FROM HERE TO

EVERYWHEREThe Story of Art History at Tufts, 1899-2010

Cover Image: Louis Jacques Mande Daguerre (1787-1851), The Artist’s Studio, 1837, (detail) daguerrotype

Design by Jeanne Koles (A98)

© Department of Art and Art History, Tufts University, 2016

FROM HERE TO

EVERYWHEREThe Story of Art History at Tufts, 1899-2010

PREFACE

The study of art history necessarily includes the discipline’s own institutions. Just as we situate art

production within the history of museums and academies, so we should be self-conscious about our own

production of art history within its institutional contexts. This includes not just the broad development

of American art history, embodied in Ph.D.-granting departments of research universities, but also the

smaller scale histories of art history departments in liberal arts college, where so many of us work and

teach. Each one of these is a fascinating and instructive tale in its own right.

When I became department chair in 2009, I looked about for one of our graduate students to

pen a history of our departmental home. Thankfully, Ayesha Fuentes presented herself as an enthusiastic,

skilled chronicler. Fuentes assiduously researched the archive and interviewed key players, then skillfully

wove together a narrative of the department’s century-long development. Most significantly, Ayesha

pinpointed the moment in the 1970s when strong, young female professors set the department on its

modern course: intellectually ambitious, methodologically self-aware, and global in perspective. We are

all beneficiaries of this history. It behooves us to know it as best as we can, both to acknowledge and

honor our predecessors, and to understand the frameworks within which we operate daily.

I am grateful to Ayesha Fuentes for setting down this story, and to Peter Probst, the current

department chair, and Christine Cavalier, our visual resources manager, for making sure Fuentes’ narrative

remains available for posterity, online and now in print. It is the basic premise of our discipline that history

matters. Now we can share how our own particular history at Tufts matters, in shaping the department’s

present, and perhaps guiding its future, too, now that its history is available for you to read.

– Daniel Abramson

Cover Image: Louis Jacques Mande Daguerre (1787-1851), The Artist’s Studio, 1837, (detail) daguerrotype

Design by Jeanne Koles (A98)

© Department of Art and Art History, Tufts University, 2016

by Ayesha Fuentes (MA2011)

CHAPTERS

IINTRODUCTION

IITHE EARLY DAYS OF ART HISTORY IN THE US

IIIREEMERGENCE AND ESTABLISHMENT

IVEXPANSION

VADJUSTMENTS

VIREACHING OUT

VII DIVERSIFICATION

VIII NOW AND THE FUTURE

BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX

INTR

OD

UC

TIO

N IINTRODUCTION

The history of art as a discipline has seen a tremendous expansion in its discourse, facilities,

and practitioners over the course of the twentieth century. Academic institutions in the United

States have played a crucial role in this development. The first course at Tufts in art history was

taught in 1899. The program and its curriculum has since evolved into the diverse and distinctive

department it is today, in addition to related programs in architectural studies, museum studies,

multimedia arts and more. The account here is an introduction to what is now the Department

of Art and Art History at Tufts University, outlining its presence at the university and within the

field at large. The story presented here will describe the chronological development of the

department, its faculty, facilities, and the diversification of its curriculum.

Tufts College was founded in 1852 by Unitarian Universalists and built its early reputation

on its engineering and general education programs. In its first fifty years, it grew to 725 students

and 106 faculty members. Fine Arts was

first taught at Tufts by (then) assistant

professor Thomas Whittemore of the

English Department. For the 1899–1900

academic year, Whittemore offered “The

History of Greek Art with Egypt, Assyria,

and Phoenicia” and “Fine Arts of the

Middle Ages and the Renaissance.” These

were the only two courses listed under

the heading Fine Arts, just before Physical

Training in the course catalogue. The

latter category was a requirement for all

students and both were listed far behind

the larger, more established departments

of History and Theology. For Fine Arts,

the following description was given of

the courses’ position within the college:

“The department stands collaterally with

Drawing of young Thomas Whittemore, Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks ResearchLibrary and Collection.

4

EA

RLY

DA

YS

literature and music—offering an opportunity

for the study of the history of painting, sculpture,

architecture, and the minor arts.” In 1905, the

single year-long course combining Medieval and

Renaissance art was split into two separate year-long

classes. Then in 1909, Whittemore decided to offer

them a semester each while Greek art remained

a year-long course. The following year, he added

a class on the arts of China, Japan, India and “the

nearer Orient.”

At this point, Whittemore was the only faculty

member in the Fine Arts Department. In 1899,

when he began teaching art history, he had been

an assistant professor in the English Department

since his graduation from Tufts in 1894. He signed

his new contract as an instructor of Fine Arts courses

for no pay. Over the next 12 years, his interest and

enthusiasm for teaching Fine Art helped lead to

his promotion to full professor and established art

history as a viable subject of study at Tufts.

IITHE EARLY DAYS OF ART HISTORY IN THE US

It may be helpful here to describe the early

picture of the discipline of art history and its general

position in American higher education in order to define the context for our department’s

beginnings. The publication of departmental histories for Princeton, Smith, Yale, and other

schools provides ample material for reconstructing a general picture for some of the first art

history departments in the mid–late nineteenth century. The first lectures in art history in the

United States were offered at New York University and Yale in the 1830s. When art history

emerged as a subject of study in the later part of the nineteenth century, it was often bundled

into a study of fine art that included both art theory and studio practice.

List of Lecture Topics and Reading Topics by Thomas Whittemore at Tufts College, Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection

5

The earliest courses in art history were, like those at Tufts, taught by people who were not

trained art historians. They were enthusiasts pulled from the diverse and established academic

disciplines of philology, classics, engineering, literature, and theology. In terms of diversity of

course material, Tufts showed a relative strength in these early years and with only one professor.

A 1912 survey of art history courses in the US shows a preference for Classical Greek and

Roman art and architecture and the Italian Renaissance, while only three schools had courses

in American art. There was little Asian art being taught and Egypt was considered an historical

retrogression of European civilization. Distinctions in coursework tended to fall between

architecture and painting or sculpture with no consideration of applied arts.

One of the earliest arguments for the relevancy of art history as an academic discipline

concerned its role in the education of women. Some of the earliest art history departments were

established at Vassar, Bryn Mawr, Smith, and Wellesley colleges. The (intended) refinement of

women’s character that would result from the study of fine art and its history was not, however,

meant for public life. It was expected that this knowledge be demonstrated in the home,

where refined manners and moral sense would best be put to use fortifying future generations.

Through the education of women, the history of art was considered beneficial as a topic for

private, domestic discourse.

In the first half of the twentieth century, art history became increasingly popular and

professionally oriented. The discipline was devoted to cultivating its academic role and the

United States was increasingly recognized as a setting for innovation in art historical scholarship.

An influx of émigrés in the 1920s and 1930s greatly inspired US college and university

departments to become more complex, diverse, and academically rigorous. In the years just

before World War II especially, there was a general blossoming of the field of art history here

in the US, and it is at this time that we see a reemergence of Fine Arts courses being taught at

Tufts.

EA

RLY

DA

YS

this page:Photograph of the Roman Forum from Tufts’ Art History Dept. Visual Resources Collection, circa 1900.

facing page:Photograph of NYC architectural detail by Wurts Bros., from Tufts’ Art History Dept. Visual Resources Collection, circa 1900.

6

IIIREEMERGENCE AND ESTABLISHMENT

REE

MER

GEN

CE

AN

D E

STA

BLI

SHM

ENTFrom 1912–1930, the study of art history had been available intermittently through courses

taught in other departments at Tufts. The Department of Fine Arts was reborn in 1931, with the

emergence of engineering professor Edwin H. Wright’s courses in Fine Arts. Wright taught all

four courses: “Architecture and Allied arts” and “Painting, Sculpture, and Decorative Arts” were

year-long; “Architecture” and “City Planning” were one semester each. The substantial presence

of Tufts’ School of Engineering (founded in 1898) was a significant influence on the scope of the

department at that time. Wright, who was a graduate of the college (and a classmate of Thomas

Whittemore), was trained as an architect and redesigned a significant portion of the Medford

campus during the 1920s, including the Pearson Chemistry Building and several of the gates. He

had been a faculty member in the civil engineering program since 1919 and it was presumably

after his many years of service that he was allowed to indulge his interest in fine art as a discrete

topic of study.

Wright was the sole faculty member in the Department from 1931–1943 and the courses he

offered were unvaried during that period. The classes were taught, as they had been from 1899–

1912, in Ballou Hall, Tufts’ original building, alongside chemistry, engineering and theology. In

the course catalogue for 1939–40, this exposition was given:

The courses in the Department of Fine Arts are designed to give an understanding

and appreciation of the whole field of art as far as possible, and particularly to try to

understand the artist’s point of view. The major divisions of architecture, painting, and

sculpture are considered critically and historically, both for their intrinsic value, and as

7

a background for the art of the present.... The history and literature of any period, and

the graphic and plastic arts, have developed along parallel lines. The courses offered

are intended to study and make clear such a relationship.

Access to local resources like the Museum of Fine Arts was also listed as a special focus and

benefit of the program. It is unknown how these courses were organized in terms of historical

period or political and geographical range.

After Wright retired in 1943, Russell T. Smith took over as the lone faculty member in the

Department of Fine Arts. Smith, like Wright, had a background in architecture, however the

courses he offered reflected his position as director of the Boston Museum School (the future

School of the Museum of Fine Arts). The first class Smith taught at Tufts was a year-long survey

on “History of Art,” a broad study of architecture, sculpture, and painting from the prehistoric to

the present-day. After one year at Tufts, Smith expanded the Department with a second course

on the “History of Modern Art,” encompassing Renaissance to contemporary, with an emphasis

on the nineteenth and twentieth-century art of Europe and the US. The survey course was

considered a prerequisite of this second, more specialized Modern Art class whose enrollment

was limited to upperclassmen. This curriculum did not vary until 1954 when an unprecedented

period of development was initiated and the Department of Fine Arts saw its first undergraduate

majors.REE

MER

GEN

CE

AN

D E

STA

BLI

SHM

ENT

IVEXPANSION

The Boston Museum School became affiliated with Tufts in 1945, shortly after Smith took

over as faculty for the Department of Fine Arts. Students at both schools were permitted to take

classes on either campus. As early as 1946, the Museum School’s course catalog was included

as part of the Fine Arts listing under the sub-heading “Creative Courses.” The first set of major

requirements for the department in 1954 incorporated the curricula of both studio practice

and historical study, utilizing the facilities of both campuses. The breadth of the department’s

instruction was improved by the addition of another faculty member in 1954, hired to teach

“Florentine Painting,” “French Painting,” and, with Smith, “The Art of the Twentieth Century.”

In the same year, the requirements for a major in Fine Art were established as a distribution of

12 semester-long courses: 5 in studio art at the Museum School, 5 in the history of Fine Arts at

Tufts, and 2 classes of “advanced work in related fields of study subject to the approval of the

Department.” As the 1950s ended, a class on Baroque art was introduced and the teaching staff 8

grew to three total. Though the additional faculty changed from year-to-year, Smith remained

chair of the Department, as he would until 1971.

As the department continued to grow during the 1960s, it displayed an increasing self-

awareness as a setting for diverse scholarship and academic rigor. In 1961, the department

offered a course on “Oriental Art” for the first time since Whittemore’s departure in 1912. This

was due in part to the participation of Sylvan Barnet, a professor in the English Department at

Tufts and an Asian art enthusiast who would teach “Oriental Art” occasionally during the 1960s

and 1970s. Classes were also introduced that covered American, Oceanic, Pre-Classical and

African art as well Modern Architecture. In 1965, the Department hired Barbara Ehrlich White

as its first PhD in Art History, from Columbia University, with a focus on French painting of the

eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A graduate masters degree in art history was first offered

in 1961. Though no courses were exclusive to graduate students, they had guidelines for degree

completion that relied heavily on the expanding list of upper-level courses. In 1966, an increasing

awareness of the discipline of art history at large led to the development of courses on

methodology and theory under the titles “Problems in Modern Art,” “Problems in Renaissance

Art,” and “Problems in French Painting.”

Photograph of NYC architectural detail by Wurts Bros., from Tufts’ Art History Dept. Visual Resources Collection, circa 1900.

EX

PAN

SIO

N

9

AD

JUST

MEN

TS VADJUSTMENTS

The early 1970s resembled the preceding years of growth and development, most notably

with the hiring of Madeline Caviness. After completing her PhD at Harvard in 1970, she became

a major factor in guiding the continued expansion of the department in the next two decades,

as well as being a significant contributor to the production of scholarship at Tufts. At this

time, the process for hiring new faculty was fairly informal and the internal structure of the

department was loosely organized. In 1975, however, drastic measures were taken to reorganize

intradepartmental management and standardize its curriculum. Ivan Galantic (hired in 1970) was

a charismatic teacher who managed the survey course and specialized in Renaissance art but

that year, in 1975, he was asked to step down as chair of the department by the administration

of the university. Caviness took over the position without yet having tenure. Her time as

chairwoman would mark one of the most difficult periods of the department’s history in terms

of communication amongst faculty, and in the context of university-wide politics. Until 1982,

Caviness would also push for strong reforms in curriculum, degree requirements, theoretical

discourse as part of instruction for art history, and the presence of Fine Arts in the Tufts

community.

As is often the case in human society, a period of collective growth is followed by one of

uncertainty and adjustment. In 1975, the department found itself on the front-lines of the battle

over gender equality and discrimination in the work place. In the early 1970s, across Tufts,

several lawsuits were filed against the administration by women faculty in various departments

who felt they were unfairly compensated in salary, tenure, and promotion. In the Fine Arts

Department, Barbara Ehrlich White and Christine Joost-Gaugier (hired in 1968) were two of

these women, claiming they had been harassed and denied fair consideration for professional

advancement by the university’s administration and Ivan Galantic, chair at the time. Many such

lawsuits at Tufts were settled out of court. White was granted an injunction to continue teaching

here at Tufts. But Joost-Gaugier, a Renaissance specialist, was not and she subsequently left the

Tufts community for New Mexico State University. The suits against Tufts would only be resolved

collectively in 1988 when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission distributed benefits

to 56 female employees at Tufts.

This political crisis at Tufts was an integral part of the development of the department

and an important response to problems being addressed throughout American society and

its institutions. Fortunately, its effects on the general university populace were almost entirely

positive. Students benefited from the struggle against gender discrimination, which led to

10

increasingly prominent roles in the university for talented women faculty. The negative effects

were most acutely felt by the department faculty who were at odds in the contentious situation.

In addition to the difficulties weathered in the 1970s and 80s, the department also

participated in the general flourishing of the Tufts community under the guidance of president

Jean Mayer. In 1976, Mayer began a major renovation of the university’s mission and academic

profile by pushing for higher standards for hiring, teachers, and scholarship. The completion

of a PhD was a factor of increasing importance for hiring new faculty beginning in the 1960s,

but it was only in the 1970s that Tufts’ academic standing gained greater recognition. In the

department, as elsewhere, the publication of scholarship became a prominent characteristic

of faculty profiles, as did training in the established art history programs of Harvard, Princeton,

Columbia and other leading PhD departments. More research, as well as a higher caliber of

instruction was expected by both departmental and university leadership. Teaching evaluations

by students were implemented in the 1980s to better assess classroom performance. The best

indication of these efforts for the general augmentation of standards was the reorganization

of the survey course into a team-taught class with lectures offered by the whole of the

department’s faculty.

Since the first years of the Tufts University Department of Fine Art, the survey course has

been a crucial part of the curriculum and the foundation of most students’ understanding of art

history. For many years, it was the only course offered in the history of art and was taught by

the sole faculty member and department chair: Whittemore, Wright, and then Smith. From 1943

to 1954, Smith alone taught a survey that covered sculpture, architecture, and painting from

prehistory to the present, presumably with an emphasis on European and American art. Nothing

is known about the geographical or political scope of the earlier survey courses, nor whether it

included non-Western art and civilization.

From 1954 to 1971, the shared responsibility for Fine Arts instruction by the faculty at both

Tufts and the Museum School contributed to a broader survey course taught jointly by the

two institutions’ faculty. When Galantic was hired in 1970, he recreated the survey as directed

and taught by a single faculty member. He successfully drew many students to art history with

his enthusiasm and charisma. However, as the department grew more self-conscious about its

methods and the diversity of art history as a discipline, there was a concern that a survey with a

single instructor presented a biased presentation of the history of art. In 1976, shortly after he

was asked to step down as chair of the department, Galantic also relinquished the survey course

to a team of faculty members. In 1987, Lynette Bosch was hired to better orchestrate this team

effort, creating a model whereby each member of the faculty would be responsible for her or

his art historical field of interest. This approach presented a less unified narrative for the history

of art but accounted for different critical perspectives. Eva Hoffman was in charge of the course AD

JUST

MEN

TS

11

from 1990 to 2011 and, building on the precedent set by Bosch and Wechsler, continued to

develop its thematic framework and organization. In 1996, the name of the year-long course was

changed from “Introduction to the History of Art” to “Art, Ritual, and Culture”/”Art, Politics, and

Culture.” Hoffman also orchestrated efforts to update the visual resources collection, making

it accessible to students through the department’s website as a searchable database and study

guide.

The late 1980s also saw a name change for the department: no longer Fine Arts, as of 1987,

it was known as Art and the History of Art and Architecture. Shortly thereafter it was shortened

to Art and Art History. Also, the improvement in Tufts’ academic profile contributed to the

development of the department’s strong graduate program. Students were attracted to work

with specific scholars here like Caviness, the modernist Pam Allara, and Margaret Floyd, who

taught American art and architecture. Also significant was the move from the Cohen Arts Center

across the street to 11 Talbot Avenue, a former faculty residence, in the late 1970s. The move

was inspired by a need for more space for the growing number of faculty members, room for

storage and teaching, and other functions. The classrooms in Cohen were at the basement level

and when the windows were left open in the warmer months, the only view was of a parking lot.

The building at 11 Talbot Ave had four floors of habitable space and provided a diverse, flexible

setting to better suit the needs of a larger, better established and more self-aware department.

AD

JUST

MEN

TS

11 Talbot Avenue, circa 1992.

12

In 1989, Judith Wechsler was invited to join the faculty as National Endowment for the

Humanities Professor by Jean Mayer. Wechsler had a PhD from UCLA with a focus on the

nineteenth-century art of France. Her mission was to continue to develop the department’s

academic strengths while simultaneously cultivating a group of faculty members that would not

only teach well but work together. In her first two years, she made six appointments, including

Eric Rosenberg and Eva Hoffman, both of whom she knew from Harvard. She also pushed for

changes in the graduate masters’ degree requirements that shortened the program to two years

and advocated the option to write two shorter qualifying papers instead of a thesis. Thanks to

Wechsler’s efforts and those who had come in the decades before and demanded the highest

standards, the department’s increasing prestige and global art historical perspective made

it a destination for graduate-level research and talented young instructors. Graduates of the

department’s art history program have gone on to study or work at such prestigious institutions

as Harvard, the Guggenheim Museum, and the Institute for Contemporary Art in Boston.

Art History Department Faculty, circa 1989. From Left: Andrew McClellan, Pam Allara, Barbara Ehrlich White, Doug MacLean, Miriam Balmuth, Margaret Henderson Floyd, Madeline H. Caviness, Bruce Darling, Judith Wechsler, Marilyn Grayson

RE

AC

HIN

G O

UT

VIREACHING OUT

Since 1945, study in Fine Arts involved studio practice at the Museum School and when

major requirements were first drafted in 1954, they required almost half of the courses for

degree completion be in ‘creative courses.’ In subsequent decades, students were allowed

13

an increasing flexibility in degree completion so that they might exercise their preference for

art history or studio art. In 1970, a major in Fine Arts required 5–8 courses in the history of art

and only 2–5 in studio practice. During the 70s and 80s, Caviness developed the 5 year BFA

option for undergraduates at Tufts and encouraged cooperation between the art history MA

and studio art MFA degree programs. Graduate students in art history were invited to critiques

at the Museum School in an effort to build a dialogue between the different fields. As both the

department and the Museum School grew in

the last decades of the twentieth century, they

developed independent curricula. In 1987, only

two classes in studio practice could be counted

toward a major in Art History, though it was a

recommended elective. Today, the School of

the Museum of Fine Arts, though still a part of

the Tufts community, has its own administrative

structure, admissions policies, and a separate

department of Visual and Critical Studies.

As part of Caviness’ effort to cultivate

a relationship with both the greater Tufts

community and the SMFA, she encouraged

the development of the Tufts University Art

Gallery. Margaret Floyd was a key part of the

physical renovation process for the Gallery,

working to expand an older exhibition space

in the Cohen Arts Center into a larger facility

where, for example, graduate students from

the SMFA could exhibit their theses. Though it

took some time before the plans for this venture

were approved, members of the department

collaborated with the director of the SMFA to

harness the necessary resources for the project.

The improved Gallery opened for the benefit

of the greater Tufts community in 1991 and has

become an important laboratory for exhibitions,

curatorial projects, tours and educational

programs produced by both faculty and students

of art history and practice.

RE

AC

HIN

G O

UT

First Museum Studies Certificate Brochure, 1989.14

Although not exclusive to students of art history, the Museum Studies program is another

aspect of the increasingly dynamic presence of the department at Tufts. Building on his research

on the Louvre and interests in museology, Professor Andrew McClellan began to develop

Museum Studies as part of the department’s graduate program. In 1989, “Museum Studies and

Administration” was first listed as a certificate program within the options for graduate degrees

offered through the Department of Art and Art History.

Though courses in museology had been offered previously in the late 1970s by Halina

Nelken—who was, like McClellan, a specialist in Baroque art—it was not until the 1990s that

the program established the subject as distinct. Though, like the gallery and SMFA, it had been

generated in affiliation with the Department and shaped by interests common to art history,

Museum Studies offers its own curriculum and discourse.

DIV

ERSI

FIC

ATI

ON

VIIDIVERSIFICATION

In the late 1980s, there was an increased sensitivity about the historical, social, and geo-

political distribution of academic attentions in higher educational institutions of the US and

abroad. This affected art history significantly and leaders in the department were prescient in

regard to this trend. Though courses in the history of non-Western art had been offered at Tufts

as early as 1910, it was most especially in the 1980s

and 90s that an effort was made to incorporate

diverse perspectives in the study of a global art

history. The changing character of the disciplinary

range of art history has been an essential concern

to the chairs of these years—Caviness, Wechsler,

and McClellan—who made strategic decisions

about hiring in order to cultivate diversity. While

the earliest days of art history saw a focus on the

cultures of Western Europe, today the Department

offers courses on African, Latin American, Asian, and

Islamic art.

The emphasis on this diversification was

formalized with the institution of a distribution Lucy Der Manuelian

15

requirement for undergraduate art history majors. In 1988, one course out of the ten required

for a degree in Art History had to be in non-Western art. Over the course of the last decade,

however, this has evolved into a required two courses in art from before 1700. This is due in

part to the high percentage of students with an interest in modern and contemporary art,

who needed breadth in earlier periods. The elimination of a “non-Western” requirement also

reflected students’ willingness in recent decades to seek out coursework in all geographic areas

of art history, without the need for a mandate.

Another important aspect of the department’s development was the introduction of a

course on theory and methodology for undergraduates in 1979. As art history grew older and

wiser, a course devoted to the discipline’s historic methods and contemporary discourses was

a crucial addition for a department determined to inspire true scholarship. Today, a course on

historiography and methodology is a requirement for graduates of the Tufts program at both

the graduate and undergraduate level. Thematic and theoretical interests are treated as discrete

topics for study in advanced-level seminars that feature prominently in students’ education and

reflect the faculty’s scholarly pursuits.

One of the most unique features of the Tufts art history department is the Dadian Oztemel

chair for Armenian Art History, the only such position existing outside the Republic of Armenia.

In 1984, Lucy Der Manuelian first lectured at Tufts on the subject of Armenian art. Her efforts

were originally part of a rotating lectureship at various institutions including Harvard, McGill,

Boston, and Northeastern universities. In 1989, der Manuelian established an endowed

position in the subject with the funding of Boston-area Armenian community leaders. After

Der Manuelian’s

retirement in

2007, Christina

Maranci was hired

for the position

and has continued

teaching

Armenian and

Byzantine art

history and

architecture,

uniquely

represented here

at Tufts.

DIV

ERSI

FIC

ATI

ON

VIINOW AND THE FUTURE

The history of the Department of Art and Art History at Tufts has its share of both

remarkable and typical episodes. Parts of this story are to be expected: revisions, inclusions,

disruptions and expansions. Even the inventions that characterize growth, intelligence, and

ambition could be anticipated. The general indication, however, is that the department could

not be what it is today—a diverse, supportive and rigorously devoted community of scholars

and students—without the sincere efforts of the individuals who have shaped it thus far. And

for them all, the future participants in this process of history should be grateful and continue to

develop their good work.

NO

W A

ND

TH

E F

UTU

RE

facing page: Tufts Department of Art and Art History today. Renovations at 11 Talbot Avenue in 2011 included new faculty offices, improved seminar room with accessibility, and relocation of the Visual Resources Center. The architect chose a warm grey with white and rust red detailing as a change from the previous dark brown color.

17

Art and Art History faculty 2015-2016. Back row, l-r: Cristelle Baskins, Karen Overbey, Eric Rosenberg, Peter Probst, Malcom Turvey; Front row, l-r: Madeline Caviness, Eva Hoffman, Ikumi Kaminishi, Adriana Zavala, Christina Maranci, Jacob Stewart-Halevy, Daniel Abramson

18

Promotional poster for symposium Disputing the Global: Art History’s Future, hosted and organized by the Tufts’ Department of Art and Art History in 2010. B

IBLI

OG

RA

PHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Caviness, Madeline. Interview by author. Cambridge, MA, 2010.

Gittleman, Sol. An Entrepreneurial University: The Transformation of Tufts 1976-2002, Medford, MA: Tufts University Press, 2004.

Gittleman, Sol. Interview by author. Medford, MA, 2010.

McClellan, Andrew. Interview by author. Medford, MA, 2010.

Miller, Russell E. Light on the Hill: A History of Tufts College 1852-1952. Beacon Press, Boston: 1966.

Panofsky, Erwin. “Three Decades of Art history in the United States: Impressions of a Transplanted European.” College Art Journal 14 (1) (Autumn 1954): 7-27.

Sauer, Anne. Tufts University. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston: 2001.

Smyth, Craig Hugh and Peter Lukehart, eds., The Early Years of Art History in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Department of Art and Archaeology, Princeton University, 1993.

Tufts University. 1898-2010. Tufts University Bulletin.

Urry, Selena. E-mail interview by author. Medford, MA, 2010.

Wechsler, Judith. Interview by author. Medford, MA, 2010.

White, Barbara Erlich. E-mail interview by author. Medford, MA, 2010.

19

APP

END

IX APPENDIX: FULL-TIME FACULTY LIST

Thomas WhittemoreAB*, Tufts College1899–1912Department chair, 1899–1912Byzantine

Edwin H. WrightAB, Tufts College1931–1943Department chair 1931–1943Architecture

Russell T. SmithM. Arch*, Harvard University1943–1971Department chair 1943–1970Architecture

Barbara Ehrlich WhitePhD, Columbia University1965–200219th-century French

Christiane Joost-GaugierAM*, Harvard University1967–1973Renaissance

Ivan GalanticPhD, Harvard University1971–1989Department chair 1971–1974Renaissance

Keith MoxeyMA*, University of Chicago1971–1974Northern Renaissance

Miriam BalmuthPhD, Harvard University1971–2000Ancient

Madeline CavinessPhD, Harvard University1972–2007Department chair, 1975–1983, 1988–1990Medieval

Halina NelkenMPh, Jagiellonian University1973–1978Baroque/19th century

Pamela AllaraPhD, Johns Hopkins University1974–1990Modern

Anne van BurenPhD, Bryn Mawr 1976–1990Northern Renaissance

Margaret FloydPhD, Boston University1977–1998Department chair, 1983-86Architecture

L. Bruce DarlingPhD, University of Michigan1984–1992Department chair, 1987–88Asian

Lucy der ManuelianPhD, Boston University1984–2007Armenian

*Higher degrees were earned during or after time at Tufts

20

Andrew McClellanPhD, Courtauld Institute1986–presentDepartment chair, 1995–2002Baroque/Museology

Judith WechslerPhD, UCLA1989-2011Department chair, 1990–9519th century French

Elizabeth HonigPhD, Yale University1990–1996Northern Renaissance

Eva HoffmanPhD, Harvard University1990–presentIslamic

Eric RosenbergPhD, Harvard University1990–presentDepartment chair, 2002–06American

Ikumi KaminishiPhD, University of Chicago1996–presentAsian

Stephen NelsonPhD, Harvard University1997–2000African

Cristelle BaskinsPhD, UC Berkeley1997–presentDepartment chair, 2006–09Renaissance

Daniel AbramsonPhD, Harvard University1998–presentDepartment chair, 2009–12Architecture

Adriana ZavalaPhD, Brown University2001–presentLatin American

Peter ProbstPhD, Free University of Berlin2005–presentDepartment chair, 2012–presentAfrican

Monica McTighePhD, University of Virginia2006–2013Contemporary

Karen OverbeyPhD, Institute of Fine Arts, NYU2007–presentMedieval

Christina MaranciPhD, Princeton University2008–presentArmenian/Byzantine

Jeremy MeliusPhD, UC Berkeley2013–presentModern European

Jacob Stewart-HalevyPhD, Yale University2015–presentContemporary

Malcolm TurveyPhD, NYU2015–presentFilm and Media

21