Chombo

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I guess I would disagree with you on multiple levels - it's a different approach to photography, and I think it's a valuable one, even if singular. Fom what I understand *all* of the other top mfa programs (versus more commercially oriented ones like SCAD, Brooks, etc.) foster the more conceptual/interdisciplinary approach. Those who want to work in that mode can go to myriad other schools, and those who want a straight photo approach with strong critics and a rigorous discursive level can try for Yale. I do think that the Yale/Papageorge pedagogy is a valid way of working in photography today, and isn't a matter of being "cutting edge" or not. Basically, there's room for all, and it would be a huge bummer to see the last top-flight straight school offering this track to disappear.

In my opinion, this POST is what's really ridiculous. The whole point of fora such as these is to share opinions and information. It's good to know what different opinions are of programs. And the pictures that have been posted may help someone to determine if this is for them. Why wouldn't one want to know if a program had its fans and foes? Oh, and don't assume all participants are current applicants. Some of us may be seasoned professionals just trying to help.

If you don't like the commentary that's coming out of a particular forum, don't write there. Your energies are better spent trying to figure out where you do want to write rather than ranting about the commentary you don't like.

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.

Well, that didn't work. Where are the instructions for posting images?

This is a really well-regarded program--a professor of mine referred to it as the top place to study visual culture and visual studies.

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.

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.

Hey Chombo. I've done a lot of research along the same lines as you in looking for PhD art practice programs. A great book on the subject is "Artists with PhD's" by James Elkins from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. He and many others in the book talk about what a potential PhD in studio might look like in America. The end of the book has a few dissertations by studio artists completing their PhD's.

Here some school information that I've found:

University of Rochester: PhD in Visual and Cultural Studies. MFA students entering the program teach studio classes. One foreign language requirement. Full tuition remission and stipend. Also, the individual who started the program at Rochester is now the art department chair at UC San Diego.

Texas Tech University: PhD in Art Practice. This sounds similar to the UC San Diego program. There's a strong studio component.

Institute for Doctoral Studies in Visual Art (IDSVA) : PhD in Philosophy and Art Theory. For practicing artists. This is basically a distance program. You meet with a cohort for three years in January and in July. You study in New York, Italy, Venice Biennale and France. They currently have candidate status for accreditation. The presidentm, George Smith, is an Ivy League PhD and taught at art institutes for years.

Stanford University: PhD in Art History. The only reason I mention this school is because at least one of their PhD candidates is an MFA holder who also teaches studio classes.

UC Irvine: I mention this school because they admit students who hold MFA degree's.

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you find out any more information.

You should probably just apply for a job as a paralegal.

That sounds like a good list for someone with your background and qualifications. From here, you might think about other factors such as funding and school culture. For example, I knew a Phi Beta Kappa triple-major who got into Stanford and he received an offer of the same $10K TA stipend from Oregon that someone else mentioned. So unless you are independently wealthy, I would advise against wasting time on their application. It just isn't worth it. In contrast, I recently visited WashU and had a chance to meet with the head of their comparative lit program and I was impressed with the quality of their program despite its small size.
Good luck.

This forum, unfortunately, isn't visited by many philosophy prospectives. Livejournal's "whogotin" is the place to swap info. I say unfortunately because gradcafe has a good setup and allows one to search for posts-- whogotin is a free for all and reeks of 1997 internet savvy...

Anyway, Yale has a great reputation, one of the best places to do political philosophy, for instance, with Benhabib and Pogge.
They are strong in early modern, too.

The Ivy's are maybe a little out of touch for some folks who are into recent analytic philosophy (or critical theory and other strands in continental philosophy for that matter), but they are generally strong in ancient and in the history of philosophy

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.