Jump to content

Chombo

Members
  • Content Count

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Chombo

  1. And I think that Losemygrip is also right that Visual Studies puts more emphasis on theory than on history in an art historical sense. Oftentimes though Visual Studies is very interested in history from the standpoint of sociological impact.
  2. Omnibuster is basically right. Visual Studies is interested in looking at basically anything you can "look at", whether its overtly or subtly influential on culture, and writing about it.
  3. I'm looking more at Buffalo's and UCSD Visual/Media Studies, but have been curious about the Rhetoric programs too. Which other's are you considering? CMU? Any and all infos that you've gathered so far would be great to hear about. Thanks in advance.
  4. Went up to Buffalo to meet with both the Visual Studies and Media Studies PhD programs and I have to say they really are an incredible group of people. The work and the dedication to its progress is clearly outstanding. I'm concerned about the post-apocalyptic cultural and economic landscape of Buffalo in conjunction with the weather, but despite all that there is still a strong pull for me up there. Looking forward to hearing more information from others interested in competing programs. Allbest and good luck.
  5. In terms of hybrid practices and research, I've heard lots of good things about Goldsmiths. I've been interested in their PhD program in Cultural Studies for a while, but it seems like there's no way that's going to happen because they won't fund you unless you're a UK national (which I'm not) or hold an EU passport with UK residency for 3 years prior to starting the course. http://www.gold.ac.uk/ahrc/eligibility/
  6. Storr pushed out the old. In with the new, so it goes. Nothing is 'clear', but some sort of new-fangled 'early-retirement' initiative basically just turned the page on all three.
  7. This thread and its antecedents have become more or less ridiculous. If you don't like the work that's coming out of a particular program, don't apply there. Your energies are better spent trying to figure out where you do want to study rather than ranting about where you don't.
  8. I'm still looking into MIT and their various programs. They have two PhD programs that could be of interest for people who are interested in where art practice, theory and history come together in an academic setting. The one that is more practice-based, and with a heavy slant towards new media and tech-art is housed in their Graduate School of Architecture, and is called a Doctorate in Media Arts and Sciences : http://sap.mit.edu/divisions/media_lab/programs/ MIT also offers, as you noted, a more traditional track of studies leading to a Doctorate in the History, Theory, and Criticism of Architecture and Art http://architecture.mit.edu/phd-in-htc.html Are you currently already enrolled in a PhD program? --and if so where, if I might ask? Thanks
  9. So far it seems like as far as Visual Studies programs on the East Coast go, there are: Rochester--Visual Studies, Buffalo--Media Studies (tech slant hands-on) and Visual Studies (theory, hands off), VCU--Media, Art, and Text (somewhat hands-on), and MIT--History, Theory, and Criticism of Architecture and Art. In the middle there is a program at Texas Tech, which isn't so interesting to me. On the West Coast: UC San Diego--Art History Theory and Criticism, with an Art Practice concentration option, UC Santa Cruz--Visual Studies, and UC Irvine--Visual Studies. Although I feel more drawn to this side of things, mainly just because it would be more new to me, I'm a little freaked out by how many professors are leaving the UC school system for higher pay at private institutions. Does anybody have any specific infos out there that one can't find on these schools' websites? How are these programs are regarded in the field--by Art Historians and/or by Cultural Theorists? Any and all infos will be much appreciated. Thanks in advance.
  10. Yes, thanks, I'm onto their program now too. Prof Katz spoke highly of them. Grant Kester, who heads up UCSD's Visual Arts department is one of their graduates.
  11. I had a meeting today with Jonathan Katz of the University of Buffalo PhD program in Visual Studies. He was extremely helpful and informative about his own program and also the field in general. Anybody else out there looking to swap information?
  12. Thanks for the information. Good to know that some Art History departments are warming up to practicing artists. --And I can't believe I forgot to put it into the original post, but of course there is also the PhD in Media Arts and Sciences at MIT.
  13. I'm interested in finding out more about the emerging PhD programs out there that are trying to bridge the gaps between practice and theory in an art-making and art historical contexts. So far the programs that I've found that seem interesting include UC San Diego's PhD program in Art History, Theory and Criticism, and the University of Buffalo PhD Program in Media Study--both of which are geared for practicing artists. Then there is the PhD in Visual Studies at UC Irvine which seems more on the Art History/Theory side of things rather than practice, although several of their current PhD candidates have MFA backgrounds and are practicing artists. If anyone else out there is interested in similar programs and/or has any information about these or other programs like them I'd greatly appreciate hearing from you. Thanks.
  14. I'm interested in finding out more about the emerging PhD programs out there that are trying to bridge the gaps between practice and theory in an art-making and art historical contexts. So far the programs that I've found that seem quite interesting include UC San Diego's PhD program in Art History, Theory and Criticism, and the University of Buffalo PhD Program in Media Study--both of which are geared for practicing artists. Then there is the PhD in Visual Studies at UC Irvine which seems more on the Art History/Theory side of things rather than practice, although several of their current PhD candidates have MFA backgrounds and are practicing artists. If anyone else out there is interested in similar programs and/or has any information about these or other programs like them I'd greatly appreciate hearing from you. Thanks.
  15. Jeez. I had no idea the funding situation at Stanford was so miserly. I thought they had a massive endowment and would be dishing out sweet deals. I wouldn't have been surprised to hear that California state schools got their funding slashed because the state of California is bankrupt. But Stanford?! Wow. Any other good tips out there on the matter? Who does have good funding? By this time next year I'll be carrying about 80k in school loans from my current course of study--so there's no way that i'm going to go anywhere without solid funding.
  16. Did you wind up getting into Stonybrook? Are you deciding between there and somewhere else? I am also interested in the same program and would love to hear more about it.
  17. Thanks for your input and the posts of the others as well--helpful perspectives all. I've spoken with the Graduate Chairs of both the Philosophy and Art History Departments here at Penn over the past few days, and they've reassured me that their own Humanities forum is very open to interdisciplinary work and that I may well not have to move at all. Plus as Kaja Silverman has left Berkeley and is now on the roster here, the option to stick around (if they'll have me) seems quite a bit more attractive. So beyond that, and through your advice, I'm looking into John's Hopkins Humanities Forum, Stanford for Modern Thought and Literature, Rhetoric at Berkeley, Literature at Duke, Literature at Notre Dame, ILS at Emory, Modern Culture and Media Studies at Brown, Comparative Studies in Discourse at Wisconsin, and potentially Comp Lit and/or Philosophy at Stonybrook, Oregon, UCSD and UCI. Am I missing any good programs out there that might fit into this group? And thanks again for the input. I really appreciate it all.
  18. Thanks for your response. I realize that most programs in Comparative Literature place a high importance on the nature of the field being rooted in a literal interpretation of that term. Harvard, for example, which is I think the oldest such department in the country, requires Ph.D candidates to demonstrate working knowledge of literature in at least 4 languages--"including at least one of which must be premodern (diachronic) or cross-cultural"--and what they mean specifically is "literature" as a written rather than as an otherwise aesthetic body of consideration--that's what they're looking to 'judge'. That's fine. I have no problem with that as a basic premise. It's just that that position does not represent exactly what I'm looking for at this particular time. I am not saying that I discount language ability in general, nor my own in that direction. When I say I have, "some French and German", perhaps I should clarify that I speak French at a near-fluent level after living and working in French-speaking countries for 3 years, and my spoken ability in German--which is a far more complex tongue--is a bit less than that, but that after having lived and worked in it on a daily basis for a few years in Berlin, I feel that I'm within reach of not just making rough translations of the sort that is required by most Ph.D programs in Philosophy. Beyond those experiences I also have 'some Spanish'--meaning that my mother was born and raised in Uruguay and though she didn't 'teach' it to me, I picked enough of it up to be conversational. When one has developed some language ability one also develops some language sensitivity and respect for it's depth, a fact which I'm sure you must understand in Latin. Thus I wouldn't say at the moment that my languages are perfect, exactly because I know the longing between my level and the level that I would need to achieve in order to be able to even think about attending to all Balzac's many concerns in any sort of responsible manner. If I have to refine my languages (as I would expect to do) beyond the mere level of learning a spoken language, I'm confident that I can work that out, but my concern isn't exactly there. My primary concern is that I'd like to work on Aesthetic Philosophy as the basis for, rather than the product of, other philosophical systems. It might seem that that means I should go back to studying Philosophy, but the trouble is that in the U.S., most of the situations that might be friendly to my perspective have been surgically removed from Philosophy departments and are now couched in the departments of Comparative Literature. As far as Goethe is concerned, I've always agreed with his statement that we should "talk less and draw more" --In this context and in general I'd go further to say that drawing is quite literally it's own "language". Further that that "language is really not the same "language" as photography, for example--but that both of them at this point in intellectual history must be accepted as "languages" and should be considered as such like and by other "Literatures". I realize clearly that Art History may well be my best fit along lines of thinking like this--but again--that's why I'm here and asking you what you all think. I realize I might be better off in an Art History Department. It has just seemed more like that direction has always been more about the History and less about the Art for me, and further that it looks to coordinates much more from Philosophy rather than the other way around. --Maybe I'd be better off in of the few remaining Continental Philosophy departments in this country that are still alive and doing good work. I don't know exactly where I should be applying right now and that's why I'm here on this forum right now trying to figure that out. Once again, thank you for your help. Allbest
  19. ?Nobody has anything to say? I asked a current Stonybrook Prof the same question and she said that Temple, Emory, Oregon and Stonybrook were good programs producing interesting work--with particularly generous funding available at Emory. Can anyone confirm this and/or offer more details? Thanks again in advance.
  20. Hi. I'm interested in applying to Ph. D programs in Comparative Literature and I'm looking for some advice. I did a BA at Yale in Philosophy, but by the end of it I walked out of there thinking that Philosophy was just a big headache, and basically swore myself off the stuff. I had developed a strong interest in Art during that time and since graduating 15 years ago I've pursued that above all else. Last fall in enrolled at Penn to do a Master of Fine Arts degree so that I might be able to teach, but midstream I find myself strangely turning back towards my original interest in Continental Philosophy, which seems at this point to be taken up by the Comp Lit departments. So this Fall I'll take Penn's graduate-level Literary Theory Class--the one that all incoming Ph.D students are required to take, and see how that goes. I'm hoping that through that experience I'll get a good feel for whether or not this direction is really a good fit for me or not. In the meantime I'd like to find out more about who's doing what and where, and I am hoping that some of you out there might be able to give me a few tips on where I should look. John's Hopkins Humanities Center looks, at least from the outside, like a perfect fit for me (if I can get in). But where else would you suggest looking? I'm interested in finding programs that are more rather than less progressive and open to radical interpretations of what the field of Comparative Literature might mean. Though I have some French and German, I'd be more interested in thinking about Contemporary Art as a disjointed family of languages, for example, than dealing with a requirement in Greek or Latin. And sure I'd love to hear some details and current feelings about about top-tier stalwarts like Stanford and Princeton and so on, but I'm just as keen to hear about 'others' whose 'rankings' aren't so high but who are producing strong work. I know very well how out of date and or/inappropriate a lot of the rankings systems really are and would love to hear more about what's really going on from people who are already in there doing the work. Thanks in advance for your time and good luck with your work.
  21. Chombo

    PennDesign

    penn is expensive, that's true. i'm going there now, with partial funding. i think you might be under-estimating the potential of penn's program and possibly over-valuing the 'rankings', which are really just silly and out of date. for example, at penn last week we had a lecture by anne hamilton, and studio crits with carlos basualdo. this week we have a lecture by stan douglas and crits with yasmil raymond. the program is also well-integrated with the university in general which looking ahead into an inter-disciplinary (art) world is a forward thinking place to be. i think the 'pure art' schools are trending out, and programs that are tied into major research universities are the future of art education. yale, ucla and the ascendency of columbia are good examples of that. that said, i still have my problems with it here. i'm not looking to paint any kind of utopia out of penn. i guess all i want to say is that penn is on the step up quick and can be as good as you make it. no place to slouch around at all.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.