AHIS W3645

Midterm, Final, with images and list to help you narrow it down, and discussion sections.

Prof. Ted Mosby is Hot <3 But it does seem he's just some actor reciting lines... Sometimes Barney comes in but all he really does is hit on girls. Ted knows a lot about buildings and I love his lectures, i get to look into his eyes for ages. Prof. Ted Mosby is Hot <3 Prof. Ted Mosby is Hot <3 Prof. Ted Mosby is Hot <3 Prof. Ted Mosby is Hot <3 Prof. Ted Mosby is Hot <3

Lectures: midterm, final, 10-12 page research paper, about 4 hours of reading weekly but you could get away with just reading the survey text. Seminars: tons of reading (which you had better do if you don't want to look like the class idiot), class presentation and final research paper. In all cases, an A- is easy to come by if you memorize and spit back, which may be easier said than done.

heavy reading, response papers every week, midterm, final.

I have to say that at first I was terrified of Professor DiPalma because of the awful reviews she got on culpa. However, I threw myself at the class and you know what? I was pleasantly surprised. True, her lectures are a little boring sometimes, but the info's generally good, to the point, accurate. As for her exams, she's the easiest art history professor I've had, and I've taken over 10 art history classes! She not only gives you an image list of 30 or so buildings for the midterm and final, she also gives you the exact images on courseworks. If you studied that and attended discussion section, you could get an easy A. As for papers, I'm not even sure I had to write one. If I did, it was so easy it wasn't memorable. Trust me, DO NOT BELIEVE THE OTHER CULPAS!!! I just had her Spring 07, so believe me!!! She's pretty cool.

I think Bergdoll is brilliant, but I'm surprised nobody's written about him yet, because I know a great many students disagree with me. Good stuff about Bergdoll: He really knows his shit. And he doesn't feel the need to dress his lectures up with incomprehensible and often tangential theory; his insights are good enough to stand up without ornamental jargon. He loves the material, and it shows; his lectures are engaging and information-packed (he loves to tell you which architects were probably shacking up, for example--and let me tell you, 19th-century architecture really needs sexing up sometimes). His enthusiasm is infectious. Bergdoll also really cares about undergraduates, which is pretty amazing since he's Chair of the department and seems to spend all his time kissing babies and leading tours in Romania. I have never had a problem meeting with him to discuss paper topics, even outside of office hours. Nor did I ever feel like he didn't take me seriously; again, VERY rare for a big shot art history professor. And now, the bad about Bergdoll: He knows his shit, but that means that a 75-minute lecture often turns into 80 or 90, and you WILL be tested on those extra minutes. He's really excited about the material, which means that his lectures sometimes feel like brain-dumps. I suggest writing absolutely everything down, tape-recording, or resigning yourself to not doing a…

While the material of this class is fascinating, I hate it. Professor Gyger writes her entire lectures before coming to class; this makes it feel like she is reading you a paper instead of giving a lecture. She speaks incredibly quickly, using very large vocabulary, making her impossible to follow. More than that, she moves through hundreds of slides a lecture, pointing out obvious features of buildings, never speaking about what actually matters. This makes the papers the TA's assign extremely difficult to write; you haven't actually learned anything.

One of the worst professors I have had at Columbia. I think that if you have never taken an art history course in your life and want a broad panoramic view of twentieth century architecture - di palma may be your woman. However, as an art history major, I found her classes incredibly boring and insipid. We would look at great architecture and just gloss over anecdotes and the simplest, most basic aspects on aesthetics. Literally her comments on Liebskind were that his "architecture evokes sensations" ... Hillary Ballon's intro to architecture class - while far broader in scope - was a far better class in teaching me about modern architecture. considering di palma spent a semester on it, and ballon little less than a month, it really should tell you everything about what a dull teacher di palma is avoid her class.

fascinating class. she is a great lecturer, really interesting and every class you walk away with your head spinning with new information. I am new to architecture and I was not lost at all, but you need to arrive on time and come to every class-- b/c she starts even a min or two early and lectures till the very end, and you will miss a great deal of information if you arrive late/not at all. the exams are really where i bombed- remember it is an art history course, so there will be A LOT of memorization. be prepared for that. recommended.