losemygrip

That's a great sign that you weren't offended by my honest comments. You'll get some really harsh criticism in grad school, so it's good that you're up for it. Make absolutely sure that you have your BS (a.k.a., artist's statement) completely and thoroughly under control for lustration and subsequent works. Make sure that you know ALL of the contemporary art that is similar or conceptually connected.

So, ARE those red nudes really tiny? I imagine them to be maybe 3 inches. What's great about those is they show graceful rendering with economy of means--like the Lascaux cave paintings. And with a conceptual subtext.

I think you need to DO something with those figures. They're still too much like studies. And why is there always just one of them? There is interesting stuff going on with the actual painting, but the subject isn't adding much.

These are extremely skillful but the limitation in subject is a problem for me. Heads and busts. Who are these people and why should we care? The more abstract, later ones start to move away from illustration, but kind of start to remind me of Marlene Dumas.

I respect your daring and your clear conceptualization. I can't help feeling I've seen a lot of it before, however. Lots of people do ontological performances, so it's not easy to stand out. That most recent series (lustration) is probably the best, so that's good. That stuff with bodily fluids has kind of been done to death (all those "menstrual prints"...) That said, there was something neat about the tiny female figures in blood or red ink. I hope they're really as small as they seem.

I respect your daring and your clear conceptualization. I can't help feeling I've seen a lot of it before, however. Lots of people do ontological performances, so it's not easy to stand out. That most recent series (lustration) is probably the best, so that's good. That stuff with bodily fluids has kind of been done to death (all those "menstrual prints"...) That said, there was something neat about the tiny female figures in blood or red ink. I hope they're really as small as they seem.

Your writing seems a little non-grammatical, so make sure not to do that in your applications.

I disagree. It's mostly a warning about the terminal MA at the IFA. I believe it to be mistaken, however, to extend that warning to all other terminal MA programs.

I also don't think that these fora have encouraged a "myth that one needs to have an MA from somewhere before applying for the PhD." Quite the contrary. There has been lively debate about this.

This is, to some extent, conventional wisdom. It is also COMPLETELY WRONG! (Excuse my yelling.) Those that I knew in grad school who took the "reading knowledge" courses were completely unable to do anything except pass the language exam. They were not able to use the language for research effectively. The whole point is not just to pass a stupid exam, but to be able to use the language skills for your research. The best way to do this is to have a thorough, complete understanding of the language.

I STRONGLY recommend taking a regular sequence of study for language acquisition, both spoken and written. Do not worry about whether you get "credit" for it. Doesn't matter. You're doing it to learn. And really apply yourself. Conversation classes that I took vastly improved my reading ability, for example. It's ok if you take the classes at a community college, or the Alliance Francaise, or whatever. But make every effort to engage with it. I also found that the most important classes I took in college that supported my art history training were in upper-division foreign literature. There's nothing like learning nineteenth-century French literature in the original to help you understand the art of that period.

As a bonus, when you travel you'll be much more confident than your fellow students. And you can impress colleagues at other institutions.

Here's another example: I have participated in the International Congress of the History of Art several times. It's like the Olympics of art history, held roughly every 4 years since the 19th century (the next one is in Nurnberg this summer). Papers are read in 3 or 4 different languages, and you are expected to keep up. In one session I was in, papers were in English, German, and French. (The Latin Americans mostly used French or English, since Spanish wasn't an official language.) My paper was in English, but I answered questions in French. At another session, I posed a question in German. Believe me, your European colleagues will have NO PROBLEM doing this. I can't follow every word of all these foreign-language papers, but I can get the gist of it. Without language training, you might as well go for a coffee break and skip half the conference.

Furthermore, if you're studying Asian or Middle-Eastern art, how do you think you'll do field research if you can't speak the languages? So, let's start looking at language training as a positive thing.

Mckee, you keep up the good work. It sounds as if you're doing exactly what you need to keep up your French. You might also subscribe to Paris Match--that's always fun.

OK, diatribe over.

Wait . . . what?! This makes no sense. Why would completing an MA make you ineligible for further study as well as unemployable?

You don't need a bachelor's in art history to pursue graduate study. You have a related degree. You've now strengthened your transcript. So you're ready to apply for grad school in art history. You'll apply to a range of programs, from PhD to terminal MA, from unlikely to likely. And then you'll go wherever you get the best deal.

Case closed. No need to fret.

If you actually think that Gonzalez-Torres's Perfect Lovers is so canonical that art historians from all fields should know it--well, you have a lot to learn. You really think a specialist in Greek vase painting would know it? Of Japanese hanging scrolls? Do you know all the major works of Sesshu or the Painter of the Wooly Satyrs? Forget it. What's "canonical" in contemporary art changes every two years. Just look at a series of recent editions of survey texts.

I'm going to come to Pepe's defense just a little bit and say that statistically, the observation that a large majority of art historians are women is quite true. Thus it stands to reason that a large majority of students are as well (and in fact have always been in the schools where I've attended and worked). In fact, in most universities a significant majority of the whole student population is female. So no reason to get outraged about that observation.

Similarly, the observation that a lot of undergrad art history majors are vacuous has been verified in my 20 years of teaching. The same can be said of a lot of other majors as well. At "elite" schools this is likely different, but not at mid-range schools. (Although I taught briefly at a very highly ranked liberal arts college where the majors, while bright, seemed not to know why they were in art history. More females than males in the group, but one of the males was a very nice young man who was really more interested in lacrosse. So not gender specific.) I'm not sure Pepe was saying that their gender was actually related to the students' casual attitudes; I think it was probably just careless writing that gave this impression, and I think that's where the flame war erupted from. Certainly vacuousness applies to none of you here in these forums; the same passion for the discipline that leads you into grad school perhaps also makes it hard to understand how others might not be so serious.

Finally, I have some sympathy with the critical comments about Theory. The "Theory mavens" are a much rarer breed these days than formerly, but I have found that frequently they know very little about art, or even about history. Scholarship consisted of invoking the names of various theorists and regurgitating and applying these theories to various visual (or not) texts. They couldn't tell a Rembrandt from a Renoir. Sounds like Pepe had an unfortunate encounter with one of these. May they rest in peace.

I'm pleased to see the generalists coming out of the closet. I really think that overspecialization has been bad for the discipline. It kind of makes me sad to see that you guys are all needing to apply to grad school to study with a very particular topic and individual in mind. I've always felt there's plenty of time for that AFTER you get to grad school. I learned so much more during my MA, and even during my PhD coursework. Learning about widely divergent things can be quite revelatory when addressing your special interests. (Surprise! most schools will have distribution requirements in your graduate coursework for that reason).

Back to the topic at hand: my motivation was that I wanted to teach in college, and I was interested in studio art, history, and languages. I had an artist sister who suggested art history when I was in high school. Being a natural dilettante, it's the only thing that could hold my interest.

Take it. Do you hear me? TAKE THE JOB!!

If you actually think that Gonzalez-Torres's Perfect Lovers is so canonical that art historians from all fields should know it--well, you have a lot to learn. You really think a specialist in Greek vase painting would know it? Of Japanese hanging scrolls? Do you know all the major works of Sesshu or the Painter of the Wooly Satyrs? Forget it. What's "canonical" in contemporary art changes every two years. Just look at a series of recent editions of survey texts.

I'm going to come to Pepe's defense just a little bit and say that statistically, the observation that a large majority of art historians are women is quite true. Thus it stands to reason that a large majority of students are as well (and in fact have always been in the schools where I've attended and worked). In fact, in most universities a significant majority of the whole student population is female. So no reason to get outraged about that observation.

Similarly, the observation that a lot of undergrad art history majors are vacuous has been verified in my 20 years of teaching. The same can be said of a lot of other majors as well. At "elite" schools this is likely different, but not at mid-range schools. (Although I taught briefly at a very highly ranked liberal arts college where the majors, while bright, seemed not to know why they were in art history. More females than males in the group, but one of the males was a very nice young man who was really more interested in lacrosse. So not gender specific.) I'm not sure Pepe was saying that their gender was actually related to the students' casual attitudes; I think it was probably just careless writing that gave this impression, and I think that's where the flame war erupted from. Certainly vacuousness applies to none of you here in these forums; the same passion for the discipline that leads you into grad school perhaps also makes it hard to understand how others might not be so serious.

Finally, I have some sympathy with the critical comments about Theory. The "Theory mavens" are a much rarer breed these days than formerly, but I have found that frequently they know very little about art, or even about history. Scholarship consisted of invoking the names of various theorists and regurgitating and applying these theories to various visual (or not) texts. They couldn't tell a Rembrandt from a Renoir. Sounds like Pepe had an unfortunate encounter with one of these. May they rest in peace.

I'm pleased to see the generalists coming out of the closet. I really think that overspecialization has been bad for the discipline. It kind of makes me sad to see that you guys are all needing to apply to grad school to study with a very particular topic and individual in mind. I've always felt there's plenty of time for that AFTER you get to grad school. I learned so much more during my MA, and even during my PhD coursework. Learning about widely divergent things can be quite revelatory when addressing your special interests. (Surprise! most schools will have distribution requirements in your graduate coursework for that reason).

Back to the topic at hand: my motivation was that I wanted to teach in college, and I was interested in studio art, history, and languages. I had an artist sister who suggested art history when I was in high school. Being a natural dilettante, it's the only thing that could hold my interest.

This is, to some extent, conventional wisdom. It is also COMPLETELY WRONG! (Excuse my yelling.) Those that I knew in grad school who took the "reading knowledge" courses were completely unable to do anything except pass the language exam. They were not able to use the language for research effectively. The whole point is not just to pass a stupid exam, but to be able to use the language skills for your research. The best way to do this is to have a thorough, complete understanding of the language.

I STRONGLY recommend taking a regular sequence of study for language acquisition, both spoken and written. Do not worry about whether you get "credit" for it. Doesn't matter. You're doing it to learn. And really apply yourself. Conversation classes that I took vastly improved my reading ability, for example. It's ok if you take the classes at a community college, or the Alliance Francaise, or whatever. But make every effort to engage with it. I also found that the most important classes I took in college that supported my art history training were in upper-division foreign literature. There's nothing like learning nineteenth-century French literature in the original to help you understand the art of that period.

As a bonus, when you travel you'll be much more confident than your fellow students. And you can impress colleagues at other institutions.

Here's another example: I have participated in the International Congress of the History of Art several times. It's like the Olympics of art history, held roughly every 4 years since the 19th century (the next one is in Nurnberg this summer). Papers are read in 3 or 4 different languages, and you are expected to keep up. In one session I was in, papers were in English, German, and French. (The Latin Americans mostly used French or English, since Spanish wasn't an official language.) My paper was in English, but I answered questions in French. At another session, I posed a question in German. Believe me, your European colleagues will have NO PROBLEM doing this. I can't follow every word of all these foreign-language papers, but I can get the gist of it. Without language training, you might as well go for a coffee break and skip half the conference.

Furthermore, if you're studying Asian or Middle-Eastern art, how do you think you'll do field research if you can't speak the languages? So, let's start looking at language training as a positive thing.

Mckee, you keep up the good work. It sounds as if you're doing exactly what you need to keep up your French. You might also subscribe to Paris Match--that's always fun.

OK, diatribe over.

If you actually think that Gonzalez-Torres's Perfect Lovers is so canonical that art historians from all fields should know it--well, you have a lot to learn. You really think a specialist in Greek vase painting would know it? Of Japanese hanging scrolls? Do you know all the major works of Sesshu or the Painter of the Wooly Satyrs? Forget it. What's "canonical" in contemporary art changes every two years. Just look at a series of recent editions of survey texts.

I'm going to come to Pepe's defense just a little bit and say that statistically, the observation that a large majority of art historians are women is quite true. Thus it stands to reason that a large majority of students are as well (and in fact have always been in the schools where I've attended and worked). In fact, in most universities a significant majority of the whole student population is female. So no reason to get outraged about that observation.

Similarly, the observation that a lot of undergrad art history majors are vacuous has been verified in my 20 years of teaching. The same can be said of a lot of other majors as well. At "elite" schools this is likely different, but not at mid-range schools. (Although I taught briefly at a very highly ranked liberal arts college where the majors, while bright, seemed not to know why they were in art history. More females than males in the group, but one of the males was a very nice young man who was really more interested in lacrosse. So not gender specific.) I'm not sure Pepe was saying that their gender was actually related to the students' casual attitudes; I think it was probably just careless writing that gave this impression, and I think that's where the flame war erupted from. Certainly vacuousness applies to none of you here in these forums; the same passion for the discipline that leads you into grad school perhaps also makes it hard to understand how others might not be so serious.

Finally, I have some sympathy with the critical comments about Theory. The "Theory mavens" are a much rarer breed these days than formerly, but I have found that frequently they know very little about art, or even about history. Scholarship consisted of invoking the names of various theorists and regurgitating and applying these theories to various visual (or not) texts. They couldn't tell a Rembrandt from a Renoir. Sounds like Pepe had an unfortunate encounter with one of these. May they rest in peace.

I'm pleased to see the generalists coming out of the closet. I really think that overspecialization has been bad for the discipline. It kind of makes me sad to see that you guys are all needing to apply to grad school to study with a very particular topic and individual in mind. I've always felt there's plenty of time for that AFTER you get to grad school. I learned so much more during my MA, and even during my PhD coursework. Learning about widely divergent things can be quite revelatory when addressing your special interests. (Surprise! most schools will have distribution requirements in your graduate coursework for that reason).

Back to the topic at hand: my motivation was that I wanted to teach in college, and I was interested in studio art, history, and languages. I had an artist sister who suggested art history when I was in high school. Being a natural dilettante, it's the only thing that could hold my interest.

If you actually think that Gonzalez-Torres's Perfect Lovers is so canonical that art historians from all fields should know it--well, you have a lot to learn. You really think a specialist in Greek vase painting would know it? Of Japanese hanging scrolls? Do you know all the major works of Sesshu or the Painter of the Wooly Satyrs? Forget it. What's "canonical" in contemporary art changes every two years. Just look at a series of recent editions of survey texts.

I'm going to come to Pepe's defense just a little bit and say that statistically, the observation that a large majority of art historians are women is quite true. Thus it stands to reason that a large majority of students are as well (and in fact have always been in the schools where I've attended and worked). In fact, in most universities a significant majority of the whole student population is female. So no reason to get outraged about that observation.

Similarly, the observation that a lot of undergrad art history majors are vacuous has been verified in my 20 years of teaching. The same can be said of a lot of other majors as well. At "elite" schools this is likely different, but not at mid-range schools. (Although I taught briefly at a very highly ranked liberal arts college where the majors, while bright, seemed not to know why they were in art history. More females than males in the group, but one of the males was a very nice young man who was really more interested in lacrosse. So not gender specific.) I'm not sure Pepe was saying that their gender was actually related to the students' casual attitudes; I think it was probably just careless writing that gave this impression, and I think that's where the flame war erupted from. Certainly vacuousness applies to none of you here in these forums; the same passion for the discipline that leads you into grad school perhaps also makes it hard to understand how others might not be so serious.

Finally, I have some sympathy with the critical comments about Theory. The "Theory mavens" are a much rarer breed these days than formerly, but I have found that frequently they know very little about art, or even about history. Scholarship consisted of invoking the names of various theorists and regurgitating and applying these theories to various visual (or not) texts. They couldn't tell a Rembrandt from a Renoir. Sounds like Pepe had an unfortunate encounter with one of these. May they rest in peace.

I'm pleased to see the generalists coming out of the closet. I really think that overspecialization has been bad for the discipline. It kind of makes me sad to see that you guys are all needing to apply to grad school to study with a very particular topic and individual in mind. I've always felt there's plenty of time for that AFTER you get to grad school. I learned so much more during my MA, and even during my PhD coursework. Learning about widely divergent things can be quite revelatory when addressing your special interests. (Surprise! most schools will have distribution requirements in your graduate coursework for that reason).

Back to the topic at hand: my motivation was that I wanted to teach in college, and I was interested in studio art, history, and languages. I had an artist sister who suggested art history when I was in high school. Being a natural dilettante, it's the only thing that could hold my interest.

Well, I can see I'm outnumbered here. But let me ask this: are any of you who are arguing that it's just fine to re-apply to all the same schools, that you probably just barely missed being accepted, that it's just a matter of "fit" or a better essay--are any of you actually people who have successfully re-applied with only some tweaking of your essay? If so, that would be good information to provide. If not, do you personally know people who did this? On what basis are you making this argument? Not to pull rank, but after all, I kind of AM the grizzled old veteran in these parts.

The idea of addressing weaknesses in your application I agree with. The idea that this can be something as simple as a re-written statement, I do not. Or that magically, in re-applying the second year, you're going to be JUST what they were looking for, whereas in the first year, you were not (i.e., the argument about "fit").


This, I don't disagree with, EXCEPT this likely won't happen in one year. If you re-apply in two or three years and there have been such changes, then maybe.


By all means, do. My argument is that the more you change up your application and your qualifications, the more viable you are in re-applying. It needs to be something significant. And it sounds as if you have gotten some very specific feedback on your application from the very school to which you want to re-apply, so that's somewhat of a different situation as well. Did they suggest that you re-apply?

However, there's another sort of problem in this immediate re-application thinking. While your application may improve, you'll be going up against a different group of applicants. They may be less interesting than last year's--but they might be MORE attractive to the committee. You might have fared better with your new app against your original crowd, but will you against this new crowd? The committee WILL know you're re-applying, unless you were someone who initially got knocked out of consideration very early on. You're already becoming "old hat." You risk being seen as silly or desperate unless there are significant changes.

But I would like to hear from anybody with firsthand experience in successfully reapplying the next year by only changing their essay and/or writing sample (Because let's face it--that's about the only changeable part of your application that doesn't entail the kind of significant factors that I'm talking about.)

Brianny, what discipline are you in?

My standard reaction is: go for the best financial deal (which is probably Maryland). While Hunter has well-known faculty, I've seen terrible work from their grad students. Worse than Yale. I honestly know almost nothing about UMD's MFA program, but it's probably about as good as any state school.

Think twice about going WAY into debt just so you can live in New York and go to Hunter.

Oh, and be sure not to refer in your application to you "M.A. dissertation." It's an M.A. thesis, and a Ph.D. dissertation.

I'll reiterate: even if you apply to the same schools, do not do so unless you are bringing something significantly new to the table. Just a new essay or writing sample won't hack it. You need additional experience, or significantly increased GRE scores, or far more glowing references--something like that. Preferably all of those. Otherwise, it's likely to be, "We had this same application last year and rejected him/her--why is s/he wasting our time again?" rather than, "Gosh, look how much this person has accomplished since s/he last applied--we could use someone with this dedication."

If you're going to wait and do something to add to your application between now and then, feel free to re-apply to the same schools. If you're just going to submit based on the same record, try different schools.

I'll reiterate: even if you apply to the same schools, do not do so unless you are bringing something significantly new to the table. Just a new essay or writing sample won't hack it. You need additional experience, or significantly increased GRE scores, or far more glowing references--something like that. Preferably all of those. Otherwise, it's likely to be, "We had this same application last year and rejected him/her--why is s/he wasting our time again?" rather than, "Gosh, look how much this person has accomplished since s/he last applied--we could use someone with this dedication."

If you're going to wait and do something to add to your application between now and then, feel free to re-apply to the same schools. If you're just going to submit based on the same record, try different schools.

Do not re-apply to the same schools unless something significantly changes in your record. Don't do it. It won't help. You CAN get an M.A., and then re-apply.

I would pick a different set of schools for next time.

Josephine Beuys: going to a top grad school does not guarantee a career in academe, nor does attending another program ruin your chances. The school I attended for my PhD was much lower ranked then than it is now, for example (I'm quite proud of the reputation they've gotten). In fact, it HELPED my chances in academe because I got a TON of teaching experience there, way more than my later colleagues from Harvard, who couldn't even retrieve a jammed slide from a projector. (Yes, this was the old days.) I was told that my teaching record was a huge plus when I applied for jobs.

The other thing is--the so-called top schools are usually not all that much better than the next tier in reality.

Go to IU. MICA's reputation isn't enough to make up for the cost. IU is fine.

I hope you're not serious about this, because that would be a mistake.

I hope you're not serious about this, because that would be a mistake.

I hope you're not serious about this, because that would be a mistake.