mlk

The faculty at Rutgers is a million times better and it's reputation and ny gallery presence is also better but worth $17000? I don't know. I think both schools are good choices. Not having student debt is so important these days.

in my opinion, go to brooklyn college pratt's reputation and its student body are not superior enough to brooklyn college's to merit paying extra money

Sorry to hear that- Did anyone else hear?

I went to the open studios. There were a lot of students. Some of them were not so great and some of them were pretty good. The facilities were pretty nice - a lot of the studios are shared but many of them have huge windows and are pretty big. I have had many friends who have gone there and none of them have complained about the size of the program or the inaccessibility of the professors. There were plenty of traditional painters (abstract and figurative) there so the interdisciplinary aspect of the program should not be a concern. Hunter has produced the most interesting and well-known artists of all three schools (that is, the most interesting artists who got their MFAs there) and has the most interesting faculty. But it is unlikely that you will get as much one on one time due to the size. I did not choose to attend Hunter for that reason. But I would choose it over MICA and Temple due to its reputation and the quality of many of its graduates. I think Ismewild's advice is appropriate. I know I'm being a snob but it just seems like MICA and Temple have not produced any particularly notable painters. No amount of hypothetical teacher interaction can mitigate that fact in my eyes. I'd rather bet on more independently fostering my own talent at a better school amongst more talented peers than being more intimately mentored by professors whose guidance has otherwise not generated much of an alumni presence in the art world.

what bad things have you heard about hunter?

just accepted one of my three second choice schools (got rejected from the first - Columbia) THE PROCESS IS OVER... and I am not ending up where I expected or hoped to be... but I am very excited nonetheless! good luck everyone! I believe in you all!

GO TO SMFA in my humble opinion

I don't think hunter has a lot of funding as it is part of the cuny system and therefore has less money to spend on scholarships. plus it is already pretty inexpensive... I could be wrong though.

hunter acceptance for painting via e-mail

I got accepted to nyu about a week ago but they said that they had not notified everyone.

Ignorant of what? Ignorant of the complexities of art and of meaning and the predication of meaning... there is, as you yourself say, obviously no secret formula to making good art, so anyone who is dogmatically supposing otherwise is ignorant of that fairly obvious fact.

any student you are in a class with who says "I don't give a shit" and speaks in general statements or platitudes like "beauty isn't popular in art right now" is being plain ignorant. just as you are figuring out how to deal with your differences in identity from your peers, he or she is testing out philosophical credos and pretensions of knowing it all - probably not with bad intentions but unfortunately with ill effects (i.e. not being helpful to you in a critique). next time someone says "I don't give a shit" you say "try using your mind for one second before and force yourself to meet the work halfway. perhaps you might learn something yourself." students are idiots. trust me. I have been at an ivy league school for a masters (not in art), a VERY liberal liberal arts school for my ba and studied at an art school in between. ALL students are grappling with so much knowledge and differences in ways of thinking that it becomes difficult for them not to be reactionary. rise above that (and above 0000). stand your ground, but be patient, thoughtful and generous. I believe there is catholic term for that: forbearance.

People who don't feel "comfortable" expressing their views in an institutional environment need to prioritize their desire to grow as artists versus their desire to be treated "respectfully" by their idiot classmates and dogmatic professors. The art that I have made with gay themes in it has been met with blank stares, misunderstanding, outright criticism and ignorance inflected with homophobia. It was difficult to process the responses but the one thing I tried never to do was get jaded about the difference that created this rift between me and my audience. I don't expect my art to be appreciated because I am gay, and I have come to expect people to find it once more removed from their frame of reference. But attempting to bridge that gap, or deciding to be solipsistic, are decisions that need to be made thoughtfully as your practice grows. Sometimes those obstacles are the very things that inspire one's art. I sympathize with you having to read anti-christian texts in your class - but you cannot play the victim here, especially not in a graduate school context. Find out who the pre-eminent religious scholars are (art historians like Louis Marin, Lyotard, Derrida and surely loads more have a lot of smart things to say about Christian theology's relationship to philosophy), read them, and bring up their material in class. If your professor does not accept that, respectfully and humbly bring it up to the head of the department in the name of pluralism. Against religious expression? That probably means against art that retreads the religious iconography and content of the 15th through 19th century. Or art that is merely illustrative of Christianity. Having religious content does not exempt art from having to be good - that is, being unique, using materials in an interesting way, being unusual. I am POSITIVE that any artist who came from a spiritual standpoint and made interesting religious art about it would be welcomed, if not tokenized and overcelebrated. Think of Marc Chagall. The problem is that more often than not religious artists fixate on the religious content of their work as a substitute for intellectual and emotional complexity. It sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder and you are being lazy about asserting your own unique identity to the degree that is necessary to get recognized. Stop blaming the art world. It is just as homophobic (ever heard of anti-decorative?) as it is anti-religious and getting over that fact has only made me a better, stronger and more autonomous artist. Moreover, it is true that the art world is totally ridiculous and favors horrible artists but we could all just as well name tons of examples of artists who are making beautiful, spiritual, orderly works. Find some CONTEMPORARY examples that inspire you and try to figure out what is making them stand out. And stop starving for the approval of your peers. Use your critiques to challenge them and force them to speak thoughtfully about your work rather than letting them be idly anti-religious. It is fair to expect your peers to have an open mind and you are allowed to demand that.

Anyone interview/hear from nyu?

yale decisions are up I got WAITLISTED @#$!@#%#%@#$%@#$%@#

the whitney independent studio is very competitive and for artists working at a highly theoretical level. most people there already have their MFAs or have been working as artists for a while. it's very conceptual and not at all geared towards object making. the two people I knew who did it already graduated from columbia years and years back - one of whom was teaching undergraduates at columbia. never say never, of course, but I think if you are not getting accepted to MFA programs you should not apply to the Whitney ISP.

I heard on saturday for painting but the woman on the phone made it very clear that everyone had not been notified yet. I think they are staggering admissions. I don't know why.

hunter rutgers uic vcu ucla I have friends whose art I like that are scattered around the uc schools aside from ucla indiana bloomington if you are a super figurative realist painter I hear good things about u t austin I'm sure there are others

Just got a nice and personal phone call from Stephan westfall from Rutgers accepting me for painting

My friend got into ucla painting already... I think they've already contacted. I called Rutgers yesterday and they said that notifications are starting soon. When I asked if that meant I haven't necessarily been rejected if I haven't heard the woman said she couldn't confirm that. So who knows about Rutgers. No one here has gotten accepted here for painting so we probably would have heard about it....

U chicago: I get the sense that it is an up and coming school. It has a good faculty, a ton of money, and is associated with one of the best universities in the United States and with a good university gallery (ren society). Some people don't know about it and some people discount it because it is in Chicago. I also listed northwestern. And I am also from the Chicago suburbs (btw).

I don't want to be a snob or a hater... and I know I am being one... but I think that mica, sfai and cca are not good schools. Mica is better than the other two but I think that as a grad program for painting they are for people who are not truly talented to beat the overwhelming odds against artists trying to make a living. there are always exceptions but I think it is not intelligent to go about planning your career on the assumption that you are the exception in a sea of less talented peers. ignore the us news rankings. they mean nothing. MICA is rated about UCLA, Hunter, Bard and Calarts, which is so patently absurd as to negate the list's relevance completely. SFAI is a top ranked school? I literally cannot remember having seen someone who got their mfa there showing at a gallery in NYC. which may be due to its distance from NYC of course, but then again you see people with MFA's from UCLA, Calarts, USC showing all the time in NYC. I think it's better to look at the schools of the people who are showing at good galleries and in museums (etc) - not for BFA but for MFA's specifically. those are the schools you should attend. in my opinion (take it or leave it) the only private universities worth going to for painting are: art center cal arts saic u chicago northwestern yale bard columbia risd cranbrook (maybe) usc (even though they don't really have painters there - I don't understand why anyone on this board is applying for painting there) vcu people seem to be hot on temple on this board but I haven't seen much good work come out of it maybe I am forgetting a school, please correct me if I am I would add nyu, pratt, parsons and sva hesitantly, only because they are in NYC and I do believe that there are good painters at every school - it would probably be more advantageous to be an exceptional painter at a worse NYC school than it would be at a school in SF or Baltimore. but I would never go to a school like MICA, SCAD, CCA, SFAI - they are too remote and too expensive. they may have good facilities but you do not need good facilities or special technology as a painter. why knowingly go into debt to go to a school that will stamp you as a mediocre artist? why not fly under the radar at a decent public university? good teachers are everywhere. it is easier to be a good teacher than it is a good artist, and I think that those two categories do not often overlap. my attitude regarding expensive private schools is you should either go to a school with a good location or a remote school that has good painters (which is basically only vcu)

Yes, I believe so.

Has anyone heard from Rutgers re: painting?

Hunter interview for painting via email