Mr.X

When/how did you receive a request from RISD?

After doing some very light research, here's the dates I found for a rough feedback from the schools I've applied to. Posting them here just in case anyone who has the same or similar schools is interested.
 
Royal College of Art: Feb 15-28 (interview request)
Tyler School of Art: Feb 15-20
NYAA: March 1
SVA: March 15-20
Columbia: March 15-20
RISD: End of March
Hunter CUNY: End of March

I revert back to this when I have a lot of stress. Hope it helps a few of you on here with waiting for the inevitable:
 

I revert back to this when I have a lot of stress. Hope it helps a few of you on here with waiting for the inevitable:
 

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. 
 

How many schools is too many to apply for? I'm sitting right now at 12, and am going to pair that down to an even 10. Is that average? From what I've seen on here, it seems a bit high, but I've read about some people applying for 15+. What I'm looking at:
 
New York Academy of Art
CUNY - Hunter College
Yale
Columbia University
Royal College of Art
University College London (Slade)
RISD
Tyler*
SVA*
San Fransisco Art Institute*
CalArts*
Rutgers*
 
The ones with stars are more fringe schools....
 

Hey.
 
I've been doing some research into overseas schools, and the best ones I've found are Glasgow School of Art, University College London (Slade), Royal College of Art, and Goldsmiths. All have their various reasons. There's some information if you search the forum, as well as an article which I have uploaded here: http://www.alupton.com/files/gimgs/schooling.pdf
 
Hope that helps.