runaway

also (just FYI) Case doesn't have a modernist, and SAIC doesn't have a phd program.

a) I think it's expected that you'll apply elsewhere. It's better for your career not to stay at one school and have input on your work from different faculties. I wouldn't worry about being at Temple forever if you go there (unless you later decide you want to be.) b ) That's not bad advice, but I think ranking matters less for you in this situation. What are the placement rates like for PhDs, if that's what you're planning on? If Temple blows Syracuse out of the water, then maybe that's worth going into debt for. c) I'm guessing both are about equally strong in your area, but does one city have a stronger collection of the work you'd want access to? Or does NYC or DC? What about access to archives you might need? d) When all else fails, flip a coin. Usually you'll figure out which way you were hoping it would land.

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.

Is your stage name going to be R. Mutt?!

Is that what happened to your computer!?

I saw that post and hoped it was you! Congrats!

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'd be lying if I said I haven't grumbled at tourists getting in my way at museums, sometimes, brazilianbuddy, but I have to say I disagree with you completely. One of my favorite fun facts about the Met is that, in the early 20th century, you could not visit wearing overalls. This sounds funny but was actually a strictly class-based policy. I think we've come a long way, though we still have a long way to go. Your vision of museums is completely counter to my own, which is first and foremost about access. As for your concept of museums as a place of worship, it made me think of this passage from Berger's Ways of Seeing: (As a side note, I'd love to see updated, 2013 versions of similar data.) The more the museum is treated like a place of worship, the more likely it is that only the ordained attend. Is that really what you want?

auvers wins everything.

Edit: You know what. Forget it. I just want to move on. Hal, if you want to DM me, feel free to do so. If you didn't read the original post already, and you want to, I saved it. Otherwise, who's got a gif of that trust fall scene from Mean Girls?

@brazilianbuddy: would love to hear your report on what's good in Paris right now! I want to make a weekend trip sometime this spring, but that means so much to do, so little time...

OK, I know the forums have a bit of a learning curve, and I'm sorry for being harsh. I guess we're all a bit on edge while we wait for results. If you read through the earlier pages in this thread you'll notice we actually don't talk a whole lot about the nitty-gritty of our interests. It's really just about our applications. Mostly for anonymity's sake, partly because I think we all have other outlets for that. All of us posting now have submitted our apps (maybe with a couple exceptions?) and we've done our legwork and devoted ourselves to this for quite some time. You can assume we know basic things like what CAA is, the latest work in our field, the fact that Harvard gets more pop cultural references than Northwestern does, etc. The forum is about back and forth, but your posts have come off a bit like lectures. I think that's the one point where you've come off a bit abrasive, maybe without realizing it. Cool? btw, has your mom never seen When Harry Met Sally (!!?!)

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.

I also saw Degas in Paris-- it was fantastic, for sure! I'm looking forward to seeing that Manet show soon, as well as Schwitters in Britain at Tate. There's some fantastic stuff at MoMA right now. I really enjoyed Inventing Abstraction. Tokyo was great, too. Wish I could have seen it alongside the Gutai show at Guggenheim.