Patrick Leigh-Pemberton: What is wrong with Art History?

As I study Art History, I should warn any reader now that this article is unlikely to prove the most impartial piece of writing they have ever come across (unless their only other reading material has been The Daily Mail website, in which case, welcome to the world of logical thought and fair judgement). Like a lot of students, I enjoy my subject, and like a lot of other students, I do not really mind the inter-departmental banter that it receives (although this probably has more to do with my innate sense of superiority in all things, which allows me to recognise a lot of the jibes as pure jealousy). I do, however, start minding when people genuinely attack the subject I am committing a large chunk of my life to, which shouldn’t really come as a shock to anybody. So, having been offered a forum by The Stand team in order to blow my own trumpet – an offer my previously mentioned sense of superiority has craved since I was beaten at Trivial Pursuit three games running – I have decided that the tune this week would be a rallying cry in defence of Art History.

There are a lot of accusations thrown at Art History, but the one that really stings is the idea that the subject is useless. Many students seem to have the idea that university is reserved for people with vocations, and view this four year period of their life only as a way to get a better job, based on the assumption that entrenching themselves in terrifying amounts of debt is the sole way to gain a job with more than their similarly aged, but less qualified counterparts. This view is one that I completely understand in this money-driven age, but one I feel ignores the point of university.

University is the last chance to learn as much as you can about something that fascinates you. Universities were not founded to earn you a fantastic place in a graduate employment scheme (that is business school you are thinking of); they were founded in order for people to come to grips with the greater things in life (for most European universities, this meant God). So, Art History may be useless, but if it fascinates you more than anything else, any university degree devoted to it is probably the right choice.

Another thing about these people – these downers, these haters – is that they often seem to think that of all the humanities, Art History is the most useless. Though I feel that those who enjoy phrases such as an ’employable skillset’ should find a better place at the Milkround stall at this week’s Freshers’ Fayre, let us stoop to this level for a moment. Art History, as an essay subject, endows students with similar critical thought to subjects like History or English. Also like History and English, Art History can also be purely analytical and quite historiographical. So, why is the subject deemed useless? Why do people say that employers do not like it on CVs, and advise choosing something else?

It is at this point in the conversation that the real abuse begins. A good example comes from a conversation with a friend’s mother over the summer. When I told her I was studying Art History (she did ask, it is not how I normally start conversation, even if this article makes it sound like all I do is cruise around looking for a fight about it), she looked at me quizzically and said,“But you’re not a pretty girl.”(Her visual analysis skills would have stood her in good stead had she chosen my subject, obviously).

Here lies the crux of the matter. People stereotype Art History as being not a “real” subject, which is inaccurate. To some extent, unfortunately, there is very little that can be done to remove the tar of the“genteel” paintbrush from the subject. The subject matter is mostly expensive and restricted to those who can be arsed to go and see it (for those in public ownership), or who have been invited to see it in private collections. It is not, unlike the majority of the subject matter of English Literature, Theology, or History, instantly accessible. You cannot wander into a Blackwell’s and buy a Caravaggio, like you could a Dickens novel, and if you could, it would probably be out of the range of most student budgets.

The gentility of Art is something that artists themselves have tried to change, but something the subject cannot be rid of entirely, just like the idea that Art History students are a bunch of dossers and tossers who are just waiting to get married to each other. But, if people really are down on this sort of behaviour, then why are they being a drain on society at university? If all they want from Twentysomethings is productivity, then why on earth are they even here?