Pursuing art history after a JD?

[magpin]

Hi guys, I'm in need of some general advice. 

I graduated from Bryn Mawr with a degree in History (GPA: 3.64), but focused all of my research, including my thesis, on art history. Instead of continuing down the academic path and accepting an offer to pursue an M.A. at Boston College, I turned it down to go to law school instead. (The choice was made easier by the fact that I essentially got a full ride.) Most of my research in college had dealt with images of Modern European nationalism, and I thought that I could advocate on behalf of artists with first amendment problems, intellectual property issues, etc. I interned with my local Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts, the Barnes Foundation, and worked in wealth management to learn more about legacy planning for artists and collectors. Everything was great!

I have since graduated from law school and work at a firm that specializes in business and intellectual property. Surprise, surprise, I have never felt further from the arts, and I have never felt less like I am supporting the industry that I wanted to work in. To add insult to injury, my job doesn't really support having outside interests, and, aside from having been invited onto the local Art Law Committee, I don't have the time to offset this terrible career choice with interesting and engaging hobbies. I have discovered that 85% of lawyers have an active distaste for culture, and I am very anxious because I see less and less of a space for myself in this field, especially because I don't (and can't) live in NYC (though Philly is fairly close). 

While the prospect of taking on more debt by going back to school makes me sweat, I am trying to figure out if there is a benefit to going back and pursuing an M.A. in Art History. I have considered doing Arts Administration, Historic Preservation, and the like, because I really want to have a career that allows me to be on the front lines of the arts community in my city. As much as I love doing research and academia, I think I am happiest when I act as an advocate and/or get involved with a cultural organization that I believe in. 

Is going back to school worth it, or should I just try to make do in the arts with the credentials that I currently have? I am concerned that programs would ask why a lawyer would want to go back to school to pursue art history, but I think I would be able to justify it. I guess I'm just nervous about making another wrong turn...

[RagnarLothbrook]

Hi Magpin,

I am interested in whether you ever found a satisfying answer to this question? I am kind of in the same boat. Practiced law for about ten years now and looking to study History. 

[magpin]

On 6/24/2017 at 5:48 PM, RagnarLothbrook said:

Hi Magpin,

I am interested in whether you ever found a satisfying answer to this question? I am kind of in the same boat. Practiced law for about ten years now and looking to study History. 

Hi! No, unfortunately I haven't, and it remains something I debate fiercely with myself every day. I would love to hear about your thought process as you make your decision! I'm mostly anxious about taking on loans and an uncertain career trajectory, so my decision ultimately comes down to whether I want to take the leap. I know many attorneys who did an MA or a PhD in Art History and History before going to law school, but that typically lends itself to a very different career path.  

Edited July 5, 2017 by magpin

[fuzzylogician]

On 5/20/2017 at 6:36 PM, magpin said:

Is going back to school worth it, or should I just try to make do in the arts with the credentials that I currently have? I am concerned that programs would ask why a lawyer would want to go back to school to pursue art history, but I think I would be able to justify it. I guess I'm just nervous about making another wrong turn...

Caveat: an outside perspective. 

If you are fairly immobile, have a job, and are looking for a career move within the same location, I would imagine that having the right connections is even more important than having the official credentials. I would probably start from finding a way to become better known within the arts community in your town, to get to know the right people in the scene and to become friends with the decision makers. From there it's a matter or figuring out what credentials they are looking for in someone who is doing the job(s) you want. If it means a degree, that would be the time to do it. Otherwise, there might be other less expensive ways to stay in touch with the arts. Either way, I don't think that explaining your choice to return to school should be that hard, what you wrote above seems straightforward and honest and I suspect you're not the first one who's gone down this path. Being able to demonstrate your actions to get back into the scene and get involved should go a long way, together with being able to discuss concrete post-degree plans. 

[magpin]

4 minutes ago, fuzzylogician said:

Caveat: an outside perspective. 

If you are fairly immobile, have a job, and are looking for a career move within the same location, I would imagine that having the right connections is even more important than having the official credentials.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. I am pretty well-connected when it comes to the blue chip art scene in Philadelphia. The only problem is that they know me primarily for my legal work and less for my art history acumen. I think you're right to say that this is something I should be able to convey in conversation, and I'm sure they would let me know if they would prefer to work with someone who has stronger, more pointed art history background. Thanks!

[cleisthenes]

If you're interested in working in a museum, lawyers are always needed, but the positions are not numerous, because there are not many museums that can afford to have legal departments. Those that do have only one or two full time lawyers on staff.

Jobs may be more plentiful in the commercial art world, i.e., working for auction houses. There are also boutique law firms that specialize in art law, but it's really just practicing IP law, the subject of which happens to be artworks. Whereas if you were to work for a museum, you would be directly supporting an institution you presumably care about, possibly dealing with fun, unusual issues (e.g., legality questions about stuffing religious objects in bodily orifices in performance work, etc.), in addition to a lot of stuff you'd still do in a firm.

If you were to get an Art History PhD, and really enjoyed and excelled in scholarly and/or curatorial practice, being a lawyer (or having a JD) would, down the line, unquestionably make you a very good candidate for leadership roles in nonprofit arts administration, especially at top museums. However those are in major cities, and each city has on average one, maybe two, where you could conceivably work. You would need to be open to moving around.

I agree with the comment that no matter what, in the art world, network is everything. If you intend to go either of those routes, you should aim to do your degree in New York or London, and with Brexit, I would say NY is the way to go. If you do that, you can develop the network you need while in grad school so you can actually translate the education into gainful employment.

No matter what, it's a tough space. You need to know exactly what you want and be willing to commit fully to have any chance of being competitive.

 

 

[magpin]

On 7/9/2017 at 6:07 PM, cleisthenes said:

If you're interested in working in a museum, lawyers are always needed, but the positions are not numerous, because there are not many museums that can afford to have legal departments. Those that do have only one or two full time lawyers on staff.

Jobs may be more plentiful in the commercial art world, i.e., working for auction houses. There are also boutique law firms that specialize in art law, but it's really just practicing IP law, the subject of which happens to be artworks. Whereas if you were to work for a museum, you would be directly supporting an institution you presumably care about, possibly dealing with fun, unusual issues (e.g., legality questions about stuffing religious objects in bodily orifices in performance work, etc.), in addition to a lot of stuff you'd still do in a firm.

If you were to get an Art History PhD, and really enjoyed and excelled in scholarly and/or curatorial practice, being a lawyer (or having a JD) would, down the line, unquestionably make you a very good candidate for leadership roles in nonprofit arts administration, especially at top museums. However those are in major cities, and each city has on average one, maybe two, where you could conceivably work. You would need to be open to moving around.

I agree with the comment that no matter what, in the art world, network is everything. If you intend to go either of those routes, you should aim to do your degree in New York or London, and with Brexit, I would say NY is the way to go. If you do that, you can develop the network you need while in grad school so you can actually translate the education into gainful employment.

No matter what, it's a tough space. You need to know exactly what you want and be willing to commit fully to have any chance of being competitive.

 

 

This sums up my thought process fairly concisely! There isn't a huge market in Philadelphia for a steady boutique art law practice, so I currently practice business/IP law and do art law related work on the side. I know some people here who have started solo art law practices, but it's rough sailing to say the least. (I also have hours' worth of opinions about how a traditional law practice fundamentally cannot respond to the needs of the specific art market that exists in Philly, but that's neither here nor there.) In my heart of hearts, I know that I need to be working more directly with art instead of merely facilitating business activities that just happen to involve art... so I think I'd like to eventually move away from the traditional practice of law and toward something a little more stimulating and creative. 

I had originally been applying to PhD programs instead of JD programs back in college, and my largest concern was one of flexibility (which is an even larger concern for me now). I would definitely be looking to work within a commutable distance from Philadelphia, and, given that limitation, I'm concerned that it would limit the utility of the degree. That would be many years down the line, of course, but I guess what I'm saying is that I can't just up and move across the country for a job anymore, and it makes me wonder if that makes diminishes my prospects enough to render the whole effort useless.