Fine Art to Philosophy

[finetune]

Hey guys,

 

Would appreciate any of your thoughts and/or advice on the following circumstances. (I'll try to keep this short but informative.) 

 

I'm a 24 year old American really interested in pursuing analytic philosophy at the graduate level. I have no formal training in analytic philosophy, but have been independently studying various topics within philosophy of language, mind, and art for the past two years. I have written a few basic (unpublished) overviews on a few topics within phil of language (E.g., indexicality, reference, belief reports, etc.) However, my primary interest, I've decided as of late, is analytic philosophy of art, which I feel I could do my strongest work in. Last year I applied to MA programs in Europe with a phil of language paper, and accepted an offer at school X. I deferred weeks later once I sat down to crunch the numbers. Basically, I'm starting the application process again, and am looking to apply only to American MA and PhD programs. I'm worried that I'm nowhere near competitive for PhD programs, but wonder what the harm would be in applying. Based roughly on the following, do I stand a chance at certain PhD programs? MA programs even? What else can I do make myself a stronger applicant for both? 

 

Undergraduate Credentials (or lackthereof) 

• Degree: Bachelor of Fine Arts from a top-three art school. 
• Academics: My courses were based on a pass/fail model, and therefore I have no formal letter grades or GPA. (I suppose based on this model my GPA could be calculated as being just average).
  • Academic Discrepancy: Unfortunately, the one class I ever failed as an undergraduate student was Philosophy of Art (my current, primary research interest).
• Philosophy/Related Courses: Two/three continental phil courses; Cog Science course; Physics of Sound course; many Art History courses; two/three Art Theory courses. 

Extracurricular Activities & Misc.

• I host a weekly philosophy of art reading group.
• I have been sitting in on a Logic course at a local university (one whole semester's worth).
• I have published a lot in various art theory & criticism venues recognized within the Art world (none strictly philosophically recognized). Almost all my professional experience is in art writing (reviews, interviews, essays, etc.) 

Applying to Graduate School

• Recommendations: One of my three recommendation writers is an actual professor of (continental) philosophy. The other two are art theory/criticism based. 
• GRE: I have yet to test, but let's, for the sake of this scenario, say they will be average.
• Writing Sample: A topic within analytic philosophy of art. I obviously aim for this to be the strongest part of my application. 

Concluding Remarks:

- Philosophy of Art is already a marginalized sub-field within analytic philosophy (though it seems to be getting better), however, I feel based on my background, it just makes the most sense to pursue. Again, I feel I could do my strongest work in it. (Though I do consider it another strike against me.)

- If let's say my writing sample turned out to be amazing, GRE scores strong (something that doesn't usually carry that much weight, but will in my circumstances), PhD admissions could still dismiss my application on grounds of simply not having, on paper, formal academic experience in philosophy.

- This all makes me think that an MA might be the best option at this point.  

 

Again, do I stand a chance at certain PhD programs? MA programs even? What else can I do make myself a stronger applicant for both? 

 

Any advice or insight would be much appreciated. All ears.

Edited May 1, 2014 by finetune

[AcademicX]

For what it's worth, when I visited Vanderbilt I met a lot of students who got into the program with little to no background in philosophy. I was surprised by this and I don't know if it is that common. I think that, for Vanderbilt at least, the admissions committee was willing to admit people who didnt have a philosophy B.A. as long as their academic credentials were related to the field they wanted to study--which seems to be your case. That said, I think it would be more realistic for you to apply to MA program and a few PhD ones. Also, you mentioned that you are interested in analytic philosophy of art. However, the professor from whom you are getting your letter is continental and you took a couple of classes in continental philosophy. Have you considered studying philosophy of art from a continental perspective? It seems to me that it is more popular among continentals than analytics, anyways. I say this because I get the sense that continental departments are more open to accepting people from academic backgrounds other than philosophy, but that's just an assertion without any empirical backing. 

[philstudent1991]

Ya, the MA route is probably the way to go. You can apply to PhDs, but people with strong backgrounds in philosophy get shut out. Only one philosophy recommendation and no formal philosophy background will kill you at almost all PhD programs.

[ZiggyPhil]

To reiterate what Johannes said, philosophy of art is a pretty niche area of analytic philosophy, but more popular in continental philosophy.  If you decide to go that route I think you'd be fine to apply directly to continental Ph.D. programs.  However, the whole "no gpa" thing may be a big problem, as the school has very little information that indicates that you are a serious student.  To that end, I would study intently for the GRE.  I think a mediocre score could hurt you more than other applicants because they will have (generally) high GPAs to offset their middling GREs. 

 

However, if you are adamant about pursuing analytic philosophy, this is what I'd do:

 

1.) Study like crazy for the GRE (same reason as above).

2.) Apply for the next school year as a non-degree-seeking student (usually this kind of admission is non-competitive) at the best university in your area that allows such students.

3.) At that university, spend a year taking intermediate/advanced classes in core areas (ancient, early modern, ethics, metaphysics, epistemology).  Don't just audit them - you need grades and you need those grades to be A's. 

4.) Be sure to form relationships with the professors who can write you recommendations. 

5.) After that year (actually in the second semester) apply to terminal M.A. programs.  When applying, I would not put too high an emphasis on your interest in philosophy of art.  Of course mention it as your favorite subject, but the M.A. programs are general programs, and since most of your classes are going to be in other areas, the school wants to know that you are interested in those as well.  When you apply for Ph.D. programs you can (and should) put more emphasis on your primary area of interest.

 

I hope that helps. 

[finetune]

Appreciate all the thoughful advice so far!

 

Johannes14: Pretty interesting about Vanderbilt. In regards to the continental track: The continental environment definitely seems/has been more hospitable to aesthetics and phil of art overall than analytic has (though again, things *seem* to be getting better in analytic). I have interests in other topics than phil of art though, and prefer to explore those through the methodology ("methodology") and literature of analytic. I just don't think I have any real interest in continental on the whole—even in phil of art (there are exceptions obviously though). 

 

So, you think I should apply to a few PhD programs amongst MAs as well? Were there specific PhD programs you had in mind? If so, were they continental, analytic, etc.? 

 

ZiggyPhil: That's very helpful advice. I definitely agree about the GRE. It's my understanding that it doesn't usually carry much weight in admissions, but considering my circumstances, I'll need to do really well, as you say. 

 

Is your recommendation to enroll as a non-degree student based on the fact that I might not even be competitive enough for admission into an MA program (say like Tufts or Brandeis)? 

 

For everyone: Does anyone have any thoughts on a Master's in Liberal Studies? For example, CUNY offers an "Individualized Studies" program from which I'd be able to take a bunch of courses in philosophy. Though a Liberal Studies program seems like it would be frowned upon by admissions, its advantages would be all of those afforded by the non-degree option that ZiggyPhil outlines.

[ZiggyPhil]

 

Is your recommendation to enroll as a non-degree student based on the fact that I might not even be competitive enough for admission into an MA program (say like Tufts or Brandeis)? 

 

 

 

Yes, I think you're going to have trouble getting into an M.A. w/o any classes in analytic philosophy, and perhaps more importantly, without any recommendations from analytic professors.  Of course, you may get into a good program w/o such things, but it's going to be much harder.  I also suggested it because you'll be applying for the M.A. starting fall '15 (presumably) so it wouldn't delay your plans to take some courses over the next two semesters.  Of course there is the money to consider, and if you have to pay $5k per course at a private university this plan may not be worth it.  But if you can get relatively cheap in-state tuition somewhere, I think it's definitely worth it, considering how much better it will make your application.  (btw, the advice I'm giving you is essentially what I did.)

 

Regarding general liberal arts M.A.'s, I don't think the degree will give you any advantages over simply taking the classes you want, and it has two drawbacks. First, you're going to have to take at least some classes that won't help you (and that you may or may not care about).  Second, and more important, they cost a ton of money, and there seems to be a wide-ranging consensus that, even if the classes are good, your career prospects are not sufficiently enhanced to justify the cost.

[philstudent1991]

I can't speak to all the good terminal MAs, but at GSU at least they don't accept people with no background in philosophy. They recommend, as someone mentioned above, matriculating as a non degree seeking student and then applying after that.

[maxhgns]

Continental philosophy is perhaps more hospitable to aesthetics, and to figures-based approaches to the philosophy of art, but it's a totally different beast and not really worth one's time if one is interested in analytic philosophy of art (which, like most analytic philosophy, is problem-based). In a solid "analytically-oriented" department, you can still get the exposure and training required to do continentally-acceptable work in aesthetics (via the history of philosophy); the reverse, unfortunately, isn't usually true, since you need a good background in metaphysics and phil. of language to do good phil. of art (that's just to point to a trend, not to say one can't buck it). Phil. of art/aesthetics tends to be pretty friendly across the analytic/continental divide, but the graduate training required for each is pretty different.

 

Although I do think that an MA would be very helpful, I also think it's worth trying to get into a few PhD programs (you never know, after all). Don't worry about your letter writers: you can't really control them or their background at this point, short of getting new ones somehow. The real problem is that, at the PhD level, there's not a lot of ("analytic") phil. of art in North America, let alone the US (ruling out Canada means ruling out two of the best programs). And many of the pre-eminent faculty at ranked doctoral programs (a rare breed these days, since most analytic philosophers of art aren't at PhD-granting institutions) are on the verge of retiring, or already spend very little time in NA (preferring Europe). A few are also contemplating moves elsewhere, so keep an eye out. Finding a program that's a good fit for and can support your interests may prove challenging, and may force you in a very competitive applicant pool (for which a better background in philosophy might serve you better).

[AnxiousAndy]

In my opinion having recommendations from non-philosophers isn't too much of an obstacle as long as they have knowledge of your writing on topics closely related to philosophy. Of my three recommendations; one was a philosophy professor, one has a joint appointment in history and philosophy but was primarily a historian, and another was a comp lit post-doc and I got into a top MA program and was received one fully-funded PhD offer.

[finetune]

Regarding general liberal arts M.A.'s, I don't think the degree will give you any advantages over simply taking the classes you want, and it has two drawbacks. First, you're going to have to take at least some classes that won't help you (and that you may or may not care about).  Second, and more important, they cost a ton of money, and there seems to be a wide-ranging consensus that, even if the classes are good, your career prospects are not sufficiently enhanced to justify the cost.

 

Okay, I think that makes a lot of sense. I did some more research on Liberal Studies MAs from schools I'm interested in, and the academic options are not really in accord with my core philosophic interests. I'll definitely consider looking into matriculating as a non-degree student—at least that's something I can get a start on now, as you say, and hopefully build some credit before applying this January. (Though, I will likely have to take out a small loan if I do this at, say, CUNY even with access to New York State residency tuition rates.) 

 

I would be curious to hear your story though, if you're willing to share.

 

 

In a solid "analytically-oriented" department, you can still get the exposure and training required to do continentally-acceptable work in aesthetics (via the history of philosophy); the reverse, unfortunately, isn't usually true, since you need a good background in metaphysics and phil. of language to do good phil. of art (that's just to point to a trend, not to say one can't buck it). Phil. of art/aesthetics tends to be pretty friendly across the analytic/continental divide, but the graduate training required for each is pretty different.

 

Agreed. Which is why I'd like to stay on the analytic track. 

 

In terms of PhD programs in NA that I'm personally interested in, with notable analytic philosophers of art, there is: CUNY (Noel Carroll is still active there); NYU (Robert Hopkins recently came on board); University of Maryland College Park (Jerrold Levinson, also many of their grad students have primary or secondary interests in phil of art); Rutgers (Peter Kivy, Elisabeth Camp—though aesthetics/art seems more secondary for her). All these schools are highly ranked, so the obvious worry then, given my current stats, is that I simply don't stand a chance. While, I will definitely apply to MAs, do you still think it's worth applying to PhD programs such as the above? Do you recommend any others—particularly ones on the east coast?

 

 

In my opinion having recommendations from non-philosophers isn't too much of an obstacle as long as they have knowledge of your writing on topics closely related to philosophy. Of my three recommendations; one was a philosophy professor, one has a joint appointment in history and philosophy but was primarily a historian, and another was a comp lit post-doc and I got into a top MA program and was received one fully-funded PhD offer.

 

Can I ask what what your undergrad/grad background was?  

[maxhgns]

 

 

In terms of PhD programs in NA that I'm personally interested in, with notable analytic philosophers of art, there is: CUNY (Noel Carroll is still active there); NYU (Robert Hopkins recently came on board); University of Maryland College Park (Jerrold Levinson, also many of their grad students have primary or secondary interests in phil of art); Rutgers (Peter Kivy, Elisabeth Camp—though aesthetics/art seems more secondary for her). All these schools are highly ranked, so the obvious worry then, given my current stats, is that I simply don't stand a chance. While, I will definitely apply to MAs, do you still think it's worth applying to PhD programs such as the above? Do you recommend any others—particularly ones on the east coast?

 

 

 

You should know that the word on the grapevine is that Kivy will be retiring soon (he's 79 or 80, after all). Rumour also has it that Levinson and Carroll aren't particularly available these days, and may be winding down their obligations themselves. That's not at all to say you shouldn't apply there, or see if they'll supervise you, it's just so that you're aware of the impending doom in the philosophy of art, which may well hit before or when you're ready to apply. It's definitely worth applying there, since one never knows, but you should at least be forewarned.

 

There are still a few other holdouts with faculty whose primary AOS is the ("analytic") philosophy of art. McGill (David Davies) and UBC (Dominic McIver Lopes) are two of the more important ones. The other important department is Columbia, which hosts Lydia Goehr (her work is more historical in focus, but there's plenty of analytic support at Columbia, and she's well versed in it too). Jenefer Robinson is at Cincinnati, but I don't know whether she takes students any more (she's pretty old now). Anne Eaton is at UIC. And there's Oklahoma, where Sherri Irvin is currently. After that, the pickings in North America get quite slim due to retirements, deaths, guttings (e.g. Temple), and a general lack of hiring. There's Miami, where Amie Thomasson works, although I think it's fair to say that her primary interests are in metaphysics, and only incidentally in the philosophy of art. OSU has Robert Kraut, but I don't think he's done very much for the last several years. That's about it, I'm sorry to say.

 

On the NA MA front, things are better. In addition to the usual excellent MA programs, there are several with faculty that are top-notch philosophers of art, such as Trinity University and the University of Houston (there are lots more, but these are the two I remember offhand). 

[Glasperlenspieler]

Alva Noe at Berkeley is another, especially if you are interested in intersections between cognitive science and aesthetics.

 

Oklahoma now has a funded terminal masters program I believe, which with Sherri Irvin, might make that a top choice for you.

[maxhgns]

Not to shoot down your contribution, DerPhilosoph, but Noë hasn't done much work in the philosophy of art at all (he's got virtually no publications in it, and certainly none in the main journals). He's one of those people who specializes elsewhere but has some non-primary interests in the philosophy of art (there are a fair few of those people). And his brief foray into the aesthetics of dance was pretty dismal. I'm sorry to say it, but I think that it would be a mistake to do a PhD in the philosophy of art under his primary direction. He could be a great complement, to be sure, but as a primary supervisor... well, no.

 

Sherri Irvin is awesome, and you're right to point out that Oklahoma now offers a terminal Master's degree in addition to the PhD. I'd forgotten about that.

[Glasperlenspieler]

Not to shoot down your contribution, DerPhilosoph, but Noë hasn't done much work in the philosophy of art at all (he's got virtually no publications in it, and certainly none in the main journals). He's one of those people who specializes elsewhere but has some non-primary interests in the philosophy of art (there are a fair few of those people). And his brief foray into the aesthetics of dance was pretty dismal. I'm sorry to say it, but I think that it would be a mistake to do a PhD in the philosophy of art under his primary direction. He could be a great complement, to be sure, but as a primary supervisor... well, no.

 

 

Good to know.  I'm not actually all that familiar with his work.  I just knew that he'd done some work in the field and that he regularly teaches (undergrad) courses in aesthetics.

[maxhgns]

Good to know.  I'm not actually all that familiar with his work.  I just knew that he'd done some work in the field and that he regularly teaches (undergrad) courses in aesthetics.

 

 

FWIW, there is at least one (other) philosopher of mind (broadly construed) who dabbles in aesthetics at a PhD-granting institution, and who's published a few things in the field: Jesse Prinz. He's actually got a book on the psychology and ontology of art coming out with OUP soon (this year, I think). That helps make CUNY safer and a better fit for the original poster, I think.

[finetune]

You should know that the word on the grapevine is that Kivy will be retiring soon (he's 79 or 80, after all). Rumour also has it that Levinson and Carroll aren't particularly available these days, and may be winding down their obligations themselves. That's not at all to say you shouldn't apply there, or see if they'll supervise you, it's just so that you're aware of the impending doom in the philosophy of art, which may well hit before or when you're ready to apply. It's definitely worth applying there, since one never knows, but you should at least be forewarned.

 

There are still a few other holdouts with faculty whose primary AOS is the ("analytic") philosophy of art. McGill (David Davies) and UBC (Dominic McIver Lopes) are two of the more important ones. The other important department is Columbia, which hosts Lydia Goehr (her work is more historical in focus, but there's plenty of analytic support at Columbia, and she's well versed in it too). Jenefer Robinson is at Cincinnati, but I don't know whether she takes students any more (she's pretty old now). Anne Eaton is at UIC. And there's Oklahoma, where Sherri Irvin is currently. After that, the pickings in North America get quite slim due to retirements, deaths, guttings (e.g. Temple), and a general lack of hiring. There's Miami, where Amie Thomasson works, although I think it's fair to say that her primary interests are in metaphysics, and only incidentally in the philosophy of art. OSU has Robert Kraut, but I don't think he's done very much for the last several years. That's about it, I'm sorry to say.

 

On the NA MA front, things are better. In addition to the usual excellent MA programs, there are several with faculty that are top-notch philosophers of art, such as Trinity University and the University of Houston (there are lots more, but these are the two I remember offhand). 

Figured Kivy would be retiring somewhat soon. Good to know about Levinson and Carroll, as well as Lydia Goehr's familiarity with the analytic literature. I wasn't familiar with Anne Eaton at UIC so that's great. I'll have to look more into her research and the program there. Overall, CUNY still seems more responsive to aesthetics and phil of art than other top-twenty NA schools.  As for Canada: I hadn't actually considered schools there—but perhaps I should...