Art History vs. Visual Studies

[CB21]

Ok, in hopes to better direct my education/career path, I was hoping someone could clarify the difference between Art History and Visual Studies for me. 

I am extremely interested in studying street art and teaching in some manner (whether through university, museum, or public art). Is Visual Studies a more appropriate field?

[lotte-laserstein]

This would be something that you should probably consult more about with a professor who's been on hiring committees, but I wouldn't make this decision purely based on your chosen subfield. Street art is a viable option of study in an art history program, so long as you choose a program with faculty who have expressed similar research interests. What kind of street art are you interested in? Why are you interested specifically in this subject? What about it draws your attention? If you were going to write a 100 page paper about street art, what would it look like? Which sources would you want to cite? Answering those questions could help you better decide which discipline is better suited to your career path. I just finished my art history masters and will probably choose a visual studies phd over art history, but that's due to my practice having an interdisciplinary focus.

If your interest in street art skews towards things like activism, social justice concerns, queer theory, etc etc, then visual studies might be for you. But you could still study street art in a strict art history program, and you could get a great art historical background in a visual studies program. Really it's based on differences in schools of thought and approaches to a subject. If you're interested in teaching art history, however, know that a visual studies phd will narrow your prospects at some universities.

I would seek advice from as many professors as possible and make contact with universities you might be interested in attending. Another thing you should do is look at the curriculum and mission statements at different programs - a visual studies program will often have similar courses, but you'll be able to see in the descriptions how the focuses differ across various programs.

[betsy303]

I tend to see visual studies programs as (a) more inclusive of other visual mediums such as film and (b) more theoretically grounded. Many "traditional" art history departments do use a variety of visual mediums and generally have at least a few faculty members who work with critical theory. Hence, I would apply to the programs with a faculty member (preferably faculty members) who you want to work with. I wouldn't worry as much about it being an art history verses a visual studies program. 

[gggggoooooggggg]

Hi Betsy!

I was just admitted to Rochester's program of Visual and Cultural Studies and have been in contact with their current graduate students and faculty. From what I've learned, the VCS program concerns (as you mentioned) more visual mediums and is heavy on the study of Critical Theory. It is also interdisciplinary in nature and encourages students to take courses in other humanities departments (Literature, philosophy, psychoanalysis, etc..) Thus, it would be a great place to go if you are interested in the social/political/economic functions of art.

However, I've noticed that the entire department of Art History at Rochester does not have a faculty whose area of specialty is pre-modern art. So I guess you wouldn't get that kind of traditional art historical training where you learn "the history" chronologically (ancient, renaissance, baroque, modern...) but whether this is a pro or a con is totally dependent on your thought!

Hope this is somewhat helpful!