Hegel's Bagels

I would echo nearly everything that oh_la_la has said, from my slightly different perspective as someone who sits on fellowship committees (pre and post doc).  All of your CVs will look about the same if you are reasonably smart. CAA has lots of panels every year, so chances are you might have given a paper there or maybe at your field's major conference and a handful of grad student conferences.  There are a limited number of fellowships so I'm not overly impressed when I see a CASVA, Fullbright, ACLS, etc... I expect them.  I would be impressed by a publication in a major journal but don't care so much about book reviews (and neither will tenure committees). They are a lot of work for little reward.
 
The most important thing is the work.  Is it interesting, does it seem it necessary, will it make a difference, and is it presented in a way that makes the first two obvious?  Secondarily, letters of recommendation.  I do care who they are from to a certain extent, it's helpful if I know and respect the person's work, but not where they are from.  What I care about is how excited the recommender seems about their student's (or colleague's) work.  I've seen great letters of rec that complement proposals to such an extent that they seem almost like extensions of the applicant's own thinking.  That's a strong letter.  I've also seen letters from very prominent folks at august institutions that are either cursory or more about their own work than their student's/colleague's.  Those weaken the application overall.  Oh_la_la's advice about choosing your advisor wisely is CRITICAL.  Ideally when you start to go to conferences and meet senior people in your field, some will have already heard about you.  If you don't have such an advocate or your advisor is not active within the field, you are at a disadvantage.
 
I think I would also add that you should pick a minor field that gives you maximum teaching range.  You are a medievalist? Great, how about a minor in contemporary Chinese art? It's a little gamesmanship but in the best light speaks to your intellectual curiosity. 
 
The last is important because... I'm guardedly optimistic that those who want them will eventually get jobs. BUT that TT job may be at a satellite campus of Middle of the State You Never Wanted to Live In Oh No Where's The Whole Foods University. And you may be the only art historian, and you may teach a 4-4, and you'll make $35,000, and the library might be terrible, and there is no research/travel funding, and your students may be as dumb as a box of rocks.  But you'll be living the dream.  This could happen to you regardless of the ranking of your program. There are just a few Ivies, public and private R1s, and top tier liberal arts colleges but lots of middling public and private schools everywhere.
 
I would say that all of Oh_la_la's advice and what I just wrote stands for those of you who want to be museum curators as well.  Do try to write a dissertation that could be adapted into an ambitious exhibition and catalogue though.

I'm glad to see that this question is being addressed on this forum because no one should assume that they will have a job on the other end: it is the new normal to finish your PhD in art history and wait several years before landing a job (I was able to finally land a tt-job a few years after I finished and I could not be happier).  But I have several friends from top-tier (ivy and R1: the issue is widespread) institutions who have not found jobs.  It's common and it sucks.  There simply are not enough awesome jobs to go around.  Here are my two-cents from having been on the academic job market for 2+ years.  This advice is directed toward those who wish to pursue a TT-job at respectable R-1 institutions and represents my own perspective as an applicant and now as asst. prof who sat on a hiring committee this year: 
 
1. The quality AND dynamism of your dissertation.  This is by far the most important factor in earning you a job at a top tier institution.  If your dissertation is on a random artist that only people in your field care about, you are making your life harder.  There are several caveats to this: if you're going to work on random, meaning non-canonical artists (and for what it's worth I work on artists who nobody has heard of), then you have got to put your artists/image makers within a frame that resonates for readers outside of your field and that has "big picture" implications.  If you can figure out how to write this kind of a dissertation, you will be able to win external fellowships, since the committees who evaluate applications are often interdisciplinary: Fulbright, ACLS, AAUW for example.  It goes without saying that you need an awesome adviser to write this kind of dissertation; that is why I have consistently advocated on this forum that you should attend a phd program where you will receive individual and careful attention when you are writing: I'm sorry to say this, but at some ivies, this does happen. Proceed with caution; talk to the grad students when you're shopping around.  See if your potential advisor actually reads chapter drafts, comments on them extensively and returns them to you in a timely manner: you would be surprised how rare this is.       
 
2. Professionalism: this has a lot to do with people skills and it's a huge factor in hiring decisions.  They don't want to hire a grad student, they're looking for a colleague.  Based on some of the nasty comments on some of these forums, I'm thinking that there are some folks who really need to work on this.  Grad school is a good place to do so.    
 
3. Teaching ability: how good of a teacher are you and can you teach across periods and media?  I had to market myself to teach a much broader area than I specialize in.  It's now normal for someone who studies 19th-c to be able to teach 18th-c through contemporary; likewise, if you are writing a dissertation on the 18th-c, you should be able to teach Baroque and Renaissance.  Get as much teaching experience as you can before going on the job market; try to teach your own classes too.  
 
4. You should not, I repeat, NOT rush to publish parts of your dissertation while still in grad school.  Publish one thing in a really good place, but do not try to go for every opportunity that you can find.  When you're on the job market as an asst. prof, committees do not expect that your C.V. be full of fancy publications: it's not a question of quantity, but of quality.  My advice: write exhibition reviews and book reviews; if you can, try to prepare one article as you are about to defend your dissertation.  When you're in grad school, you might not be ready to have you work out there quite yet, especially if it's going to be the basis of your book.  Go to conferences and meet other people in your field.  BE NICE TO THEM.  Cultivate relationships with junior and senior scholars in your field. Find mentors outside of your program.  Organize a big conference. 
 
good luck.  make sure not to assume that you are going to be hired immediately upon graduation.  In fact, you should actually assume that you will end up with nothing your first year on the market.  Also: many postdocs are far more competitive than tt-jobs.  To this end, if you can, try not to go into debt at all during grad school.  I had no debt upon graduating and this made my life MUCH easier.  Try to cultivate other skills that you can earn a living with while you wait to find your dream job.  
 
GOOD LUCK. 

ProspectStu, for someone so quick to cruelly judge others for not participating in the discussion put forth, you have not actually contributed anything substantial yourself. I actually disagree with some people here that this is nothing but semantics and I was intrigued when the topic initially popped up. However, I felt that the question was too vague to really engage with it. I think the term is problematic in many ways, for example, the types of objects it privileges, the types of (entrenched canonical) histories constructed around the term, its openness to the attachment of even vaguer terms like "visuality." Where were you hoping to go with this discussion Prospectstu? Instead of continuing to be a jerk on this forum, you might have saved a bit of face by explaining your thoughts on the matter. Also, an apology wouldn't hurt either.

ProspectStu, for someone so quick to cruelly judge others for not participating in the discussion put forth, you have not actually contributed anything substantial yourself. I actually disagree with some people here that this is nothing but semantics and I was intrigued when the topic initially popped up. However, I felt that the question was too vague to really engage with it. I think the term is problematic in many ways, for example, the types of objects it privileges, the types of (entrenched canonical) histories constructed around the term, its openness to the attachment of even vaguer terms like "visuality." Where were you hoping to go with this discussion Prospectstu? Instead of continuing to be a jerk on this forum, you might have saved a bit of face by explaining your thoughts on the matter. Also, an apology wouldn't hurt either.

I am going to lock this thread, as it clearly is not being used to discuss the original question that it raised.
 
For future reference, both publishing a personal message in a public forum (kokoschka) and sending someone an insulting personal message (ProspectStu) don't really say much of anything positive about your character. You are in for a rude awakening in graduate school if you think your "abrasive" character will be appreciated as a positive trait. Stop this back and forth at once, or you'll both be suspended from the forums.

ProspectStu, for someone so quick to cruelly judge others for not participating in the discussion put forth, you have not actually contributed anything substantial yourself. I actually disagree with some people here that this is nothing but semantics and I was intrigued when the topic initially popped up. However, I felt that the question was too vague to really engage with it. I think the term is problematic in many ways, for example, the types of objects it privileges, the types of (entrenched canonical) histories constructed around the term, its openness to the attachment of even vaguer terms like "visuality." Where were you hoping to go with this discussion Prospectstu? Instead of continuing to be a jerk on this forum, you might have saved a bit of face by explaining your thoughts on the matter. Also, an apology wouldn't hurt either.

ProspectStu, for someone so quick to cruelly judge others for not participating in the discussion put forth, you have not actually contributed anything substantial yourself. I actually disagree with some people here that this is nothing but semantics and I was intrigued when the topic initially popped up. However, I felt that the question was too vague to really engage with it. I think the term is problematic in many ways, for example, the types of objects it privileges, the types of (entrenched canonical) histories constructed around the term, its openness to the attachment of even vaguer terms like "visuality." Where were you hoping to go with this discussion Prospectstu? Instead of continuing to be a jerk on this forum, you might have saved a bit of face by explaining your thoughts on the matter. Also, an apology wouldn't hurt either.

ProspectStu, for someone so quick to cruelly judge others for not participating in the discussion put forth, you have not actually contributed anything substantial yourself. I actually disagree with some people here that this is nothing but semantics and I was intrigued when the topic initially popped up. However, I felt that the question was too vague to really engage with it. I think the term is problematic in many ways, for example, the types of objects it privileges, the types of (entrenched canonical) histories constructed around the term, its openness to the attachment of even vaguer terms like "visuality." Where were you hoping to go with this discussion Prospectstu? Instead of continuing to be a jerk on this forum, you might have saved a bit of face by explaining your thoughts on the matter. Also, an apology wouldn't hurt either.

ProspectStu, for someone so quick to cruelly judge others for not participating in the discussion put forth, you have not actually contributed anything substantial yourself. I actually disagree with some people here that this is nothing but semantics and I was intrigued when the topic initially popped up. However, I felt that the question was too vague to really engage with it. I think the term is problematic in many ways, for example, the types of objects it privileges, the types of (entrenched canonical) histories constructed around the term, its openness to the attachment of even vaguer terms like "visuality." Where were you hoping to go with this discussion Prospectstu? Instead of continuing to be a jerk on this forum, you might have saved a bit of face by explaining your thoughts on the matter. Also, an apology wouldn't hurt either.

ProspectStu, for someone so quick to cruelly judge others for not participating in the discussion put forth, you have not actually contributed anything substantial yourself. I actually disagree with some people here that this is nothing but semantics and I was intrigued when the topic initially popped up. However, I felt that the question was too vague to really engage with it. I think the term is problematic in many ways, for example, the types of objects it privileges, the types of (entrenched canonical) histories constructed around the term, its openness to the attachment of even vaguer terms like "visuality." Where were you hoping to go with this discussion Prospectstu? Instead of continuing to be a jerk on this forum, you might have saved a bit of face by explaining your thoughts on the matter. Also, an apology wouldn't hurt either.

ProspectStu, for someone so quick to cruelly judge others for not participating in the discussion put forth, you have not actually contributed anything substantial yourself. I actually disagree with some people here that this is nothing but semantics and I was intrigued when the topic initially popped up. However, I felt that the question was too vague to really engage with it. I think the term is problematic in many ways, for example, the types of objects it privileges, the types of (entrenched canonical) histories constructed around the term, its openness to the attachment of even vaguer terms like "visuality." Where were you hoping to go with this discussion Prospectstu? Instead of continuing to be a jerk on this forum, you might have saved a bit of face by explaining your thoughts on the matter. Also, an apology wouldn't hurt either.

ProspectStu, for someone so quick to cruelly judge others for not participating in the discussion put forth, you have not actually contributed anything substantial yourself. I actually disagree with some people here that this is nothing but semantics and I was intrigued when the topic initially popped up. However, I felt that the question was too vague to really engage with it. I think the term is problematic in many ways, for example, the types of objects it privileges, the types of (entrenched canonical) histories constructed around the term, its openness to the attachment of even vaguer terms like "visuality." Where were you hoping to go with this discussion Prospectstu? Instead of continuing to be a jerk on this forum, you might have saved a bit of face by explaining your thoughts on the matter. Also, an apology wouldn't hurt either.

ProspectStu, for someone so quick to cruelly judge others for not participating in the discussion put forth, you have not actually contributed anything substantial yourself. I actually disagree with some people here that this is nothing but semantics and I was intrigued when the topic initially popped up. However, I felt that the question was too vague to really engage with it. I think the term is problematic in many ways, for example, the types of objects it privileges, the types of (entrenched canonical) histories constructed around the term, its openness to the attachment of even vaguer terms like "visuality." Where were you hoping to go with this discussion Prospectstu? Instead of continuing to be a jerk on this forum, you might have saved a bit of face by explaining your thoughts on the matter. Also, an apology wouldn't hurt either.

You poor kids, this definition or defense of art history, more likely than not, will be one of the first papers you write in your art historiography course. 

Obviously, if you have no interest in discussing the fundaments of your field, you have no interest in participating in it.

Yikes @prospectstu8735: where's the collegiality?  If you have any hope of joining the ranks of art history professionals, you should fix that attitude ASAP, and certainly before you start your program in the fall.  Your fellow grad students and faculty will not take kindly to it.  In terms of getting a job later on, people skills really do matter.  Also, if the grad admissions process is already raising your stress level like this, I wish you luck dealing with the super intense competition of applying for external fellowships and jobs in a few years.  BE NICE TO EACH OTHER!    

I agree that Prospectstu's comment was rather cruel, but I don't think the original question he/she posed was meant to be controversial. I think that Prospect was genuinely curious. It's so difficult to get your tone across sometimes through the computer. Nevertheless, prospect's response was uncalled for. 

I found the exercise useful. After writing that first paper, we went through the rest of the methodologies and theories, and then the final paper was to incorporate the new methodologies and theories and how that had changed our perception of the field. 
 
Also, this was one of my interview questions at a school - so it does come up. 
 
Blargh. 

ProspectStu,,
 
 
This is uncalled for and unnecessarily hurtful. The reply you got to your original question from Mary Queen of Scotch is thoughtful, unlike your reply to it here. Stop using such language, as it will not be tolerated any further.

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

There's probably a reason why you're sitting on a pile of rejections.

Da Vinci Code!! *throws head back and laughs*

In all seriousness:

The Return of Martin Guerre, The Agony and the Ecstasy, Pollock, Fur, Basquiat, Frida, PBS's Art21 series...

Da Vinci Code!! *throws head back and laughs*

In all seriousness:

The Return of Martin Guerre, The Agony and the Ecstasy, Pollock, Fur, Basquiat, Frida, PBS's Art21 series...

Da Vinci Code!! *throws head back and laughs*

In all seriousness:

The Return of Martin Guerre, The Agony and the Ecstasy, Pollock, Fur, Basquiat, Frida, PBS's Art21 series...

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.