professor
Patricio Keith Fleming Moxey

Jan 2014

Although this might be interesting for an Art History major, I personally found it pretty boring, and I would not recommend this as the class you take to fulfill your art requirement. It's very difficult to do well in that for the exams you have to memorize the name of the piece, artist, time period, culture in which it was founded, and medium. You also have to memorize all of these ridiculous details about the work of art that are based on these far reaching concepts like "materiality" and "form" and "directionality." Basically if you show up to class and write everything down that Moxey says, and show up to discusson and write down everything the TA says, you should be okay, it's just really hard to concentrate. Moxey drones on and on, mumbles under this delusion that everyone can hear him, and barely teaches; the class is basically taught by a host of guest lecturers who each assign a ton of readings. The class begins with Moxey giving a short history over the topic of the day, saying he knows nothing about the topic, then handing it onto the guest lecturer, who says the same thing he does only in more detail, leading to your notes becoming very disorganized given the fact that one piece of art can be spoken about multiple times. The TAs are pretty helpful and willing to meet with you, and are especially nice if you seem like you're interested in the topic (just pretend; it's worth it). Just go to class and write down everything everyone says and memorize most of it the night before and you can skate by with a B.

Dec 2013

I have very mixed feelings about this class after having just taken the final. This is an intro class, and so at least twelve "types" of art are introduced over the length of the semester, with a focus on one each week. Professor Moxey only lecturers at the beginning of the semester and at the end, and introduces each guest lecturer while providing a quick summary of what the guest will cover. Depending on the lecturer, a week can be fantastically interesting or painfully boring. It's gold when the head of a department from the Met comes -- but that isn't always. The midterm and final are very straightforward, and as long as you make flashcards or find a way to memorize the art's relevant information (which is all provided prior to the exam in a handy powerpoint format) you will do fine on the exams. I stopped reading the weekly assignments and had no problem grasping the material. Weekly hour-long discussion sections sound brutal, but my TA was fantastic and made the exams that much easier. This class is great if you aren't an Art History major -- but be warned that you cannot hear Moxey if you sit more than five rows back, and at times his lecturing can sound entitled and pretentious. Not an easy A, but attainable if you put a bit of effort in. Positives: If you have a nice TA and prepare for the exams, the class is close to a breeze. Also, you actually learn something. Negatives: The first 15 minutes of class are an utter waste of time, and by the end of the semester you'll wonder if it was worth it in the end.

Jan 2013

This course was not really taught my Moxey himself but by a series of professors. None of them were particularly engaging and often rushed through major works of art (come on 3 minutes on Chartres cathedral is just not okay). Moxey does not grade you but your TA does, and because of the vast amount of material covered, they were often unable to go in depth for certain periods. I learned a lot about religion and culture, but I wish we could have done more close analysis of the works. Unfortunately, time doesn't allow for this. You have to attend a weekly discussion section. My TA was lovely but she was a first year and due to lack of experience had some trouble leading the section and stimulating discussion (though by the last few weeks she seemed to have mastered it). The section counts for 20% of your grade, so you should definitely go and bring up some points from the readings. The exam format was rather stressful, but this is typical of any art history class. Because of the time limit, I found that the TAs were lenient in grading these. There are 2 papers which were interesting to write and made you think about cross cultural connections and the overlaps between art with religion and politics. I guess the grading depends on your TA, though I feel like in this course they aren't harsh. Weekly readings are not always necessary and they tell you which ones to go over for exams. As boring as the textbook is it is helpful for background info.

Jan 2010

The course consists of: several professors to teach (varying on the era being taught), one large textbook to be read, one large reader, and discussion sections. The class itself is interesting. I've taken art history classes before and the subject is always interesting, but i find that these professors don't focus on the most important notable pieces of each era. You learn a lot about art, its history, new cultures, etc. You definitely have to have an interest for the subject to be able to sit and bare through the material. The course consists of: several professors to teach (varying on the era being taught), one large textbook to be read, one large reader, and discussion sections. The class itself is interesting. I've taken art history classes before and the subject is always interesting, but i find that these professors don't focus on the most important notable pieces of each era. You learn a lot about art, its history, new cultures, etc. You definitely have to have an interest for the subject to be able to sit and bare through the material. The course consists of: several professors to teach (varying on the era being taught), one large textbook to be read, one large reader, and discussion sections. The class itself is interesting. I've taken art history classes before and the subject is always interesting, but i find that these professors don't focus on the most important notable pieces of each era. You learn a lot about art, its history, new cultures, etc. You definitely have to have an interest for the subject to be able to sit and bare through the material.

Dec 2008

This was the biggest mistake I have ever made! this class was horrible. Every 3 classes is taught by a different lecturer and some of them have accents that are impossible to understand. the material was so boring.

Dec 2008

I really liked Intro to Art History. Professor Moxey was an excellent lecturer and was often quite funny when he could not figure out how to use the computer correctly! I really learned a lot about history, not just art, and about how to look at art. The lecture part of the class consists of a number of guest speakers, some of whom are much better than others. There is also a once a week discussion section with a TA that helps solidify the massive amount of material that this course covers. However, the TA’s seem to vary a lot. I enjoyed the guided museum visits and I found the lectures to be generally interesting and informative. This class would have been a lot easier if I had a broader knowledge of Christianity.

Dec 2008

The course started out nicely..Moxey was the first to lecture, and did a series of lectures that were really interesting. The rest of the lectures (except for a few at the end on the Renaissance) were taught by different instructors who specialized in that area. A couple of them were pretty good, but for the most part, the class went downhill from there. With so many different lecturers, the class became inconsistent and the general ideas were lost as we kept transitioning from one person to the next. There were definitely a few lectures that were still interesting, but overall the class was confusing and I felt as though I never really had the whole scope of what was going on. The textbook was absolutely useless and sometimes even more confusing. The articles we had to read additionally in the reader were actually pretty interesting, (although several were completely irrelevant and confusing). A discussion section was held ever week as well, and that really depended on your TA (I would suggest Joyce).

May 2006

my life will be complete when this man gets down on one knee and proposes. and he's probably about 62 years old. he is extremely intelligent, yet accessible, presents the material in an extremely straightfoward way, and whenever he has an especially convoluted or complicated point to make, he walks the entire class through step by step until, all of a sudden at the end of the lecture, you want to leap out of your seat screaming "I get it!" and feeling quite intelligent and excellent about yourself. this is also a requirement course, so there's really no way around it for the major, but if you aren't an art history major and have any inkling toward the appreciation of art, take this man's class. i highly recommend it.

Mar 2006

By far the least inspiring course and professor I have had in art history. Not only does he allow his personal bias affect his interaction with students, but is dismissive of differing viewpoints and condescending towards his students. He downgrades if he does not agree with your points, regardless of how well argued. As for class, Prof. Moxey drones when he lectures, and attempts to hold discussions in what is supposed to be a lecture class, which does not really work at all. Before this review gets dismissed as a reaction to a bad grade, let me reassure you that it is not, but simply a warning against taking Prof. Moxey's courses.

Jan 2006

i know that many people tend to complain about moxey when they have him in the intro to art class, understandably so as he doesn't really "teach" the class. in this class however, he actually is very engaging and assigns very good readings and only two papers. granted, sometimes the readings are bit long, but the fact that they are fun makes up for it. he's always open to new ideas and opinions and is not at all arrogant or closed to opinions and theories opposite his. as long as you are interested in the subject matter in this class, you really should enjoy what moxey has to say.

Dec 2005

Moxey is such a great guy... very approachable and easygoing. However, his voice is very, very mellow and could easily put you to sleep if you aren't listening to the lectures. If you are interested in the general study of art, i highly recommend this class. Workload is extremely light. Although it may seem like you don't really need to go to lecture, it definitely helps to go and take notes for when it comes time to study for the midterm and final (each requires about 60 slides memorized).

Jun 2005

Not an easy class due to the huge amount of information you must perfectly memorize (i'm not joking) and the fact that there was only one lecturer who wasn't entirely soporific.. and he wasn't that rude, boring, dry old man "running" the show. The plus side: many times neither the TAs nor the lecturer could get the projector working and so class was either canceled or at least a lot of time that would've otherwise been used for droning was wasted. Don't take this class as your first foray into the study of Art History, or like me, you will hate the subject forever after. I DO reccomend this if you have taken other art hist classes because then you can be one of the few people who actually talks during your section with your TA. If you do take this class, try to stay awake and take notes bc then you can laugh as you compare the dates and facts you got in the lecture with the ones printed in the textbook which, in their turn, contradict those posted on the ill-maintained website. Have fun.

Jan 2005

The class begins and ends with a few lectures by Professor Moxey, while the bulk of information is taught by Columbia University faculty. Each time period (ending with the Renaissance) depends greatly on who teaches them and the readings that professor assigns, but each lasts around two weeks at most. In the end, you end up with not only a survey course in art history, but of the Columbia art history professors which will pay off later. The most important piece advice I have is to choose your TA wisely. Anything the guest professor fails to explain but Professor Moxey still thinks important, your TA will be the one teaching it to you. Visit all the sections and petition if you have to, your TA is the defining factor of your experience in the class. Recommended, I was impressed.

Dec 2004

This class really varied in quality, depending on which professor was giving a lecture. Moxey was in charge of the course as a whole, and coordinated different professors to come in for their given subject area. As a result, some lectures (like those from Bahrani, Kampen, and Dehejia) were excellent, while I found others (Klein, McCormick) lacking. As for Moxey himself, he usually gave introductory lectures and concluding lectures (Prehistoric Art, Renaissance Art) that wrapped up concepts really effectively. His mellifluous voice, mixed in with his mysterious accent, can sometimes put you to sleep, but the material of his lectures are actually really interesting. Class was a good, comprehensive intro to art in general. Definitely suggested.

Jan 2004

Like any halfway decent supporting actor, Moxey was short on screen time, but when he was lecturing, every eye and ear was on him. Perhaps it was the accent, perhaps it was the Sean Connery-esque look, perhaps it was because he was just a good lecturer; either way, Moxey teaches you the basic themes and ideas you need to know for each era. The class itself, when Moxey isn't around, can get pretty boring, as revealed by the snoring that often accompanied lectures. It should also be noted that just because this course is labeled intro does not make it easy; in fact, because of the wide span of time this class covers, it is probably more difficult than other higher level courses. But if you've studied enough and memorized the basic facts, the class should not be too challenging.

Dec 2003

I feel there is really no basis for my review of Professor Moxey considering the class is really based on the guest lecturers which vary each year and the TA. Though Moxey usually starts the term with a couple lectures and ends it as well. He's an unbelievable lecturer with simple humor and makes it interesting. I can't stress enough how important the TA is though, considering he/she will be reading/grading your essays and your participation during discussion as well as grading you midterms/ finals.

Jun 2003

Keith Moxey is an excellent teacher and "Art in the Age of Reformation" is an excellent class. Moxey organizes each class around an artist or, more occassionally, a theme on whom/which he assigns a number of readings arguing several different, often conflicting, positions. He presents these arguments, very often one of which he himself has authored, in a clear and even-handed manner which is generally fascinating and thought provoking. He really encourages the class to revel in the diversity of scholarly opinion. In addition, without neglecting the "masterpieces," Moxey spends a great deal of time discussing popular art like woodcuts and engravings, providing students with a different perspective on the art of the time. His approach works so well with his teaching style and the material that class seems to fly by. I often found myself glancing at my watch, thinking class was maybe half over, only to discover that there were only five minutes left. This class was a real treat!

May 2003

Foxy Moxey... He's got style, he's got grace... and that's pretty much just about all you've got going for you if you take this course. Don't be fooled; Intro to Art History is a tough, time-consuming class that involves endless memorization of countless images and dates. Moxey's lectures (of which there were only a few, disappointingly enough) were entertaining but the midterm and final were another story. Must've been SOME curve at the end of the class, though, coz most of us made it out of there with A's and B's.

Apr 2003

Moxey is the moderator for this class and only gives a handful of lectures, but they're definately among the highlights of the course (the other being the absolutely wonderful Natalie "Tally" Kampen). Moxey is straightforward, clear, and sometimes a bit boring but he doesn't sidetrack you with ridiculous things you don't need to know. He's quite nice, makes amusingly bad jokes, and is in general a rather good lecturer. The rest of the course really depends, since it's a series of guest lectures. If you're thinking of taking it, get the first day syllabus and look up the individual professors.

Nov 2002

Well, what can you say about him since you hardly get a chance to hear his lectures, until the end. He is however, a gorgeous man with a hot accent. I love this guy. Its nice to hear his voice before the lecture begins as he introduces the various professors. Definetly a cool class since you get a taste of some amazing and not so amazing professors/speakers.

Mar 2002

The class features a number of guest lecturers, most of whom are quite good. The trouble with the class is the grading - God forbid you try to analyze a work of art in a way the professor or T.A. hasn't considered - they'll mark you down instantly. Even if you're intelligent it doesn't matter - when you write papers, you have to say what the profs and T.A.s want to hear. And you can't just learn the names of, say, Baroque paintings - you have to make sure to question whether "Baroque" is an appropriate word to describe the period. Also, if you don't insult the Metropolitan in your first paper (where you review a work of art there) you will be marked down - they want to hear that the Met is wrong (because why would the Met know what it's talking about?) Basically, a frustrating class filled with rote memorization and annoying graders. But the guest lecturers are really good. Moxey himself is a bit boring.

Jan 2000

The class is set up as a series of guest lectures, but the creme de la creme of the class is Moxey himself. Not only is he sexy and has exquisite clothing tastes, but he also looks like Sean Connery, and has the same accent. Beam me up, Scotty; this class rules.