douchamp

Yes! I found out today! im going to Skowhegan. I’m so excited.

Hey, could I ask a question or two? I didn’t get a rejection letter so I’m assuming...I didn’t get rejected. But I’m still getting anxious and overthinking because I feel it could mean I either got in or am on the waitlist. Do you you know if waitlist notifications are sent on the same day as rejections? or if they are sent on the same day as acceptances? also, do you know if people actually get off of the waitlist? Or I guess a really simple question would be if you could remember how soon they sent out notification.

It's more and more the place I want to go. The MFA program is free, that's as much as I know about funding. I still have to speak with people about working at the school during the semester for a job.

I just learned that I was accepted into the Mason gross school. Great news. I wanted to share in case people hadn't heard back from Rutgers.

Yeah, I agree. I was astounded that they ha already made up their minds the same day that they interviewed. It's refreshing. My interview was hilarious. We just basically told each other jokes and lost track of time and before we knew it— the interview was over. Most of the faculty had already said that they were really impressed by me and just wanted to get to know me in person.

I know about it up to this point. I attended the interview day last friday. Around 7pm that day, one of the faculty members approached me and said that they had already met around 5pm to select 14 candidates and had already made their decision. She told me that an admissions decision would be revealed over the weekend to Monday. I'm asking if anyone has been contacted yet.

Has anyone yet received word about an admissions decision from Rutgers' Mason Gross school?

What would be the reason to do so? We are two talking two fine art mfas (painting, sculpture, photo, Graphic design video, printmaking) right? What would be the reason for doing so as apposed to applying for a residency?

That depends on what you think. Just be honest with yourself about the quality of the work, whether you think it satisfies requirements, and if it's even that important. Though, the type of drawing I'm talking about completely excludes value. Shape and form are articulated through angles and planes. These kind of drawings are suppossed to look skeletal. Using values and contour lines to articulate structure is a bad thing in these instances. Structural form should be created through sight measuring angles, planes, and cross-contours. The idea is to give an empirical, 3d, understanding of how an object exists in space. Again, I'd draw a chair. Some of my links have paintings, so I'm sorry if that was misleading (just wanted you to be familiar with the look).

wow, that's so strange. This is for graduate school? Is it industrial design your applying for? Though it's true that competence in observational drawing is an essential foundation skill to have, it does seem like someone's just screwing with you. Anyway, my advice is google the term "analytical drawing". I'm certain that is what they are looking for. It's the traditional school of drawing that designers have had to learn. In terms of subject matter, a chair or some kind of tool would be something I would do. Basically anything that demonstrates that you can accurately sight measure planes, angles, and draw as if you can see through an object (like a skeleton). I've provided some links to demonstrate what I mean, if what I'm saying isn't all that clear. good luck http://www.sangrammajumdar.com/2010.html http://www.marlboroughfineart.com/images/35/uglo_0010fl.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3jnehQQWK5w/TkmOZEsBHuI/AAAAAAAADN8/CqQsz0nv684/s1600/1527%2Bsecond%2Bdrawing%2Bfrom%2Boriginal%2Bportrait%2Bof%2BGw%25C3%25A9na%25C3%25ABlle.JPG http://one1more2time3.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/analytic-2.jpg http://one1more2time3.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/analytic-3.jpg

I suppose there are more measures, but it would be helpful if you explained your position more, otherwise I'm more or less jumping to conclusions. How broad is your idea of technique? I don't believe you and mlk have a mutual understanding of the term technique. As an example, he's/she's come to the conclusion that you have conflated various concepts into the idea of technique. It'd be safe to say that your definition is likely broader than his/her's. Therefore, how can you disagree with his position when he probably isn't even using the term in the same sense as you are? As far as I use it, I refer to facture. How the work is constructed, (fabricated, composed, executed) is where I draw the line, for practical (communication related) purposes. Nevertheless, there are various reasons to dismiss even the broadest notions about the relationship between technique and Art depending on what conceptual models one subscribes to. Depending on how you evaluate a work according to various conceptual positions, technique becomes insignificant if the work poses no new questions, offers no art propositions, if the very premise of the work itself is fraught, if the work is literally nothing more than a technical feat/study, doesn't address how it functions in a space, impedes creativity, is "safe", symptomatic of internalizing social/institutional structures that arouse suspicion, merely contributes to commodity fetishes, uninformed and strictly derivative, formulaic (in the check-list sense) distracts from intended purposes, is masturbatory , or for a lack of better words - meaningless etc... I mean, you've never seen a technically well executed but cheesy piece of art? There are plenty of circumstances where technique does nothing to aid a work or even impedes it. Executing a piece as well as it could possibly be executed does not mean that it will be good by default. Art isn't a competitive sport where having perfect technical facilities qualifies one as a member of a group of elites (actually that goes without saying, doesn't it?). I don't think having a great concept can save a piece either. Saying such and such qualifies art as automatically good is too much like notating formulas. My overall point is that, just like how meanings in texts shift depending on who the reader is, there is a parallel to this in art. The meaning of technical facility shifts depending on who reads the piece and what conceptual models they buy into. If you follow a 16th century academic European model, obviously technical virtuosity is significant, but not so much in various other models. My position is that there is a distinction between a painting that is defined by its relationship to photography (implicitly strives for the same standards as photography) and a painting which uses photography as a basic - insignificant reference. Using photography in conjunction to observation, invention, abstraction etc is fine. If a painting cannot overcome its influence by the photograph, then its existence is redundant. Why look at a painting when you can just look at the photo reference? If the painting act is strictly a paint by numbers 1 to 1 relationship to photography, (i.e copying) then it is "closed" - even dead if it's greatest purpose is to be a replica of its reference - as there is nothing about the act that is relevant to painting. All the painting would be is an illustration made out of paint. You see, I'm not against the very idea of using photography, but against a painting practice that marginalizes painting. That's all.

Saying such and such is a not considered a great art but has perfect technique isn't contradictory. How many technically well executed Michael Bay films have been pure stinkers? Especially in fine arts, technical execution tend to factor less and less in contemporary painting (at least on the east coast) than other aspects. What has been said about copying from photographs is 100% true. And are some images that indicate a significant use of photographic references. On the other hand, I'm certain the use of "African American" Imagery is more incidental/circumstantial than anything significant. Lastly, I agree with suggestions for more focused undergraduate painting courses. I also suggest courses in contemporary art/cultural theory - and an assortment of art historical courses ranging Ancient art, the rennaissance, 17th to 19th century european art, East Asian Art, constructivism, surrealism/dadaism, architecture, abstract expressionism/other modes of abstract painting, minimalism, and post wwII art/art produced within the last few decades of the 20th century.

I was recommended an essay by a painting professor a while ago, and I finally got to read it over the thanksgiving holiday. I found it extremely relevant to the current condition of painting practice and its relationship to conceptualism. http://www.afterall.org/journal/issue.12/why.are.conceptual.artists.painting.again.because.

This is like night and day. I do have criticism for the first sentence, however. "I work from drawings of drawings of drawings" is a bit awkward and a bit confusing at first, especially for the first sentence. I totally get what your saying, but I thought it was a bit disorienting. "As I understand it, your saying in that paragraph that your drawings start as a survey - a diagram -of the empirical world, but through the process of recording other recordings over and over, representation becomes deferred. The drawings/paintings begin to talk about the nature of recording and how fiction and memory distort recordings until what is left is only that initial visceral connection whilst the diagram has been lost to oblivion. History, experience, and memories become lost in this self referential game of signifying other signifiers. What you edit out - choose to forget - becomes just as important as what you leave in" That's what I was going to post yesterday, when you posted the initial draft of what became your artist statement. There was only that first paragraph, but this is what I took from it. Reading the rest of it, I can see all the points you raise in your statements as logical growths from your first paragraph. On a whole, I'd say its much more interesting than the very first artist statement from a few days ago.

The best design mfa programs are Yale Risd Cranbrook Cal arts VCU Carnegie mellon The top four are especially at the top. Risd in particular is primarily a design school and has been consistently the best undergrad and grad GD program.