I will be applying to Oxbridge next year and I am having difficulty choosing one, I heard that Cambridge have a higher acceptance rate and is more well known for history of art. Please help me list the differences between both uni and some recommendations.

Thank you

a few weeks ago I went to the met and felt very inspired to learn more about art history in the coming year. I really enjoy the format of documentaries—are there any out there worth noting? i have an affinity for the Dutch baroque period, French impressionist painters, and early 20th century American realism but if you have any kind of recommendation I’d love it

Regarding the tastes of art buyers in the western world, I have seen in the last 30 or something years how dominant pop art is. I certainly understand that the funds are there, as well as a social capital. We do have many examples from the past as well, and even the present,

however, to clarify, it's investment for works like the ones you see by Jeff Koons, Kaws, and other such artists that make this sensational pop art that's very publicity-friendly. It's now been a full quarter of this century and looking back at the market, what typically makes news headlines in the contemporary primary market is pop art, We hardly ever see, academic works, among other things, those work that receive appreciation from conservatories, art professors, museum curators, etc...

I have seen such art being appreciated more by lawyers, doctors, engineers, professors, even technicians and junior managers.

Philip Pearlstein died back in 2022 and I was expecting much more media hype over his death, but sadly his art is not digestible enough for most of the media-consuming public so they don't really care. Around this time, there was also much praise for Beeple, and while his art is indeed fascinating and original, it incorporates all these popular culture elements like Pikachu, Mickey Mouse, Buzz light year, etc...

On the other hand, when we look at the French third republic, we see that the gazettes, journals, newspapers, etc. are very keen on promoting and talking about the vanguard academic painters of the day, and even those who are exploring new styles as well.

But it seems to me that, at least in the Anglosphere of the 21st-century, the dominant genre of art that gets circulated in the media is pop art.

With the trend of visible mending, does this have a foundation in art history? I know Japan has an art that has been widely shared, of damage/age making the item more beautiful in the mending. Are there artists now being shown who fall into this category? Or is it largely just lumped in with fashion? It feels more high art with social commentary to it to me.

i get that they want to show perspective maybe but the halos look like they have plates glued to their heads and it is just soo funny to me, someone if you know when this trend started you can tell me, the earliest i saw it was i think in The Tribute Money paintyed by Masaccio, also Mantegna and Verrocchio painted halos like that as well

https://preview.redd.it/pyd74br1njge1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=d17f1aae2737fd3133a22d7a0871bf120a8c87f5

https://preview.redd.it/9a5m94fqmjge1.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=ff7667630092b75eb6f408cd69e8270a7eeb098e

Im doing a lesson on Neoclassical styles for my uni interior design students and every year, all I get are complaints of all the stuff they need to understand and remember. So this time, i decided i WONT give a lecture but instead have them research on the works of famed designers of the period, look for their finished works, and fill this cardboard room I made (that they need to also make themselves) with all the bling a neoclassical dude/ or dudette could afford.

The design brief is what would the room of Madame Recamier look like if David finished the painting.

Im crossing my fingers these future designers would have a better appreciation of what ppl used to do back then.

I work at a contemporary art gallery as a writer and researcher, and I’m responsible for writing PR texts, exhibition texts and small descriptions for works.

Usually, my superiors ask me to write something more accessible, since the main point is selling and we don’t want potential buyers to feel like they don’t understand what is being discussed.

However, we now have two upcoming shows scheduled to open this and next month and, suddenly, the narrative has changed. One show is by a local artist, but it’s something completely different from what they have done before, a turning point in their career. The gallery is really aiming towards institutional buyers. For this case, I wrote a text usually asked from me - explain the concept of the show, guide the viewer through the artworks, how they relate to one another - but it was disapproved by the artist and by the gallery director and curator. They want something “big”, something “curatorial”, something “challenging”.

The other case, is for a show of a renowned artist, who accepted to do an exhibition with us. First, the Studio even asked if the gallery didn’t want a “real art historian” to write the text and offer a new perspective into the work. They ended up agreeing that I could write the text, but I feel a lot of pressure. Again, my superior advised me to go “fully academic”.

So, what do you consider to be a good curatorial text? What main aspects should I consider?

I feel a bit lost because this is my first job and I’ve only graduated from my MA last year. I don’t have much experience and I became used to write more “simple” texts. But now I am expected to go beyond, and I fear I won’t do a good job and/or meet their expectations. I don’t have any experience with curatorial texts, only the ones I’ve been writing until now but which were of a completely different tone and format.

I tried looking at examples, but it seems like I can’t make my texts similar to “real” curatorial texts. This scales because I have to write in English, which is not my main language, so I end up lacking some vocabulary that would come naturally to me in my main language.

Any advices? Thank you!

Hi everyone,

I recently applied for a PhD in Art History at the University of Chicago but was rejected. However, they forwarded my application to the MA in Middle Eastern Studies (CMES) program instead. I wasn’t expecting this, and now I’m trying to figure out what this means for my academic trajectory and whether it’s worth considering.

Some Context About My Background

• I have a BFA in Painting (3.98/4.0 GPA) from the University of Art.
• Art History isn’t offered as a standalone major in Iran, so I pursued my interests through research and independent study.
• My research focuses on Middle Eastern visual/material culture, feminist & queer theory, and socio-political resistance in art.
• I worked as a research assistant at a journal of art history, translating texts on modernism and Iranian visual culture.
• I applied for PhD programs without an MA, which I now realize may have hurt my chances.

My Questions & Concerns

1. Why would UChicago forward my application to CMES?
2. My guess is that my Persian, Arabic, and Turkish language skills made me a good fit for the program.But does this mean they actually see potential in my research, or is it just an automatic transfer for rejected PhD applicants?
3. Does anyone know if the CMES MA at UChicago is fully funded?
4. I’ve read that 90% of second-year students get full tuition scholarships, but I’m unsure what that means for first-year funding.If it’s not fully funded, would it even be worth considering?
5. Should I reach out to faculty for POI discussions?
6. Since this wasn’t my first-choice program, would it look disingenuous to suddenly express interest?Or would engaging with faculty (e.g., Alireza Doostdar, Persis Berlekamp) actually strengthen my candidacy?
7. Would this MA help or hurt my chances for a PhD in Art History later?
8. Would a **CMES MA make me a stronger PhD applicant in Art History?**Or would it make my application seem less focused, making me look like someone shifting between fields?

Any thoughts, advice, or shared experiences would be greatly appreciated! Especially if you’ve been through a PhD rejection → MA redirection or have insight into how CMES at UChicago works.

Thanks in advance! 🙏

Hi, everyone!

I’m an Art History student and still pretty new to this field, though it’s been a lifelong passion that I only recently decided to say “fuck it” and pursue! :)

What are the newsletters, magazines, and websites that I should keep an eye on to get up-to-date with the trends of what people are writing/curating about? What are the organizations and volunteer opportunities I should keep an eye out for to get connected?

Who drives the trends of this field? My intuition says the Oxford Journal, the MET, or the Guggenheim, but I am happy to hear different opinions!

I am a beginner wanting to draw, specifically like Renaissance artists. YouTube videos could be a guide, but I am uncertain if they are helpful and would rather have me draw in a style other than what I prefer. These videos invariably say I should start with drawing shapes first, but when I specify my search further on Renaissance style, they do not talk of 'shapes'—the closest comparison is them saying to visualize first after an egg.

But I want to know from you here art history practitioners. Did Renaissance artists learn to draw (or start drawing) first by drawing shapes and then the details after? By asking this question, I am looking to imitate their process as much as I could.

Hi r/arthistory! I’m stuck and hoping someone can help me.

Several years ago, I toured the academia gallery in Florence, where I remember the tour guide shared an interesting fact that stuck with me.

The guide claimed that when Michelangelo would visit the marble quarry in Carrara, he would inspect the giant crude blocks of marble, and mark the ones he deemed the highest quality with his personal insignia. These blocks would then be sent to his studio in Florence.

One half-finished sculpture in the museum still bore “Michelangelo’s mark” which I vaguely remember consisted of rings and lines. However, I cannot find anything corroborating this story online, no matter how I search it.

I was wondering if there was an art history detective that can help point me in the right direction? Thanks!

Hi! I'm a student at Cornell University pursuing a minor in Art History. The only problem is that it is a bit of a squeeze in my schedule and I'm trying to find an online course that would count towards academic credit (and isn't crazy expensive lol). Any advice? Any courses people recommend? Thanks!

My first few art history classes survey 1 &2, were all slides, memorizing dates titles and artist. They would also go over significant details of movements and why this piece they are showing is important. We would do a research paper or two and I found these classes great. Fast forward 10 years and I am going back for a BA after getting an associates degree in liberal arts. These classes are very different? It seems less about the art and more about critics writing about art. I have read more of these than looked at art and I am having to write a lot based off of these writings. In contemporary art, I have only looked at three big name artist for AAA. Is this how it is now or just my college?

Hello! A bit over 9 years ago a poster asked the same question, recompiling a lot of essays they considered important, but I wanted to know if those have changed over these years, is there any recommendation I could have? Thank you so much!

I forgot his Youtube/IG account but I keep seeing him on reels. He always uses the la-lalalala lalala sound on top of his videos. He looks at the camera before he explains the art and ends it with open ended questions like "What does this mean?"

I cannot find his account because I switched YouTube accounts recently. Can anyone help?

His edits are very similar to History By Mae except he only has one format.

Edit: Finally found him! No Taboo Paintings!

Does anyone know or has an idea what these feather-like elements in Dali‘s work mean or even are supposed to be? They appear in several of his paintings but I can‘t find anything about them. Is this a surrealistic symbol?

I am an incoming student at the University of Chicago. I am hoping to double major in PoliSci and Art History. The main thing is.. my parents are from the mindset of getting degrees in STEM or Law = Money. Which is true in some cases, but I truthfully don't see myself going into those fields, I'm only studying PoliSci as a backup for law school. My main concern is: those of you who have art history degrees, and have gone the full 9 yards (masters, doctorate) how do you see this field and the future of it? How is the pay? Do you love to do what you do? Have you found that you regret getting an art history degree? I don't want to put myself in a position in the future, where I am not fulfilling my life and dreams. If anyone could give me the cold, hard, truth, that'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Hi everyone!

I recently wrote an article exploring the fascinating influence of Andalusian architecture on Villa Zorayda, a historic landmark in Florida inspired by the Alhambra Palace in Granada. The villa beautifully incorporates Islamic design elements like arches, intricate plasterwork, and geometric tiles.

I also dive into the cultural impact and the symbolic use of Arabic phrases like Wa La Ghalib Illa Allah (There is no conqueror but Allah), which was a famous motto in the Alhambra.

Here’s the link to the full article: [https://hubpages.com/art/the-influence-of-andalusian-architecture-on-the-design-of-villa-zorayda]

I would love to hear your thoughts or experiences with similar architectural wonders!

Although these three “monti” are incredibly common in Rome, mainly because they appear in several Papal coat of arms, I don’t think I’ve ever seen them used like this, below a cross and with efigies of saints or prophets inside. This is from San Giorgio dei Greci in Venice, by the way, which is an amazing place and shows where Byzantine art would be going had Constantinople not fallen. Anyway, what’s with these three saints-in-an-egg?

I am trying to track down the name of a very large painting Roberto created in Chile (1948) for Sergio Lorenz.

We know that Matta cut a piece out of the finished canvas but want to know what happened to the rest of the finished work.

Im a professional artist and went to art school. I have to say that it’s hard to find someone who doesn’t have wrist problems/body issues tied to this profession.

Is there any art history writing where they mention these limitations? I couldn’t imagine Michelangelo not having a messed up back from painting the ceiling of a church

I'm more interested in enjoying how the painting looks (the more I draw/paint the more I become sensitive to and appreeciate colors, proportions, brightness and other little things). The message/objective doesn't interest me. Does it make me an idiot or is it perfectly fine? I once had a guy tell me in a "god you're so dumb" tone that I didn't understand anything for thinking that, and that what mattered was the message. This is why I'm asking this.

Creators of the infamous 'Can't help myself robotic arm piece, Yuan and Yu created 'Curtain' in 2008. For this "art" Yuan and Yu used 400kg of lobsters, 30kg of eels, 30kg of snakes, and 20kg of bullfrogs. They were skewered alive on lines, forming what looked like curtains. They wriggled and writhed in agony for 3 days until they all dried out and died.

I only bring it up because I find it fascinating that the public was more upset about a piece where dogs ran on treadmills and couldn't touch each other, rather than creatures being skewered alive and being hung up to dry, writhing in agony, and drying out.

any book recommendations?