TheStranger

I think if you gave us your artist statement, people would be able to comment.

Art students are notorious for either being poor or in huge debt....with little to show for it. Get healthcare, a 401k or a retirement plan...do something for yourself besides getting into debt. The school system's flawed, many art professors are not very good, school is overpriced and job outlook is horrible. In a field where everything is not there to help, at least help yourself.

I think you have a very mature view on the subject that I think comes with someone with your life experiences. It is true ... really it all comes down to a choice, or a series of choices, and whether or not we have a strong enough aptitude to carry out things of difficulty...and to what degree. I want to keep making art, but art school for me at this time would not be the wisest decision. Yes, art is necessary for human civilization but I don't think art school is needed to purify oneself to the idea of being one with art, like a nun to a church. I also think it is silly for artists to feel like they are servants to human civilization's progression in the arts. Artists need to find time to make a living and spend time with loved ones but also do enough where they can make and exhibit their art. I believe there is an important hierarchy and balance. I used to try to justify why I was pursuing art as a career when I was in my undergrad..."art is necessary" or "I want to do something I'm passionate about for a living." There are more choices and combinations of things that make more sense to each individual. Doing what I want to do, having passion for something and living life beyond art can be three very separate things. Anyway, I'm not going to ramble on...this is a grad forum after all and I used to be a die hard on here so I know I wouldn't care about this post if I read it 4-5 years ago. As someone at my graduation said in a speech, the one true question you should think about: "Who are you without your passion for art?"

I feel that art school is ultimately a luxury. Schools are overpriced compared to inflation. Graduates fight over the same few jobs and opportunities which don't pay great or have good, if any, job security. Debt-to-income ratio can become a huge problem that limits their opportunities in life. Those who want to start up a retirement account as soon as possible are not in a position to do so. Those who want to consider saving up a down payment to eventually buy a home may never see the opportunity arise. Those who get married or are considering having kids can't simply put them into debt or not work to go to school which may not even pay off. I've been following this forum for about 5 years and while I started off wanting to apply, I have actually never applied to an MFA program as I began to realize certain things. Your thoughts?

Based off this post, you don't sound serious about making art a career and merely found art enjoyable enough to have considered studying.

My work is not literally photography but they are presented as such and in the same manner. I was wondering if anyone here knew of art galleries in LA which catered to selling artwork more similar to abstract photography. There is one piece I made that is over 50" long and 40" high behind plexiglass and aluminum dibond mounting which I would have to price over $2000 just to make a profit (assuming original costs and that the gallery would take 40%.). Do you guys recommend any photography galleries which cater to buyers with that kind of financial range? I have a smaller piece which would be priced at least $1000. Thank you.

I think your artist statement "My work explores the existential clash between human frailty and the global trauma we create" is too general. You want to say something with your statement more profound than what we already know, otherwise why say it at all. Imagine there was a gallery show with that statement as it's theme and they chose you to be apart of it. If so, what would your statement read then? Define your art and make it personal versus using poetic words. Your drawings should escape the art classroom feel and I don't think you should include them on your website. The less "school" in your art the better you're off. What your website tells me is that you like studying the art of representation and anatomy and that you know there is trauma in a fragile world---this is similar to a lot of representational artists. Artists have painted figures forever, such as Rembrandt(1606-1669), and artists have painted scenes of a fragile world in turmoil, such as Picasso(1881-1973). What are you trying to say with your art that others have not done before you? These are questions you should ask yourself.

Everyone has had really insightful advice regarding MFA's. I am currently networking while working my full time day job. By next year I plan on positioning myself in a higher paying job that allows me the flexibility to go part time if I get into school --- as far as I'm concerned this job is already prepared for me in the coming months. If I get into a school I will only do it if it's a scholarship type deal...I don't want to pay for the degree or go into any debt. Even then I want to postpone starting for a year to just build up several kinds of savings accounts and store up as much as possible before the financial change. I don't make art for money at all and it is very much a personal creative process. If I can't get a scholarship than it's not for me....that's my plan.

I've been thinking about the risk factors of post MFA graduation...I am a little uncertain nowadays if it is worth it. I've been playing with the idea of working my day job and doing art and connecting with communities during my off time. How many people do this? I almost feel like I should be financially stable before committing to an MFA, if at all. I plan on getting married and everything within the year...the poor struggling artist image doesn't appeal to me the same as it did when I was an undergrad single college student.

The following excerpt from Huffington Post (7/13/11): http://www.huffingto...d_b_895753.html "I participated in a public debate on Sunday. The July 10 debate was part of Artillery Magazine's ongoing series "Artillery Sets the Standard," and was held at the Standard Hotel in downtown Los Angeles. Many thanks to publisher Paige Wery and editor Tulsa Kinney for inviting me to participate. There were four debates and it made for a lively and informative afternoon (the free vodka didn't hurt). The debate was: "MFA: Is it Necessary?" I was debating the "con" side of the question. The format was a four-minute presentation, followed by a two-minute rebuttal, a one-minute rebuttal and a 30-second conclusion. When Artillery posts the full video of the debate, I will post it on my blog. Meanwhile, here is the text of my presentation and conclusion along with my Power Point slides: Hello. My opponent has made some interesting points, some of which I'll address in my presentation, others will have to wait for the rebuttal. I don't have a degree in anything -- I dropped out of college in my junior year. I felt I was wasting my parents' money, majoring in marijuana and guitar. A degree is not something I look for when selecting artists for Offramp Gallery. The bottom line is always the work. I look for work that's honest, creative, original, skillfully executed and intensely visual. It's supposed to be VISUAL art after all. Everyone has an opinion on this subject. But I wanted data, facts to back up my point of view.* First of all -- the only situation for which you are required to have an MFA is if you want to teach studio art at the university level. There are precious few tenured teaching positions available and competition for them is fierce. Most artists I know end up chasing adjunct jobs across several counties and/or have an unrelated day job. Then I looked at the artists I've shown at Offramp. 48% have MFAs. So, there is no advantage, no disadvantage. But what about other commercial galleries? I spent an insane amount of time researching artists from several successful commercial galleries. You may be surprised at what I found. LA Louver: 56% have MFAs Blum & Poe: 55% Ace: 41% Gagosian 34% If you put those numbers all together (including Offramp), only 40% of the artists have MFAs. Next I looked at ArtFacts.net which ranks over 200,000 artists using a special algorithm based on which galleries and museums artists have shown at, with whom, etc. I looked at their top 50 living artists -- and of those 50 top living artists only 11 out of 50, or 22%, have MFAs. Typical costs for a two-year MFA in studio art are $28,000 - $73,000, and a three-year program would be $41,000 - $109,000. That's a lot of student debt to carry after graduation. I also put together a little survey and sent it to my email list. I asked the respondents who were artists to what degree they were able to make a living as an artist. As you can see there wasn't that much difference between artists with or without an MFA. I looked at the Pollock-Krasner Grant recipients for 2009-10. Out of 75, 40 have MFAs, or 53%. Again, no clear cut advantage. So, from all the statistics I was able to put together there seems to be no distinct advantage to having an MFA -- for getting a gallery, showing in museums, for making a living as an artist and for getting grants. And what are these schools teaching? I personally think there is an over-emphasis on dialog and an under-emphasis on content. We're teaching artists to TALK about art. Anything is art as long as you can justify it using the codified language of academia. As my friend Ted says, there's no good art, no bad art, just an endless dialog about art. Finally I want to quote New York Magazine art critic Jerry Saltz in a recent article about the Venice Biennale and what he calls "Generation Blank": "It's work stuck in a cul-de-sac of aesthetic regress, where everyone is deconstructing the same elements... A feedback loop has formed; art is turned into a fixed shell game, moving the same pieces around a limited board. All this work is highly competent, extremely informed, and supremely cerebral. But it ends up part of some mannered International School of Silly Art. "  I couldn't agree more, and I do believe that MFA programs are largely to blame. Conclusion: To go over my main points again: My research shows that an MFA doesn't give you an advantage in getting into commercial galleries or museums, making a living as an artist or getting grants. It's very expensive and saddles you with student debt that you have very little chance of paying off by working in your chosen field. Save your money, live your life, read, travel, pay attention, learn to think for yourself. Work hard, look inside yourself and make yourself the best artist you can be. Oh, and BTW, I won :-) *A word about my research: it is completely unscientific and was limited by time and resources. I included only living artists and excluded artists for whom I couldn't find enough information. I feel I just scratched the surface, but results were fairly consistent across the board."

In defense to losemygrip's comment/suggestions, the artist can either use it, not use it, or at the very least ponder the questions raised and critically compare it to his own vision. I don't think anyone should read a critique and think it's imposing. To me, this is an open forum with people of different experiences and opinions and this idea should be embraced with the full acknowledgment that these comments may or may not affect the ultimate outcome of their work. While it seems apparent the portfolio of work is being prepared to send off and apply with, I don't think that negates specific critiques, as if it's too late in the game to mention. The artist has a whole lifetime to think about his art, MFA applicant or not. The MFA is a goal, but finding your voice in your art is the ultimate goal.

Day job by day, Artist by night. Not many people, unless they are well off, can afford not to have a day job. I myself have worked part time ever since high school in different jobs. I currently went full time. Instead of thinking the job is ruining my time, I use what I have and optimize it. I'm saving a lot up for the inevitable jobless period during an MFA program when I do apply. While I have less time, what matters is that you have a solid plan laid out for yourself, financially and artistically. In regards to the figure, ask yourself which MFA program you are interested in and look at the work produced there. Also know what you want to do after you get your MFA. These two things should show you where you should apply. In the end, you choose your groupies.

I don't know if I would call this Metamodernism revolutionary by any means but I do think it's an interesting distinction which modernism and post modernism can't completely satisfy by themselves.

I rather like the maps pieces and I think the minimalist approach to the spaces are nice with the more minimal pieces with some familiarity being stronger. I thought of Dan McCleary though he does figurative paintings in environments with more detail...but he could be an interesting artist to look into. He really minimalizes things into shapes and color. Your subject matter involving the art classrooms with its chalkboards, painting cubbies, drafting tables, white model backdrops and metal easels that look like the Klopfenstein PE 101 models may make the judges on the art panel think you're being safe by sticking to a subject matter every art student is familiar with and it may take away your personal story because many art students see the art building as a second home as well---but more specifically and importantly, when they are still art students. Also, in reference to your philosophical influence of Gaston Bachelard, I would suggest looking at Gabriele Di Matteo.

New dean? I thought Robert Storr was still the dean.