Submission Guidelines

As a graduate journal based in the Rice University Department of Art History, Ars Noctuae is dedicated to supporting emerging scholars in art history and visual and material cultures through rigorous yet accessible publishing opportunities. The following guidelines outline expectations for exhibition reviews submitted by graduate students. 

Eligibility and Scope
  • Submissions are welcome from MA and PhD students at any stage of study, whether from Art History or a related discipline.
  • Exhibitions reviewed should be recently presented (typically within the past 12–18 months).
  • Reviews may respond to exhibitions in museums, galleries, alternative spaces, or digital/online platforms.
  • Exhibitions should be relevant to art history, visual culture, or material culture.
  • Interdisciplinary exhibitions are welcome, provided their relevance to art-historical or material inquiry is clearly articulated.

Length and Format
  • Reviews should be 500–1,000 words.
  • Submissions should be written in clear, professional prose appropriate for a scholarly audience.
  • Reviews should not be previously published or under consideration elsewhere.

Content and Structure
Exhibition reviews should evince critical rigor and balance descriptive walkthroughs with analytical assessment of the exhibition as an intellectual project. A strong review will include:
  1. Exhibition Header
    • Exhibition title (italicized)
    • Curator(s)
    • Venue(s)
    • Dates of exhibition
  2. Overview of the Exhibition
    • A concise account of the exhibition’s central argument, curatorial framework, and scope.
    • Identification of the curatorial questions, themes, and organizational structure.
    • Brief contextualization of the exhibition’s institutional setting, when relevant.
  3. Critical Analysis
    • Evaluation of the exhibition’s contribution to scholarly and curatorial debates.
    • Attention to the selection, presentation, and juxtaposition of objects, images, or media.
    • Analysis of exhibition design, spatial arrangement, display strategies, and interpretive materials (e.g., wall texts, catalogs, digital components).
    • Consideration of strengths, limitations, and curatorial interventions, grounded in specific examples from the exhibition.
  4. Scholarly Context and Audience
    • Situate the exhibition within relevant historiography, curatorial discourse, or interdisciplinary conversations.
    • Indicate the audiences for whom the exhibition is most meaningful (e.g., specialists, students, general publics).
    • Reflect on how the exhibition advances or complicates existing narratives in the field.

Tone and Approach
  • Personal or purely experiential language should be avoided.
  • Critique should be constructive and professional and reflect the norms of academic and curatorial discourse.

Citations and Style
  • Reviews should follow the Chicago Manual of Style (notes and bibliography).
  • Formal footnotes are generally unnecessary; references to exhibition catalogs, wall texts, or relevant scholarship can be incorporated sparingly.
  • Quotations from curatorial statements or interpretive materials should be limited.

Images
  • Images are not required for exhibition reviews.
  • If images are essential to the argument, contributors will be expected to secure permissions themselves.

Review Process
  • Exhibition reviews are reviewed by the editorial board.
  • Authors may be asked to revise their submissions in response to editorial feedback.
  • Acceptance is contingent on meeting the journal’s scholarly standards.

Submission Instructions
  • Please submit reviews as word documents (.doc or .docx)
  • Reviews should be submitted by email to [email protected] with the subject “Exhibition Review Submission”

​Questions about exhibition review submissions may be directed to [email protected].