JosephineB

A (potential) issue here, IMO, is that Renaissance is such a popular, flooded field. A secondary concentration in Renaissance Art is unlikely to be an asset on the job market in the same way that something such as African or Asian might be. It doesn't matter though, because there isn't a reason for the OP (at this stage in the game) to be thinking about what he wants his quals to be on. He needs to be admitted first. Also, it doesn't matter how genuine your focus in each area is - an SOP that states an interest in two fields that are so far apart will only make you look green and unfocused. You don't want to hand the adcom a reason to discount your application! My advisor has told me that she gets about 5 applications a year that she barely even has to read because the SOPs are so sprawling and unfocused that they would never be seriously considered by the adcom. OP, strong Renaissance art historians are a dime a dozen, whereas hellenists are not. If you are serious about studying ancient greek art you need to tailor your applications to that field. Do you read Attic Greek?

You will need to narrow your focus A LOT by choosing one area over the other. The span of time and language between these two subjects makes it impossible to study both. One option you might look into though would be to combine your interests and look at something along the lines of "survival of greek antiquity in the Renaissance" (or similar..).

You need to focus more on identifying programs with POIs who match your research interest. I know this field and, save for Bryn Mawr and Penn, your list of schools does not have professors in early xtian/byz/medieval. This is a hard field to break into because of language requirements. What languages do you have? You need a minimum of 2 years ancient greek and fluency in French and/or German to even be considered for entry into a PhD program in Byzantine art. Italian or Latin might cut it depending on your research interests, but IMHO it would be a waste of money to apply if you don't have reading fluency in French or German (this advice is for everyone!!!!!).

I am not in the field, but I take a lot of history seminars with Middle Eastern Studies students. The MES program at my university is not a tip top program, but it is very well regarded. My classmates who are at the MA level all have 2-4 years of Arabic, and the PhD students are fluent. Almost all are also on FLAS with another middle eastern language. Unfortunately you likely need 1-2 more years of intensive language training to be competitive at top programs. Considering the state of things, I don't think any programs will expect you to have research experience abroad if your focus is Syria and Lebanon!

Yes but go to Harvard's website (under the "News") section and read the bios of the incoming students. 6/9 of the incoming class were art/architectural history majors in undergrad, one was studio art. In 2010 8/9 were (the 9th person does not list her major). Those top schools also do not have master's programs. The schools fullofpink mentioned do. The schools that require ~5 courses. No one is saying that you need to be an art history major to get into a top grad school/be successful in AH. I am saying however, that you need more than one class.

Yes but the reality is that many schools will not even LOOK at your application if you don't meet their minimum requirement for # of art history courses taken or western/non-western distribution. Here is the problem I see: OP fell in love with art history after taking one class as a part of a study abroad program. Studying art in situ is amazing and life affirming, but it makes up <1% of what I do as an art historian. The other 99% of my time is spent reading hundreds and hundreds of pages for seminars that usually have noting to do with my area of interest, grading HORRIBLE undergraduate papers and exams, translating latin/german/french/greek, writing response papers, etc. For every hour of work I get to do on my own research, I have probably spent three on unrelated busy work. OP liked the one class s/he took, but until s/he takes more classes s/he will not know if s/he is ready to commit to the less glamorous aspects of art history that are the realities of the discipline.

Unless your undergrad record is STELLAR (as in Phi Beta Kappa, university-wide writing awards, 2 foreign languages, etc..)you will probably not be admitted to any top or mid-ranked programs with only one art history course. It isn't necessary to have a literal "major" in art history to be admitted to a grad program, but one class will not cut it. When I started my MA there were two people in my cohort with <5 art history classes and they were at a HUGE disadvantage. Despite their obvious intelligence they just did not have the background and could not keep up. Take some more classes and decide if this is really what you to do, and then apply in a year or two.

Are you going there in the Fall or is this just a general question? If you were admitted to the program check with your POI and your award letter. If your award letter says you get 6 years of funding, you should be guaranteed six years of funding as long as you satisfy the program requirements.

What do you mean about Columbia? I thought Pasztory was one of the top people to work with on pre-columbian?

If you want honest opinions, neither sounds like a good option. The terminal MA is probably a cash cow (please correct me if I am wrong and you are receiving full funding - in that case go!) don't pay $50,000+ if you aren't even going to be able to work with an advisor who shares your specialty. The other program sounds like a bad fit - Byzantinists know nothing of "Turkey." If I were you I would wait until fall and apply for a Fulbright ETA to Turkey or maybe a Turkish studies MA - you could probably get full-funding if you apply to study Persian with the FLAS (I know two people doing this right now). If you did a Turkish studies MA you could take electives in the Art History dept. The ETA would be perfect for you because your interest in Turkish contemporary art would make you a really compelling candidate, and you could probably come up with a really cool independent study. Either of these options would likely strengthen your profile as a candidate for an art history PhD program.

Do you think there is a chance you just had some bad luck this year or a certain part of your application was weak or vague? It is pretty impressive to be offered half tuition at traditionally unfunded programs - it means you are doing something right. If I was in your position and money wasn't an issue I would go to harvard. If I was in your position and money WAS an issue I would reapply to phds and mid ranked MAs next year. You may not be giving yourself enough credit. I am not sure what programs you applied to, but being rejected from 8 elite phd programs your first cycle and getting two half-tuition MA offers at "cash cow" programs (which is an accomplishment!) means that your are not hopelessly out of the running.

I am in a closely parallel field, and my UG background was in art history and comparative religion. What is your concentration if you are willing to say it? If you study canon law or church history (for example..) I could see how the MTS would be the better choice. If you have more of a "secular" interest the MAPSS might be more appropriate. Honestly though, both of those programs scream "cash cow" to me. Yes they have big names, but you are essentially paying to put their name on your cv. It's really not all that prestigious or financially realistic to shell out that kind of money for a graduate degree. Even with your non-traditional background your languages put you far ahead of most MA applicants. The odds are probably pretty good that you could find full (or at least some) funding at a less prestigious school.

What is your field? It seems to me like art schools are geared more towards modern/contemporary.

Sorry but I don't have the time or the money to go galavanting around Europe whenever I need to see a piece of art. Seeing works in person is obviously better, but books and artstor are a fine substitute. Agreed. Rolling my eyes over that one.. v. pretentious.

Yes on this! I would also add - Otto Pacht's The Practice of Art History: Reflections on Method Gombrich's Art and Illusion If you read these two books critically you will be well positioned to study theory and methodological approaches to art history. Also, just read any undergrad text books you can get you hands on! It doesn't even matter what subject, of if they are aren't "post-modern" or critical of the canon, etc - just read them critically. You want to be exposed to as much art as possible.