aschelp

usc, university of chicago, northwestern, ucsd, cornell, and stanford all offer substantial funding and are interdisciplinary.

contradictions and manipulations abound. im not dodging anything - just exhausted by rhetoric. you can click on page 103 to view institution names. ad hominem lolol - theres something else called "sarcasm," might also be a term to 'research.'

"douch(e)amp" ..... i see what youre getting at there... its all very clear now

the banter has gone from 'litigious' to patronizing - "Discussing the works of one discipline in the terms of another may be an incorrect approach and do the work in question no justice but it doesn't imply a superficial analysis either." give me a break. I'm not going to regard what you say as valid experience, because even experience can be flush with assumptions (actually, its prone to them) - which you clearly have in writing statements about mediums remaining in their own exclusive theory, rendering individuals outside of that theory incapable of recognizing and speaking to it. im sure there are a few professors throughout the country within interdisciplinary programs who can only speak to the vernacular of a specific medium they were 'trained' in, but to use that as a crutch to discredit or question the idea of 'interdisciplinary program' is absolutely ridiculous. for every one professor that fits your description in i.d. programs, there are 5+ that dont. i wrote out a long response, but realized afterwards how hopeless it was. i'll just digress. (also, ive already written down a few of the programs i consider worthwhile)

lol ok, so i definitely dont mean to say ALL interdisciplinary programs fit this model im championing. its a select group. MICA offers like 10 different MFAs or something (including degrees in segregated traditional mediums)... the interdisciplinary programs im referring to have a single MFA degree in a larger academic institution and dont thrive by spitting out 60+ graduates a year. i agree that 'interdisciplinary' is feigned at MICA and other places, especially art-specific schools. sure - any school of thought whose ideology hasnt been exposed as blatantly illogical. no. im saying that the modern day MFA program should not concern itself with medium segregation - and the ones that do are antithetical to a relevant master's level eduction in contemp visual arts. some postmodern concepts are still relevant, sure. no, im not saying that the only relevant theory is of a postmodern bent. i couldnt disagree more. youre basically implying that all artists are one-dimensional and incapable of critical thinking and seeing beyond base levels of analysis. theres a reason the good interdisciplinary programs are housed in some of the world's best universities. the faculties are diverse and the vast majority of professors are interdisciplinary artists themselves or contribute to art theory/criticism in multiple genres...

... are we talking about 1950 or 2013? any painting concepts that are still applicable today are applicable to most/all media, hence the advent of in-touch programs without media-distinction. my point was that being concerned about having to talk about 'painting theory' in an interdisciplinary program is like worrying that there's meat in your dish at a vegan restaurant. sorry for the misunderstanding - maybe i was being facetious. im not saying that 'painting theory' doesnt exist (because it does at places like yale and vcu), im saying it doesnt exist autonomously in relevant contemp art theory.

when i said "economic," i wasnt implying financials. your undergrad program might be a bit confused. im pretty well-versed in contemp art theory, and ive never heard of 'painting theory' as an autonomous thing - is it some sort of formal venture? or does it refer to re(-)presentation? if the former, no self-respecting interdisciplinary program will be involved with that. if the latter, thats a wide-ranging concept that applies to all media. ahhh, sorry, got a different vibe in the interdisciplinary thread. there are amazing people and programs at: columbia, usc, university of chicago, northwestern, ucsd, and carnegie mellon (among others). but most are much smaller (besides columbia) and uninterested in pandering to lists. i wouldnt apply to interdisciplinary programs if youre looking to adapt material tricks, though.

it doesnt matter unless you have something really impressive. then it will help.

oh, also, no interdisciplinary program is going to be more focused on practical/technical things than it is on theory and critical intellect.

teaching jobs are are usually granted to people from 'top' programs and/or top academic institutions that may or may not have a program ranked on the (extremely stupid and misleading) us news lists. if youre banking on teaching in academia afterwards, you might want to look into how incredibly unlikely it is for ANY new mfa to receive a position. your criteria leads me to believe you should be at a university that allows you to take courses outside of your program. look into: usc, university of chicago, northwestern, cornell, yale, columbia, stanford, carnegie mellon, bard, upenn. if any are photo-heavy, youll probably have to inquire directly. from my experience, interdisciplinary programs adopt interdisciplinary models for a reason (and that reason is not to be photo-heavy)... most will have photographers on their faculty.

id also like to throw this into the conversation: the art world is saturated with people from programs like yale, vcu, and saic, which spit out 60+ MFA's a year. if only from a statistical/economic standpoint, it might be an advantage for us newly applying MFA's to pick well-regarded programs that graduate a more manageable # of students.

hey agrobaby, just asked a question in the interdisciplinary thread that i found the answer to right here -- ignore that. if you plan on pursuing interdisciplinary work, why are you focusing on segregated programs (if i may ask)? there are a decent amount of really great (and equally competitive) schools that want you to make work as 'visual art' rather than 'sculpture' or 'performance'... yale, vcu, and saic not included. also, IMO, chicago > anywhere thats not LA or the northeast

i plan on applying to: usc, university of chicago, and northwestern. some other good ones that are too expensive or arent right for me: columbia, carnegie mellon, stanford, cornell

Thanks!! That's the hunch I've had from looking into it, just wanted to hear from someone who's been to all 3. 2 weeks in Bejing? sweeeeeet

Hey honeycleaner - whats your take on University of Chicago? Im applying to programs next year (UofC, Yale, and Columbia as well) and am wondering how you see UofC in regards to the other two (assuming youve visited all 3)?