Breaking into a new (sub)-field

[crossedfingerscrossedeyes]

Hi everyone. I've lurked and I've lurked, and now that it's all over, I've decided to post. go figure.

I majored in art history, but as an undergraduate, only got to take an intro course on the (non-western) field of art history I'd like to focus on. I've tried to remedy this by focusing other papers on this field, when possible (related classes in other departments, etc), but I still feel like I have a big gaping hole in my experience, especially considering it's a field that stretches 1000+ years and multiple cultures. I was lucky enough to have completed a great internship in it, but I am lacking formal academic training beyond the 200-level class. This worries me because when I've communicated with a few POI, they seemed disappointed that I didn't have more of a solid grounding, academically. As a consequence, none of my letters came from people in my sub-field, just general art historians. One of my old mentors has told me that this is a big problem. Also, it means that my SOP is not related to what I want to study, other than the lens with which I approach art history...

Surely not all of you are in possession of these magical honors' theses that delve deeply into the exact same subject you wish to study for your PhD, examining your POI's oeurve and making striking new observations, right? Likewise, none of you have three sparkling letters all from your POI's best former students, right? I'm looking for reassurance here.

Best of luck to you all!

Edited January 16, 2012 by crossedfingerscrossedeyes

[Hegel's Bagels]

As someone who made a radical field change (changed from contemporary to Renaissance), I would suggest that you look only into MA programs. After I graduated with my BA, I was told by my adviser and others in the field that no PhD program would take me seriously unless I had conducted research in my proposed field of interest. Even though I had the languages, internship, and travel experience. What matters is that you have a solid writing sample that demonstrates your knowledge of scholars in the field as well as current questions/problems. I am at an MA program with a well-known Renaissance scholar where I was able to write a thesis. I would look around at MA programs with at least one or two scholars in your field and apply there. I also highly recommend a program where you can write a Masters Thesis (not all programs have this). This way you can use a chapter from the thesis as a writing sample to demonstrate your ability to think/discuss/critique issues in your particular field.

[losemygrip]

I don't necessarily agree. I came out of undergrad with one course in 20th-Century Art and was a modernist. It wasn't a problem for my admissions that I could tell. I went from an MA program with a thesis on Italian Renaissance (sort of a happy digression) into a PhD program as a modernist (again) with maybe 2 seminars in modern. No problem. I think it's way more important that you have the proper language training for your area. Anyhow, I wouldn't fret about it until you see what happens with your applications.

Call me an old fogey, but I think all this hyperspecialization is REALLY bad for the field. I know people who are very conversant in abstruse critical theory, but can't tell a Rembrandt from a Renoir.

[Hegel's Bagels]

Interesting! I wonder if it makes a difference which way you switch? Many Renaissance scholars can be quite stuffy and particular. As in I could see a Renaissance professor not considering a student with a Renaissance background more so than a modern/contemporary professor. But that is just based on my own personal experience with professors.

I do agree though that hyperspecialization can be detrimental. Although it probably isn't great if you can't tell a Rembrandt from a Renoir, I think it is even more disconcerting how 'inside the box' many scholars' approaches are within their respective field. One of my greatest assests in grad school has been my knowledge of problems/methodology in contemporary art. You can really see issues in a new and interesting way with a broader knowledge of art history. I suppose that is what comps/qualifying exams are designed to do; although all I took away from that nightmare of a exam was a permanent anxiety disorder triggered by certain objects/images that were crammed into my brain in a haze of too little sleep, too much Kombucha, and dehabilitating hand cramps.

Edited January 19, 2012 by artofdescribing

[losemygrip]

Interesting! I wonder if it makes a difference which way you switch? Many Renaissance scholars can be quite stuffy and particular. As in I could see a Renaissance professor not considering a student with a Renaissance background more so than a modern/contemporary professor. But that is just based on my own personal experience with professors.

I do agree though that hyperspecialization can be detrimental. Although it probably isn't great if you can't tell a Rembrandt from a Renoir, I think it is even more disconcerting how 'inside the box' many scholars' approaches are within their respective field. One of my greatest assests in grad school has been my knowledge of problems/methodology in contemporary art. You can really see issues in a new and interesting way with a broader knowledge of art history. I suppose that is what comps/qualifying exams are designed to do; although all I took away from that nightmare of a exam was a permanent anxiety disorder triggered by certain objects/images that were crammed into my brain in a haze of too little sleep, too much Kombucha, and dehabilitating hand cramps.

Good response.

I think you're probably right. A lot of Renaissance scholars might have looked askance at my switching from modern to Renaissance, UNLESS I clearly had the tools (Italian and/or Latin, some other classes on the transcript that showed where the interest came from, maybe in literature or history).

My MA experience was odd in that I just couldn't come up with a good thesis topic in modern. But I had done this research paper for a Renaissance class that I really loved: very provocative and original, and one of the faculty (not actually the one I wrote it for) found it intriguing and suggested it would make a good thesis. I ultimately decided that because contemporary art was still regarded with suspicion in art history circles (at least, back then--less so now), it would prove my art historical bona fides to do this Renaissance thesis, AND provide me with a strong secondary area. It all turned out to be true (although a lot of people at my PhD institution remained confused for a while).

I think all of you guys should remain open to possibilities as you proceed through graduate school. Don't feel locked into anything. It can be hard to change, but very worth it. I know someone who switched from ancient Greek to 18-century French between his MA and PhD. He did it by taking multiple courses in 18th century French history, literature, and philosophy before apply to PhD programs. He's never regretted it.

[Shelley Burian]

Which non-western art field is it? I am entering an MA/PhD program for Pre-Columbian Latin America in the fall and was in a similar situation, although I did have a 400 level seminar in Mayan art (as an Andean person it doesn't help me much) and did research on new Mayan and Teotihuacan accessions for a museum. For non-western art, switching is a bit different since many of them are sub-fields relatively new to the discipline of art history (Pre-Columbian only began in the 1930"s with George Kubler). Because of this many schools still do not have many courses in them or even have resident professors who specialize in them so the fact that you have not had tons of coursework tends to be a bit more forgiven, especially if you have a lot of experience in a related field; My archaeological coursework was every bit as valuable as my art history work. It really comes down to what your professor of interest wants in a student in my experience. I did not have a single letter of reccomendation from a Pre-Columbian specialist even at the second attempt and still got into (for my field) a top school.

If you do not get the results you are looking for this season (my first application process was bad) and feel that lack of coursework is a problem for you, I would agree with the above post about Masters programs. However, for me this simply wasn't an option financially, so I took a year off and did two more internships (one which turned into a curatorial position). I also revised my honors thesis, which I would say is a MUST for you if you are unsuccessful (Although I hope for the best!). I am positive that my writing sample, largely based on my future advisor's work, was what got her attention.