History

A common modern myth was that musicians would sign a deal with the devil at a crossroads.

Medieval Europe had tons of myths about crossroads being magical, and buried corpses there too.

The Aztecs said monsters would hunt around the crossroads.

China and Japan also have gods associated with the crossroads.

Every time the crossroads is either magical, haunted by evil ghosts, or the meeting place of monsters. Why do crossroads have such a bad reputation throughout human history across many different cultures for what is basically an intersection in a city?

I’m looking for recommendations for art history books which have close reading of specific paintings/works.

I often find art history books or monographs have so much contextual, biographical, historical discussions, paired with very general comments on an artists’ techniques, reception and sensibility. Sometimes they only rarely talk about individual paintings. But what I enjoy most in media on art is looking at particular artworks or artists in detail, and really talking about what they mean, and what they can teach us how to live.

Like the kind of literary biographies that talk in detail about each novel in an authors life, giving a critical reading as well as the biography, and connecting it with the biography. Often books on painters don’t seem to do this as much.

Does anyone have recommendations on books/documentaries that do this?

EDIT: Thanks for all the recommendations!

I'm second year and finals are coming, I would love to hear your method to learning and remembering so many unique artist names and their artwork names, sometimes it's so hard like I can't even remember my professors name yet alone some artist called Engueerand Quarton. Thanks a lot!

Hello fellow Art History lovers,

This might not be the place for this--and feel free to take down this post if need be--but I was wondering if I could get some advice or ideas or...general help...To be honest, I'm not sure what I'm looking for by posting this.

What I do know is that I want to go to graduate school for Art History. I want to get an MA and then get a PhD. I'm aware there have been Reddit posts throughout history even beyond this sub where such concerns/worries have been thrown into the Reddit world--believe me, I've read some. I understand the saturation of academics graduating and not getting jobs in academia (yes, I would love to go into academia, but I'm interested in curatorial work as well), but I don't really know if I'm "worthy" of even applying or even bothering to try when I don't have a lot of experience in the AH world.

When I finally graduated in 2021 (yes I was in school during COVID), I was an English major with a minor in Art History, and I've given one lecture at a symposium. Why haven't I done a lot of internships during undergrad? In my area, it's overly saturated with engineers and STEM and techbros and...it's that kind of area in America, so it's kind of hard to find a lot of internships for the Arts and Humanities. A lot of the internships that are available are usually (for the lack of a better term) gatekept for actual Art History undergrads.

I've spoken with former Art History profs of mine and they're all very encouraging of me to go forth (most even suggesting I go straight for the PhD), and they've helped as much as they can. I just don't know how much my passion can get me through the door of even being a viable candidate.

Again, I'm not sure what I want by posting this: maybe advice, encouragement, some ideas? I do know the ramifications of what I long for, so I certainly don't need/want anyone to shit on my dreams (completely) especially when I'm feeling so very vulnerable right now lol. My DMs are open, if they want some more details or whatnot. Just don't be creepy, please! :)

Also, if you see this in another subreddit, I'm going insane about my future, haha...ha...

TLDR: Want to go to grad school for AH, but feel like I don't have a lot of experience. What to do?

Thing is I always doubt myself in terms of comprehending subjects and theories and if I have understood them correctly.

Material culture is to study material, thing, object or whatever physical inanimate in a given community.

Despite the common association of this subject with anthropology and archaeology, there is a strong link between MC and art history, as well.

I am just wondering due to the symbolic value hair holds in many cultures and societies, can it be a solid research matter to be supported and explained through material culture and thing theory?

Also I am having a hard time distinguishing material culture and thing theory. I would appreciate it if someone coyld differentiate between the two and explain them separately?

Please correct me on any statements I have made. I am looking to learn and improve.

Edit: what I mean about hair as a material is how it can be used as an element in artworks like the memorial jewelry that the Victorians popularized globally. On another note, I am experiencing some confusion about this topic, like I have read many articles analyzing cultures and their treatments as in behavior practices when it comes to hair such as cutting it or not cutting it, fashioning it in a specific way or to change it according to the different fundamental transitions they experience throughout their lives but would these areas be considered a part of art history studies if used to understand why some artworks include hair as for their material. Does any one know any examples (art pieces) preferably ancient that have this matter?

Sorry for the spotty structure.

hi !! came on here to ask for some advice. i currently attend undergrad for art history and just started my 2nd year of school. i’ve been looking to find a minor to pair with my art history major and having difficulties deciding what to choose. i hope to work in a museum setting one day, maybe as a curator or a restorer. i’ve heard many things such as education, philosophy, german + french studies etc. what do u guys think is the best?

I'll say first that this is very much my impression of this timeframe, so I'm entirely open to the possibility that this supposedly "unique" period of successive waves of nomadic invasion is not actually unique at all.

That said, it really does seem like the succession of Huns, Avars, Magyars, Pechenegs, Cumans, and Mongols moving into the Hungarian Plain/Lower Danube was a very specific and definable phenomenon that you don't see at other times. I know that Scythians and Sarmatians had been in the area for a long time before 400 AD, and I'm sure the decline of Roman military dominance played a role in making nomadic horse archers more of a relative threat. I know that nomadic groups have been seen as dangerous by settled groups since the very beginning. But even taking Roman decline into account, it seems like the Huns were an altogether different scale of threat that didn't exist in the region prior. And once the Huns got there, it seems like it just didn't stop. Even when the Romans or the Franks or whoever managed to knock out one group, another would be right behind them to move in off the steppe and take their place.

I feel like I can explain the end of this period to myself at least, since the post-Mongol world coincides the emergence of Europe as a more dominant geopolitical force on the world stage. But even then, it seems like the invasions stopped fairly abruptly.

So that's the gist of my question, though I suppose there's a few subcomponents to it. What was the mechanism driving these migrations and making them such an effective military threat? Did the mechanism change around 400 AD and again in 1300 AD, or was the change more related to the situation in Europe? Is this all just a figment of the historical record or my own lack of knowledge?

Thanks in advance.

Which European country's history do you find fascinating?

Hey all, I'm currently an art history student in university, and recently I've been thinking about how during class critiques of a work or even just a semi-formal analysis, I struggle to have any stronger opinions on a work until I either understand the background of the artwork, or I hear my peers' opinions which sometimes may sway my own.

I don't think that means I don't have any opinions whatsoever because I do in fact find myself being extremely moved or disgusted maybe around 1/5 of the time, but for the other 4/5, I tend to stumble into my opinions a bit more.

Maybe it's because I've only taken contemporary art history courses lately, but even then I feel as if that shouldn't be the issue. I was wondering if people had tips on how to develop a more critical eye, or even just how to formulate your own opinions in general. Thank you!

Hi!

I'm an Art History enthusiast and I have been studying History and Art History in a distance learning university in the past few years. We just had a baby and I won't be able to attend my courses for the next couple of years. In the meanwhile, I just want to keep reading about art and history when a have a bit of time, so I was wondering if anyone can recommend any books in Asian Art History, as it is a subject I don't know much about. I'm opened to any periods, but I guess I'm less interested in mid 20th century and contemporary art.

Thank you very much in advance for your help!

Manga is a more commercial art form, and it also has some crossover with literary theory, but what do you think? Could it be a viable art history thesis topic?

Edit: I'm sorry, I got busy but then I came back to this post and there is such an interesting discussion going on in the comments! Thank you all so much for offering your opinions/advice :)

Basically, it’s a pretty common trope in sci-fi that if people learned some universal truth about how the world works or like that aliens exist, they would freak out. So, the people in charge hide the truth from them. Is there any event in history that fits this trope? Something on a smaller scale obviously like: “it was really the Ottaman Empire all along!” Not necessarily a conspiracy revealed as truth: I’m more interested in reactions of groups of people that learned new things and freaked out together.

Hi all, might be a dumb q but I need some help! My younger cousin is getting really into history (yay!) and he's asking me what to watch. So far I've told him about Oversimplified and Simple History. Just wondering what some recommendations from this group could be!

I was rewatching Derek Jarman’s BLUE, made when he was losing his sight due to AIDS-related complications, and discovered the painter Manual Solano, who painted “BLIND TRANSGENDER WITH AIDS”. Are there any other similar cases?

(Edit: Thankyou!!! )

I'm curious if there's much of a record about how Byzantine historians or other intellectuals in the later years of the empire (say, post-4th Crusade) thought about the ancient Roman Empire/Republic.

For example: Was the republican era idealized as a time of greater freedom and virtue, or was it seen as inferior to the imperial system of government that the Byzantines would have been more familiar with? Did they see Julius Caesar and/or Augustus as strong, admirable dictators or as tyrants & usurpers? Did they look down on pre-Constantine rulers because they were pagan and sometimes persecuted Christianity? Did they try to claim that any of them were actually secret Christians or something like that? Or did they not emphasize ancient Roman history much at all, focusing more on recent times or Greek history?

Maybe more generally, was ancient Rome considered a golden age to them, or a more barbaric time that they had evolved beyond? Or were there different opinions out there depending on the author's background and politics?

I’m getting my B.A. in art history (I have an A.A. In art) , and a LOT of people that aren’t in art history talk about how it’s a useless degree. I’ve already volunteered in an art gallery (even though I’m not required to yet) and met some artists, and I don’t think it is. So if you have a job in the art field with your degree could you tell me what your degree level is, and a little about your experiences?

For example: was it hard for you to find that job? Are you self employed, and if so what is it that you do?

I want to know for myself, and hopefully shut up some of the people that talk about our field, and have no experience in it whatsoever.

I'm no historian, but the more I read into history as a hobby, the more things popup even more by how much they aren't being talked as much. Now, "forgotten" might be stretching it a little bit since some other specific period may just be overlooked, like WW1 overlooked by WW2, but then you have the not-so remembered interwar period, at least from my perspective until recently learning about it in my own free time.

i want some info on what people on this sub think is the worst or best history youtube channel and why

Welcome to our History Questions Thread!

This thread is for all those history related questions that are too simple, short or a bit too silly to warrant their own post.

So, do you have a question about history and have always been afraid to ask? Well, today is your lucky day. Ask away!

Of course all our regular rules and guidelines still apply and to be just that bit extra clear:

Questions need to be historical in nature. Silly does not mean that your question should be a joke. also has an active discord server where you can discuss history with other enthusiasts and experts