Patricio K Moxey

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.

May 2010

This class is the biggest and saddest joke in the history of education. It only proves why art historians to art is exactly what oil is to fresh seawater. I will demonstrate why you should spend your $5000 on another 4-credit class and avoid this dull train-wreck of a course. I did manage to get a decent grade in this class (considering the amount of effort I put in) but I don’t think it was worth the agony that this pointless course put me through. We can start with the $88 xerox-copied reader/text (a collection of articles written by other academics) we had to buy, which just glorifies these other art historians and their infinite, regurgitated theories and opinions from dull and pointless textbooks. We only really needed to know two or three of them, which could have probably been googled. I did not even bother to buy the main pricey text “Art History Vol 1 3rd Edition by Marilyn Stokstad”. I should use that money for therapy after this class. The guest lecturers were mediocre for the most part. I didn’t sit through any lectures that were life changing. The lecture on gothic architecture with Amiens Cathedral was very refreshing due to this British speaker who never tripped over words but then again… something as amazing as that cathedral should be easy for anyone to teach. The teaching assistants were nice but as boring as one may come to expect and none of them displayed any real passion for their field of study or their focused period of art. They all treat Moxey like some kind of God. It is pretty humorous….and sad. I will never forget when a student asked him a question and he just quickly diverted it to one of the teaching assistants. This guy chose the most boring works of art to represent the social situations of the Renaissance (I am huge on the Renaissance) and then he didn’t even back up any of his half ass profound statements. Moxey continues to talk about how these images are powerful and hold so much power…but why Moxey?? He tells us that these images haunt us..but why?? This leading professor emphasizes such things as “the horizontal size of the cathedral represents the town’s prosperity.” Wow…I used to always think poor towns could afford colossally sized cathedrals. The midterm and final is very difficult…you really need to know every single date, artist and period and exactly what they said about the works. Most of the art chosen for this class was very boring. This class should be called “Intro to Architectural History” because most of what we covered was architecture anyway. They should not even be allowed to have the word “Art” associated with anything they do. My friend teaches art history at a community college and her classes greatly surpass anything that this huge waste of time has to offer as far as enjoyment and educational benefit. The “seeing in and seeing as” concept is a joke and further reinforces how little art historians know when it comes to perceiving art. They continue to tell us that the information is on our handout like it is some sort of gift. What a waste of time, money and mental health in general. This class is a cash cow and completely pointless as well as one of the best kept secrets ready to be exploited at this school.