Fall 2012 Applicant Chit Chat

[TMP]

Guys, I too am going to Florida a week from today and that means that I'm gonna be away from my mailbox for six whole days. This coming week NEEDS to bring good news or else I will be an absolute wreck. Sigh......

I hear that swimming with dolphins or manateese is very therapeutic. Surely there must be a Groupon for that!

[uhohlemonster]

HAHA. Is there a groupon for giving your mailbox key to a friend to check for you every 2 days? 50% off!

@Oseirus, yes I can become super tough. Israeli society is rough and tough...

Edited February 25, 2012 by uhohlemonster

[alleykat]

Thank you for your congrats, crazedandinfused and oseirus. I hope you guys will receive your good news soon.

@crazedandinfused: what you said was exactly what my sister told me! (She was a graduate student (at UPenn) in History and has been closely following my application process). She said I have all the reasons to be optimistic about my chance of being funded. So I am keeping my fingers crossed that the funding issue will work out. Enjoy your trip to Florida!

Edited February 26, 2012 by alleykat

[Safferz]

Congrats to everyone who received good news!

Safferz - I think it may be that these non-ivies all assumed you were so awesome you'd choose an ivie so they didn't give you an offer. I've heard from a professor that schools do actually consider things that way.

I think that may the case for lower ranked schools, but Berkeley is a top program that can certainly compete with the Ivies and Northwestern is one of the best for African history in particular. So I'm thinking they just didn't like my application

[Hopin'-n-Prayin']

I'm confused about why I see so many art history applicants on the results board...History (regular) is required curriculum in every A.A. and B.A. program, so at least there is an 'artificial' demand for a steady supply of history professors, but what kind of demand is there for teachers (or practitioners) of art history?

any insights...?

[Sparky]

I'm confused about why I see so many art history applicants on the results board...History (regular) is required curriculum in every A.A. and B.A. program, so at least there is an 'artificial' demand for a steady supply of history professors, but what kind of demand is there for teachers (or practitioners) of art history?

any insights...?

Do you mean in terms of the search string? (i.e. "art history" contains "history" so the results show up) Or do you mean why people want to study it?

...You're not a cultural historian, are you?

If our goal is to understand the past, to the extent that we are able, cultural artifacts (aka the arts, broadly defined) are a vital, if colored, lens into what people (with the ability to produce enduring art, or the money to commission it) valued and what they believed. Art history is, in that sense, like studying the literature of past ages.

As far as demand goes--the academic job market is the academic job market, so that's all there is to say about that, but art history is a very useful background for people who want to do museum work.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Sparky

[Hopin'-n-Prayin']

Do you mean in terms of the search string? (i.e. "art history" contains "history" so the results show up) Or do you mean why people want to study it?

...You're not a cultural historian, are you?

If our goal is to understand the past, to the extent that we are able, cultural artifacts (aka the arts, broadly defined) are a vital, if colored, lens into what people (with the ability to produce enduring art, or the money to commission it) valued and what they believed. Art history is, in that sense, like studying the literature of past ages.

As far as demand goes--the academic job market is the academic job market, so that's all there is to say about that, but art history is a very useful background for people who want to do museum work.

In order:

1. yes, search string for "history"

2. no, but I am vaguely aware that history is not just about the study of war and religion...(sarcasm)...

3.so are you saying that art history is more akin to religious history or military history in that it is part of the main thoroughfare of historical study and its practical utility is not limited to 'art appreciation' or the like?

4. got it...

Thanks much for the insight sparky...one of the reasons I look forward to a full-on PhD program in history is because the MA at my underfunded state U. could only scratch the surface of culural history as a part of the discipline, and there is no course I am aware of (in my MA program) that can really do justice to the subject matter (art history) and its value into mainstream historical study like you indicated...

I really thought that there was a mad dash by students to become curators at the Met...

Edited February 26, 2012 by Hopin'-n-Prayin'

[oseirus]

I think that may the case for lower ranked schools, but Berkeley is a top program that can certainly compete with the Ivies and Northwestern is one of the best for African history in particular. So I'm thinking they just didn't like my application

A lot of the best Africanist working now, who aren't European trained are either from Berkeley, Yale or Northwestern really.

[oseirus]

3.so are you saying that art history is more akin to religious history or military history in that it is part of the main thoroughfare of historical study and its practical utility is not limited to 'art appreciation' or the like?

I would look at art history and history like how you would look at electrical engineering and engineering. Whilst one can be considered a subset of the main branch, there are so many different intricacies of that subset that it can stand alone. Now I know this is a clumsy analogy but I think you get my point.

[Hopin'-n-Prayin']

works for me...I speak...and think...clumsy...

[Sparky]

3.so are you saying that art history is more akin to religious history or military history in that it is part of the main thoroughfare of historical study and its practical utility is not limited to 'art appreciation' or the like?

Sort of. I tend to think of it as a subfield of history characterized less by subject matter and more by its dominant body of sources. Art--particularly, understanding how a work of art functioned in its culture at the time of its creation--requires a different set of historical tools than, say, using primarily text-based sources. Different cultures treat "the image", and the fact of visuality, in different ways, so there's a lot to juggle. Due to the highly specialized nature of the methodologies, art history remains its own discipline. Depending on what region and era you study, though, art can be a valuable source for regular ol' historians, too. And we are greatly in debt to art historians for grappling with the methodological issues first so we're able to do so semi-coherently! (I am sure that many of our efforts at analyzing art make art historians facepalm as much as literary scholars' efforts as "history" make us sob for days).

2. no, but I am vaguely aware that history is not just about the study of war and religion...(sarcasm)...

Wait. You mean history is about more than just religion?

[LLajax]

I'm confused about why I see so many art history applicants on the results board...History (regular) is required curriculum in every A.A. and B.A. program, so at least there is an 'artificial' demand for a steady supply of history professors, but what kind of demand is there for teachers (or practitioners) of art history?

any insights...?

Keep in mind, art history is a big category- not just paintings and scultpures, but buildings and archaeological finds as well. Also, due to the nature of universities, "art history" programs often also cover museum studies, archaeology, visual studies, architectural history, etc. Still, I think it might be fair to say that the job market (although most universities still employ a range of art historians) doesn't necessarily dictate how many people apply to any given program.

I came from a history undergrad and decided I was really into medieval buildings. To do that, I could have applied to history, architectural history, art history, or medieval studies programs. If you think art historians' job prospects are dire, try medieval studies. So I looked at the base programs for history v. art history (or rather, art history programs with a concentration on architecture, or with POIs who were "architecture" friendly), and decided that I'd have a better time studying what I wanted to study in an art history program (plus better access and acceptance of the kind of sources I wanted to use- yay for pretty pictures and "things"! )

Heck, these days, certain time periods (and regions) are so interdisciniplinary, there isn't a huge boundary between "historian" and "art historian". In fact, in my undergrad, one of my favorite history professors (he's a neat old guy, anyone applying to Penn, let me tell you about him) actually got his degree in art history (and has help faculty appointments in three different departments).

Also- anyone thinking about Penn- congrats and feel free to PM me- I love to gush about it! (err, I mean, spill the dirt)

[Hugh10]

Sort of. I tend to think of it as a subfield of history characterized less by subject matter and more by its dominant body of sources. Art--particularly, understanding how a work of art functioned in its culture at the time of its creation--requires a different set of historical tools than, say, using primarily text-based sources. Different cultures treat "the image", and the fact of visuality, in different ways, so there's a lot to juggle. Due to the highly specialized nature of the methodologies, art history remains its own discipline. Depending on what region and era you study, though, art can be a valuable source for regular ol' historians, too. And we are greatly in debt to art historians for grappling with the methodological issues first so we're able to do so semi-coherently! (I am sure that many of our efforts at analyzing art make art historians facepalm as much as literary scholars' efforts as "history" make us sob for days).

I would just add that if you want to really simplify the difference -- the fundamental distinction between history and art history is the way we prioritize the sources used to construct the historical narrative. Art historians do do archival research and use primary source documents, however our focus is on interpreting material evidence as a source for history. Now art history has become a lot like literature in that there is a large strand engaged in critical theory and in the interpretation of art works. And there are strands within art history that focus less on "history" and on anything from connoisseurship to visual studies to reception theory -- all more or less studied within large art history programs.

[Ganymede18]

Just as much of a demand as there is for any humanities field. And I wouldn't consider myself in any way capable of doing research in my fields without art history and art historical theory. I guess some fields of history don't need art history or art history theories, but the best professors I've had have been art historians, and I've found art historians to be more far responsible, hard-hitting, edge-pushing scholars than many other "regular" sub-type historians. (BTW, my spouse usually posts here, but he showed me the post about art history and the questioning of its value, and I just had to step in).

I'm confused about why I see so many art history applicants on the results board...History (regular) is required curriculum in every A.A. and B.A. program, so at least there is an 'artificial' demand for a steady supply of history professors, but what kind of demand is there for teachers (or practitioners) of art history?

any insights...?

[Hugh10]

Just as much of a demand as there is for any humanities field. And I wouldn't consider myself in any way capable of doing research in my fields without art history and art historical theory. I guess some fields of history don't need art history or art history theories, but the best professors I've had have been art historians, and I've found art historians to be more far responsible, hard-hitting, edge-pushing scholars than many other "regular" sub-type historians. (BTW, my spouse usually posts here, but he showed me the post about art history and the questioning of its value, and I just had to step in).

I have to admit I never took a history class in undergrad - just art history - so I can't comment on the whole professor thing. And I definitely don't want to start a discussion on the merits of an object-based history vs a text-based one -- especially on the history boards. But I just find this topic very intersting because it comes up A LOT in my graduate program. Professors are constantly pushing us (I keep saying us, I am an art historian) to distinguish our scholarship from history. So I guess I am surprised that there is not much dialogue within the history community about the nature of art history.

[Hopin'-n-Prayin']

Wow, what a great batch of responses...thanks all for such a wide array of enlightening morsels...

To respond briefly to a few of the individual comments- I would only want to simplify the comparison in the hopes of deriving some instantaneous grasp on what art history is...it seems that I might have to do more than stick a toe in the water, however...

Second, my perceived ignorance stems from...well, ...ignorance. I'm not trying to minimize the value of art history- it just seems to have fallen under my radar (not, hard given my radar's limited breadth) for many years...

I think I've had the impression that art history combined the subject matter from my Humanities class back in community college in the early '90s (TCC, oseirus) with like a fine arts degree... I don't know...

Based on what sparky, LLajax, Hugh 10 and Ganymede have said, my interest is piqued...thanks guys!!

[Roxelana]

I'm posting the latest Harvard admit in Middle Eastern Studies/Art History. I know it probably doesn't directly relate to anyone on this particular thread, but it made me smile when I saw the envelope in my mailbox. I'm still singing the same mantra though... Princeton, Princeton, Princeton. If I've learned anything from this experience, it is that art history and history are in need of significantly more interaction. My past two degrees were in ARH and I felt stifled by the focus on the canon (read largely Italian Renaissance) and conservative theoretical approaches. I am switching to history because I feel as though it will be more accepting of my unorthodox interests and it will broaden my scope, allowing for more comparative work. At the same time, I will never leave my art historical half behind. Visual literacy is essential to my work. I feel as though scholars would benefit greatly from taking a course or two in the other field (ARH/HIS), if for no other reason then to dispel myths about the other... i.e. that art historians have anything to do with creating art. (I can barely draw a stick figure...)

[Hopin'-n-Prayin']

Thanks Rox, this helps me understand how little I understand

and congrats!!

Edited February 26, 2012 by Hopin'-n-Prayin'

[Hugh10]

Wow, what a great batch of responses...thanks all for such a wide array of enlightening morsels...

To respond briefly to a few of the individual comments- I would only want to simplify the comparison in the hopes of deriving some instantaneous grasp on what art history is...it seems that I might have to do more than stick a toe in the water, however...

Second, my perceived ignorance stems from...well, ...ignorance. I'm not trying to minimize the value of art history- it just seems to have fallen under my radar (not, hard given my radar's limited breadth) for many years...

I think I've had the impression that art history combined the subject matter from my Humanities class back in community college in the early '90s (TCC, oseirus) with like a fine arts degree... I don't know...

Based on what sparky, LLajax, Hugh 10 and Ganymede have said, my interest is piqued...thanks guys!!

Cool Well I hope you get a chance to explore more in your grad program and make some connections across the disciplines! Best of luck to all!

[Tigalily]

You could fill a teacup with what I technically know about art history -- only had some introductory level undergrad courses. But I have found that using art in lectures has been invaluable for me, especially in introducing a new period/culture/religion, etc. It really gets the students talking (instead of sitting there like zombies) expressing their perceptions of what a piece tells them and then relating it back to the lecture.

[TMP]

To add to the discussion of art history in mainstream history: FWIW: I love art and my mom minored in art history and volunteered at the MET for a little while when I was little. So she and I love going to art museums and talk about paintings, etc.

I will admit that I learned much of the history of Germany and the city of Berlin through art. Berlin has one of the best museum collections in the entire world so when I lived there, I visited all the museums and palaces. I made a point of actually reading the descriptions and studying the paintings deciphering what Germany and Berlin were like. It was much more fascinating (and fun!) than to sit down with a history book. I was also working on my German translations and all the texts were historical in nature so in all, it was quite fun to learn German history.

One of the best and most impressive paintings is gaining the context of Berlin and the importance of its main street: Unter der Linden. This one showed a parade led by Frederick the Great's successor, Frederick II on Unter der Linden. It was quite a busy scene and the curator's description of the painting was quite telling. I can't find the digital copy of it but I do know that it's at the Altegalerie Museum. So when I went outside after seeing that painting and wakjed down Unter der Linden. I felt like I had a whole new understanding of what this street signified. It wasn't just a thoroughfare for Berlin and the location of the Brandenberg Tor, but as a site that just saw it all. I do think that art is a great way to illustrate the importance of certain places as different artists have their own interpretations. Another such example would be artists- painters, drawers and photographers- having their own interpretations of the Karl Marx Allee (formerly Stalinallee when Stalin was alive and in control of East Berlin). Just throwing out some thoughts.

And no, I don't consider myself as a cultural historian. I like hard numbers and human interactions so I tend to work history within social sciences and see myself as a social historian.

[crazedandinfused]

Random Thought: If I'm dedicated to the fact that I am going to be Americanist then I could theoretically already be reading my comps list, right? If I've gleaned a reading list from bibliographies, syllabi and personal recommendations then can't I include a good deal of these works in my eventual master list?

Maybe what I'm really getting at is the question of how the list is built....

Talk about putting the cart before the horse!

Edited February 26, 2012 by crazedandinfused

[StrangeLight]

how the list is built varies at each school. sometimes "the list" even varies by advisor within the same program. some schools may allow you to select (in concert with your advisor) a percentage of the books yourself, maybe even build the whole list yourselves. other programs will have set full lists that you have very limited flexibility with. in general, it's not really possible to work on your comps list until you know which institution you'll be attending.

[oseirus]

I'm posting the latest Harvard admit in Middle Eastern Studies/Art History. I know it probably doesn't directly relate to anyone on this particular thread, but it made me smile when I saw the envelope in my mailbox. I'm still singing the same mantra though... Princeton, Princeton, Princeton. If I've learned anything from this experience, it is that art history and history are in need of significantly more interaction. My past two degrees were in ARH and I felt stifled by the focus on the canon (read largely Italian Renaissance) and conservative theoretical approaches. I am switching to history because I feel as though it will be more accepting of my unorthodox interests and it will broaden my scope, allowing for more comparative work. At the same time, I will never leave my art historical half behind. Visual literacy is essential to my work. I feel as though scholars would benefit greatly from taking a course or two in the other field (ARH/HIS), if for no other reason then to dispel myths about the other... i.e. that art historians have anything to do with creating art. (I can barely draw a stick figure...)

Well first off, congrats on Harvard! Isn't it possible to really weave your art historical background into whatever research you decide to do?

[Nordicllama]

So technically this week is the first week of March. At least I'm going to declare it the first week of March. So, um, would the remaining 9 silent schools please stand up?