Art History programs and theory

[Urbahist]

In my home discipline, history, some programs heavily emphasis theory and some barely teach/use theory.  (For example, in my sub-sub-discipline, Berkeley and Michigan are very theory-driven, while Yale and Harvard are exceptionally theory-light.)

The same thing must hold true for art history programs.  So which leading programs are heavy on theory and which leading programs are more social-historical?

 

Edited May 16, 2016 by Urbahist

[poliscar]

I honestly don't think this is a very answerable question, at least at a departmental level. However, to start I would say that "Theory" has probably had more of an influence on Art History than History, so it would be rare to find an Art History graduate program that doesn't incorporate it at some level. All of the Ivies, for example, have some deeply theoretical faculty members, though it depends on sub-discipline. In some cases Medievalists, for example, tend to be a bit more "traditional"—though good theoretical work is happening in the field. All in all, I would hazard to say that of the most significant or leading schools in the field, there aren't any with departments I would identify as "anti-theory" or "theory-light." It would really just depend on your subfield and advisor. Since Art History programs are generally much smaller than History programs, you might—for example—find one with a deeply theoretical Early Modernist (or two), but more traditional or object-based 19th century scholars (not to isolate theory & object). 

There are also specific disciplinary questions to be aware of, that don't cleave easily into Theory/non-Theory. What is sometimes called the Social History of Art, for instance, tends to stem from a Marxist line of enquiry. In that case, you're looking at a break from earlier Formalist or Connoisseurship based approaches, in favour of the situation of objects in a broader social field. This might seem like a less theoretical approach, i.e. with more emphasis on archival research, historical contextualization, etc, but it is also often deeply theoretical—if less flashily so. TJ Clark (renowned Modernist, Social Historian of Art) tends to draw significantly from Debord, Benjamin, Foucault, and Marx—alongside a pretty heavy use of archival/primary material. Another point of contention might be the split between "Visual Culture" and "Art History," wherein very theoretical Art Historians often can be the most opposed to equally theoretical work in Visual Culture/Studies. 

Maybe an easy way of putting it—and this is still a simplification—is that things are divided across a number of variables. So you can have a theoretical formalist, or a non-theoretical (but also not necessarily historicist) formalist. Likewise, there are theoretical socio-historical scholars, and more anti-theoretical socio-historical scholars. And this also doesn't get into theoretical/methodological splits; a "theoretical" scholar might be very intently engaged with psychoanalysis but completely hostile to historical materialist approaches, etc. Based on this, I have trouble thinking of any department where there is a broad enough consensus for me to make statements about a program's antipathy or interest in theory. If you have a specific subfield, or you're interested in Art History programs, the best thing you can do is work from the ground up, and look at individual scholars, and department colloquia, syllabi, dissertations, etc. This should give you a good idea of where the department stands for you. 

Sorry for the evasive non-answer—hope this was marginally helpful.

 

[betsy303]

I would second the above. Faculty have diverse and changing interests. I would say it has more to do with your sub-speciality. In my area of 19th century French painting, I could give you more specifics on the individual scholars at particular institutions. I think there are however programs that are theory driven (Irvine, Rochester, etc). I personally like being in a department with a diversity of methodologies. I also like being at an institution with faculty in related fields who are strong (history, English, French, etc). I would pay more attention to whom you would like to see on your dissertation committee above other aspects.