[The PhD in Art Practice]

Yes, that's true but an MFA may be the first time a student is able to work with a group of peers who are truly committed to what they're doing. A PhD just seems like overkill. Of course I'm only referring to studio work. For art history and other paths of research I think a PhD can absolutely be worthwhile, I just question an institution's motives for implementing such a long-term studio program (smells like money).

 

I agree.  A PhD is a research degree.  While I think developing research skills is an important part of an MFA, the depth of research required for a PhD seems like a bit much for art practice.  At least in the US there is no incentive to get one since it won't offer up any new opportunities.  Post MFA, an artist has all the time they want to go into more depth on a particular project so I don't see the point in getting a PhD unless in the pursuit of that degree you will develop skills that you would need and otherwise not obtain while getting an MFA.    

[What is the consensus on reapplying to a program?]

As others have said, reapplying is fine.  I did it before (not in art) and it worked out for me.  Got into one of the top programs in that field. 

[Will Grad School cause me to drastically change my work for the sake of "concept"? I am dreading this.]

Why do art students even have to explain why they're making a particular piece of art? Art students should be free to make whatever work they want to and not have to justify it.

 

 

 

I definitely think art students should explain their work. Many of them in my classes didn't really do that. I was genuinely curious about what they were saying or trying to achieve with their work so that was kind of frustrating at times.

 

 

lol.

 

 

[Will Grad School cause me to drastically change my work for the sake of "concept"? I am dreading this.]

As for critiques being designed to make you question your work, WHY do artists need to have their  work questioned? That implies from the beginning that there's something wrong with it. Why do art students even have to explain why they're making a particular piece of art? Art students should be free to make whatever work they want to and not have to justify it.

 

WTF?!?!?!?

[Will Grad School cause me to drastically change my work for the sake of "concept"? I am dreading this.]

Yes, I have sat in on multiple professor's critiques at multiple institutions, including SAIC. I haven't attended critiques in non-US schools. However, in investigating non-US MFA programs I've gotten the impression that most of those schools have critiques as an integral part of their curriculum. As for critiques being designed to make you question your work, WHY do artists need to have their  work questioned? That implies from the beginning that there's something wrong with it. Why do art students even have to explain why they're making a particular piece of art? Art students should be free to make whatever work they want to and not have to justify it. Critiques seem like hostility towards art-making in general that actually discourages creativity rather than encouraging it. In the critiques I've attended everyone sat around with bored looks on their faces not really making strongly helpful comments to anyone and RARELY said anything positive about anyone's work. I think that's wrong. If you see positives in other students' work you should be allowed to express it. Also, there's a subtle pressure to conform instituted by the critique process. In relation to that, a few summers ago SAIC's student newspaper published a letter from a group of Jewish students attending SAIC saying that they didn't feel free to express their faith/beliefs in their artwork at SAIC. Coming from a Catholic perspective, I felt equally unwelcome to express any sort of values based on my beliefs in my artwork. The prevailing culture there tends to be against religious expression, against beauty, and leans towards a more atheist view. For example, the professor for one of my courses gave us readings that included one that was aggressively anti-Christian. In that environment, you know that putting up a painting with religious content is going to be treated with disdain at critiques, so why bother. Where is the artistic freedom?

 

You asked, "If there is no criticism, nothing to question, what then is the point of a work if it's a closed loop?" Just the act of putting the work up for display in a critique session ensures it has a point because other art students and professors see it. That in itself prevents it from being a closed loop because it has an influence on others. I think critiques should be "discussions" in which the person making the work of art talks about any areas of their work they're struggling with, gets comments on this from classmates and professors, receives suggestions for improvement where/if needed, and also receives comments on any positives of the work.

 

The current worldview of academic art leans towards atheism, dislike of beauty, dislike of order, dislike of introverted "lone-genius" artists, and denies that there is any sort of universal truth in this world. Giving assistance and help to art students isn't pandering....it's being human. Actually Montessori schools are pretty great because they encourage creative thinking.

 

 

 I'll tell you what would happen if Albrecht Durer walked through the door....everyone would tell him he's too stuck on detailed work and would tell him he needs to branch out and try something different. Then he would start making a bunch of meaningless abstract paintings, everyone would stop hassling him and another great artist would bite the dust. There was a guy in one of my SAIC classes who drew beautiful detailed imaginary landscapes in pen. Based on comments he got in critiques, he started making drab abstract works. That's the effect the class had on him so I'm sure they would do the same thing to Durer.

 

Not to sound snarky, but why exactly are you applying to MFA programs then?  It seems that engaging with art in an academic environment is not for you (which is perfectly fine).

[MFA 2014 All Art ADMISSIONS freak-out forum!!!!!!!!]

I'm noticing other people who are trying to decide what choice to make.  As a grizzled old professional, I'm telling you: you must go for the money.  Do not go into debt to get an MFA.  That might be worth it for an MD, but there's not such a clear return on investment with art professions.  If you're accepted several places, but no one gives funding, you should skip it and re-apply to other schools next year.  One possible exception might be if you're going to an in-state school with relatively low tuition.  But even in that case, you should expect some kind of assistance--a T.A. or something. 

 

Plus, these schools need to know--if they want to get good students, they have to pay for them.

I'm amazed at how much debt people here seem to be willing to go into for an art degree.  They'll never be able to pay all that money back. 

[Low Tier PhD Program in Anthropology/ Archaeology- Is it worth it?]

After loosing hope that i will get in ANYWHERE this year...i was wondering...if applied to a lower tier school next cycle, ,would it be worth it in the end. 

I want to be a researcher and secure a teaching position at a research institution eventually...those are my goals. 

I am in contact with a professor from University of Nevada Las Vegas who 's interests match mine and i fit very well with the program. But in the end, if i do this...will i ever be able to do what i want? Would any of you attend an institution that you never even heard of before? 

 

Going to a "lower tier" school isn't necessarily going to hold you back in achieving your career goals (just like going to a big name school doesn't guarantee them), but the thing to think about is why certain schools are deemed "lower tier."  Often times it is based on resources and opportunities available to students, as well as the success of its graduates and the faculty.  These all factor into how likely you will be to achieve your goals, but doesn't necessarily mean you won't if you can overcome the limitations of these programs.

 

But instead of applying to lower tier schools (and I agree with others that UNLV is not necessarily lower tier), I would suggest taking an honest look at your application.  Are your grades competitive?  How much fieldwork/lab experience do you have?  Do you have experience in the area (region/theory/method) in which you propose to do your dissertation work? Are the schools you are applying to a good fit with what you are proposing in your statement of purpose?  Do you have a firm grasp on the current thinking regarding your research interests and questions and have you clearly conveyed them in your SOP?

 

If you don't already have a master's degree, I would considering going to a master's only program first and use that as a stepping stone for getting into a top program.  I know a lot of people who have done this (many are now in TT positions) and it really can make a difference. 

[MFA 2014 All Art ADMISSIONS freak-out forum!!!!!!!!]

Greetings everyone. Who else is applying for photography and how are things going for you so far? 

 

 I've had an interview with Parsons (2/3) and have an interview with ICP-Bard (contacted 2/10) coming up. The interview with Parsons was relatively quick and painless. They asked me to explain my work, where I thought photography was going, and why I wanted to attend their program. I was a bit nervous and didn't say exactly what I had planned, but live and learn for next time.  

 

It looks like Syracuse and Cranbrook have contacted for interviews; I may be out of the books for these two if I don't hear from them soon..

 

Goodluck to us all!

 

Congrats on your interviews!  I only applied to 2 schools this round because of my life situation and got into one and assume I got rejected from the other.  Now it's the whole "let's see what funding there is" waiting game.  So maybe I'll be in a program in the fall or maybe not.  Good luck through the rest of this process!

[MFA 2014 All Art ADMISSIONS freak-out forum!!!!!!!!]

Haha I'm there. I think it was for future job opportunities and personal growth but I could be wrong. Congrats on your acceptance and good luck with whichever program you choose. Hopefully it gives you what you were looking for out a program!

 

Thanks and best of luck to you as well.  UCLA is my dream school for the MFA.  I went there as an undergrad (not in art) and would have loved to have returned there. 

[Berkeley's arrogance]

I think people are forgetting that this thread was someone's drunken, depressed rant about not getting into one of the top PhD programs in the world. It's time to stop analyzing this so much.

 

We're academics.  It's our job to overanalyze trivial things until they no longer exist in any meaningful way.

[Berkeley's arrogance]

I went to Berkeley for grad school (not for history) and have really enjoyed this thread.  I had a great time there and it is a fantastic university.  Having said that, grad school is a completely demoralizing and humiliating experience anywhere you go.  So get used to being treated like crap and having to deal with it.  The application process is nothing compared to what you will have to endure while in a program.  Also, don't get too upset about getting rejected.  The review of applications is so random anyways don't try figuring it out.  Rejection does not = you being inadequate/not good enough/a failure, etc.  Just put together the best application you can and hope for the best.

 

I am back applying to grad schools in a completely different discipline now and I am fine if I get rejected since I already know what is on the other side of being accepted. 

 

Anyways.  Good luck to you all!