[AHIS W3650] 20th Century Art

This class is recommended, but not entirely because of the quality of the instruction. I came out of the class far less enamoured by Alberro's "genius" (as other reviews have referred it) than when the semester first started. At first, I was blown away by his long-winded, convoluted style of speaking, but realized that when I peeled the veneer away from his words, there were rather banal ideas underneath. His style was rather frustrating to take notes off of, as evidenced by the large number of laptops brought to class to take notes on (or check facebook when Alberro began to ramble). Alberro would begin speaking about an idea, then realize that part of his explanation required another explanation, etc. He would not finish the original idea until a good few sentences (crammed into one run-on clause) later.

Like a previous reviewer mentioned, going to lecture is essential. The slide comparisons are taken from works that Alberro discussed. However, I would argue that reading the textbook is not essential. Although it is no doubt a very good textbook, it is a very dense work that requires multiple reads in order to grasp the ideas presented. I personally only read through the textbook once before the final and I think I probably retained about 5% of what I read. I was a little lost during lecture sometimes because I did not read the textbook beforehand, but the ideas put themselves in place in my head eventually -- I think that way was much more efficient than having to struggle with the textbook.

In addition, I did very few of the readings. If you have a good TA, there is really no reason to do the readings either, as they will be outlined for you during discussion section. And really, you only need to pluck a few sentences of idea out of the *essential* readings in order to incorporate them into the exams. No problem.

I don't want to say that I didn't care about the content of the class -- on the contrary, I am an art history minor. What I'm trying to outline is the fact that learning in this class is very efficient -- for someone that had only the faintest ideas of 20th century art before the class courtesy of Arthum, I was able to put in minimum effort and still learn a great deal. I didn't do so hot on the final but by getting an A on the essay and almost perfect on the midterm I still walked away with an A.

I loved this class, it was by far my favorite. I am an art history major as a result. I thought that Albero was great but I absolutely LOVED my TA, Rachel. There were weekly assignments of readings but she outlined all the important points so there was no need to actually do them. She was so knowledgeable and super engaging...discusssion section was the best part.

Albero was a pretty good lecturer, at points he was a bit boring but BRILLIANT. I loved when he would deviate from his notes and expand upon something he was so passionate about.

Do yourself a favor, no matter what you are interested in, TAKE THIS CLASS.

As someone who had previous doubts about the value of 20th century artworks, I can now (somewhat intelligently) explain and argue modern and post-modern works. Unlike many other art history courses, this one is not about memorization - it's about understanding. With that said, going to lecture is crucial and reading the textbook or wikipedia will not suffice. Professor Alberro's lectures are very clear and interesting. You will walk out of every class feeling enlightened. I personally think this is a great course for non-art history students as well to just increase your general knowledge about art. Walking through MoMA will never be the same after taking this course - you'll be able to understand and appreciate so much more! Great course - highly recommended.

I took 20th Century Art, expecting to be blown away by Branden Joseph. While Joseph did do a great job teaching, I was much more impressed with Elisabeth, aka Tina. Tina has been the best TA I have ever had at Columbia or Barnard—and this is coming from someone who has had a lot of TAs. She is extremely knowledgable, approachable, and straight-forward, and this is reflected in her teaching style. With Tina, don't expect an easy A—she can see through the BS that usually fills art history discussion sections. If you put in the work and really think about the readings before and after class, though, you will be rewarded for your efforts. Tina really goes out of her way to help her students understand the tough material Joseph assigns, and she is very willing to help students with their papers. In short, Tina is amazing, and you'll probably learn more in her class than the actual class itself.

Branden Joseph is one of the most brilliant and captivating teachers I have ever had. I took his course Spring 08 and ti was absolutely spectacular. Granted, I am an art history major, but I had absolutely no idea and barely any previous knowledge about 20th century art.
Not only was the course material interesting, but the reading, which seems like a lot at first, was quite relevant and adds a lot to the course. I agree with the previous review that Branden Joseph is a rockstar and he knows is but that title is well deserved. He has written a lot about 20th century art and really knows his stuff. The course lectures do get repetitive at times but it is more so to reiterate the things you need to know and by the end of the semester you can bang out theories and information like no other. I recommend doing the reading because the midterm and final essay are both centered around what we read but you do discuss the reading in your discussion sections and Branden Joseph both analyzes and comments heavily on the main texts. Speak up during discussion sections as a majority of your grade is based on class discussion and your TA's can be a big aid when grading your final research paper. I recommend this course 100% to any one interested in 20th century art as it is a great basis for getting not the major art movements and a chance to have Branden Joseph as a teacher.

The previous review certainly doesn't reflect Professor Joseph's reputation in the art history department nor does it speak very accurately about his lecture style in classes that are actually taught exclusively by him.

As evident by the ridiculous number of people, grads and undergrads, that turn out for his lectures, Branden Joseph is a ROCKSTAR, and he knows it. Quite arrogant but with the intelligence and accomplishments to back it up (he's THE Rauschenberg guy and the heir-apparent to such luminaries as Krauss, Bois, and Buchloh ), his theory-filled lectures are dynamic, fascinating, and often quite funny. Many of the readings he assigns are his own work, yet rather than simply summarize, he aggressively tackles the readings with his own insights and forceful opinions. In person, he is intimidating and knows it, freely calling you out if you don't know your shit. No coddling sensitivity here (but do you really need that from a lecture course?), just youthful haughty brilliance that, yes, is completely worth your tuition money.

The class started out promising: Professor Joseph, rising hotshot in the Kraussian world of art history, gave a sweeping review of the art world's trends from the end of the nineteenth century to the beginning of the twentieth. It was an impressive narrative that drew on theory from Benjamin, Freud and Greenberg and seemed very promising. The class on Picasso and semiotics was particularly breathtaking. But somewhere around Pop Art he started repeating himself over and over again and it seemed to me he had a sizeable chip on his shoulder about having to teach a century's worth art at an impossible pace to undergraduates. He's a talented writer and has a formidable mind for visual analysis--too bad he did so little of it and read so often from his notes. Given that his field is contemporary art, he devoted probably more time than was actually due to the really whack world of post-modern art (and even had a class on post-post modernism).

There was an army of TAs and your impression of the class/final grade depended a lot on your participation in section and of course the quality of your TA, which was decidedly mixed across the board. Joseph himself was in my opinion not receptive to student questions and comments and was even hostile during office hours. Overall, a mixed review.