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.

I actually have a bit of familiarity with Pafa. I did the after school program for a year way back in high school which was taught by grad students and the head of the painting program. I have at least a dozen good friends who go there for all sorts of programs and I've seen 3 end of year shows (the last one I saw a month ago). The impression I've gotten from these experiences is that Pafa is a great place to learn technical instruction but it isn't as theoretical or experimental as it could be. From the conversations I've had with grad students over the years a common complaint is that Pafas faculty devote more time to undergrads than graduate students. Pafa and NYS school are also heavily observational painting schools. While that's not in of itself, it can be limiting as the practice of painting at Pafa typically revolves around placing objects in front of you or painting in en plein air. I know pafa doesn't really stress formal invention. I can't say about Boston Museum school. What do you think of Indiana University? Painters like Sangram Majumdar graduated from there and its a bit more open to variety. I agree with wm000 completely except for his point on how relevant the figure is to your practice. I think the abstract work is where you shine. The figure drawings are good, however I agree with wm000 that it would be better if you didn't include them. I read the figure drawings as preliminary work to the abstract paintings you create. It's well done but I see at least the same level of technique evidenced in your other work. Also, it is taboo at some places (mostly conceptual art schools). Your abstract work has a dreamlike quality that really speaks to me in terms of the relationship between dreams and memories. Whether consciously or unconsciously, when you wrestle with the figure it seems like you take that experience with you to your other work. It's like your attempting to resolve your experience with the figure in those abstract pieces. Gestures appear, disappear then reappear. Contour lines recall the planes of human anatomy. But there's enough looseness and improvisation to keep things ambiguous when it needs to be. I wouldn't say your work is about the human figure per se but the formal components that allow you to represent figures.

I posted this in the other thread. I too am interested in UCLA. One of the things that attracts me to this program is how seriously the faculty takes the written component of the MFA. Elsewhere it's typically a formality. I think I heard that the written supplement one has to complete to graduate from the MFA program is a minimum of 15 pages. 15 pages may seem like standard fare equal to a typical final written assignment in an undergrad humanities course, However I've typically seen that the written component is 5 or so pages. I haven't actually heard much of Columbia. All I know is that they have star faculty members. I think if your interested in sculpture, Yale may be a disappointment as the facilities are a bit limited compared to other schools. Bard college appears to be truly interdisciplinary. I read an article in the Brooklyn Rail a few months ago which discussed its MFA program. It's interdisciplinary to the extent that professors and graduate students of performing arts, creatie writing, music, acting and other creatives sit in on your critiques and offer feed back as much as the art professors. The article also mentioned that its a low residency summer only program and that the school struggles to award much in funding ti its enrolled students. I think you can find it online on the website. I'll try to pull it up later. Cranbrook is another school I'm interested in, there are no classes, grades, or professors. There are only art students and visiting artists. Despite it all the school is still considered to be among the most respected institutions. It still has departments divided into disciplines (with no interdisciplinary department), but it seems like the program encourages and invites you to draw from and incorporate other mediums in your work. Definitely a more experimental school. It seems like a very intense program with focus being emphasized on producing work thorough critiques. Students must even submit written critiques to their peers. The discussion of interdisciplinary programs also reminded me of Cooper Union. I heard a while ago that Cooper Union was developing an MFA program. It's easily the most selective undergraduate art school and has some really interesting faculty. The program is entirely interdisciplinary even at the undergraduate level. Does anyone have more info on the program/heard any news?

The bickering is disruptive and a waste of energy, I agree. I'm willing to disregard everything and move back on track. If I can do so without being accused of hating interdisciplinary programs all the better. Anyhow, I too am interested in UCLA. One of the things that attracts me to this program is how seriously the faculty takes the written component of the MFA. Elsewhere it's typically a formality. I think I heard that the written supplement one has to complete to graduate from the MFA program is a minimum of 15 pages. 15 pages may seem like standard fare equal to a typical final written assignment in an undergrad humanities course, However I've typically seen that the written component is 5 or so pages. I haven't actually heard much of Columbia. All I know is that they have star faculty members. I think if your interested in sculpture, Yale may be a disappointment as the facilities are a bit limited compared to other schools. Bard college appears to be truly interdisciplinary. I read an article in the Brooklyn Rail a few months ago which discussed its MFA program. It's interdisciplinary to the extent that professors and graduate students of performing arts, creatie writing, music, acting and other creatives sit in on your critiques and offer feed back as much as the art professors. The article also mentioned that its a low residency summer only program and that the school struggles to award much in funding ti its enrolled students. I think you can find it online on the website. I'll try to pull it up later. Cranbrook is another school I'm interested in, there are no classes, grades, or professors. There are only art students and visiting artists. Despite it all the school is still considered to be among the most respected institutions. It still has departments divided into disciplines (with no interdisciplinary department), but it seems like the program encourages and invites you to draw from and incorporate other mediums in your work. Definitely a more experimental school. It seems like a very intense program with focus being emphasized on producing work thorough critiques. Students must even submit written critiques to their peers. The discussion of interdisciplinary programs also reminded me of Cooper Union. I heard a while ago that Cooper Union was developing an MFA program. It's easily the most selective undergraduate art school and has some really interesting faculty. The program is entirely interdisciplinary even at the undergraduate level. Does anyone have more info on the program/heard any news?

I did not say that. Recap. I said, I took "painting theory" to refer to a set of problems and discussions historically developing within the discipline of painting. I also said that even at ostensibly interdisciplinary programs, sometimes one may encounter professors who go about the wrong way of critically discussing works. You...didn't seem to understand what I mean't. So I clarified my point. Then I said that these discussions with those art professors may still be insightful even if they aren't the discussions you wanted to have. When I suggested that I might have some experience, you denied me by employing a metaphysical position... Disciplines - categories are nothing more than conventions existing only to facilitate and streamline discussions. While we're on the subject of experience being colored by assumptions, have you considered that your interpretations of what I typed may be a case in point? Perhaps these slights are imagined? I never attempted to discredit the validity of interdisciplinary programs. I have no reason to. The disciplines listed in my profile are "painting" and "design", traditionally segregated fields. My post was in reaction to the fear expressed in this thread of enrolling in an "interdisciplinary" program only to find that the program really isn't that interdisciplinary. That is apparently what happened to the one who enrolled in Mica's graduate interdisciplinary program. This fear is valid when one may end up 50k+ in graduated debt from an mfa. I can't help but take this as condescending. Whereas I've explained my reasoning at every opportunity and asked you to clarify your own points, you've digressed at every opportunity. I ask you which theories of contemporary art you identify as relevant, you deflect the question by responding every theory that isn't "blatantly illogical'-which is quite a wide net if I may say so. I ask which schools offer strong interdisciplinary programs, your response is that you've already done so elsewhere - as if typing a few acronyms or copying and pasting was such a strenuous task. And just when you claim to have drafted a longer - more thoughtful - response, again you choose to digress because it was "hopeless". My patience wears only so thin. You claimed to have a highly informed opinion on contemporary art theory. You also claimed to have privileged knowledge concerning strong interdisciplinary programs. When it was suggested that you might actually contribute to this discussion by sharing your information, you averted the opportunity like the white plague. Even when you misinterpreted and distorted what I said, I disregarded it and entertained this discussion, because at one point I believed you could offer some contribution. But I refuse to be caught up in this fictional pedagogical battle your waging against me. And frankly, discrediting someone's opinion because of their username is childish. You might research the term "Ad hominem". Sorry.

How am I implying that "all artists are one dimensional and incapable of critical thinking and seeing beyond base levels of analysis"? The absolute most you can claim I'm saying is that some art professors understand "interdisciplinary" to mean "discussing works (they identify as) traditionally falling outside their disciplinary practice within the context of their discipline's problems". That statement does not imply that all artists behave this way or even that discussing work in the context of a discipline constitutes inadequate critical thinking or basic analysis. 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. And it does occur even at the most renowned institutions. Maybe you should regard as what I said as experience. Furthermore, which programs do you regard as the best programs?

Even if you disagree with all my other opinions in this post, please consider this one. I think you already have technical facility but I think where your struggling at is how your presenting the issues. I think an appropriate challenge for you would be to see how much you can communicate and obscure at the same time. That is, see how much violence and intensity you can communicate without showing/explicating it. No blood, gore, limbs, scarring. I want to see how much of the same conversation you can have by removing the shock value of it. I think the flaw I identify in your work is one where your doing the job of the viewer. That is, your framing questions but answering them as well. I don't think you should necessarily pretend as if you completely lack a political/moral stance but you should be more mindful that viewer is supposed to arrive at their own answers unaided. About the painerliness I can't help but feel that painterliness derails your message. Think of it in terms of novelists. Some novelists are concerned with conveying the story over all else, others primarily privilege how the story is told over all else. Painterliness is too concerned with how a statement is rendered to be concerned with the political realities that your attempting to explore. Imagine if James Joyce rewrote the communist manifesto. It would be too preoccupied with language games for readers to take away its political content. Another issue I have is that I am skeptical of the ability to empathize by painting in your manner. When I see your paintings and how your doing them, the first thing I think isn't "this is someone who paints to pose unsettling questions", I think "this is someone who paints for no other reason than that they simply love to paint. Now, this isn't a good or bad thing but it's a trade off. It's difficult for me to get around the suspicion I have that these paintings were simply fun for you to produce - that you enjoyed making them and handling the paint because you ultimately find the activity fulfilling. In short, painterliness is too indulgent for what your trying to communicate and I think it betrays your stated goal of trying to empathize with the victim. The sense experience one derives from painting in such a manner and the sense experience of having limbs blown off are totally incompatible. What you get out of painting isn't what they got out of becoming a casualty. Contrarily, I believe that it would be more emotionally affecting/unsettling to try to paint in such a detached manner. Both for you, who would have to wrestle with questions of empathy and for the viewer who would be unnerved by an ostensible indifference - maybe even a sense of powerlessness - to effect change. I also think it's more telling that you flatly refused to paint in such a clinical way. I think that made you uncomfortable.

Don't you think it would be helpful to identify which school of thought you qualify as relevant contemp art theory? Are you saying that all contemporary theory that is relevant is interdisciplinary/blurs traditional disciplinary boundaries - that relevant contemp art theory is postmodern? Also, you have to remember that professors still claim their programs to be interdisciplinary regardless of how truthful that claim is because (1) they themselves studied under a single discipline and thus only know how to talk about that one discipline or (2) honestly believe that interdisciplinary means talking about works they identify as alien to their chosen discipline but still attempt to alk about it in that context. I.E a sculpture professor talking about painting in the context of sculpture or a graphic design instructor discussing video in terms of graphic design instead of talking about the larger issues of language/semiotics that both disciplines share. Things like this happen even at the mos interdisciplinary programs.

I took it to be a general term to describe all the issues painting discusses (picture planes/2d space, edges, surfaces, abstraction s representation, support structures (panels/canvases) painting sans material practices, the death of painting, etc...

<quote>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.</quote> I took it to be a general term to describe all the issues painting discusses (picture planes/2d space, edges, surfaces, abstraction s representation, support structures (panels/canvases) painting sans material practices, the death of painting, etc...

It sounds like you want an interdisciplinary program. But you want to focus on photo. It' sort of a thing where you have to choose between the two. By film, do you mean cinema or fine arts film? What kind of design? Graphic design? Architecture? Industrial design? Fashion? Philosophy and creative writing means you want a University. Saic and UCLA hae interdisciplinary programs they are theory based though. Now, it seem's to me that, at least in fine art an mfa is theory based. Do you have a ba? If you don't, then it'd be better going for the bfa if technical skills is what you want.