chamomile

This is sort of an odd question. It completely depends on your methodology and subjects. A visual culture approach might survey dozens of images, while a psychoanalytic reading might zone in on just a handful. 
My personal rule is to include an image if I spend time discussing it, especially if it's not frequently published or well known. An offhanded comparison to Dejeuner sur l'herbe doesn't merit reproduction in the list of figures. Include anything that you spend more than a sentence or two analyzing. 

Hmmm...well, first of all, make sure you really want to go to grad school. I'm sure (I hope!) you've been told all of this, but make sure you know it: there are very, very few jobs out there (the odds are that you won't get a tenure track job, plain and simple; and even if you do, you will probably have to move to middle of nowhere Iowa or Kentucky for your first job. Doing pompier painting makes you even less employable; it had a moment 20 years ago, but I think it's less desirable now, but if you write something spectacular you'll be able to stand with all of those gericault and manet scholars out there), you will delay adulthood until your mid-30s (or later--I don't know how old you are), accumulating no savings or benefits along the way, as other people your age are beginning to become real adults and able to support families, and you have a lot of catching up to do (esp. learning languages). If that sounds OK to you, then I would say: First, it seems you're not ready to apply directly to a PhD program, so apply to MA programs. The programs you list are good, but for an MA it doesn't matter too much where you go, though Courtauld and Williams (especially) will give you a leg up. Just make sure not to go into debt--that will haunt you for a very long time. Second, you MUST learn french if you want to do Pompier painting, or any kind of French painting; this will make or break a PhD application; it will also greatly help your MA app. So getting cracking NOW. Third, your grades aren't great, it's true, and you'll be competing with very smart kids from the Ivies for a spot at the top schools, but your letters and your writing sample matter most, so don't get discouraged. Hope that helped!

Dear future Art History GradCafe lurkers,
 
I lurked this forum pretty hard over the past year, so now that the application process is coming to a close, I feel that I should post something in the hope that it might be of help to you.
 
I guess it should be obvious that there is not much blanket advice for this process, given that, at the end of the day, pretty much everyone is dealing with circumstances (field of interest, academic background, financial situation) specific to themselves. In my case, I applied to programs a number of years removed from a humanities undergraduate degree from a well-respected non-Ivy. Although I had not taken any Art History classes in school, I had a strong undergrad thesis, and a number of years of practical experience working/hanging around my field (a geographical area). I decided from the start to consider only PhD programs at places without terminal MAs. In the first place, I decided that I was not going to go into debt for an MA. I also heard from a friend (in a PhD program without a terminal MA) that classes with mixed PhD/MA students were to be avoided because the MA students bogged down the discussion. And yes, this friend came to that conclusion after sitting in on a class at Chicago *ducks*
 
I’ll say this for sure: if I had the time and money, I could have saved myself some trouble (and maybe improved my chances of getting in to some places) if I could have visited programs and met with professors before I applied. In the end, I did things backwards--I visited after I'd been accepted. On the one hand, this meant that the schools were able to pay for some of my travel expenses, but it also meant that the dynamic of the visits was somewhat awkward from the beginning: simply put, the stakes were a lot higher than they would have been if I had visited 7 months earlier.
 
As it was, I did furious research online to find professors who seemed like they might have an interest in my project, which could have fallen under either an "area studies" or a "medium-specific" rubric. I emailed a lot of people, and heard back from a fair number of them. Of course is definitely worth doing this, and doing so as early as possible; sometimes, professors will sometimes point you to other colleagues who may be of help. Still, I think it would also be a mistake to read too much into these responses (or lack thereof). In other words, it would be a mistake to decide against applying to a program just because a professor there either ignored your email, or wrote back something curt.
 
Apart from this professor/field specific research, though, which basically just involved looking through every department’s faculty page, I got important information about the process from people ahead of me. When I started applying I canvassed a lot of people to see if they had any insights about Art History programs. There were a couple of people who could give me a lot of useful information about the process. There is some really good information buried in the GradCafe archives, but it can take a lot of effort to drudge up, and most of the time it's only incidental to what you actually need to know. Getting the ear of someone who is currently in an Art History program is invaluable; they will save you, I swear.
 
I guess really want to say is this: the whole process is a crapshoot, and you should treat it as such. There is no “right” way to do it. Apply to a bunch of programs, see what happens, and try not to stress out too much--that's probably the best advice I can give. Good luck! 

It's official, guys... Williams extended me an offer today!
 

Hoo-boy, I think I voted down two or three of your posts, and because I disagree with them, as I do with the post you left above. A tad bit paranoid, there?
 
Relax, pal. It's just a message board. No need to get yourself in a big twist about it.
 
ETA: Just gave you a few more downvotes, just so you could feel better about it.

Not that I disagree, but the OP has also consistently brought this (their weight) up in threads even where it is completely irrelevant. My first instinct was that they were baiting for concern trolls and fatphobia, honestly by repeatedly stating it, not responding further, acting coy about weight despite the seeming self-photo. But I gave honest advice for what is an honest question regardless. 
 
Again, asking what campuses are most accommodating without even knowing their field is pointless. All we can really say is ask the DRC at the schools you're looking at. 

Well, the OP logged on asking for advice on which campuses might be more accommodating--not to be "concern-trolled" on how to lose weight. I'm sure that she knows where to find advice for weight loss. The internet is pretty big. And I've never met a fat person who was completely surprised by a) the fact that they were fat, or b. the fact that being fat isn't healthy. The world pretty much makes sure that they know this.

How do you know which ones are undergrads? Haha. 
 
You give very good advice. I never thought about being in the same vicinity all day, but that does make perfect sense. It's not like in undergrad where you'll have random classes all over campus. You'll most likely be in the same building all day. 
 
Very good point. If you really can only walk 20-30 steps at a time, then I would consider that some type of mobility disability. Contact the DRC and they'll be able to better assist you than any of us will. 
 
I like your style, persimmony. 
 
Now my insight... Once again, you can only take 20-30 steps at a time. That qualifies, in my opinion, as disabled. But of course, it's a correctable disability. Grad schools don't start for another 6 months. I'm not saying you need to become an Olympian within that time, but you shouldn't just settle for 20-30 steps. You should make it your goal to increase your steps each and every week. Who knows, maybe by the time you get to grad school you'll be perfectly mobile. 
 
I see what you're saying about having seating, desks etc that are accommodating to your needs. To tie in to my previous point, you do have 6 months to work on your fitness. Maybe it won't be as much of a problem by then. But I don't see finding suitable seating to be such a big problem. I'm sure the disability department provides some sort of seating available and they can place it in the classroom for you. There is someone in one of my classes who has his own desk. I don't know exactly what his disability is. He looks fine to me. But he is an older guy and a war vet. Sure it has something to do with that. 
 
And as far as culture... We've talked about this in the other thread about fitness. You didn't really seem to respond to anyone's advice, or at least anything that wasn't what you wanted to hear. My points were that educated people seem to be more health conscious. You'll find way more vegans, yoga nuts, cyclists, mountain climbers etc on college campuses than you'll find anywhere else in the country. I know 70-year old professors who bike to campus every day. Even if they're not meat head gym rats, they can still be health/fitness conscious. I've noticed that younger undergrads are more into looking good and older grad students are more into being healthy. There's really no way of getting around it. I don't think there's such thing as a non-fit culture. You probably won't have a bunch of classmates being too vocal about their workout routines, but you'll definitely have a lot of fit classmates. 

Or you could uh... you know, try to lose weight? I don't know your situation at all and don't mean to be judgmental... but if you have to rest after every 20-30 paces you are definitely not getting the exercise you need and should be more concerned about becoming healthier than finding a campus that have seats with no armrests.
 
Edit: oh and to answer your original question...stay away from Colorado I guess. Lots of active health nuts here.

I have to agree with this assessment.  Sure, at very small institutions, curators might fulfill a wider set of roles.  But at any of the top institutions with major collections or exhibitions programs, curatorial work is much more about art-historical training (meaning writing and research) than with the practicalities of museology.  The one exception I would give is for conservation.  In my field (contemporary) it is increasingly important to understand the very complex issues surrounding the conservation of contemporary art, which includes things like performance.  This does not, however, extend to an understanding of how labels are fabricated.   And I too know of several curators hired straight out of grad school, without the PhD, with only limited fellowship experience and little-to-no actual job experience in the museum world.  Publications, however, are another story, and diss is probably the most important thing of all.

I guess we will have to just disagree.  I can think of a handful of folks hired at solid national and regional museums in the past 5 years with the kind of limited experience I mentioned, most with PhDs or MAs from just a few schools. People I know personally. But you don't know any. We know different people. I have also never been in a situation where "art historian" curators have matted or framed work, put nail polish on stuff (which I think used to be a common way to identify 3-d works, one sees it in archeology, dec arts, and natural history contexts, maybe those curators mentioned by the other poster are from a different generation) or fabricated their own labels.  Or where labels aren't collaborative and reviewed by more than one department, not to mention been proofed by a copy editor. Typically, at mid-sized and up institutions, on-staff framers do framing, or perhaps preparators.  Labels are made by communications, preparators, or the design team.  And registrars are on hand to supervise the movement of art work so that climate and light levels are maintained.  All of the above jobs are important and rewarding, but they are not curatorial. Nor should they be, because curators are doing the kind of research and scholarship they are trained best to do.  Asking them to use the scary mat cutter would be like asking the preparator to write a catalogue essay.  Each might be able to do it but not to their best, or best for the institution.  Maybe we just have experience with museums of different size, programming, budget, and endowment.  You made the point that there are perhaps more museum jobs out there for the taking than academic, which I agree with (there are like a half-dozen open searches in my field right now). There are also a lot of different kinds of museums, which grad students and prospective grad students reading this thread have a bit more info about due to this discussion.

"Limited experience" is not "no experience" which is what I have been saying this whole time. ...Are you confused about that part? My initial example was someone who had NO experience whatsoever with museums saying she was unprepared to work in one as an ABD. You began to contest me on that point. That with no experience, she could still be hired. 
 
Obviously my example was one of student art historians using a university collection -- but still a real and exasperating mess because they didn't bother to ask how to do it properly. No one is saying curators are registrars, preparators, etc. No one is even saying that those jobs are curatorial. What we ARE saying is that it's absurd and entitled to start off by saying: "People debate the value of a museum studies degree" and then follow that up with, "But the registrar should teach the curator how to properly accession things, or use the database, and the educator should teach the curator how to write a label, and the grant writer should teach the curator how to write a grant for a museum..." That is miles away from collaborative work: the curator writes a label draft, shoots it to the educator, they reach a happy medium and it gets sent to the copy editor. 
 
You continue to insinuate that I have not worked in extremely well-endowed institutions (I have), and that I just "don't know" how this works. Both Borden and I have stated we've worked in larger endowed institutions, and we still have this experience to speak from. Yes, many curators have preparators on hand, and many have the registrar team around to check up on humidity levels -- but do you honestly think curators themselves never avail themselves to enter the collections areas and handle works? That they never have to pick a paint chip and debate how something should be hung? Even at a place with preparators, I still helped a curator do walkthroughs the space, recommend layouts and hangings, estimate the proper amount of space between paintings/objects, and analyze the flow of the room -- all this after the weeks of academic research and readings. We did spot checks of the labels before they got sent off to the design folks, we make sure the preparators do what we want, etc. If you, as a curator, want to work collaboratively with your museum team you should "probably" (and I mean definitely) learn their basic trade and pick up a general museum studies book so you understand how everyone else is working and where they're coming from. 
 
I'm not saying mat something yourself if you're in a massive institution and unable to do so, but you should probably know how it's done. 
 
Regardless, at this point I feel like we're having two different conversations, one where I say: "Look this is how you break in without knowing what you want to do yet, be it curator or something else, because you need experience and that's what you're looking to do, boost your application." and one where you defend the Ivy league unnecessarily (from what??) and continue to argue as if no experience = some experience, actually. 

No to beat a dead horse here, but I do have an interest in making sure people reading this thread actually understand curatorial work, which you as someone with some kind of museum experience but who has not taken his/her/ze first graduate seminar in Newark, clearly does not.  Curators who are more CAA than AAM (if you get my drift) have zero need to know how to mat something.  I do need to know the kind of mat and frame most appropriate for an object, based on research about how an artist framed their work, or general framing trends at a historical time.  Then I work with a framer or prep to make that happen.  I don't assign an accession number to a new acquisition or loan, a registrar does. I give them all the information they need to do proper data entry in TMS because I have done the research on the work acquired or loaned. But I count on my collections management team to get data entry and photography done in a timely manner. If I notice that a work needs conservation, I work closely with conservators. I know about different condition issues and how best to resolve them, but not the specific chemistry of varnishes. I make visits to the conservation studio often on significant projects.  When work arrives to my museum, the preps open the crate, the registrar accessions it, does a condition report, and I decide where it's going in the galleries. Registrars and preps schedule that, and I'm there when it comes time to hang or place it. I consult with conservators and registrars on light levels and climate, so know how long a work should be on display in the space I chose. Because curators do always place objects. What you refer to above about spacing and layout as a prep job is actually a critical component of curating. We do scholarship by writing like an academic does but also in space. Layout of objects is part of the argument we are making about the set of works we have selected, either in permanent collection galleries or exhibitions.  I also write object and area labels, which then go through a collaborative editing process, and I give them a final proof after copyediting and design has finished with layout. But I don't fabricate. Or cut vinyl. That you don't seem to understand any of this should indicate that anyone reading your posts here and elsewhere on grad cafe should take your "expertise" about museums and art history with a grain of salt at the very least.
 
I do all of these things, and handle objects (but know when I shouldn't) without ever having cracked open one of those tedious museum studies manuals you recommend. I got my first job as a junior curator at a major institution right after finishing my diss. I had no significant museum experience.  It was my scholarship and a famous advisor with a big network that got me the job. And it wasn't all that long ago. I pay attention to registrars, preps, conservators, educators, development, design, etc... so I'm able to collaborate with them on their terms, and they respect my broader and deeper knowledge of art history.  
 
Good luck to you!

Your rude attitude is completely unnecessary and insulting. I'm not stupid as you'd like to think. I know precisely what curation entails. I keep trying to point out to YOU however that this thread was intended to address exploring a range of possibilities and understanding how other jobs work so you know how to best consult someone else. You've done nothing this whole time but denigrate me and my intellect and follow it up with the idea that I don't know what I'm talking about when multiple people have pointed out getting experience in smaller places can be GREAT for getting a feel for the field. My expertise in museums comes from the fact that museum studies IS my degree.

You have repeatedly shown us why art history is perceived as elitist: apparently I can't POSSIBLY know anything about what I study because my PhD isn't in hand, I'm a potential embarassment because I'm not wealthy, I should expect other people to teach me how to write labels (not professors, but co-workers!), suggesting to learn other skills in case you aren't in the most elite bastion of museums is indicative that I don't understand how they work, and to top it all off my degree is "tedious", boring, and actually knowing how museums run, work, what their goals are, what my goals should be, etc means I am just ignorant of what "real" (read: what you DEEM worthy) curation is about. Using my example about STUDENTS failing to frame properly as indicative that I think all curators should frame things and so on. You've made wild leaps of assumptions about where I have worked and where Borden has worked and place yourself at the top. You've blatantly and intentionally twisted my meaning and words to make yourself right at every step "layouts and object placement as prep for an EXHIBITION BEING CURATED". And I'm tired of it. You're making things up to call me an idiot when I've done nothing here but suggest that learning about things besides curation can be helpful for figuring out what it is you DO want to know how to do. I never said "be able to do conservation" I said "know what conservators do."

I don't know why you think I pissed in your cereal but give it a rest already. If I didn't have extensive curatorial experience I wouldn't have been accepted, end of story. Honestly I was willing to let this die in peace but I am sick and tired of the backhanded insults. I don't get what your real issue is here because otherwise we might agree. Instead you've just taken your time to pick apart things I didn't actually say and insult me with them.

Carol Armstrong (Yale), Robin Kelsey (Harvard), Anne McCauley (Princeton), Eduardo Cadava (Princeton), John Tagg (Binghamton), Ariella Azoulay (Brown), Geoffrey Batchen (CUNY), Alex Nemerov (Stanford), Louis Kaplan (Toronto), Alexander Alberro (Columbia), Joel Snyder (Chicago), WJT Mitchell (Chicago), Blake Stimson (UC Davis), Kaja Silverman (Penn).
 
These are the scholars that come to the top of my mind. As far as I know they're all tenured and accepting (or have accepted) PhD students. I am definitely overlooking quite a few scholars, particularly newer ones. It would probably be useful as well to look for scholars outside of Art History programs, like Azoulay (Modern Media and Culture/Comp. Lit) and Cadava (English/Comp. Lit/IHum). 

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. 

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

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

Princeton rejected me too....WHO gets in to that program?  anyone get in this year?

How can I make this a productive conversation?  TL;DR version at the bottom!
 
Why are more whites applying to programs? I'd say the best response to this is the simple fact that white people are generally still the 'majority' by ~70 percent. Should this matter? Well, that brings up a lot more issues regarding educational opportunity, funding, familial support, no more subsidized loans, school acceptance rates, etc. But should this matter for art history? Regardless of their class, I'm almost certain that there have been major moves towards being a more integrative field; pointing out the "problem" is so easy, figuring out a "solution" is not. And if museums are considered businesses, should we immediately assume that they have to cater to everyone? Well! Their educational programming certainly implies this, but how tenuous is it?
 
RE: Northwestern: the critical race/gender backbone of Northwestern's HAA department never once stood out to me as a "damn the white bourgeois at museums." In fact, I think they're asking the targeted questions about simply what demographics support the art world: there are plenty of non-"white" (quotes, because I'm tired of blanket statements) collectors who don't ever publicize their collection --- and when they do, you get a more democratic sense about art collecting and museum interests -- here's looking at all the work Driskell's done with the Cosby collection! Huey Copeland's discussion with Kobena and Eddie Chambers on Muse's database (Kobena's response is Art History and the Dialogics of Diaspora) rarely bring up this almost stodgy accusation of a "white world" and simply focus more on the terminology used to qualify good things in the art field. 
 
 Atlanta's done several grassroots "fairs/biennals" that've been tremendously attended by "non-whites." If you're looking for institutional fairs, well, the answer is self-evident -- and we know they don't do anything more than shift and show us the future current of art collecting tastes. Museum of Houston's doing amazing things -- so much money in Texas ya'll.

This is why I love the history of art so much. It's the "history" thing that really matters. No one is talking publicly about non-mainstream artists/collectives/symposia/conventions? Do you want specific people to, and who? Why? Why have AFAM colleges severed their colloquia previously offered on targeted art history talks? Is it because they now realize that targeted events don't reach the areas they want to argue against? Is it because of funding? A solid, archival and balanced interpretation of art as art at the time of speaking of art as art is such a wondrous task..... cue Winklemann background romance music.
 
Working at a museum, I have to say that institutional critique only gets so far sometimes (there's even an AH book about it! Alberro and Smithson!) because the curators have similar interests about the art history field. They have to deal with more bureaucracy since they work on the inside. It's unfortunate. Even x-targeted museums like the SMH or AFAM in Cali, or the Jewish Museum (the Jewish museum is AMAZING) deal with the tastemakers, the taste-wanters and the cynics. 
 
Actually, I am going to cut myself off now. Too long of a response.
 
 
 
 
TL;DR version:
 
You can question everything, but accusations will CERTAINLY only give you so many bridges to cross! I mean, you could be poor and angry and old, then die and people will find your posthumous work interesting pieces in a seminar.. here's looking at a good 60% of foundational critical theorists!
 
The end.

HalFoster,
 
WOW!  This is the stuff of good art history and GREAT scholarship.  This is what programs should be looking for.  That school that you got rejected from (**I also got rejected too**) made the wrong decision.   I completely agree with everything you say in your post and shame on anyone for voting it down.  Museums are also full of white bourgeois missionaries carrying out their charitable work and I hope that the work of great art historians can expose this ridONKulous state of affairs.

Before I give a very simple & general example, I do want to say that when you write your statement of purpose and want responses or something, really rely on one person. Too many hands in the pot ruins the dish, because everyone wants their own flavor. 
 
Mmm, so, I mean generally people approach SOPs as just statements. The purpose is important. So, when someone says something along the lines of: "I am interested in race and identity," that doesn't say anything. I mean, it alerts readers, but it doesn't answer that question of "why."
 
1) I am interested in race and identity in the field of the history of art. 
Boo! Bad sentence. It's fairly simple, but doesn't say why you are interested, what about race and identity interests you, and why the history of art.
 
2) I am interested in how race and identity affects the creative process of an artist because of -x-.
Very simple sentence, not jargony, is declarative and substantial.
 
So what I suppose is best is to avoid declarative sentences, vary your vocabulary, show your understanding about whatever major issues you expect to explore in your graduate studies... for the methodology, I mean you can indicate the interpretive tools you normally use: formalism, semiotics, critical theory, etc. You don't have to explain them, but relate how they have been advantageous to your studies.
 
I'm sorry I'm not providing sentences from my SOP. I remember buddying up with someone in person and finding it hard to alter my language after reading someone else's. 
 
 
 
 
Also, I have no clue what has happened to this Art History forum since 2011, but the quips, side-talking and accusations are so underhanded. I'm sorry that people who sincerely just want a support group have to scroll through petty arguments. (from other threads I've visited today in the forum). 

Wait, UPenn or Penn State? "Upenn state" ? 

It is, of course, a very dangerous and life-threatening thing to ignore the cannon.

Dear All,
Yes, I do realize that there are other areas of study in art history and that people can and do choose to study these different subjects.
 
I have a tendency to (appropriately) access my own experiences, knowledge, etc. when writing here. This may not be the approach of others, but it is mine. My little listing was by no means meant to be comprehensive or to reflect the absence of people of color. It was off the cuff to support my point that one can shake things up a bit, remain field relevant, and have a job/career of their dreams.
 
My message if it had to be summed would be: Do not be afraid to question authority (politely and respectively of course). These programs and professors can teach you a lot, but do not fear them and obey their every command just because they know more than you and have distinguished credentials. 
 
Josephine-Please do not question my experiences at the graduate level. I understand what you are saying and I agree with it. I do not feel that my comments run entirely counter to what you are suggesting above. When did I ever say ignore the cannon, ignore historical details, ignore your professors, ignore traditional thinkers and the foundations of your content area? I do not recall saying all of that.
 
I was rejected by Northwestern yesterday, so what do I know. If my comments seem as though I have something figured out, it's not true, but I know right from wrong and I do not get scared when professors glare at me over their eyeglasses. I just want you all to be fearless, speak truth to power, and avoid fetishizing these elite programs/professors.
 
Best,