"Art History" is a problematic term. Discuss.

[ProspectStu8735]

See title.

[EloiseGC]

The absurd over-analysis of a basic term that will never leave our study's vernacular is representative of the downfall of academia. If we are going to sit around and argue semantics, rather than contributing important research or aiding in conservation and protective efforts for the monuments we have in this world, then we deserve to be the butt of every joke directed towards us.

 

I loathe this sort of discourse when it has no obvious end goal. It's so unproductive. 

Edited April 8, 2013 by Mary Queen of Scotch

[ProspectStu8735]

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

[mrb1145]

ProspectStu, 

 

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

 

Mary offered a very reasonable response to your pretentious question, and owing to the fact that no one else has responded, I think that many of us agree with her assertion but haven't had the patience to articulate it ourselves.  Congratulations on your many acceptances: I wish your future colleagues the best of luck in dealing with you!

 

cheers,

mrb1145

[fuzzylogician]

ProspectStu,,

 

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

 

This is uncalled for and unnecessarily hurtful. The reply you got to your original question from Mary Queen of Scotch is thoughtful, unlike your reply to it here. Stop using such language, as it will not be tolerated any further.

[EloiseGC]

[Swagato]

I agree with Mary's comment. History of Art is not like film studies, where the ostensible core of the field itself has come under assault. At least, not yet. I think making meta-questions about the field and its concerns is certainly a valid effort, but only where it is clear that the focus of the field is at risk of becoming overly blurred (as is the case for film studies today). To the best of my knowledge, History of Art doesn't (yet) suffer from any such problems, making the original question a non-issue. 

[auvers-sur-oise]

In other words, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieUEHtzVUgs.

 

Best of luck at H, ProspectStu8735. I can only assume you mean Harvard.

Edited April 9, 2013 by auvers-sur-oise

[fullofpink]

You poor kids, this definition or defense of art history, more likely than not, will be one of the first papers you write in your art historiography course. 

[Bearcat1]

You poor kids, this definition or defense of art history, more likely than not, will be one of the first papers you write in your art historiography course. 

In the two methodology classes I've taken, it's never come up. Because it's pointless. So...disagree. I hope, come Fall, that everyone's methods professors have the good sense to assign more useful exercises than that. *fingers crossed*

[fullofpink]

In the two methodology classes I've taken, it's never come up. Because it's pointless. So...disagree. I hope, come Fall, that everyone's methods professors have the good sense to assign more useful exercises than that. *fingers crossed*

 

I found the exercise useful. After writing that first paper, we went through the rest of the methodologies and theories, and then the final paper was to incorporate the new methodologies and theories and how that had changed our perception of the field. 

 

Also, this was one of my interview questions at a school - so it does come up. 

 

Blargh. 

[kunstgeschichtedude]

I agree that Prospectstu's comment was rather cruel, but I don't think the original question he/she posed was meant to be controversial. I think that Prospect was genuinely curious. It's so difficult to get your tone across sometimes through the computer. Nevertheless, prospect's response was uncalled for. 

[manierata]

Mary's answer reminded me of what Michelangelo replied when asked to weigh in on the superiority of either sculpture or painting.  To summarize, he said that all the artists involved in the debate should stop arguing and get back to making art.  Touché.

[ProspectStu8735]

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

[oh_la_la]

Yikes @prospectstu8735: where's the collegiality?  If you have any hope of joining the ranks of art history professionals, you should fix that attitude ASAP, and certainly before you start your program in the fall.  Your fellow grad students and faculty will not take kindly to it.  In terms of getting a job later on, people skills really do matter.  Also, if the grad admissions process is already raising your stress level like this, I wish you luck dealing with the super intense competition of applying for external fellowships and jobs in a few years.  BE NICE TO EACH OTHER!    

[Hegel's Bagels]

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

ProspectStu, for someone so quick to cruelly judge others for not participating in the discussion put forth, you have not actually contributed anything substantial yourself. I actually disagree with some people here that this is nothing but semantics and I was intrigued when the topic initially popped up. However, I felt that the question was too vague to really engage with it. I think the term is problematic in many ways, for example, the types of objects it privileges, the types of (entrenched canonical) histories constructed around the term, its openness to the attachment of even vaguer terms like "visuality." Where were you hoping to go with this discussion Prospectstu? Instead of continuing to be a jerk on this forum, you might have saved a bit of face by explaining your thoughts on the matter. Also, an apology wouldn't hurt either.

[EloiseGC]

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

 

 

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

 

 

Man, you are a peach, aren't you? 

 

You proposed a question, I responded. If you didn't like my answer, respond with your own opinion, rather than with throwing insults in my general direction. 

 

Actually, I rescind that. Keep up with your belligerent attitude. You are totally free to sit in the corner and whine that the conversation is not going in the direction you wanted (which would have granted you the ability to show off the vast array of knowledge you learned in that one art history class that one time) while the adults are discussing the fundamentals of our field. Heads up for when you go to "H": questioning the questions presented by members of your study is participating in it.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Mary Queen of Scotch

[kokoschka]

Lucky me, I got a PERSONALIZED PM reply from Prospie. He writes, in part:

 

"Unfortunately for you that weakness is an unshakable trait that will last far longer than this little exchange and be a much greater detriment to your career than the fact that I do not put up with bullshit and lack the patience to lick the wounds of idiots. Do you think Rosalind Krauss - or any other significant thinker for that matter - is a nice person? No. They're always assholes with overwhelming personalities. I'd say my unpopularity indicates great things. <snip -- fuzzy>."

 

OH BOY.

Edited August 3, 2013 by fuzzylogician
edited for privacy.

[EloiseGC]

Lucky me, I got a PERSONALIZED PM reply from Prospie. He writes, in part:

 

"Unfortunately for you that weakness is an unshakable trait that will last far longer than this little exchange and be a much greater detriment to your career than the fact that I do not put up with bullshit and lack the patience to lick the wounds of idiots. Do you think Rosalind Krauss - or any other significant thinker for that matter - is a nice person? No. They're always assholes with overwhelming personalities. I'd say my unpopularity indicates great things. <snip -- fuzzy>"

 

OH BOY.

 

Haha, he or she is going to be in for such a rude awakening when he or she gets to his/her grad school. That's how you're supposed to say it, by the way. I'm not sure how many of us plebs would know that. 

Edited August 3, 2013 by fuzzylogician
edited for privacy.

[fuzzylogician]

I am going to lock this thread, as it clearly is not being used to discuss the original question that it raised.

 

For future reference, both publishing a personal message in a public forum (kokoschka) and sending someone an insulting personal message (ProspectStu) don't really say much of anything positive about your character. You are in for a rude awakening in graduate school if you think your "abrasive" character will be appreciated as a positive trait. Stop this back and forth at once, or you'll both be suspended from the forums.