further.

NO.

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.

I feel these are the questions that we were thought in 4th grade NOT to answer. "Don't tell strangers on the internet your full name, what elementary school you go to, what time the bus picks you up...." 
 
ArtilleryClinton, I found your original post very appropriate with the right amount of information. Thank you for extolling a bit more, but really, anyone who has looked at the Ivy school's websites will realize that they provide (or heavily hint) at much of that information already. 

The advice is equivocal at best. Could you tell us which Ivy, which specialization? 5 year package? Stipend per year? How much teaching? Did you negotiate a better deal because you were admitted to a few programs? Please give us insight that we can use. Thank you.

Hal --
 
You do realize that not everyone studies contemporary art? In my (pre-modern) sub-field it is first and foremost important to have a command of the primary sources and the historiography. This takes decades to achieve. It's not really appropriate for a new grad student fresh out of undergrad or some irrelevant masters program to throw down some Onians or Lacan and try to cobble together an argument. This is not innovative or appropriate for the field, and it will not get you recognized in a positive way. In fields that are founded on careful interpretation of historical details and encyclopedic knowledge of classical languages and iconography you first become a student of tradition. it is only once you have mastered the canon and traditional approaches/methodologies that you are positioned to question them in a way that is meaningful and responsible. I can't imagine you have spent much time in graduate level academia or in sub-fields outside of your own.  

Outing yourself via a message board (one where you are incredibly pompous) filled with potential future colleagues is so smart. The art community of Chicago is now aware of your antics, crippling insecurity, and not so subtle misogyny. Bad move, William Keith Brown.
 
Really rad website by the way (sarcasm): http://www.williamkeithbrown.com/index.html

This is total garbage and reads like sour grapes about your own undergraduate transcript. It's also presumptuous and offensive, but God knows you didn't hurt my feelings, so I won't belabor that particular point.
 
An undergraduate GPA above a 3.5, particularly within the major, shouldn't be to difficult for any prospective graduate student. While there are obviously exceptions, it's a good baseline, and graduate programs agree - that's why programs recommend or require applicants to meet certain cutoffs. I think that once you cross that threshold, the difference between a 3.7 and a 3.9 is negligible, but to suggest that a higher GPA necessarily means a duller candidate is petty and inaccurate.
 
Reputable graduate programs also require their students to maintain a high average, and while coasting through undergrad Art History coursework on a string of B's before making the jump to A-quality graduate work is not impossible, adcomms tend to place their bets on students who already have a proven track record of academic success. They want innovative, evocative research, but they also want their students to finish.
 
While I agree that "Being an interesting scholar with challenging ideas is much, much harder to fake," I am certain that the top programs have no shortage of candidates with perfect or near-perfect GPAs, and who bring insightful and challenging ideas.
 
A lot of big talk about statistics and a "normalized sampling of students" for a Monday morning, ProspectStu8735 - let's see those stats.

Congrats on your acceptance...but you should not go to a place that doesn't fund you.  When you finish your PhD, you will not want to be in debt...

I was accepted to Princeton for Fall 2010 and I got a call from my POI about two weeks before official results came out. It seems they make the calls to check your interest in the program so that they extend offers to those likely to come. At the time, I was told that my POI/department was recommending me, but the decision had to be confirmed by the Graduate College before official offers are extended, hence the two week wait.

Don't list the certificate. List the position and take the time to detail the responsibilities you had and the skills you developed/utilized.

I will just say it would be completely inappropriate for you to write to this student's coach about this. That is not nearly the right plan of action. Talking to the lab instructor is where you should start. Whoever is in charge of you should be able to help you with this.

Look, Hal (may I call you Hal?), I think I'll just be blunt here because a. this is the internet and b. we have no chance of being in the same cohort.
 
I want to think the best of people here on GradCafe, because I like this place and I've met some super people here. So I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't realize the tone that your posts convey. You keep getting downvotes, though, so maybe you have a clue.
 
Here it is: you're coming across like a condescending asshole and lecturing us like we're two year olds about things we already know. Please refrain.
 
Also, I realize we're in the humanities and not the social sciences, but your mom is a pretty shitty sample size.

This forum needs some new energy. While we're waiting, best thing you've seen in a museum or gallery recently?

@Runaway: Sure Chicago is not for everyone. Seems like you are applying to the big name brand schools in the field anyway.
 
I doubt anyone on Grad Cafe is sharing their deepest passions for art history discourse. Seems like most of the chatter is about impatience, hopes, desires, and dreams of getting in. I doubt you'll get a real feel for what anyone actually wants to study and what they hope to contribute to the field, but if you are asking--here goes: 
 
I am interested in new approaches to art criticism and art writing looking primarily at Hal Foster, Alexander Nemerov, and Matthew Jesse Jackson. I love this quote from Ryan Wong's recent essay on Artificial Hells-"But the agitation around Bishop can also be credited to the dullness of the contemporary art discourse, where boosterism is the only form of dialogue and lack of hype around an artist suffices for criticism. Museums, biennials, art fairs and galleries proliferate constantly and seemingly ad infinitum; the expanded field of the curator is discussed everywhere, but without an accompanying rise of the critic."
 
As far as a dissertation, I am looking at social practice, community art, critical political art, and my current field of art education. I am loosely asking: Can art (or should art even try to) provide a way out of life under authoritative capitalism (and the current art world that depends so heavily upon it)? What is the role of art today? What should the role of art, artists, and the art critic be today? Are art practices and art world trends researchable, if so, how might it look? I am also aligned with Craig Harshaw in that: "I feel disinclined to divide discussions like this from class and race. What I mean by this is that so many power positions in US art schools, museums, galleries are held by people who are power evasive around these issues--color-blind racists, pro-capitalist exploitation (without admitting this) etc. Why would we expect this to be different in a country like the US with such an incredibly reductive electoral political system and such weak working class/racial justice/economic justice social movements?" Art as a social movement must look squarely at this with honest eyes.
 
I feel that contemporary art wants to be an agent of social change (recently Tania Bruguera and Nato Thompson), but it does not yet know how to articulate its point of view. Citing the above from Craig Harshaw I add that it might be helpful to radicalize the institutions of art first, the art world second, and the larger culture third. I feel connected to Ad Reeinhardt and his comments on revolutions in art: “The next revolution will see the emancipation of the university academy of art from its market-place fantasies and its emergence as a center of consciousness and conscience.” 
 
Best,

Um, what? You think that an unmarried professor is walking around all secretly envious of a married student ... because lack of a spouse represents a "position in life" that one must be  "grumpy" about? Why not take the next leap--this female professor is obviously bitter because she isn't getting laid.
 
Please, we're grad students. Let's not perpetuate such sexist crap.