You might not believe me, but the disciplines of History and Art History actually have very little in common when it comes to approach, ideology, and interests. Seeing as I got my BA in Art History, for my M.Phil in Early Modern History, I have clearly picked a new playground. (That last bit is a reference to one of my own theses that literally none of you will get, but I’m feeling rather smug about it). As a major critic of the art world and how it functions as an industry and academic field, I have already assigned us words like “insular,” “uptight,” “self-absorbed,” “discriminatory,” etc. Now I’m in a position to assess the inner workings of the History field. I knew it was going to be different, but damn, these guys actually have a lot of pretty similar issues, especially when it comes to “self-abosrbed.” So this week I bring to you a template of a hard-core academic History journal article:
Boring But Clear Title
No opening thoughts or meaningful first sentences. I am also not going to make clear what this paper is actually about or my opinion on it.
I’m going to just immediately start talking shit about [insert random historian] who had a thought once and wrote it down in 1952. I am now going to proceed to spend three pages explaining what that one thought they had is. I will insert subtle passive aggressive comments in my description to manipulate how you, the reader, should feel. But okay, maybe they kinda had a point, I’m not really sure, it was the 50s after all. He had a buddy though who also kinda felt the same, therefore this is an entire “school of thought.”
Yeah that’s whatever, but here’s the thing: [insert random historian] had a thought once too and wrote it down in 1985. And no, the fact that these thoughts had all been thought multiple decades earlier might make them even a little bit irrelevant will not be addressed. JK! The thoughts were thought a long time ago so eh, maybe we shouldn’t really care.
I will finally move on to what [insert group of random historians] think now, which is either going to be so subtly different that you’re not really sure what changed or is going to be so radically different that you start to question if you’re reading the same paper you started 15 pages ago. Also, [insert historian I have beef with] is stupid.
Now that I’ve been spicy, I’m going to hint at what my opinion under the new “school of thought” is. I am going to write contradictory ideas and feel that I’ve made myself clear. At this point, I will begin to explain how the boring, but clear, title is actually relevant to any of this. On the one hand…on the other hand (repeat 20 times)
I know that I’ve now spent 17 out of my 20 page paper talking about some thoughts we all had that one time. Only now will I reveal my actual argument. My conclusion is—Oops, I’ve run out of pages because I forgot I have to cite my sources and account for a 3 page bibliography.
I’m sure you can all now see why I’ve assigned the word “self-absorbed.” When you hit the third of the paper and they’re still talking about historians, I start to really not give a shit what Steve from 1948 thinks. You see, in Art History, we tend to talk about the art from the beginning so we actually have time to make our point. But hey, if you historians don’t have any other friends, I get it. Ultimately, my imploring message to all historians is: For the love of god, pick a better title!
The following titles are real.
Art History Titles:
- “‘A Lady on the Street but a Freak in the Bed’: On the Distinction Between Erotic Art and Pornography.” by A.W. Eaton
- “So-And-So Reclining on Her Couch.” by David Ronsand
- “’Che è di questo culazzino!’: Michelangelo and the Motif of the Male Buttocks in Italian Renaissance Art.” by Patricia Rubin
History Titles:
- “Books, Philosophy, Enlightenment.” by Simon Burrows
- “State of the Field: The History of Political Thought.” by Danielle Charette & Max Skjüonsberg
- “Reformation, Counter-Reformation, and the Early Modern State: A Reassessment.” by Wolfgang Reinhard
Leave a comment