Posting My SoP here, looking for feedback

[KMGB]

This is pretty last minute, but hopefully this will be of use to other people applying down the road as well. This is my current version of my essay for the University of Virginia. I'm specifically interested in feedback on the strength, or lack thereof, of the introduction. Any and all feedback is welcome.

 

“The Annals of Rome were the mirrors into which revolutionaries constantly gazed in search of self-recognition”, observes Simon Schama in his history of the French Revolution. His statement highlights two themes which occupy my research: the eighteenth-century’s fascination with the fashioning of identity, and the receiver’s role in the production of historical meaning. The great Roman orators these men “recognized” in the mirror were in part effigies of their own making, a synthesis of historical fact and politicized projection. Reception scholars have recently grappled with this issue, and the metaphor of history as a mirror reflects a prevailing trend in the discipline, abbreviated by Charles Martindale’s dictum that meaning “is always realized at the point of reception.” This perspective marks an intriguing shift of emphasis from historical “fact” to the interpretation of historical events and objects by subsequent audiences. In this spirit, my research explores how Enlightenment political consciousness shaped, and was shaped by responses to antiquity.
    A sojourn in Berlin sparked my interest in the phenomenon of German philhellenism, the origins of which I would trace in my summa cum laude thesis on the politics of aesthetics in the work of Johann Joachim Winckelmann. Drawing on my training in art history and Early Modern philosophy, I examined Winckelmann’s decision to vilify the Romans and embrace the Greeks as the true model of antique perfection. Following threads started by Alex Potts and Moshe Barasch, I reasoned that this preoccupation reflects a deep antipathy towards the Roman imperial political model, which Winckelmann blames equally for the inferiority of both ancient Roman and modern Baroque art, with its paternal institution of ancien regime autocracy. Expanding on the work of several German scholars, I argued that Winckelmann’s contributions in historiography and aesthetics constitute a radical social critique which would come to color the emergent neoclassicism of the Enlightenment. Winckelmann’s image of antiquity, much like that of the French revolutionaries, was part of a discourse in which the present seems to define the past as much as the reverse is true.
    The methodology I utilized for this work was influenced by my research under Steven Ostrow and Matthew Canepa in the Art History department at the University of Minnesota. Steven Ostrow’s work on the religious function of post-Tridentine sculpture and public spaces has trained me in the study of iconography, topography and patronage, as well as the power of art to seamlessly integrate ideology into public life. Under Matthew Canepa I pursued questions about how the production, re-use and appropriation of artistic and religious history is used for self-fashioning and legitimization of political authority through techniques ranging from spoliation to ritual performance. In 2014 I focused on the Hellenistic Near East, contributing a term paper on the adoption of Babylonian rulership practices and rituals by the early Seleucids in Hellenistic Mesopotamia for a graduate level course. Later that year I was awarded with a research grant during which I studied aspects of art theory in the French academic circle and their (quite imaginative) basis in antiquity under the direction of Steven Ostrow. These research methods were formative in my approach to art history, fostering my preoccupation with the power of the past and its expression in the visual arts.
    The McIntire Department of Art is uniquely well-suited to support me as I continue to address a variety of current issues in Early Modern visual culture. Along with the late Mary Sheriff, Sarah Betzer’s work has been formative for my study of gender and viewership in the Rococo. Betzer’s forthcoming book will certainly present new questions relevant to my focus on the reception of antique sculpture, and converges with my extensive training in Early Modern philosophy, topics that could be expanded upon and developed in my future research under her guidance. Anastasia Dakouri-Hild’s approach also dovetails significantly with my past study of how ritual performance and space (both architectural and topographical) can be used to shape political identity in the ancient world, issues which have significantly guided my approach to art history in general.
    In addition, the prominent inter-departmental strength in the classics is a major incentive to study at the University of Virginia. Classical reception, central to my interest in the eighteenth century, quite obviously requires close study of antiquity. My background in Latin will provide the requisite skills to refine my understanding of the Roman sources which exercised immeasurable influence upon the artistic and literary figures of the Enlightenment. In this area, I plan to draw on the expertise of faculty such as John Dobbins and John Miller whose expertise in Roman literature and reception will be invaluable as I progress in my doctoral work. The University of Virginia thus provides the ideal atmosphere for me to engage, and ultimately contribute to, ongoing conversation about receptions of antiquity in the Early Modern world.

 

[khigh]

I cannot give you much feedback, but I was wondering how Schama is perceived in your field? He's controversial in a lot of circles and is heavily involved in modern politics and can be seen as offensive by some.  In my field, his work is seen more in the light of the History Channel than serious study.  I would personally reflect on whether or not to open with a controversial historian.

[KMGB]

3 hours ago, khigh said:

I cannot give you much feedback, but I was wondering how Schama is perceived in your field? He's controversial in a lot of circles and is heavily involved in modern politics and can be seen as offensive by some.  In my field, his work is seen more in the light of the History Channel than serious study.  I would personally reflect on whether or not to open with a controversial historian.

Interesting, thank you for the insight. I wasn't aware of that aspect of his reputation, I have only read his books.

I see you're a fellow Minnesotan. What's your area of interest out of curiosity?

Edited December 14, 2017 by KMGB

[khigh]

3 minutes ago, KMGB said:

Interesting, thank you for the insight. I wasn't aware of that aspect of his reputation, I have only read his books.

I see you're a fellow Minnesotan. Where are you applying, out of curiosity?

I'm only applying to the University of Minnesota.  I moved up here during my gap year and it's just the right fit.

[KMGB]

1 minute ago, khigh said:

I'm only applying to the University of Minnesota.  I moved up here during my gap year and it's just the right fit.

Ah. just edited my comment since I saw you applied there. You're in History?

[khigh]

2 minutes ago, KMGB said:

Ah. just edited my comment since I saw you applied there. You're in History?

I am in history.  I want to concentrate on Dutch history, but Tracy retired, so I've talked to Reyerson and Shank about looking at the role of the Dutch in the Mediterranean.

[KMGB]

1 minute ago, khigh said:

I am in history.  I want to concentrate on Dutch history, but Tracy retired, so I've talked to Reyerson and Shank about looking at the role of the Dutch in the Mediterranean.

Cool. UMN is a great place. Good luck.