1

Committee for the Evaluation of Art History Study Programs

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Department of Art History Evaluation Report

June 2013

2

Contents Chapter 1: Background………………………………………………………………..…….3 Chapter 2: Committee Procedures………...…………………….………………...……4 Chapter 3: Evaluation of the Art Hisoty Study Program at Ben Gurion University ………………………........….5 Chapter 4: General Recommendations and Timetable………………………. Appendices: Appendix 1 – Letter of Appointment Appendix 2 - Schedule of the visit

3

Chapter 1- Background At its meeting on November 13th 2012, the Council for Higher Education (CHE) decided to evaluate study programs in the field of Art History during the academic year of 2013. Following the decision of the CHE, the Director General of The Council for Higher Education, appointed a Committee consisting of: • Prof. Herbert Kessler, Department of the History of Art, Johns Hopkins University, USA – Committee Chair • Prof. Aileen Ajootian, Department of Arts, University of Mississippi, USA • Prof. Anne Dunlop, Department of the History of Art, Yale University, USA • Prof. Esther Levinger, Department of Art History , University of Haifa, Israel • Prof. Steven A. Mansbach, Department of Art History and Archaeology, University of Maryland, USA • Prof. Peter Parshall (retired), Curator, National Gallery of Art, USA • Prof. Sandy Prita Meir, School of Art and Design, Center for African Studies, University of Illinois, USA1 Ms. Alex Buslovich was the Coordinator of the Committee on behalf of the CHE. Within the framework of its activity, the Committee was requested to:2 1. Examine the self-evaluation reports, submitted by the institutions that provide study programs in Art History, and to conduct on-site visits at those institutions. 2. Submit to the CHE an individual report on each of the evaluated academic units and study programs, including the Committee's findings and recommendations. 3. Submit to the CHE a general report regarding the examined field of study within the Israeli system of higher education including recommendations for standards in the evaluated field of study. The entire process was conducted in accordance with the CHE’s Guidelines for Self-Evaluation (of October 2012).

1 Prof. Sandy Prita Meir joined the committee at a later stage, after the first round of visits in April 2013, thus did not take part in the evaluation of BGU and BIU. 2 The Committee’s letter of appointment is attached as Appendix 1.

4

Chapter 2-Committee Procedures The Committee held its first meetings on April 19th , 2013 during which it discussed fundamental issues concerning higher education in Israel, the quality assessment activity, as well as Art History Study programs in Israel. In April 2013, the Committee held its first cycle of evaluation, and visited Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and Bar Ilan University. In June 2013 the Committee conducted its second evaluation cycle, and visited Tel Aviv University, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Haifa University. During the visits, the Committee met with various stakeholders at the institutions, including management, faculty, staff, and students, and toured the visited departments. This report deals with the Department of Art History at Ben Gurion University. The Committee's visit to University took place on April 21-22, 2013 The schedule of the visit is attached as Appendix 2. The Committee thanks the management of Ben Gurion University and the Department of Art History for their self-evaluation report and for their hospitality towards the committee during its visit at the institution.

5

Chapter 3: Evaluation of the Art History Study Program at Ben Gurion

University of the Negev This Report relates to the situation current at the time of the visit to the institution, and does not take account of any subsequent changes. The Report records the conclusions reached by the Evaluation Committee based on the documentation provided by the institution, information gained through interviews, discussion and observation as well as other information available to the Committee.

1. Executive Summary Less than a generation since its founding, the Department of Arts at Ben Gurion University (BGU) is a notable success. It positioned itself from the start as a department that would embrace the “new art history;” and it included theory and methodological interrogation in its mission of teaching and research in practice and curatorship. The Department appears to have established a largely harmonious set of relationships between senior faculty, junior faculty, and students at all levels. Looking forward, the Department needs to review its self-defined mandate in light of developments in the field of art history more broadly and its own place at BGU and in the Negev; and it needs to push ahead with a re-invigorated agenda under the guidance of a strong leader, especially as it makes new appointments.

2. Organizational Structure - Observation and findings In any academic unit, the chair should be the guide and central force. S/he facilities the expression of the Department’s mission and helps expedite its goals. S/he presents the Department’s image not only to the Dean, Rector, the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, and the University, but also to the community beyond the institution. Leadership is especially important at this critical stage in the development of the Department of Arts at BGU. In this unit, the chair is elected to a two-year term with possible two-year renewal. The brief term of service does not enable the chair to learn the basics of the job and to implement Department plans and goals. Furthermore Senior faculty in this Department work by informal consensus; formal Department meetings are scheduled once per term, although ad hoc discussions among faculty occur frequently. Recommendations Short term/immediate (~ within 1 year) Following discussion among the members the faculty, the Committee proposes that the chair’s term be extended to at least three, and perhaps as long as five years, with possible renewal, beginning with the current chair.

6

The collegial interrelationships are praiseworthy and provide an important element in its growth and direction. However, regular, monthly meetings are essential in this Department, so that all members of the faculty can discuss formally their individual and shared vision, their short term plans and more ambitious goals. The inclusion of junior faculty at certain Department meetings will be useful to the overall development of the program and its plans. 3. Mission and Goals - Observation and findings The Committee takes seriously the Department’s mission statement, which it believes may be best comprehended as a foundation document. As the youngest History of Art Department in Israel, the Department has since its inception in 1999 endeavored to present itself as a distinctive program in the History of Art within Israel. As the mission statement forcefully asserts, “[W]e aim to broaden the strict historical perspective and move toward areas concerning visual literacy, theory, and criticism. We also move gradually toward the adoption of new methods of research and study related to other fields such as cultural studies, gender studies, psychology, etc. These areas are intrinsically related to the artistic presence developing around us, in the context of contemporary art in general and Israeli art in particular....We were guided and influenced by the “New Art History” discussion of the 1980s.... (p.17).”As no other Department in Israel has so emphatically placed theory and criticism at the core of its curriculum, the BGU Department of Arts has laid claim to a singular orientation and programmatic justification. Although the Committee acknowledges this ambition, it fails to see the centrality of this claim in the Department’s current faculty configuration or curriculum. As in departments of the History of Art worldwide, the BGU Department of Arts faculty has incorporated critical theories in the teaching and writing, especially by those whose field is modern and contemporary art. Because the “New Art History” of the 1980s (and its successor theories) is no longer “new” or exceptional, the Committee believes it appropriate to downplay critical theory as a justification and defining practice for the Department. The Committee perceives the variety of methods, traditional and more risk-taking, currently embraced by the faculty as a Departmental strength. These provide a range of approaches offered to a student body of diverse interests; and they attests to the intellectual self-confidence of the Department, which no longer needs to justify itself as occupying the critical “cutting edge”. During his interview with the Committee, the Chair stated a new mission for the Department: to become an intellectually vital Department with global ambitions. By this claim, the Chair explained that he meant a place where students could be exposed to the history of world art taught by experts in the various (geographical) fields. The Committee acknowledges that the Chair’s goal for the Department is an ambitious one; but it is concerned by the absence of a clear justification for a global art history at Ben Gurion University, as well as a carefully thought through pedagogical program by which to accomplish it.

7

With more than 70% of its students coming from outside the south of Israel, the Department is far less focused on the Negev than the institution itself. Moreover, among all the B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. students, there are only about three or four Bedouins. The Department’s increasingly trans-regional and truly national program is counterbalanced by its failure to develop a coherent Departmental policy by which this expansion is rationally organized. As is discussed in the appropriate sections below, this Committee urges the Department to articulate both a vision and a systematic program of courses through which a global Art History can be instituted. Only after a comprehensive vision and specific steps to realize it are outlined should new faculty appointments be seriously considered. Toward that end, the Committee urges the Department to consider carefully areas that might be pursued collaboratively with other departments at BGU and perhaps elsewhere in Israel through which an enhanced global perspective might be realized jointly. This can be illustrated by citing a possibility brought up by several of the student cohorts with which the Committee met: a specialist in Islamic Art. Such a faculty position would likely provide more than mere “coverage” of an additional field; it could bring to bear new theoretical perspectives to complement those practiced by the current faculty; it could appeal to minority students; and it could satisfy the desire expressed by all levels of students for additional electives. Not adequately addressed in the current mission statement is the continued role and curricular contributions of studio art to the art history program, as originally envisioned by the Department’s founder. The statement does not mention studio art among its five categorical objectives, despite the presence of a a practicing artist among its senior faculty. In view of the Department’s overall commitment, however, more attention might be given to the assertion that practice, in itself, has theoretical implications for the study of the History of Art. Recommendations Short term/immediate (~ within 1 year) The mission statement should be updated to accommodate the Department’s changed circumstances: its growth in numbers, its appeal nationwide, and its enhanced aspirations. Particularly in view of the current fiscal constraints, the Committee urges greater integration within BGU’s Faculty of the Humanities and Social Sciences by prompting synergy between departments and programs. Such collaboration, far from diminishing the Department of Art’s independence, would likely promote its freedom of development by fostering a careful consideration of how expansion of the types, methods, and subjects of a global art history can best be undertaken at the University. Thus, instead of making an appointment in a new field for which BGU lacks support in the relevant language, history, and literature, the Committee recommends that in the near future new appointments take advantage of existing strengths, when practical. In sum, the Committee urges the Department to reconsider its mission in terms of contemporary developments, conditions, and potentials rather than being constrained by the language (if not the practices) advocated in the current

8

statement. By rethinking the mission, the Department of Arts affords itself a welcome opportunity to chart a singular path for the History of Art in Israel.

4. Study Programs - Observation and findings BGU offers three degrees: a B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. Student numbers in the B.A. have dropped in both 2010-11 and 2011-12, from about 90 to 72; overall, however, the number of students remains fairly constant, given that the M.A, created in 2009, now enrolls some twenty students each year for a two-year course of study. With six tenured positions, the ratio of faculty to students is therefore 1:12 for undergraduates, and roughly 1:7 at the M.A. There are also currently 12 Ph.D.s.

B.A. The BA within the Department is completed either as a double major (54 credits) or as a minor (28 credits). Students are required to specialize in two of the three fields offered: medieval, early-modern, and modern. The curriculum begins with required and general survey courses organized by time period, followed by a pro-seminar in each subfield, and two specialized seminars. Minors take fewer electives than majors. All majors are also required to take one studio course in two-dimensional art, with a stress on materials and basic techniques; a survey of Israeli art; a course in aesthetics; and a survey of “Art in the Jewish World in Antiquity and the Middle Ages.” There is also a mandatory course in curatorship, in which students produce an exhibition for the University space. The curriculum is, in general, a good if unexceptional balance of breadth and depth. Several Committee members were struck by the divisions of the field by chronology: this is very traditional, and potentially at odds with the Department's claims to “do theory.” The most overtly theoretical readings are restricted to the modern and contemporary courses; this too is not uncommon in the field of art history. There is no formal academic advising mechanism, but students believe that their close relations with teaching assistants and members of the faculty ensured enough guidance about choices and fields. Grading is done by M.A. teaching assistants in the larger survey classes, and otherwise by faculty members. In general, the Department is making the most of very limited resources, and the academic programs reflect this. Both B.A. and M.A. students wanted more courses and particularly more electives. Consistently and at all levels, classical art was mentioned as the greatest lack, followed by modern and contemporary offerings, and then by non-western art. We stress this because the needs perceived and expressed by students is not in line with the Department's stated goals for

9

expanding the B.A. curriculum (3.2.7): an elective and seminar in ancient art; four annual credits in both Jewish and Islamic art, and expertise in one field of non-Western art. There is also evidence of a desire for courses that might be inadequately described as “hands-on.” The fact that an architectural laboratory course studying the campus itself drew 148 students, a massive enrollment given the usual student numbers, is indicative. On the one hand, this can be read as a symptom of pre-professional ambition. On the other, it suggests a wish for courses that engage students in the more concrete aspects of the history or art in general. This is noteworthy because it reflects international trends built into what is often called “visual culture” and/or “Bildwissenschaft.” Both are rubrics for much recent thinking about the practice of art history in Europe and America, thinking that is also often bound up with issues of global art history. The Committee simply points this out as something the faculty might usefully reflect upon in its consideration of ways in which the curriculum could be modified to greater appeal and enhanced intellectual stimulation. For similar reasons, it would also be useful to remain more alert to courses being taught elsewhere in the University and those in other art history departments relevant to particular (especially graduate) student interests, courses that might open them to other disciplinary models. Instituting something like a reading group -- including faculty, graduate students and advanced undergraduates -- might serve all parties as a way of exposing them to what is going on elsewhere in the field.

M.A. The M.A. program was added in 2009. It is offered as either a non-research track culminating in a final exam or as a research track resulting in a thesis. Within the research track, there is a further division between a general track and a curatorial track. Students in all three M.A. tracks must take a course in research approaches; those in the first two tracks have a further mandatory course in sources and contexts. In all three programs, students specialize further in a period field. The major difference, after the thesis, is that students in the curatorial track complete fewer seminars and elective courses; they are required instead to finish a course in contemporary theory and another in the history and theory of exhibitions Students were, in general, very happy with the M.A. programs; and they are finishing their studies in a timely manner. Yet a number of issues emerged in the Committee review. The curatorial track in particular is a matter of concern. Research M.A., curatorial track: At the moment, the course offerings for curatorial track within the research M.A. are very thin. Students were frustrated by the lack of integration of theory and museum

10

practice; and, in general, they wanted more choice of hands-on courses. However, many of the same students noted that a major attraction of the program was that all teaching was concentrated in one (very long) day, allowing them to work full-time while they are studying. It is not clear how the two expressed needs might be reconciled, i.e. the desire for more courses but the usefulness of concentrating the offerings in a single day, though providing more courses centered on the planning and execution of exhibitions would perhaps help. The Committee acknowledges the importance of establishing a concentration leading towards the curatorial profession, and would like to add to that the increasingly important field of museum education. Both curating and museum education are evolving subfields in art history. Preparation for becoming a curator can only be taken so far in an academic setting, however; and it would be a mistake to allocate too many faculty resources to supporting it in an institution where course options are already limited. The first principle here is that museums need well-trained art historians first, and students with courses in curating less. Like all professions, curatorship is learned by doing; and entering the field with a broad background in the discipline and an openness to a variety of contemporary approaches to the study and interpretation of art is, by far, the most important preparation. The current offerings in curatorial practice are probably sufficient to sustain the concentration if they are well taught and involve enough practical experience as well as training in the history and theory of museums and exhibitions. However, another possibility would be to incorporate internships into the degree, whether as a mandatory aspect of it or as a kind of ”value added.” Ideally these would be internships in a major museum (nine months to a year, full-time). To include an internship program, the Department would not only have to rethink its one-day a week M.A. course structure, but also establish close relations with at least two or three museums in Israel, and get funding to support students for a year of extra-Departmental work. Support for internship programs exist abroad, the best of them paid; these are, of course, highly competitive. They certainly provide an addition to programs in Israel itself, and are sometimes keenly interested in attracting foreign students with different perspectives and language skills. A concerted effort should be given to exploring these opportunities, trying to engage appropriate museums in the program, and at the very least making your students aware of them. In general, very few students at any level of study were aware of internship possibilities either at home or abroad. Curatorial careers are one major outcome of art history study, and this is an obvious area to expand and explore

11

Ph.D. The Ph.D. program is administered through the Kreitman School of Advanced Graduate Studies. It is small but producing accomplished graduates. There is no formal evaluation of doctoral students; but the students maintain ongoing links with both advisors and other members of the Department and they are also required to present their work in the Department's Ph.D. forum. As most students do fieldwork abroad, it should be mentioned that students had often acquired language training either by living abroad or because it was required for the degrees they had taken at other universities - BGU's own Master's students would potentially be at a disadvantage. Recommendations Short term/immediate (~ within 1 year) More courses from other faculty departments must be “cross-listed” to count for the B.A. major. This is already being done on an ad hoc basis; but given that faculty numbers are unlikely to increase in the short term, shared courses should become an on-going part of curriculum planning. Further, the curriculum needs to be laid out and coordinated on at least a two-year planning cycle, to ensure sufficient range of courses and approaches over the course of the degree. The Department should publicize internship possibilities for M.A. students. Intermediate term (~ within 2-3 year) Undergraduate students in the Department of Arts have the option of taking studio courses funded by a budget in the Department; and there is currently a proposal in the Department to create an eighty-credit program combining art history and studio art. However, the Committee does not recommend that the Department add the latter to the B.A. A Department strength is that basic studio training is required for art history students; but it was not clear to the Committee what the new program would add to the already stretched undergraduate offerings in the Department. If the goal is to ensure that art historians are familiar with basic techniques and materials, then the current requirement is enough. There is very limited space for studio practice, and it is only possible to offer only two-dimensional media. The program cannot therefore function as a viable stand-alone studio degree, major or minor. It would be highly desirable to establish a studio program at BGU, given the clear student interest in both hands-on and pre-professional training. But such a program would require permanent, tenured and tenure-track faculty appointments and dedicated studio space equipped and maintained to national health and safety requirements. It is not realistic to create such a program at this time, but the issue

12

should be revisited in five years, once the Department faculty has grown and stabilized. Language training needs to be normalized and brought in line with the Department's own M.A. requirements. The Committee was impressed by the fluency of both students and faculty in English. Yet art-historical research usually requires competence in other languages for even basic research. Although it is stated in the Self-Evaluation Report that “most students” must study an additional modern foreign language in addition to Hebrew and English, relatively few had done so. One student mentioned that the lack of language requirements was one reason she had chosen the program. Though the problem is not unique to BGU, it is at odds in most fields with the Department's own stated aim that students be able to use primary source material. It may also limit their ability to participate in the wider international community, especially as students almost without exception chose to write their theses (and Ph.D. dissertations) in Hebrew. Within two years, therefore, the Committee recommends that it be made a requirement that all M.A. students acquire a third language, suited to their area and topic of research. The language should be chosen in consultation with the Graduate Studies Committee. Students should be able to demonstrate competence by the end of the M.A. Ideally they should complete a short translation exam, to be set by the coordinator of the Graduate Studies Committee. Long term [~ until next cycle of evaluation]: The Department should pursue funding, private or public, for endowed internships for the M.A. students in the curatorial track.

5. Human Resources / Faculty - Observation and findings In the academic year 2011-12, the Department had six (100%) full time faculty members. In addition, it had thirteen part-time junior academic staff, of these five Teaching Fellows (Ph.D.s), four Junior Academic Staff (Ph.D. candidates) and four Teaching Assistants (MA students). The Department is particularly strong in medieval and Renaissance art, two faculty members in each period, and in contemporary art. In order to sustain the Department’s success in research and the high-level undergraduate and graduate education it provides, the Department needs a Classicist and one nineteenth/twentieth-century modernist to replace faculty members who have already retired or will retire in the coming academic year (2013-2014). Also, as the University has a strong Department of Middle East Studies, it would be advisable to

13

cooperate in the study of the arts in the Islamic lands. The Department seems stable; most faculty members have still many years ahead of them; also, the students' yearly evaluation clearly shows a high level of satisfaction. The present faculty were graduated from different universities in Israel and abroad; in its future hiring, the Department has to plan wisely and make sure that the next generation of faculty is not recruited from among the graduates of BGU alone. Given the Department's own statement and the important number of junior academic staff, the chair and the section head should counsel the junior staff members regarding the courses they teach. They should advise them in the structure of the course and in the agreement between the course's general description and the detailed description of meeting; they need, to instruct them and to make sure that the bibliography fully corresponds to the subject and that it is up-to-date. One shortcoming is the limited period the chair serves, the policy of a two year term should be reconsidered. Another matter that needs reconsideration at the university level is the separation between promotion to the rank of senior lecturer and tenure. The period of insecurity and the precariousness of one's situation in the Department seem very long. Recommendations Short term/immediate (~ within 1 year) The chair should tutor the junior academic staff. Intermediate term (~ within 2-3 year) The Department should hire a Classicist and an Islamist (possibly, in cooperation with the Departments of Archaeology and Middle East Studies)

6. Students - Observation and findings By their own testimony the student majors come to this Department from all over the State of Israel, attracted mainly by the atmosphere generated by the University and the art faculty. Many were exposed to the field in high school or were drawn to it as a result of travel. Several transferred from other areas after they arrived at BGU, but most seem to have come here in order to concentrate in art history. In so far as the Committee can take the testimony at face value, the learning conditions and contentment with the program are excellent. Students at all levels expressed strong satisfaction with the program, the Department, and the university. Several described the Department as “a kind of family” or “like family,” and explained that

14

they felt part of a larger whole. Particularly at the M.A. level, they singled out the emphasis on theory and curatorial training as aspects that had either drawn them to the Department or that were strong and distinctive about it. Students at all levels believe themselves to be receiving a sound education. When asked about the desire for change, they spoke mainly of wanting more options for elective courses, principally in other areas of western art, especially classical. Considered from the perspective of western art history overall, it seems that the curriculum (both undergraduate and graduate) is sound enough, but also very traditional in approach. Unsurprising, at least at the undergraduate level, this is not evident to the students themselves. However, in the course syllabi, the expectations set forth for the introductory classes and the lack of variety in methodological approach and theorization should be noted. An established pattern of presenting the history of art according to a received canon dealt with in conventional periods and places seems to dominate. Although the MA students spoke enthusiastically about debates over method in their classes, it was difficult to perceive how the theory agenda is being realized in seminar projects and theses. The Committee does not have sufficient evidence to substantiate its concern, however. The writing samples it received are mainly in Hebrew, and thus unable to be read by all but one of the members. Nonetheless, the Committee did not hear testimony that would indicate an awareness of the kinds of discussions one would expect to encounter in a class of comparable students in America, England, or Germany. Understandably, few students have the opportunity (or the desire) to study abroad; and most of the faculty members are themselves the products of Israeli higher education. Although this is not a matter of deep concern, or for that matter easily solved, the fact is that the program for the major could be more intellectually exciting than it is, and indeed more exciting than the students seem capable of imagining. The Committee points out that the faculty might want to reflect on the ways the curriculum could be modified to greater appeal and enhanced intellectual stimulation. For similar reasons it would also be useful to remain more alert to courses being taught elsewhere in the university and those in other art history Departments relevant to particular (especially graduate) student interests, courses that might open them to alternative disciplinary models. The most pressing case in the category of pre-professional programs is the curatorial component of the curriculum as discussed above under Programs of Study. Short term/immediate (~ within 1 year) Regarding the need for the faculty and students to remain abreast of current developments, the Committee believes that instituting something like a reading group -- including faculty, graduate students and advanced undergraduates -- might serve all parties as a way of exposing them to what is going on elsewhere in the field. It recommends this as urgent merely because there is no impediment to instituting it.

15

Intermediate term (~ within 2-3 year) The Committee members all recognized the need for more writing early on in the undergraduate course sequence, and the faculty all confirmed the need for it. At the moment there is a strong cohort of M.A. students operating as paid section leaders that is doing an extraordinary amount of work for the faculty. Were it to disappear, or to be less dedicated than it appears to be, the problem of training in writing would no doubt be much more severe. It takes note of these efforts, and urge that everything possible be done to distribute these labors in order to allow the TAs to give the time they need to provide this remedial training. The Committee was surprised by the size of the individual sections the T.A.s are teaching, and all the more impressed by what they seem to do for them. Thus it seems especially important for the Department to secure these positions for the future, and that it not be entirely dependent upon a population of skilled and dedicated M.A. students. Long term [~ until next cycle of evaluation]: The Department needs to pursue the introduction of internships in the graduate curatorial track.

7. Research - Observation and findings Research in this Department is predicated on its ambition to be at the cutting edge of the discipline. In general, the faculty members and some advanced students have realized the goal of establishing an international scholarly presence by succeeding in securing research grants, invitations to research institutions abroad, and appearances at conferences. It should be noted that one of the most productive members listed in the document, Assaf Pinkus, is in fact a tenured member at another university and only a visitor to the Department. Even so, the Department has produced excellent amounts of significant research. While undoubtedly of high quality, the research is, with some exceptions, more normative than experimental, that is, it is pretty much in line with the “new art history” of the Department’s founding moment---reception, gender, psychoanalytic art theory, and reception--rather than with radical theory of this moment. This is made evident from the “theoretical” authors mentioned during the interviews and read in the courses; and the Committee does not consider this necessarily bad; the theoretical positions are entirely valid. The research (and related teaching), however, does not fully support the Department’s stated goal of stationing itself at the cutting-edge of the field, which is currently penetrating global art, vibrant matter, art’s activating and authenticating agency, etc. When pressed on the matter, one professor said sardonically, “seizing every opportunity (at BGU) IS the new art history.” The Committee therefore recommends that the Department rethink the founding document in terms of recent developments and the research currently

16

being conducted within art history and then refashion its mission accordingly. Doing so would not simply be a matter of “truth in advertising;” especially in the Israeli context, BGU is clearly a Department devoted to theory. But it would clarify what the faculty and students do in their research and provide a refreshed foundation for deciding on new hires. The faculty members publish in highly respected journals, among them, Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte and Speculum; in line with what is stated above, these are not however leaders in the theoretical discussions, as are, for example, Critical Inquiry, RES, or Representations. The study of art history requires travel and the acquisition of expensive photographic materials. The cost of acquiring the rights to publish illustrations that are integral to the presentation of research varies dramatically, but can sometimes exceed $150.00 per image. In other words, rights alone for a normal article can easily cost $1000.00 or more. Art history books are also very expensive; few can be had for less than $100.00. Although the faculty has been quite successful in securing research funding within the University and ISF and also in international competitions, available funds still do not meet the needs of these distinguished scholars. The M.A. students the Committee talked to (admittedly selected by the faculty or self-selected) and the Ph.D. candidates unanimously confirmed the faculty’s active engagement in their research and career strategies. The Committee believes that the enthusiasm goes beyond the warm atmosphere in the Department and familial feeling, but extends to serious and continuous involvement of the faculty with the students’ intellectual development. The Committee is dismayed by the CHE’s policy of not counting books, edited volumes, collective volumes, and unrefereed publications when granting research funds. Art historians still write books as well as shorter studies; and their research very often appears in volumes of conference papers, anthologies, topical collections, and Festschriften. In fact, so-called “refereed journals” in the field are often indistinguishable from other forms of publication, being organized around topics and filled by invitation. That said, the senior faculty especially has more than met the goal of being recognized as scholars of international stature. The awards of an Aga Khan Fellowship, Gerda Henkel Stiftung fellowship, Israel Science Foundation grant, Premio del Rey Prize, Minerva research grant, as well as the many in-house fellowships, reflect the Department’s success in conducting research and world-wide recognition. Despite its renown, the Department has established only limited relationships abroad, except through personal contacts. More might be done to tether the Department’s work to other international institutions through exchange programs, conferences, etc.. The City conference in Be’er Sheva appears to have been a

17

successful undertaking to promote the Department’s theoretic commitment; regular partnerships with progressive departments in Israel, Europe, America, and Asia could do still more. Recommendations Short term/immediate (~ within 1 year) The faculty should meet to review the mission statement and plan the Department’s research acitvities accordingly. Intermediate term (~ within 2-3 year) Explore the possibility of establishing joint programs with other institutions.

8. Infrastructure - Observation and findings Library: The library is inadequate, despite the Rector’s dedication of special funds (which must continue). In a field that still relies on printed research materials in addition to electronic resources, the library is only minimally adequate. The Art History Library at BGU consists of one small room in the University Library. The Committee’s visit revealed critical shortages both in resources (books and journals) and space. The library, shared by undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty, does not support research at any level. The space for storage and study is seriously inadequate. It cannot be stated too strongly that the Art History library does not adequately serve the Department, its constituents, or the University. Galleries: The Department of Arts at BGU uses several galleries on campus and in Be’er Sheva. One houses a permanent collection of art; the other is designated for student curatorial projects. Both spaces are managed by Professor Haim Maor. Yet another gallery on campus was turned into a coffee bar, unbeknownst to Professor Maor and the Department. In Be’er-Sheva itself, a new gallery, the Habe’er Art and Visual Media Center, represents a group effort by the municipality, the mayor, and the Department of Arts, with strong support from President Carmi of BGU. The gallery occupies a renovated Ottoman building in Be’er-Sheva and has been open one year. President Carmi personally hired Osvaldo Romberg to be curator, along with Professor Maor. Faculty and students, arts students and curatorship students specifically, and members of the wider community will benefit from projects to be shared between the city and the University; the Habe’er Center should become a locus for BGU community outreach and actively serves the educational goals of the Arts Department. In addition to other exhibition spaces on campus, the Department

18

of Arts has developed plans for a new gallery that would occupy a space near the Diller Building. This proposed structure has been designed in all details and awaits funds for construction. These exhibit spaces, on campus and in Beer-Sheva, represent a valuable resource not only for the Department of Arts and also for BGU, the broader community, and the Negev. The potential for University outreach is clear and has already been demonstrated at the new Habe’er Center; it is also a way to introduce a wide array of students to art and the history of art. With the maintenance and administration of several galleries come additional responsibilities for the chair and the whole Department of Arts. In order to optimize the use of the spaces and to make sure that they are available to the public as well as the University, more support is needed for their upkeep and staffing. Studios: There are three studios (and a darkroom) in the Diller Building. One serves for painting instruction; nother supports drawing classes; and a third, equipped with a projector, doubles as a classroom. Although the Department of Arts maintains and staffs these facilities, it does not currently offer a program in studio art. The studio courses are taken chiefly by students in the Interdisciplinary Studies Program minor (Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, and not Department of Arts). Only one Art History student interviewed by the Committee had actually taken a studio course. Departmental Offices: The Department of the Arts occupies the second floor of the Diller building. Senior Faculty members have offices, but Junior Faculty members, who teach significant sections of the curriculum, share an office and bring their own laptops. Recommendations: Short term/immediate (~ within 1 year) The University needs to check ventilation and circulation of fresh air in the painting studio. Immediate: It is essential that the BGU administration focus attention on the serious, chronic lack of basic scholarly resources and take action to correct it by finding a bigger, more suitable space for the Art History Library. After discussion and planning with the Department of Arts chair and faculty, it should implement an action plan that would increase funding significantly. The Committee believes that a possibility might exist of soliciting books from scholars in the US and elsewhere who, on retiring, are looking for universities that might accept their libraries; but even the prospect of building a larger, more accessible collection is restricted by a lack of space. Because resources, even at the undergraduate level, are so limited, the administration should immediately subsidize use of Interlibrary Loan for all students and faculty in the Department of Arts. BGU should create a series of B.A. and M.A. term-long internships to support the

19

curatorship component of the arts programs and assist students who otherwise would work off campus in unrelated fields. Experienced M.A. students would serve as TA’s in curatorship, guiding undergraduates toward the basic experience of designing, mounting, articulating, and publicizing art exhibitions. BGU should identify more suitable office space in the Diller Building for the Junior Faculty and provide computers. Intermediate term (~ within 2-3 year) Consulting the chair and faculty of the Department of Arts, the administration should determine the projected needs for library space and bibliographic resources and investigate the feasibility of adding a wing to the existing Library designated for use by the Department of Arts. It should also reevaluate the usefulness of the studios and consider new uses for some of these spaces. Long term [~ until next cycle of evaluation]: Establish a fund to support teaching on the undergraduate and graduate levels, and research at all levels. Given the existence of other galleries on campus and in town, the Department and BGU administration should reconsider the long established plan for a new gallery near the Diller building. 9. Self-Evaluation Process - Observation and findings The Self-Evaluation Report was prepared under the supervision of the Departmental chair with the participation of tenured and tenure-track faculty, of adjunct lecturers, and of the Ph.D. and M.A. students. Although it was never made clear precisely who wrote specific parts, it was stated by each of the cohorts interviewed that all played a role in the Report’s composition, and that all had read the final document. Although the Self-Evaluation Report incorporated all the obligatory categories outlined by the CHE, the Committee, as indicated in various sections of our assessment, found significant discrepancies between many of the claims made in the Self-Evaluation Report and the realities revealed through the interviews with the chair, and the various levels of faculty and students. On the positive side, the Self-Evaluation Report understates the harmony that reigns within the Department of Arts. The faculty endeavors to accommodate the needs, both practical and pedagogical, of the student body and to respond to its concerns and questions quickly. Further, the faculty invests considerable time and attention in mentoring

20

the students. And finally, the students are gratified by their inclusion in the articulation and implementation of the Department’s curriculum. Less successful, despite the Self-Evaluation Report’s claim to the contrary, is the expression of a consistent, vigorous vision for the future. In too many categories and programs the Department has trapped itself within its rather outdated objectives and justification, which have been superseded by the Department’s own development over the last dozen years. The Self-Evaluation Report’s embrace of theory and criticism as the defining characteristic of its charter is frequently suppressed in the Department’s organization, pedagogy, research strategies, and recruitment. This inconsistency between mission and reality is ultimately far less significant in our view than the benefit to the Department of having initiated a searching examination of its history and its current practices. The Self-Evaluation Report, when considered together with the report of this Committee, ideally should prompt a salutary continuing reappraisal of the Department’s mission and creative steps to realize it.

21

Chapter4: Summary of Recommendations and Timetable Short term/immediate (~ within 1 year) Following discussion among the members the faculty, the Committee proposes that the chair’s term be extended to at least three, and perhaps as long as five years, with possible renewal, beginning with the current chair. The collegial interrelationships are praiseworthy and provide an important element in its growth and direction. However, regular, monthly meetings are essential in this Department, so that all members of the faculty can discuss formally their individual and shared vision, their short term plans and more ambitious goals. The inclusion of junior faculty at certain Department meetings will be useful to the overall development of the program and its plans. The mission statement should be updated to accommodate the Department’s changed circumstances: its growth in numbers, its appeal nationwide, and its enhanced aspirations. Particularly in view of the current fiscal constraints, the Committee urges greater integration within BGU’s Faculty of the Humanities and Social Sciences by prompting synergy between departments and programs. Such collaboration, far from diminishing the Department of Art’s independence, would likely promote its freedom of development by fostering a careful consideration of how expansion of the types, methods, and subjects of a global art history can best be undertaken at the University. Thus, instead of making an appointment in a new field for which BGU lacks support in the relevant language, history, and literature, the Committee recommends that in the near future new appointments take advantage of existing strengths, when practical. In sum, the Committee urges the Department to reconsider its mission in terms of contemporary developments, conditions, and potentials rather than being constrained by the language (if not the practices) advocated in the current statement. By rethinking the mission, the Department of Arts affords itself a welcome opportunity to chart a singular path for the History of Art in Israel. More courses from other faculty departments must be “cross-listed” to count for the B.A. major. This is already being done on an ad hoc basis; but given that faculty numbers are unlikely to increase in the short term, shared courses should become an on-going part of curriculum planning. Further, the curriculum needs to be laid out and coordinated on at least a two-year planning cycle, to ensure sufficient range of courses and approaches over the course of the degree. The Department should publicize internship possibilities for M.A. students. The chair should tutor the junior academic staff.

22

Regarding the need for the faculty and students to remain abreast of current developments, the Committee believes that instituting something like a reading group -- including faculty, graduate students and advanced undergraduates -- might serve all parties as a way of exposing them to what is going on elsewhere in the field. It recommends this as urgent merely because there is no impediment to instituting it. The faculty should meet to review the mission statement and plan the Department’s research acitvities accordingly. The University needs to check ventilation and circulation of fresh air in the painting studio. Immediate: It is essential that the BGU administration focus attention on the serious, chronic lack of basic scholarly resources and take action to correct it by finding a bigger, more suitable space for the Art History Library. After discussion and planning with the Department of Arts chair and faculty, it should implement an action plan that would increase funding significantly. The Committee believes that a possibility might exist of soliciting books from scholars in the US and elsewhere who, on retiring, are looking for universities that might accept their libraries; but even the prospect of building a larger, more accessible collection is restricted by a lack of space. Because resources, even at the undergraduate level, are so limited, the administration should immediately subsidize use of Interlibrary Loan for all students and faculty in the Department of Arts. BGU should create a series of B.A. and M.A. term-long internships to support the curatorship component of the arts programs and assist students who otherwise would work off campus in unrelated fields. Experienced M.A. students would serve as TA’s in curatorship, guiding undergraduates toward the basic experience of designing, mounting, articulating, and publicizing art exhibitions. BGU should identify more suitable office space in the Diller Building for the Junior Faculty and provide computers. Intermediate term (~ within 2-3 year) Undergraduate students in the Department of Arts have the option of taking studio courses funded by a budget in the Department; and there is currently a proposal in the Department to create an eighty-credit program combining art history and studio art. However, the Committee does not recommend that the Department add the latter to the B.A. A Department strength is that basic studio training is required for art history students; but it was not clear to the Committee what the new program would add to the already stretched undergraduate offerings in the Department. If the goal is to ensure that art historians are familiar with basic techniques and materials, then the current requirement is enough. There is very limited space for studio practice, and it is only possible to offer only two-dimensional media. The program cannot therefore

23

function as a viable stand-alone studio degree, major or minor. It would be highly desirable to establish a studio program at BGU, given the clear student interest in both hands-on and pre-professional training. But such a program would require permanent, tenured and tenure-track faculty appointments and dedicated studio space equipped and maintained to national health and safety requirements. It is not realistic to create such a program at this time, but the issue should be revisited in five years, once the Department faculty has grown and stabilized. Language training needs to be normalized and brought in line with the Department's own M.A. requirements. The Committee was impressed by the fluency of both students and faculty in English. Yet art-historical research usually requires competence in other languages for even basic research. Although it is stated in the Self-Evaluation Report that “most students” must study an additional modern foreign language in addition to Hebrew and English, relatively few had done so. One student mentioned that the lack of language requirements was one reason she had chosen the program. Though the problem is not unique to BGU, it is at odds in most fields with the Department's own stated aim that students be able to use primary source material. It may also limit their ability to participate in the wider international community, especially as students almost without exception chose to write their theses (and Ph.D. dissertations) in Hebrew. Within two years, therefore, the Committee recommends that it be made a requirement that all M.A. students acquire a third language, suited to their area and topic of research. The language should be chosen in consultation with the Graduate Studies Committee. Students should be able to demonstrate competence by the end of the M.A. Ideally they should complete a short translation exam, to be set by the coordinator of the Graduate Studies Committee. The Department should hire a Classicist and an Islamist (possibly, in cooperation with the Departments of Archaeology and Middle East Studies) The Committee members all recognized the need for more writing early on in the undergraduate course sequence, and the faculty all confirmed the need for it. At the moment there is a strong cohort of M.A. students operating as paid section leaders that is doing an extraordinary amount of work for the faculty. Were it to disappear, or to be less dedicated than it appears to be, the problem of training in writing would no doubt be much more severe. It takes note of these efforts, and urge that everything possible be done to distribute these labors in order to allow the TAs to give the time they need to provide this remedial training. The Committee was surprised by the size of the individual sections the T.A.s are teaching, and all the more impressed by what they seem to do for them. Thus it seems especially important for the Department to secure these positions for the future, and that it not be entirely dependent upon a population of skilled and dedicated M.A. students.

24

Explore the possibility of establishing joint programs with other institutions. Consulting the chair and faculty of the Department of Arts, the administration should determine the projected needs for library space and bibliographic resources and investigate the feasibility of adding a wing to the existing Library designated for use by the Department of Arts. It should also reevaluate the usefulness of the studios and consider new uses for some of these spaces. Long term [~ until next cycle of evaluation]: The Department should pursue funding, private or public, for endowed internships for the M.A. students in the curatorial track. The Department needs to pursue the introduction of internships in the graduate curatorial track. Establish a fund to support teaching on the undergraduate and graduate levels, and research at all levels. Given the existence of other galleries on campus and in town, the Department and BGU administration should reconsider the long established plan for a new gallery near the Diller building.

25

Signed by: _________ ________________ ____________________________ Prof. Herbert Kessler, Chair Prof. Aileen Ajootian ___________________________ ___________________________ Prof. Anne Dunlop Prof. Esther Levinger __ __ ___________________________ Prof. Steven A. Mansbach Prof. Peter Parshall ____________________________ Prof. Sandy Prita Meir

26

Appendix 1: Letter of Appointment

27

Appendix 2: Site Visit Schedule

Monday April 22, 2013 (Room 215, Building 74)

Time Subject Participants 10:00-10:45 Opening session with the heads of the institution and the senior staff member appointed to deal with quality assessment Rector – Prof. Zvi Hacohen Deputy Rector – Prof. Steve Rosen Deputy Dean – Prof. Katrin Kogman-Appel 10:45-11:30 Meeting with the academic and administrative heads of the Faculty of Humanities Deputy Dean – Prof. Katrin Kogman-Appel 11:30-12:15 Meeting with the academic and administrative heads of the Department of Art History Dr. Daniel Unger – Department Chair

12:15-13:00 Meeting with senior academic staff (representatives of relevant committees) Dr. Nirit Ben-Aryeh Debby, Dr. Ruth Iskin, Dr. Merav Yerushalmy, Prof. Haim Maor 13:00-14:00 Lunch (In the same Room) Closed Door Committee Meeting 14:00-14:45 Tour of facilities: classrooms, library, labs, offices Dr. Daniel Unger

14:45-15:30 Meeting with Adjunct academic staff Dr. Inbal Ben-Asher Gitler, Dr. Dalia Manor, Dr. Sara Offenberg, Dr. Margo Stroumza-Uzan, Dr. Ronit Milano, Dr. Galit Aviman, Mr. Nissan Perez

28

Time Subject Participants 10:00-10:45 Meeting with BA students Ms. Bar Leshem, Ms. Noa Rothmann, Ms. Gal Mahler, Ms. Stav Koch, Ms. Galit Cherniyakov, Ms. Roni Atias, Ms. Yael Gold, Ms. Or Frish 10:45-11:15 Meeting with Junior academic staff Ms. Ruth Lubashevsky, Ms. Iris Tresman, Ms. Stav Theodor, Ms. Yaara Raz-Haklai

11:15-12:00 Meeting with MA students Ms. Esthy Lurie Kravitz, Ms. Yael Liberman, Ms. Gal Amir, Ms. Liat Shiber, Ms. Maya Dvash, Ms. Tali Man, Ms. Efrat Baruchi, Ms. Deborah Aroshas 12:00-12:45 Meeting with PhD students Ms. Ayelet Carmi, Ms. Ornat Lev-Er, Mr. Adar Yarum, Ms. Emma Azriel Gashinsky

12:45-13:45 Lunch Closed Door Committee Meeting

13:45-14:30 Summation meeting with head of Department Chair – Dr. Daniel Unger

14:30-15:30 Summation meeting with heads of Faculty and institution Rector – Prof. Zvi Hacohen Deputy Rector – Prof. Steve Rosen Deputy Dean – Prof. Katrin Kogman-Appel Chair – Dr. Daniel Unger