kewpies

i posted this before, but maybe its too far back in the thread.
anyway, i was accepted at columbia, i was called by gregory this past saturday. i can't remember if he said 6 or 9 painters were accepted.

What a great idea for a thread!

I feel strongly about issues surrounding new and emerging models of master's programs because they dictated my search for a grad school from the beginning. Coming out of UG I had a very diverse outlook: I wanted to make work, and write, and curate, and do research. I had taken classes in everything from the full slate of studio art curriculum to digital arts, art history, art criticism, humanities, psychology, linguistics, women's studies, etc., and I wanted to keep up the same rate of inquiry in grad school.

When I started looking at grad programs, I got frustrated with the "classic MFA model." I didn't want to declare allegiance to one medium, or even one field of working. I don't consider myself a photographer, or a painter, or a sculptor. Hell I don't even like saying "I'm an artist." I prefer to say, "I'm a thinker, I make art to help me think and figure things out." I started to bemoan my lack of focus, and worried I wasn't cut out for grad school - especially daunting since I wasn't cut out for the job market either.

Then, I started stumbling across programs that encouraged the type of thinking I like to indulge in. Cross-disciplinary and academic, with an eye towards investigation and awe. Then I found MIT and couldn't believe it; their graduates had what I can only describe as "grown-up" versions of my own CV, with idea-based (rather than medium-based) bodies of work. When I read the line in their promotional literature, "we see art making as the creation of knowledge" I was hooked.

Short version: KEEP LOOKING for programs tailored to what YOU want to do. There are so many different programs out there, NEVER settle for what you think someone else is expecting of you.

it feels fairly obvious that you're painting from a photograph; and while using a photograph as a source isn't bad, you're not doing anything terribly interesting with paint itself either. there's also very little dialogue about space and composition. you kind of slam your figure in the foreground and then there's not much else to the painting. you seem to genuinely enjoy painting, but think of what interests you, what your aesthetics are, how to communicate your ideas in perhaps a less obvious way.

sorry if that's harsh

My general lack of optimism is my worst weakness. I have already thought of a plan B if I don't get in and plan C if plan B does not work. I am even thinking of a plan D in case plans A, B, and C don't work.

Who knows...I might have even absentmindedly written,"Please just give me my rejection letter now instead of waiting until April" in my SOP.

I'll bite.

I'm applying to a science writing program. Introductory biology is the only science class I've taken since high school. I think I must have been on crack when I decided this was a good idea.

Inspired by the "positives thread" I thought we could have a little competition here. First, this is not to list ALL the things that (you think) are weaknesses. List THE most comically terrible element of your application and see if anyone can "top" it...