What's your motivation? (Art History PhD)

[ArtHistoryandMuseum]

It's hard, I don't necessarily have a specific area I want to focus on-I'm such a generalist and find myself getting excited researching and talking about Asian art one day, Vermeer another and modern the next. Which is why I held back on applying this season. Anyone out there like me? I'm thinking CUNY-Grad for certain...but I have A LOT of other 'maybes'

Hooray for another generalist! There are PhD hopefuls like you - I sway personally between early American decorative arts, 20th/21st century public art which I assign "contemporary", and oh and there's a strong interest in the relation between art and science. While I recognize it is requisite to have an academic focus you prefer over others (chiefly, I declare my primarily academic interests "American art and design"), I see no reason not to be interdisciplinary a little; the multi-tier knowledge can open up the possibilities in the job market for researching/teaching. Having a couple of academic interests also can be useful when writing exhibition text and putting together exhibits as a curator in a museum.

Having multiple interests or subfields can start unique research, too. By no means does adjoining unlike academic interests always work, and yes, it is different to bridge together distinct disciplines (e.g. physics, art history, cultural studies) than what I truly meant (study in graduate school in "mod/con" AND "American folk art"), a book like Arthur Miller's "Einstein, Picasso: Space, Time, and the Beauty That Causes Havoc" is a fascinating pursuit.

This "interdisciplinary" openness I have is why I am also drawn to seeking terminal MA/PhD programs with museum(s) onsite. Unless extended study was for the dissertation, it does not sound as pleasurable for me to be holed up in a corner several with a fixed esoteric focus; I want study many things under the umbrella of American art and design. I want to get at: what things exactly make it American; what can we learn about American culture from its objects over time; how do American artists look to the past and to the future; what makes someone an American artist (questioning, e.g. Is Mary Cassatt an American or French Impressionist? Why?).

The interdisciplinary sort of exhibition, finally, I think this can be pursued well in a university museum especially.

If anyone out there has university/college recommendations pertaining to my sprawling academic interests I outlined above, please speak up; I am currently researching MA/PhD graduate programs in Art History.

[losemygrip]

If you actually think that Gonzalez-Torres's Perfect Lovers is so canonical that art historians from all fields should know it--well, you have a lot to learn. You really think a specialist in Greek vase painting would know it? Of Japanese hanging scrolls? Do you know all the major works of Sesshu or the Painter of the Wooly Satyrs? Forget it. What's "canonical" in contemporary art changes every two years. Just look at a series of recent editions of survey texts.

I'm going to come to Pepe's defense just a little bit and say that statistically, the observation that a large majority of art historians are women is quite true. Thus it stands to reason that a large majority of students are as well (and in fact have always been in the schools where I've attended and worked). In fact, in most universities a significant majority of the whole student population is female. So no reason to get outraged about that observation.

Similarly, the observation that a lot of undergrad art history majors are vacuous has been verified in my 20 years of teaching. The same can be said of a lot of other majors as well. At "elite" schools this is likely different, but not at mid-range schools. (Although I taught briefly at a very highly ranked liberal arts college where the majors, while bright, seemed not to know why they were in art history. More females than males in the group, but one of the males was a very nice young man who was really more interested in lacrosse. So not gender specific.) I'm not sure Pepe was saying that their gender was actually related to the students' casual attitudes; I think it was probably just careless writing that gave this impression, and I think that's where the flame war erupted from. Certainly vacuousness applies to none of you here in these forums; the same passion for the discipline that leads you into grad school perhaps also makes it hard to understand how others might not be so serious.

Finally, I have some sympathy with the critical comments about Theory. The "Theory mavens" are a much rarer breed these days than formerly, but I have found that frequently they know very little about art, or even about history. Scholarship consisted of invoking the names of various theorists and regurgitating and applying these theories to various visual (or not) texts. They couldn't tell a Rembrandt from a Renoir. Sounds like Pepe had an unfortunate encounter with one of these. May they rest in peace.

I'm pleased to see the generalists coming out of the closet. I really think that overspecialization has been bad for the discipline. It kind of makes me sad to see that you guys are all needing to apply to grad school to study with a very particular topic and individual in mind. I've always felt there's plenty of time for that AFTER you get to grad school. I learned so much more during my MA, and even during my PhD coursework. Learning about widely divergent things can be quite revelatory when addressing your special interests. (Surprise! most schools will have distribution requirements in your graduate coursework for that reason).

Back to the topic at hand: my motivation was that I wanted to teach in college, and I was interested in studio art, history, and languages. I had an artist sister who suggested art history when I was in high school. Being a natural dilettante, it's the only thing that could hold my interest.

[runaway]

I'm tempted to start a theory/canon airing of grievances thread. It seems like we could use it.

[daniejomes]

Artofdescribing I don’t agree with you, Main reason to join or apply in grad school is not your passion with art but if you think about it if you are not much passionate with art so how can you put new directions for the field.