jackthecrow

haha..wow, that's the second new account made in a day just to tout Columbia over Yale, you guys must really love Columbia for you to make new forum accounts just to do so...interesting... @rachelgold: Kidding aside, I actually go to Yale so my input is biased. If I were you, I would just go with which ever gives you the best funding. So, probably Yale, haha.

As discussed in the Student Finance thread, Yale is need blind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need-blind_admission), meaning your ability to pay tuition will not effect your status of admission and more importantly -- if you can't pay tuition, you won't pay tuition. Personally, they virtually waived my tuition, and I know this is true for a lot of the students -- so In my case, it actually became the best financial choice. In regards to your comment regarding coming down "to how good your work is and the value/intensity/mentorship of the interactions you have with your faculty and peers," well...yes, this is true regardless of which institution you attend. No school will guarantee success, Yale, Columbia or otherwise. That being said, it's still a damn fine school with some of the best resources in the country...so you could do a lot worse. @Honey, I'll PM you in a bit, maybe I can answer/follow up on some of your questions.

I can't say much for the other schools (since obviously I don't attend them), but Yale's been awesome for me so far...I don't know if that helps anyone's decision much. But, congrats to those of you who've been accepted and hopefully I will see y'all next year.

Yale is a "need blind" institution (http://en.wikipedia....blind_admission), so they accept regardless of the student's ability to pay -- it is also standard policy that they provide financial aid to what ever it is you are lacking. When accepted, you will have to provide in-depth tax reports from you and your parents regardless of the student's age -- to see if you qualify for FA. So the question really isn't really "how often," rather its "do you qualify?" Here is Outwest's excellent 2012 guide to schools who provide financial aid:

break the ice and start the 2013 freak out thread!! cheers!

he didn't say it doesn't stand out, he said it doesn't stand out alone.

i won't attempt to answer for MWebster, but I will chime in. No, those statements do not contradict. The term you specified as 'craft,' (which I will assume you meant as the ability to render an image), is only a small part of the process in his subject -- a larger part (as per our Saltz conversation) is his convergence between his chosen language (painting, installation, mixed media, whatever) and themes -- many of which are complex (some may even say vague)...so when M-web states that "he engages the history of painting and photo..etc.." he means Richter does not simply accomplish this because he illustrates a picture that tells a narrative, he does so with various angles which may or may not be image driven (or even painting) there is also a difference between the statement of why everyone else reveres Richter and why you revere Richter. Also, if your revery for him stems from his laborious process of image making (which he himself claims isn't very special or skillful at all since most of the time he simply takes photos and projects them into his canvas using a projector and copies and/or smears them), then do you just discount his work that deals with pigments of paint simply smeared on a photo? what of his installations? and did you further ignore his work that deals with non-specific imagery and abstraction...which is probably of even a greater body than his photo-based works? But enough about Richter..lets move on to your dialogue.. when you state "The gestural fetus talks less about the individual identity of the fetus itself, and more about the fetus as a whole," why does this very general "expressionist" view on abstraction supersede other types of abstraction? what is your line of demarcation of abstraction, or do you have one? You've seem to have thrown in Abstract Expressionism, which in itself is a very complex subject -- since it doesn't sincerely have a unique type of mark making that would equate it as an official style; rather, the term "abstract expressionism" is sort of the label people call work coming from a certain time period from a specific location (i.e. New York/USA). so you would have to be more precise with your terms...and probably art history. But anyway, we can go on and on...and I guess you could fully explain your work in greater detail--but I think what the others are suggesting in regards to you taking more time to really mature is the fact that they may mean for you to expand your experiences in the contemporary art world a bit more, so you have a more specific understanding of your work as well as others in your field. I understand your great interest in the painting tradition, and it just feels that you may also benefit from schools that share your same viewpoints (aforementioned PAFA, NYAA, LCAD...etc) but seem to have ignored.

Yeah...no. Richter's "technical ability" is not why he is revered. The quote where you paraphrased: "not be talking about anything at all" sounds like something he said in an interview in Robert Storr's book Gerhardt Richter: Doubt and Belief in Painting (sorry, I'm too lazy to find the page)-- which if you have not read, I suggest you do -- because it will have some information regarding the complexities and themes of Richter's work. He is also known to say things just to throw off critics, so keep that in mind. I also suggest, If you ever interview at Yale (a school in which the dean happens to be the man responsible for virtually introducing Richter's work to these United States) and you mention Gerhardt Richter, you best stay away from such generalities as his "technical skill" and have a more in depth approach to statements regarding his work. Perhaps you're looking at Phale's question's the wrong way. What does it mean to be able to "paint?" Does your painting have value outside technical skill or is the value the skill itself? It seems to me that this whole time the discussion has focused on the fact that you place some great importance in representation, but there hasn't been any mention of why this is important to your thesis regarding life in the womb and why is it do you consider yourself and expressionist? How do you tie method and message together? or does it matter to you if you do? Judging from from your responses, you have put a lot of emphasis on the "skill" of painting, which definitely is not a bad thing...but I think the significance you place in it may have you be suited towards other great schools not named Yale, such as PAFA or the New York Academy and the like. Or not, who knows...Yale's taste is varied.

Indeed, I can see how Saltz's word choice can lead to an argument of semantics...I thought of the same thing when I read it...and I'm sure technique and skill are still interchangeable most times. But, judging from the first part of the quote, I think he defines "skill" in this sense as the' tool set' (experience, expertise, etc) an artist gains in during his "education." I took his statement much like you did -- I think the crux of his interest stems from an artist's proficiency, not in terms purely of skill, but the utilization, or at times deconstruction and re appropriation of an artists learned skill. So skill itself isn't formally directed towards those that can render in an illustrative sense, but basically the vocabulary we use to inform our work (such as a minimalist's effective choice of color and space very much dictates skill). But I could also be totally off..eh. Or maybe there's even more to it...I guess I should find the whole article. But anyway, regardless of how you interpret it, my point in including the quote is to raise (or at least rephrase the question) of what it means to have a successful painting. Because when you asked if it helps having a background in illustration and 3d modeling, It's hard to answer yes or no..simply because it's sometimes both. While the obvious answer is "yes," since you clearly have great interest in representation, it becomes more complex because there's simply more to it. Can you give us more information regarding your current focus? I do agree with you, your work seems to be very varied...and others have also stated the importance of cohesion -- but I'd like to add that perhaps one of the most important aspects is conceptual cohesion/direction, and not simply aesthetic cohesion (which more or less, you may not even need). 'hope that helps.

I'm not at all dismissing the notion of 'skill,' and I certainly didn't say representation is uninteresting -- I'm simply implying that you've made some comments and questions regarding 'skill' in terms of illustration and representation -- so I wanted to give a general view point of how it may help and/or hurt what you are trying to do with your work. I also threw in Saltz's statement of skill vs technical proficiency just to possibly give an added perspective to the mix, or at least another voice in the dialogue. So please don't take my comment as an insult or dismissal of "representational" or "skillful painting," I just wanted to question what it meant to be "skillful." If it means anything, I myself have also have BFA in illustration from an already very illustrative school, so maybe I can relate to your problems in some way in terms of painting proficiency (and the meaning thereof). I'm also curious on your meaning of "how they've done, what they've done," do you mean how said artists technically construct a painting?

I agree with this 100%. You really have to stay true with a body of work and not attempt to cater to a school's taste (not that some schools have one in particular...but many do). As for illustration and 3d modelling; your focus on representational strength can help, but it can also hurt. A focus on a certain craft or technique may deter viewers from a certain concept -- so while it doesn't hurt to know certain tools, application of such would probably fall under the 'use if needed' basis (which probably goes for everything..I guess :|). I thought critic Jerry Saltz said something interesting in Artnet, stating: "All great contemporary artists, schooled or not, are essentially self-taught and are de-skilling like crazy. I don't look for skill in art...Skill has nothing to do with technical proficiency... I'm interested in people who rethink skill, who redefine or reimagine it: an engineer, say, who builds rockets from rocks." Anyway...I totally forgot where I was going with this -- but going back to what mwebster said, don't worry about what a certain school is looking for because we really don't know what the criteria for admission are and it changes every year. Just work hard and have some conviction, and you'll be fine -- Yale or not.

here's a database of searchable apartment reviews : http://www.apartmentratings.com/ especially useful for researching non-local areas...

pretty interesting video...seems like you'll be in a good place in regards to your art. good luck!

awesome news! I've always wondered about their program. what's the funding and facilities like?

I would say go ahead and try.. I mean...doesn't hurt to ask, right? I'm guessing the worst that could happen is that they don't give you the info.