TheStranger

I think Cal State Long Beach is good for undergrad. You learn foundation courses well here but the school lacks an open disciplinary philosophy which a master student should have. Professors force you into one of two factions: figurative or abstraction. You are mostly pushed to make traditional figurative paintings or traditional color abstraction fields usually loosely resembling landscapes or objects. Because this school is uniquely divided like this, professors try to recruit students to their faction in the department in a politically charged game that hurts students and gives the school a very narrow vision. The professors teaching upper division courses who will be mentors for your MFA are the most extreme when it comes to this divide. Right now two big names leading the MFA program are Yu Ji and Fran Siegel. Yu Ji is a great figurative professor but he is strictly figurative and very traditional and conservative (Here is his website and drawings: http://www.yujistudio.net/drawing.html). Fran Siegel ... the very notion that she made it so high in the art department makes many people sad...it's like watching George W. Bush get re-elected every semester. Don't take my word for it, look at her students comments at rateyourprefoessors.com: (http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=522092). These negative comments have been going on for about 8 years...she's still there. If you want to be one or the other, this school should be fine for you. As you can tell, I got my undergrad degree there. I had a hate/love relationship with that art department.

Make your own luck and don't rely on hope. That is the advice I am going to leave here...

As a critique, I would say there are a few things to consider about your works. The most noticeable thing about your works as a series is the way you make the paint's physicality present. While it can be beautiful and honest to show the physicality of paint, the paint drips and roughly textured backgrounds don't seem to add anything to the work and it makes me wonder why it is there. I would look at paintings by Jenny Saville --- the physicality of her paint has a true purpose. It weaves in and out of the figure, exposing the physicality of the body while also showing the physicality of paint. There is movement, energy, and purpose. I think your painting,"Protection" is a standout in your portfolio while I think your paintings that deal with stark nature/technology imagery are your weakest. I feel "Brave," which is the only image that has a portrait, is the most out of place in your portfolio. I also feel your portfolio generally matures as it progresses in chronological order.

I used to be all about figurative painting & drawing myself. This was merely couple years ago when I was ready to apply to an MFA program with traditional oil paintings and charcoal drawings. I've always loved the figure and when you're rather proficient in depicting the figure, it is easy to stay with it --- especially when people strongly support you to keep going with it. However, there comes a time when an artist has to make a choice. It's an matter of evolving for some. I am not saying people should stop painting the figure in a traditional manner. People will always find interest and love for it. However, I do think it is the responsibility of the artist to make a conscious choice whether they want to push the evolution of art forward or not. Does the artist want to grow for themselves or grow for themselves and the history of art and contemporary society? While I still like figurative paintings, ever since I made the change, I see figurative painting differently. All this being said, it all comes down to personal choice. You can paint figures and do it well and get even better. But for who? For yourself until you are no longer challenged or excited. You will have followers who love what you do. But in terms of art history, where do you stand? In terms of pushing the envelope and moving art forward into new exciting angles? I have the same problems with 'boring' abstract art but that is my personal opinion. I think art needs to address reality, society and history. Otherwise I think you pan handle to the white gallery walls to make your work seem to matter more than it really does. You said you are wondering if you should apply soon after being rejected. I have been planning on applying for the past three consecutive years. Every year I tell myself I can do better. Every year I am glad I waited. Grad school is not something to apply to because it's the next step. It should be applied to when you feel mature about the direction your at is going.

Just apply to drawing & painting programs. Many people who apply to D&P don't even show any drawings in their portfolio. It works the other way too if all you have are drawings. I recommend you conduct more research and talk to your art professors about grad school too.

It sounds like you already know the answer to your question by listing only two highly competitive (and expensive) schools and your age of 22. I can sympathize with you because I plan on only applying to a couple highly competitive schools myself next year (maybe also one less competitive school to have options). When I showed my art professor my latest pieces, for example, he was thrilled and told me there were many galleries out there who would love to show my work. The catch? You just can't walk into a gallery and have it shown. You have to know people who recommend you. CONNECTIONS. NETWORKING. He told me that is how it has always been and how it works for many fields. I think grad school is for connections, a great environment to improve your art and a teaching degree. Sure you could make connections without grad school...but those schools are usually tight with their fellow alumni or know people in high places. You may just land a good show or teaching job just because you went to grad school. I wouldn't worry about not getting accepted. You probably saved yourself $100,000 in debt anyway. Apply next year better and more informed!

If you work for a big cooperation type place, NEVER tell them you are thinking about leaving or plan to. You're basically telling them "Don't take me seriously. Give me low pay raises in the meantime since I am not an investment to your business." You are expendable in large cooperations in which you are low on the totem pole. I choose a job that has nothing to do with art and something I knew next to nothing about and knew I'd dislike fundamentally so I would not stay or get trapped in it (a devious masochistic plan I devised). It does pay well...better than all the coffee shop art students I see relishing in the romantic notion that they have to be starving and poor. For my job, I like to think it's awesome that I'm going with the saying: keep your friends close but your enemies closer I am also making & creating art concepts for my portfolio because of working here. I just tell my manager that I want to keep my options open because everyone had been wanting to promote me after being there a year. I wanted to keep a foot in a financially stable door while trying my best to find the door to an MFA and art career. By saying you want to keep your options open, it tells your manager they may win you over or you may decide to stay. I would never tell him I see this job as temporary...I would never have gotten my full time higher position promotion three months ago if I did (or be initially working here for that matter). By the time I hopefully leave my job here in 2013 I would have amassed over $12,000 in my savings account to move, collect probably $500 in retirement funds I never funded myself and learned a lot in another business field which is helpful for life in general. I decided to get the promotion because I wanted to be able to afford expensive art supplies and start a savings account. So far it's been working great. I just showed my art professor (I am currently taking one class) a piece I did which ended up costing $1000 and he really liked it. I mainly spent this much for the affect of irony and critiquing today's art scene. Just certain things that would be impossible to do otherwise. People come and go all the time at the cooperation I'm at so I won't feel bad at all when I leave. I even plan on giving the bare minimum 2 weeks notice when the time is right. Businesses generally think for themselves. You should too if you know any better.

When someone questions their ability to pay for school, it makes me quiver when they apply to schools like Columbia: http://arts.columbia.edu/files/soa/content/VISUAL_ARTS_MFA.doc $101,746 for the degree after two years (expect to pay interest on that). Good luck!

Less is more.

I researched him as well. Smart fellow and says what he wants to.

I would guess it's Kehinde Wiley as well.

I'm applying next year but I also want to stay on the west coast. CSULB is a good value school. They tend to be more figurative vs abstract so if you're anything else than you may not get as much support or authentic direct advice. Studios are small. Faculty is good but like I said...they basically swing only two ways. Think Democrats vs Republicans. It's that divided. I'm kind of feeling like one should go big or go home for the MFA. You don't need an MFA to show art and an MFA is not a teaching degree. It would seem only worthwhile getting if you got into a good school which also fit your aesthetic in art. That way your art would definitely improve and your degree would carry a legitimate amount of weight to it to help you get into the art world. But also take into account the debt. Academia and school is not 'the next next step after undergrad' but merely a structure you buy into. Each person should understand what an MFA and its debt means to them. Everyone should have a threshold as to how much debt they know they can realistically handle after grad school. There are some schools which ask you to pay 60k-100k and they seem to take anyone who applies. If you fit that category, I would honestly dissuade you from doing so.

@sharthewealth : @ sympatico: While I think it was partially about a Yale alumni 'whining' I think the main gist of the article was to dispel the myth of Yale being more than it is (Beyond it's reputation and brand name). I am sure some people put Yale on a pedestal and think it will bring them more than other top schools would. What the author explains, and dispels, is that this is simply just a myth and that while people may feel good to say "I went to Yale" he has experienced what it actually means to go there and what it means to see himself and his whole graduating class years later with the degree---without letting school pride mute his opinion. He merely wants to say artists at other good schools do just as well, or even better, in the art world. He isn't whining about his pay check more-so than he is fame which is also correlated to connections, networks and what your degree did for you. I found the article very humbling and informative. It doesn't tell you "don't go to Yale." It just tells you "Hey, this is the reality of the matter from someone who went through it and have kept ties to his classmates."

Use detail shots sparingly. Ten is ridiculous. Personally if I had to use detail shots, I'd only put in something like two. But check school requirements. They sometimes will say how many detail shots they allow.

"Art is not science. Art doesn't progress. This school represents the understanding that art isn't about progress, it's about excellence." ---Glenn O'Brien (New York Academy of Art Documentary).

There is an interesting article written by a Yale graduate in "Artillery" magazine this month titled "Yale Graduates: Where Art Thou Now?" He basically says Yale is unorganized, has no aesthetic and does little to develop who you are as an artist. He says that the only thing you get is more unstable artists and maybe sort-of get into the art world...so I suppose he did not appreciate his alumni status. He wrote this article describing what happened to all his classmates after ten years in retrospect.

This reply is going to be purely a critique based on the work on your site, so don't take any of it personally. I think the first two paintings on your blogspot feel more resolved than the rest in terms of ambition, scale, color, composition and interpretive quality. Also, they are just more interesting to look at than the rest. The others pieces are 'undergrad class assignments' and typical model poses done as sketches (which barely qualify as gestural). You say your work is about "the burden of having a perishable body" done in an abstract expressionist style---yet I barely get that theme or style from looking at the work as a whole. I read your artist statement which I like, but it does not reflect visually in the work. I see one of your works is titled "The Absurd" and that hearkens to French philosopher, Albert Camus. You must know your titles are references to huge subject matter with its own context and your art must then live up to it. To tackle philosophy and claim it as your subject for a piece as the title itself is borderline ballsy and futile. English philosopher, Simon Critchley, explains,‎"To see an artistic thing as the illustration of a theory is to engage in what we might call ‘philosofugal’ uses of theory, where theory spins out from itself to try and cover the artwork. What we should be attempting, I think, is an ‘artopetal’ approach where theory is drawn into the orbit of the thing and whatever theoretical reflections are pulled back to the artwork’s centre of gravity." I know some people may need to read that quote a couple of times to get it, but please do so. It will save you a lot of headache in the end. You talk about layering paint and depicting decomposition which reminds me of Sigmund Freud and Jenny Saville right away. For abstract expressionism, look at William De Kooning. Is your website's current art a reflection on all the possible pieces you will submit? Ask yourself why you want to go to grad school, then look at the schools you are interested in and read their departmental statement. Don't fall into the trap of thinking your next step after a BFA is an MFA. You need more reason and resolve to consider grad school. There are a lot of portfolio reviews happening RIGHT NOW. You should attend. If you are still in New York, try these Portfolio Days: Purchase, NY Purchase College, SUNNY (914) 251-6000 Saturday, November 12, 2011 New York, New York Javits Cenetr (MICA host) (410) 669-9200 Sunday, November 13, 2011 Many grad schools will be here and give you the best portfolio reviews and honest opinions on your work. I have not applied to any schools yet and have not finished my portfolio but this is my opinion/advice. Good luck =)

I was similar in that I liked having a narrative but now I am way more conspicuous with the narrative even though for me it is definitely there. The story is to be found, not read, and I think this makes for more powerful interpretations. Everyone has their own reasons for making art...many 'top' schools may not like the style of art you like. What will be important is your ability to rationalize your art in the context of art history and the contemporary art scene. If you can't, they will see you as a fan of a genre that they see no future in. If a 50 year old mom wants to paint land landscapes and flowers, she can...but she should know many grad schools are not for her. They always say painting is dead...it is so dumb. When opera came out in the 1600's, they said painting was dead. When the camera came out, painting was dead. Even Duchamp said art itself was dead, yet he made art! And ironically he released art AFTER his death to be viewed. To me, "why make art" is the same kind of question as "why live at all?" I think there's enough existential artists to be able to explain their art. Those complaining are all sissies. Know your art history and use your personal voice....that is what it is all about to me.

You got your undergrad there? I personally didn't get a good vibe from looking into MICA. They seem so much more into selling MFA's instead of awarding MFA's. It's the same uneasy feeling I get from OTIS and Art Center, though I am sure they have good faculty. I talked to a lady finishing her MFA at Art Center and she hated it and will be over 100K in debt... frankly I am a bit worried for the lady. But it was interesting that they accepted her, rather fast, knowing her style of work yet are just trying to change her style while juicing her with debt. MICA gives out way too many e-mails and letters like spam for potential applicants and it makes me feel like they are more of a business than a school. I know schools are both, but I feel as if I can sense how schools tip the balance one way or the other and it shows something about their program in my eyes.

When i wrote that 3-4 months ago I compiled a list of schools I wanted to research more based on their standing in ranks. After doing research I will not be applying to Yale. I asked myself those same questions which made the choice easier. As with anyone applying towards a grad program, prestige of the school is a factor...I suppose it was easier to find schools I liked based on their name and location and then narrow it down based on further research. I really like the professors teaching at UCLA and USC and think they have phenomenal programs and I also personally enjoy the work being produced there. I have compiled lists of professors I really like and plan on contacting them soon. I absolutely agree that NO grad program wants to hear that you want to teach...which is rightfully so as well as ironically hilarious: First off, as a grad program you want to take in artists, not aspiring art teachers. Secondly, The only way to teach college level courses for the most part is to have an MFA unless you have a really good name in the art world. But as we all know, it is perfectly normal for someone to enjoy the act and role of a professor as well as be a serious artist...I see quite a few individuals just like that. (I even think the act of teaching benefits personal growth). I will say that I have learned A LOT so far about grad schools and applying. I've done on and off research for the past year on applying to grad school. Now that I have a solid understanding of things this year (my direction and the school's direction) I will apply by next year this time while I continue to micro-research schools I've narrowed down, visit them, converse with professors I like, etc. Good luck guys!

Page 28 of MICA's school magazine, JUXTApositions, in this PDF. Justin Schmidt's Soda Pop at Sea looks very similar to your style of art. So perhaps, MICA could be a good school choice for yourself.

Have you considered how expensive these schools are?

You didn't apply last year? I feel like I've seen this from the forums. Your work is illustrative and I would not use the term 'Futurism' when explaining your work because I usually associate movement or speed when I think of Futurism-- and your work has none of that. What grad schools are you looking into? And why would you want to go to grad school? What artists influence you? (Dead and contemporary). How does your art fit in with today's art scene?

It is my opinion that the letters of rec should be by those within the art scene.

...I also understand even though I would like to teach, this should never be mentioned in the interview or statement. They're looking for artists, not teachers. Even though one may want to do both...