Jump to content

runaway

Members
  • Posts

    273
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    runaway got a reaction from bananabear in Inflating one's diversity to enter Stanford, anyone did that?   
    So because these movies exist that automatically makes that okay? I personally find these movies disgusting, both misogynistic and transphobic. They feed into the aspects of society that allow gender-based violence and rape culture to exist. If you think that argument was going to make me come to some glorious epiphany, you're sadly mistaken.

    If you're part of a minority, then why post this topic to begin with? You'll notice that the prompt for these diversity essays is incredibly broad. Nowhere does it say 'brownie points if you're queer!!' Nor are they pitting us in some oppression olympics. It's a chance for us think critically about our privileges and disadvantages, not to prove the hand we got dealt was the hardest.
  2. Upvote
    runaway got a reaction from bananabear in Inflating one's diversity to enter Stanford, anyone did that?   
    It's a good thing that this forum is basically anonymous, because this thread is embarrassing.
    First of all, it's a lot harder to pretend about membership in the LGBT community than you think. I've yet to meet a queer person who would ever use the term 'bicurious.' Kaykaykay, the correct term is 'transgender,' not 'transgendered,' which is quite offensive. Even a small misuse of terminology like this would be a red flag to any LGBT person reading your application-- and there most likely will be one, because it's a minority group well represented in academia. (So it probably won't help you much anyway.)

    Regardless, lying about being queer-- when every day, people are assaulted or killed, become homeless, and lose their jobs because of their LGBT identity-- makes you an asshole.
  3. Upvote
    runaway got a reaction from DGrayson in Reading tips for graduate students in history programs   
    I'm almost embarrassed to ask this question, but: when describing methodology, what is a sufficient understanding of methodology? ie, "this is an archival based examination of xyz" vs. "this is an examination of xyz based on a, b, and c, archival collections"? Or am I totally off-base?
  4. Upvote
    runaway got a reaction from futurevol in Liberal vs. Conserative MSW Programs   
    All of the issues you just mentioned are completely intertwined, particularly LGBT youth and homelessness. If you've never encountered the term 'intersectionality,' I suggest you look it up. How much are you making assumptions based on the presence of a gender studies component in these programs?
  5. Upvote
    runaway got a reaction from BrendonSW in Liberal vs. Conserative MSW Programs   
    All of the issues you just mentioned are completely intertwined, particularly LGBT youth and homelessness. If you've never encountered the term 'intersectionality,' I suggest you look it up. How much are you making assumptions based on the presence of a gender studies component in these programs?
  6. Upvote
    runaway got a reaction from Pythia in Online Museum Sciences Certificate Programs??   
    I agree with Shelley. Also, the cornerstone of most museum studies programs is their internship component, which would be impossible to replicate online. I'm not familiar with any online museum studies programs, and while they might exist, a good internship with a local museum might be more cost-effective and helpful for your resume.
  7. Upvote
    runaway got a reaction from socialwelfareenthusiast in Liberal vs. Conserative MSW Programs   
    All of the issues you just mentioned are completely intertwined, particularly LGBT youth and homelessness. If you've never encountered the term 'intersectionality,' I suggest you look it up. How much are you making assumptions based on the presence of a gender studies component in these programs?
  8. Upvote
    runaway got a reaction from briefinterviews in Liberal vs. Conserative MSW Programs   
    All of the issues you just mentioned are completely intertwined, particularly LGBT youth and homelessness. If you've never encountered the term 'intersectionality,' I suggest you look it up. How much are you making assumptions based on the presence of a gender studies component in these programs?
  9. Upvote
    runaway got a reaction from manierata in Deferring enrollment to M.A. 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.
  10. Upvote
    runaway got a reaction from Flaneuse in Waiters represented in art works   
  11. Upvote
    runaway got a reaction from PolyWonk in Waiters represented in art works   
  12. Upvote
    runaway got a reaction from JKBFSS in Inflating one's diversity to enter Stanford, anyone did that?   
    So because these movies exist that automatically makes that okay? I personally find these movies disgusting, both misogynistic and transphobic. They feed into the aspects of society that allow gender-based violence and rape culture to exist. If you think that argument was going to make me come to some glorious epiphany, you're sadly mistaken.

    If you're part of a minority, then why post this topic to begin with? You'll notice that the prompt for these diversity essays is incredibly broad. Nowhere does it say 'brownie points if you're queer!!' Nor are they pitting us in some oppression olympics. It's a chance for us think critically about our privileges and disadvantages, not to prove the hand we got dealt was the hardest.
  13. Upvote
    runaway got a reaction from manierata in Waiters represented in art works   
  14. Upvote
    runaway got a reaction from EloiseGC in Waiters represented in art works   
  15. Upvote
    runaway reacted to mrb1145 in "Art History" is a problematic term. Discuss.   
    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
  16. Upvote
    runaway reacted to EloiseGC in "Art History" is a problematic term. Discuss.   
    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. 
  17. Upvote
    runaway got a reaction from kmed in Liberal vs. Conserative MSW Programs   
    All of the issues you just mentioned are completely intertwined, particularly LGBT youth and homelessness. If you've never encountered the term 'intersectionality,' I suggest you look it up. How much are you making assumptions based on the presence of a gender studies component in these programs?
  18. Upvote
    runaway got a reaction from BuddingScholar in MUST READ BOOKS   
    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.
  19. Upvote
    runaway got a reaction from Flaneuse in MUST READ BOOKS   
    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.
  20. Upvote
    runaway reacted to poliscar in MUST READ BOOKS   
    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. 
  21. Upvote
    runaway got a reaction from Eggleston in MUST READ BOOKS   
    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.
  22. Upvote
    runaway reacted to auvers-sur-oise in MUST READ BOOKS   
    Agreed, but undergraduate text books aren't art - they are books. Go to museums as often as you are able, and engage with actual art objects. You'll have 5+ years to be weighed down by the canon, the counter-canon and the counter-counter-canon. Beef up on the basics, like runaway suggested, if you feel so compelled, but insufficient familiarity with Saussure will not be a deal breaker.
     
    Read what interests you, and read what has been published by the scholars and potential mentors/advisors that interest you. Don't be swayed or guilted by anonymes who might describe a list like that one posted above as "coming to mind immediately." Look at art, think about objects, practice your languages, and read what interests you. Žižek? That's like recommending Neil deGrasse Tyson to an aspiring astrophysicist... except the book recommended above is outdated, largely useless and wholly unenjoyable.
  23. Upvote
    runaway got a reaction from HannahPie in MUST READ BOOKS   
    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.
  24. Upvote
    runaway got a reaction from Borden in MUST READ BOOKS   
    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.
  25. Upvote
    runaway got a reaction from Bearcat1 in MUST READ BOOKS   
    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.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use