davidn

I went! I'll post my experiences for the benefit of others. I found plenty on what to expect from undergraduate portfolio review days but nothing on mfa review days. Hopefully this helps some one out somewhere down the line. First off, I never went to an undergrad portfolio review day so I can't compare/contrast. The review day at SAIC started at 10. I got there around 9:50 and there was a bit of a line (maybe 100 people). Went to a table, registered, and got a map of the venue. Different schools were in different rooms of one of SAIC's art classroom buildings. I brought ~20 8"x10" photographs of my work (primarily a sculptor) in little page protectors w/ title, materials, and size lables in a binder. I also had my statement in there but only one reviewer read it. I also brought one smaller real life example of my sculpture, which honestly felt kinda goofy, though some reviewers liked to see it. What people brought as far as documentation is concerned ran the gamut. Some people brought those big portfolio bags with (presumably) actual 2D work, TONS of people had work on ipads/laptops/what have you, photographers seemed to have, you guessed it, photos, and at least one dude was pulling around a wagon with some sort of sculpture in it. Also, plenty of people seemed to be there for non studio masters programs (M.Arch., MEd, etc.). The program ran til 2 (4 hours total, seems standard) and I managed to talk to 5 schools and wasn't all rushing around and stuff. It honestly didn't feel that crowded. Some of the popular schools had a wait time, but plenty you just walked right on up to. Most reviews started with an opportunity for you to ask questions to the reviewers. The reviewers weren't just random people that the admissions office had at their disposal (I've even heard they just use rando alums for the ug portfolio days). I spoke to several professors and a program director even. I ran into a friend of mine who now works in admissions for a respected west coast school and said that they specifically sent him b/c he has an MFA. So these are smart people here to look at your work. How awesome is that. It seems like the best way for me to break down my experience at this point is to go school by school. #1) Oregon College of Art and Craft-- I went here first to talk about a specific program that they offer in conjunction with Pacific Northwest College of Art, an MFA in applied craft and design that includes some off beat things like learning how to market yourself outside of the fine art/ gallery circuit. The guy there was the program director. We had a great chat about the program and he gave me some good feedback on my portfolio but nothing too exciting. I ended up feeling like I wont apply to the program because its not what I'm looking for, but I really think the program sounds awesome especially for those invested in making as well as in community building/social practice/ solving problems. Really was a great conversation with an interesting man and at very least saves me the hassle and $$ of investing in applying to a program that isn't a good fit. #2) Virginia Commonwealth Univ.-- Had to wait a bit to talk to someone here. Nothing too crazy, about 20-30 mins. I first asked the reviewer about the differences between the sculpture and craft programs and then we segued into a portfolio review to asses where he thought I/my work might best fit in. The quality of the portfolio review was pretty solid, but didn't really get into critique level. I got some great advice on things I should do to my portfolio to bolster my chances (better documentation!-- thx Office Depot for your shitty prints!) and a single interesting idea to think though in my work but didn't really have an opportunity to really discuss my work (I got a bit tongue tied when I was asked some serious questions). I really wish the reviewer here read my statement, I'm much better at writing than off the cuff talking. That being said when he asked me a question, I was too nervous to direct him to my statement. #3) RISD-- Waited an ungodly amount of time here, definitely over an hour. Uber lame review. The big takeaway from it was to have more sketches on not focus on having complete objects. Fine. But if I only have 15-20 images to show a freakin graduate program what I'm thinking and making, you had better damn well bet those images are gonna be as full and fleshed out as I can make them. Also, half way through my portfolio he asked me a question about what a piece was made out of, despite the fact that there was a sticker with that information on it (along with titles and size, pretty important things to consider IMO) right on the image. Even more troubling is that the material in question (leather) figures hugely into my work and he didn't bother to consider that for the first half dozen images. Sour taste from RISD all around. #4) MICA-- Fucking awesome. I was asked what my medium was, I said sculpture, and was seated right away with a sculpture dude. (Sorry all you painters waiting in line!) What followed was essentially a critique. He read my statement, asked me questions, identified themes, etc. He even found another facet of a sort-of a conflict in my work vis a vis my statement that I've been thinking about. Really, really awesome. The first time in over a year I've had someone with whom I am not familiar with talk with me in a serious way about my art. We talked for at least 40 minutes, probably longer. I got new things to think about and also got some questions answered about MICAs programs, totally on the list now! #5) Pacific North West College of Art-- I only had about ten minutes on the clock after talking with MICA so I quick ran up to PNCA just to hear their side of the story about the applied craft and design MFA. Ended up having another good chat and after they checked out my portfolio, confirmed that the applied c&d program wasn't a good fit. I felt like they were giving me a bit of a hard sell on PNCA's interdisciplinary MFA program, but it sounded interesting and they gave me the names of a couple artists affiliated the program that I looked into and quite like. We ended up talking a quarter of an hour or so past closing, which was nice. Might apply there. So as a summary, the portfolio day is a terrific resource. Use it to get specific questions answered about programs. Most importantly, how many times do you get the opportunity to discuss your body of work with a complete stranger who gets contemporary art?! At least for me... um never? I'm totally gonna be sneaking into these after I've completed an MFA program heheh. I wouldn't stress too much about documentation. I was told that I will definitely need to step it up as far as that goes when it actually comes time to apply, but at no point did my sub par Office Depot prints seem top be hindrance in the moment. Also, just stay away from RISD. Totally kidding, but I do wish that instead of waiting around a ton for RISD I had just gone to a few less popular schools, even ones I had no interest in attending, and just had more feed back on my work, not necessarily for the purposes of applying, but for the purposes of growing as an artist. Also brochures. You get brochures to read while you sit on the train, fall asleep, or go to the bathroom. I love brochures. Hope this helps someone out one day.

Hi all, First time posting. I'm thinking of applying this round for admission in fall of 2014, but I might wait it out a bit. I've only been out of school one year and was only really an art student for just over a year at school. I was transfer student to University of Chicago and wasn't planning on a visual arts BA (not BFA) but sort of fell into the program and realized how to sync my love of making with my love of ideas and call it contemporary art. Anyhow, my website is www.davidnasca.com. My statement is: "In our age of queer acceptance, when mainstream activism is focused on normativity and disidentification with the far left, I’ve found a particular locus of frustration with my own identity and biology. As a gay man, I am incapable of reproduction. I am trying, and will always be failing, in my art to affect this condition. In some ways, I see my art as activist art fighting against the hegemony of science and biology, forces I see as great, unchallenged oppressors of queers today. We’ve gone from “explaining out” homosexuality via moral grounds, to ways of “explaining in” homosexuality via science. Society refuses to let sexuality just be. I believe that science cannot access our attractions, orgasms, and affective bonds, that a gene cannot explain homosexuality, that psychology can’t explain why we want to be tied up, and that while sexual reproduction can explain the process of evolution, evolution cannot explain the origins of sexuality. I want to stake the ground in this scientific lacuna, and make a new resting point for queer identities. My making is my way of reproducing myself in the world. Each object I make is a physical and sensual act: I pierce, stitch, mold, and stuff myself into my work. I see my making as one side of a collaboration with fantasy. My objects are a way for me to realize fantasies, either my own or others’, in three dimensions. In this way they become fetish objects, ways of accessing what we normally cannot. Often, I seek to engage my audience in collaboration, inviting them to rest upon, use, or otherwise violate a work’s status as an art object. In these ways, my work becomes a site of not only contemplation, but bonding as well. I often work with leather because of its myriad cultural valences; it is a material often eroticized, coveted, and associated with particular uses, allowing me to draw in these connotations. Leather also quite literally contains the visceral; it is a material with the ability to both entice and disgust. This quality makes it especially suited to exploring sexuality: that inexplicable force that perpetuates us, drives us to sadness, love, creation, elation; that which vacillates between condemnation and celebration; that fundamental of humanity which science, society, and politics seek to explain, to regulate, to legislate, but not to engage." I'd love any feedback! Like I said, I'm not sure if this is the year for me but I might apply to a few schools to feel it out. I just wish it all wasn't so damn expensive... Schools that I'm interested in are VCU (crafts-fiber), MICA (sculpture), Hunter, Yale (sculpture), and I am researching more. I'm trying to balance finding a program where student work has a high level of finish (VCU, MICA) with finding a program with very strong non-art academic offerings (ie Yale). I found I benefited tremendously in my art making from my academic classes as an undergrad (esp queer theory classes) and have been missing this sort of stimulation outside of school. That being said, I'm very invested in making objects, and making them well (I hope). I was pushed in directions to make my work sloppier in some ways at UChicago (pretty theory/concept heavy dept.) and I don't want to have to defend what I want to do in grad school. I'm worried a program like Yale might be similar. Any suggestions? Thanks in advance!