What kind of publication are *you* writing for?

[Artgirl87]

The other day an academic said to me that she would write a very different article for the Grey Room vs Art Bulletin vs October. 

I get it. Or, at least, I thought I did. 

Because when I later reflected on this (intuitively sound) statement, I realized that I wasn't really sure how my writing would change (beyond the practical particularities of word count etc). 

I'm posting because I wanted to get a sense of how people distinguish the kind of writing and the kind of theoretical tone that each of these publications possess? What would you say differentiates the Burlington Magazine from Oxford Art History? Can we construct a taxonomy for these journals? 

Hit me with some thoughts/polemic!

[Bronte1985]

The difference in how you'd write isn't so much a question of style or tone as of subject, scope, methodology, and contribution. Each journal occupies a particular niche in the academic landscape and addresses a particular audience. The Art Bulletin, Art History, and Oxford Art Journal are general art history journals: methodologies can vary, but articles submitted to those journals should make a clear disciplinary contribution, beyond a particular field or subfield. There are differences among these journals, but not, as far as I can see, very significant ones, beyond length. 

For articles that make a more field-specific contribution, there are many journals that have a more narrow focus, like October. October is journal dedicated almost exclusively to articles that deal with modern and contemporary art but, unlike, say, Art Journal, their articles tend to engage a particular set of theoretical concerns (Neo-Marxist, post-structuralist theory, traditionally). Grey Room, on the other hand, concentrates on Media Studies, so, for example, you probably wouldn't be publishing on "high art" there, unless you were rethinking it using the conceptual tools of media theory. (October and Grey also happen to be more "cliquey" and tend to publish people the editorial board already knows--last I checked, October doesn't even do double blind peer review).

So the main difference among journals is audience: who's reading the articles. Who do you want to reach with your article? What scholarly conversations is your work taking part in and how big of a contribution is making. In terms of figuring out the differences among the journals, the best thing to is to read a few issues as well as the journals' mission statements. The differences are sometimes subtle, sometimes obvious. If you picked up an issues of Oxford Art Journal and compared it to an issue of the Burlington, for instance, I think the differences would be pretty clear: articles in OAJ make extended, conceptually sophisticated arguments grounded in a broader historical and/or theoretical context, while the articles in the Burlington focus more on connoisseurial and/or documentary topics.  So keep reading. Especially if you start at the top journals, you may have to submit to a few places before you get your article accepted; sometimes you may have to reframe it, other times not.

Hope that helps!

[Artgirl87]

Great thoughts—thanks!