beriredux

The problems at USC Roski are ongoing. For those just tuning in or wanting to know the latest I've posted the following link to a petition (update) by the MFA class of 2015. https://www.change.org/p/dean-erica-muhl-of-usc-roski-school-of-art-and-design-must-resign-now/u/11538464?tk=zGf22GeBCnh9rCn8-TdvnOSn3kH3S0GUTuym_7JST1k&utm_source=petition_update&utm_medium=email

More on the USC Roski debacle. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/usc-roski-crisis-art-education-305429

Stuff like this is soo stressful! You've probably thought of this already, but just in case not...there should be contact info for the tech persons in charge of the application somewhere on the site. If you haven't already done so I would contact them. They can probably access the form even after the deadline passes if necessary. Hope it gets sorted out soon! Good luck.

When I had this problem last year switching to a different browser solved the problem.

I was told that these two articles http://www.brooklynrail.org/2012/12/art/figuring-it-out-bards-low-residency-mfa-program and http://www.artandeducation.net/school_watch/making-sense-is-radical-to-making-art-the-bard-mfa/ give a pretty accurate account of the Bard experience.

What Truths said. Slide descriptions are like wall tags in an exhibition.

Trying again with a different browser might work.

Vote of confidence from me! Looks great, best of luck!

Not sure about Yale, RCA and UCLA (though I'd guess yes for these programs), but certainly yes to all the others. SAIC is very interdisciplinary, as are Columbia and CalArts, and Bard specifies that your portfolio should show your best work in any medium regardless of the discipline you are applying to.

Here: http://www.art.ucla.edu/graduate/Graduate%20Portfolio%20Guidelines%202015.pdf

The application login page says: The university's professional schools (Art, Architecture, Divinity, Drama, Forestry, Law, Management, Medicine, Music, Nursing and Public Health) have separate admissions policies and application processes which are outlined within the admissions Web pages and publications of those schools. suggesting that the date on The School of Art's web page is the relevant deadline.

Just to clarify, UCSD is more of a two year program. You can stay on for three years (not uncommon) but it is structured like a two-year program and if you are international you can only get a two-year visa to attend.

Yes, it is the norm. You can submit your applications before your recommenders submit their letters.

Thanks for that. Feeling kinda swamped right now, but I hope to come back to this later. Hope everything is going well for you!

No need! It stands for Statement of Purpose.

The application is now open and is only $20 if you apply before November 23! No statement. 2 references. If you are submitting jpgs only:10 images jpgs and video: 5 images and 3 videos (2.5 min total) video only: up to 5 videos (5 min total) Application fee November 14 – November 23: $20 November 24 – December 15: $50 December 16 – January 30: $65 January 31 – February 1: $80 Good luck!

I've talked to a couple of people lately who have two MFAs and they didn't seem to have any problem getting accepted for their second one. I think that if the schools you are interested in ask their applicants to include reasons they are applying to grad school (or some such thing) in their SOP or artist statement, you could give a brief explanation of why getting the second one is important to you and how it will help you with your future plans etc. Some schools ask, others don't.

“[The subordination of the work as “art” to political-literary content] comes from a political commitment that exists prior to a creative decision. This in itself would be a normal process. The limitations appear when the creative process is dedicated only to the production of illustrations, didactically worried, and simultaneously follows the rules of the game indicated by the history of art. The didactic function requires a high percentage of redundancy, leaving little room for originality.” — Luis Camnitzer, “Contemporary Colonial Art” (1969)

Hi, I didn't end up applying last year but I started the application. Pretty sure they just wanted images (16 or so I think). Definitely no statement.

I find "dig[ging] into myself and translat[ing] the findings into words very painful! Thinking ahead is much more enjoyable as long as it stays loose and open. It stimulates work...to a point...

I wonder if emailing current students might get better results? It won't be official but my experience so far is that current students are very generous with advice and opinions.

As you point out, there are very legitimate reasons to be wary of any attempt to use art as a “tool”. The examples I gave earlier point to this. What I am exploring is a little different. It is that things in the world (humans, political systems, art work, climate etc) affect other things, to greater and lesser degrees, whether we are paying attention to them or not. So, paying attention to some of these things in our art making/doing just seems like a good idea. The argument is that in the end, indeterminate work and critique is vapid. I don’t think anyone is suggesting an end to artistic experimentation, exploration, play, etc. I think artistic practice can be directed and creative at the same time. In this way, it is both existential and political without contradiction, because it isn’t art “in the service” of politics but rather a way of thinking life (including politics etc.) through artistic practice - doing and then reflecting on what has been done. I don’t think that is over-inflating things. Art making/doing may not always be the most effective thing we can do, but it’s what we do. I want to back track a little here so that I can speak to your point about the “erroneous belief that its [art’s] primary or essential function is bearing influence on over-arching social/political opinions and actions. To be clear, I don’t think art has an essential function. I don’t want to suggest that all art should operate in a particular way, political or otherwise. Whether an artist emphasizes a concern for climate change or “internal experiences” is up to them (“themes of humanity, ceremony, life/death, identity, community, and generally the individual experience” I might add, are all pretty political :-)). I am just trying to make an argument that things do things - have affects - as well as mean things, and we should probably pay attention and see what can be done. I have no doubt that indeterminate works are a reflection of contemporary culture but which part of contemporary culture, whose contemporary culture? And is that particular expression of culture the one we want to invest with our time and energy? To what end? By questioning, at least we aren’t unwitting participants. I just came across this this morning. It’s a different articulation of some of the same things, and more. http://timotheusvermeulen.com/post/100084961566/cher-potter-talks-to-timotheus-vermeulen

OMG, a very (funny *sad* typical) Warhol moment!! To clarify (I hope): It isn’t that discourse has been ineffectual - it is important and has done a lot - it’s just that discourse alone doesn’t seem to be having the kind of effects originally hoped for. Worse than that though, I’m suggesting (but really, so far, I’m just exploring ideas - thank you for your indulgence :-)) that theory tacked on to work for the purposes of legitimation, works against its emancipatory potential, and with oppressive regimes of capital. A system that encourages and rewards indeterminate artwork trivializes the work of art (and artists). If artwork can mean anything to anyone, why make the work? If we’re doing work because it is enjoyable, let’s make the doing matter - focus more on what art work actually does and what it can be made to do. I think artists and others in the humanities have always taken on social, political and ethical concerns. However over the last 200 or so years, we seem to have placed all our eggs are in one (discursive) basket. The rut we are in (where we have allowed ourselves to be lulled into complacent acceptance of the status quo, with no end in sight), in effect, promotes the dominant order - despite the existence of an overwhelming amount of compelling critical discourse. Art (in its aesthetic mode) has often been put to use - particularly as spectacle - in religion, the monarchy, colonialism, French Revolution (Jacques-Louis David’s paintings, parades and pedestals), Nazi propaganda (parades and architecture), capitalism (everywhere) - and has been very effective! Discourse (Kant seems to have been very influential here), as an emancipatory tool, developed through, around and in reaction to these things. Yes, art has been used and abused constantly! Ideologies don’t make people do things - they do, of course, influence actions - but people often behave differently than their ideologies would suggest. Ideologies accrue power through real physical means interpreted through trauma, insecurities, violence etc. Re-examining and re-writing ideologies, while important, generally points back to discourse (again, really important!), when the physical realities of people’s lives, the planet, economy etc. are in such urgent need of a change in direction. I don’t think we can afford (socially, politically, environmentally, ethically) to go on acting as if art exists in a bubble. Art and life are deeply entangled and I think the work of art has a lot to offer. :-)

Hi Jonsuit from [ah-ken-swah] :-)! Sorry to take so long, I just saw your response this morning. Yay, thanks! A discussion about representation and abstraction seems to be a-brewing in a far off corner of “the art world”, not in terms of their aesthetic concerns, but in response to pressing social, political and ethical crises. You are right, of course, it is a big topic! In terms of “the system” I guess I actually mean “systems” (plural). I don’t think there is one overarching administrative structure - I think there are many smaller entangled systems (critical, historical, economic, etc. in, around and out of, the art world), often in conflict with one another, and often blind to the other’s concerns. If, as artists, we feel powerless (as I think we often do), it might be useful to re-consider the characteristics of systems in general (of course, artists have been looking at systems since the 70’s - maybe earlier - and many still do): what are they? and how can they be disrupted or even in some cases, destroyed?…thinking about entropy - dis-organization…I mean, things die all the time! What are the physical conditions in which a system can no longer maintain itself? I think the difference that is being proposed by some today comes from a frustration with the limitations of tools of discourse and theory alone - in the humanities in general. Despite compelling critiques of the dominant social order, things have failed to change in any really significant way. Discourse and theory have been important emancipatory tools, but we seem to be caught in some kind of endless loop (or rut) where discourse and theory just feed the systems that hold us under their sway - Are they still the best tools - on their own? What others do we need? What else can we do? I think the question is not about the views of particular ideologies, but rather how they behave and what do those behaviours produce. Cheers! *A correction to my post above: “I also [ ] think we shouldn’t conflate…” (instead of the double negative I wrote :-))

I’m starting a thread on this topic because it became clear here: that this was something I wanted to talk about. Further to what I said there, I don’t think that a debate around representation/non-representation is specific to painting and drawing - it is, I believe, a general concern of art in relation to what is going on in the world. I also don’t think we shouldn't conflate a discussion about contemporary art with one about representation. Terms like representation, contemporary art, and art can be contentious - depending on the participants - so some kind of care needs to be taken to distinguish between them, particularly because distinctions we take for granted are often (sometimes?) the ones we need to examine the most. A discussion about ‘the genre of contemporary art’ (whether it is indeed a 'genre') is, I believe, a political one about making a move out of a perceived rut of indeterminancy, in which we are unwittingly conspiring with 'the system'.