TheStranger

My dream schools at the moment are the most selective as you mentioned. I like the professors at UCLA a lot. I feel like I would benefit best from the faculty there based on my own artwork. I also like USC and one of their professors teaching. I will have a strong letter of recommendation from a USC alumni when the time comes to apply who is active in the contemporary art scene and who has personally seen my artistic growth for the past two years. He really likes my work and would write a good letter. I will also have a good letter of rec from a LA-Based figurative artist who has been well known since the 80s. This fact makes me feel good because I know the work and the letters of rec are the most important thing. A resume and artist statement, I've gathered, is only there to weed out those who have no purpose in the MFA program. Which brings me to your question of my intentions of an MFA. I see the degree as everything I want and need. I want to push my artwork and network with the faculty and students at the school. Practically, I do have the want and passion for teaching (it's not just because it's the only rational steady income end to an art major). Students often come to me during class for help or instruction and I was a tutor for two years a while ago and enjoyed that as well. I know it's not mandatory, as I've seen several non-MFA artists teach, but it is rare or hard to come by. I don't think I will apply to non-LA-based schools. I think I am willing to go as far as Claremont, Irvine, Pasadena and Fullerton (in terms of applying) but would love to be in LA where USC, UCLA and OTIS are. I agree about Cal Arts. I also don't think I can do Valencia...it's just too far from LA. I have my heart set on teaching and ambitiously working on my artwork. I will message you a link to a piece from my portfolio so you know what kind of art I am doing.

I have several reasons for staying near Los Angeles and it is a sort of fundamental idea behind my school choices, but would you say San Diego State and UC Santa Barbara have stronger art programs than some of the ones I listed above, or comparable (and to which)? I don't really hear anything about either one you mention which is why I ask. Would those be good backup schools or just good schools overall? When one wants to apply to an art mfa, I always hear people mention Art Center and OTIS but both (to me) seem way overpriced and I'd apply only with the intention of going if I got some sort of compensation. SD and SB are in nice geographical locations (not in the art scene sort of way...) but I feel like LA is the epicenter of where I am choosing schools for both art scene reasons and practical living reasons in which I plan on settling down in the area with the network I will have amassed.

If anyone has any specific advise or recommendations for Southern California MFA programs, please share! This is a list which I am currently thinking about applying to. If you feel strongly that I should add to this list or if you have more info on these schools, please share! I will be doing personal research as well. UCLA USC Cal Arts in Valencia UCI Claremont Cal State Fullerton OTIS (Good reputation but I didn't find anything remarkable about their program...plus it's over 70K) Art Center Pasadena (Good reputation but I didn't find anything remarkable about their program, plus it's 3 years long and over 100K) Anyone have more info on Cal Arts, UCI, and Fullerton? Also, anyone have big things to say for OTIS and Art Center?

Why are certain faculty members leaving? What kind of people will replace them and why? Differences in art ideology? What divided the faculty? What are the divisions based upon? Thanks!

There's one in LA October 1st so if anyone from So Cal attends, let us know how it was! I will attend next year's Portfolio Day.

So So Cal. I kid...I wouldn't mind going towards SD, I just don't think I'd want to go to much into Nor Cal. The list of schools I had in mind are the only ones I have considered so far (I spent all summer researching east coast schools). I will say I prefer to be near LA, but So Cal is all game. Like losemygrip mentioned, there are some benefits in moving away from your area (as there are anytime you diversify your knowledge and experience geographically); but yes, there are definitely a lot of benefits to staying and I am pretty much settled on So Cal now. New York was very much a romanticized idea I had and when I had that idea I was not in the same position or mindset as I am now with life and goals. Thanks for your inputs. As always they are very helpful.

This forum has been more-or-less about figuring out which schools are a better fit for individuals. These posts follows through the thought process and investigation of the school work. But when someone decides one school doesn't fit them, someone here asks why to get a better idea of the whole discussion or to reflect upon their own decisions. I don't think anyone has meant to go beyond just that or to offend anyone's tastes. I know people who post here who would love Yale. And by all means I would like for them to apply. Personally I love how people say which schools they love or hate. It really gives me the best idea of what these schools are like. If people just focused on mentioning which schools they wanted to study at, and never mentioned which schools they didn't, I think there would be a great gap in understanding what makes all these schools different. So, in contrast, I applaud those who have had opinions here (negative or positive). You can digest the opinion or not...at least you have it available.

Well I asked another professor at a different school whom I hold in high regard. She is very much on the same idea that it is a good idea to stay in California. The LA Art Scene is growing, I'm already established here, and there are plenty of schools to choose from (not to mention they are much less expensive). It's definitely a personal decision as well. Perhaps if I was in the middle of nowhere I would want to move...but I'm already in LA. I agree with your advice in the general sense and I think some people here should take that advice. But in my situation this is the best life choice to stay near LA and in So Cal. I would say to whomever is thinking about these things and is reading this to really consider how much debt you want to be paying off for the rest of your life and how much payback it really is...because it will affect your life as long as you have that debt and it does not guarantee you a job over someone who knows the faculty already really well. And if you're like me and want to start a life, this would be difficult when your 50-80k in debt. Teaching art is what I want to do, and to continue making art is what I want to do...and I can accomplish all this in LA. The only school I would not apply to here is the one I got my undergrad from. Basically make an informed decision based on your personal goals and values. On that note, if anyone has any good So Cal schools in mind I wouldn't mind hearing them. UCLA, Irvine, UCS, Art Center, Clarmont, Cal Arts, OTIS? I am a painter but my work is conceptually based and plays with either projection, material o sculptural/installation.

So assuming I want to teach and build up to tenure at a "better" school, I can see where a diverse education can become very desirable. But in terms of a "better" school, this would mean schools like the ones everybody always mentions here when they want to apply to a grad school? (RISD, MICA, Yale, SAIC, Columbia, Tyler, USC, UCLA, etc) However, I don't necessarily care to teach for schools such as these, which I suppose I would be deem "better." I would be fine teaching at a cal state school or a city college with no huge reputation but has a presence. The school I am at now, actually, is maybe unique in that the importance is put on how well the faculty get along with each other. This is greatly contrasted to the other school I went to where the faculty were split and often times had negative feelings towards each other...which reflected in the school's department curriculum. It was like having a pizza with really good toppings but it all didn't mesh together and fell apart in your mouth when you tried to eat it. But anyway, that's just one of the many things on my mind. Thanks for the input! I will look more into this though. I really kind of just want to start my life, get my own place, settle down in California while getting my MFA and teaching courses all around until a school sticks. Going off to New York or the east coast now seems to be an added burden-- financially, networking and stability-wise (especially when you have a gf who wants to follow you yet also wants to get a hold of a job/career). I thought about it...struggling in the east coast and coming back with a huge debt and no one in California who directly knows who I am. That's quite a scary thought. I've seen my friends (in art and other majors) only get to where they are because they knew someone. I see it at my part time job, how they will hire based on how well they know someone too. I will ask another professor from another school about this topic and will let you guys know what I've heard. I think this is something a lot of grad applicants have in the back of their mind once the romantic idea of great art schools is figured out.

I asked my professor about it a couple weeks ago. I asked him that if someone had a west and east coast education and came back to the west coast for a job, how an east coast degree would look. He said it doesn' matter because they're looking for someone who fits into their faculty more than the idea that someone went to the east and came back. I thought it all made sense because I'd leave 2 years of connections and networks in the east and come back with not much immediate support. I've heard about people going to great schools for their MFA and not being able to do much with it. Plus the debt would be so much higher due to out-of-state tuition, living costs, etc. Consequently now I've been concentrating solely on good so cal schools. Afterall, I do plan on living the rest of my life in so cal. What have been your experiences on the topic?

From what I've noticed, the vast majority of programs seem to be two year programs. Also, I think as long as you apply to a painting program, you'd be fine 'just' painting. As my professor said, the important thing is getting into a grad program. Once you're in, you can do what you want. Hunter seems like a good choice because it's a good program in New York, but its like a city college and the tuition reflects that. Their acceptance rate is better as well. I agree with you about Columbia. I'm sure it is a good program but it is expensive...the most expensive one I've run across while researching. Yale...I feel like if you can get in, you'd probably take that chance because of the name. UCLA is probably the hot school at the moment...it will be super competitive. I think you should also consider Tyler, MICA, RISD and SVA. You'll need some more backup schools though. In So Cal, I've been through the undergrad program at CSULB in Long Beach. While I will not apply there, I do think it would make for a good backup. They're more "abstract versus figurative" there though so be warned. And their studio spaces are cramped...like slightly-better-than-a-cubicle cramped. I've decided I should go to a school where I would want to live as well so I will probably only be applying to so cal schools.

I like this one:

^You either upload it or link a website image url. As for Yale, I just never see any art in their MFA Shows that I feel "wowed" by. They have a very specific aesthetic choice in their program that does not fit me well. I am not drawn to these pieces aesthetically or conceptually. That's just me. I know some of you will really like these works. It is all very personal.

After researching Yale's Drawing & Painting program, I decided it is not for me. I am definitely not into "Provisional" art which I know will be a well respected form over there...among other forms which do not suit me. It comes down to what kind of art you do and like. I wouldn't say I hate Yale but I will say I have absolutely no affinity towards the art they're producing now. A lot of things in life and the things I have found out has actually made me want to stay on the west coast. LA is a bustling and interesting art scene. I think I am going to stay here.

You have a pretty good list of schools with good range. I am from the LA area too. I have been reading and posting on this forum for a year now but I will apply next year.

I read the article (I missed it before, thinking it was a link to the Wiki site you mentioned). It was a very informative article, distinguishing "Provisional" painting. There seemed to me that there was a difference in the philosophy of art making. On one side, there is the reasoning that provisional/bad painting is the result of angst of a belated feeling that artists before them left them scrapes to pick from resulting in painting that speaks of this angst that there is nothing left to explore. That masterpieces or painting itself is impossible. The idea to appear amateur and clumsy signifies "Art Risk" which they no longer see attainable by 'normal' methods of big ideas, craftsmanship and detail. On the other side, (I'm on this side) I see this merely as a visual way for these provisional/bad painters to showcase the whole psychology that painting is dead...which has been the chant for decades and yet people still paint and people still see the value and importance in painting, image making and art. Marcel Duchamp claimed the "end game" of art and sought to abolish it as it was unnecessary--- since the 1960s. It seems because Yale prides itself in pushing limits and risk taking and moving art beyond its definition, provisional/bad painting can be seen as such....rationally so. They claim it is not about painting the last paintings and so they must mean it is just another movement in art of today. So how strong of a statement or method is provisional or bad painting? I feel this is the real question. And I would say the statement is already old. What are your thoughts on this? How would one who does seek meaning, ideas craftsmanship and detail in their work state their case in contemporary art in terms of risk taking? ...Also, in conjunction with the topic about the purging of faculty in Yale, do you think Yale will lean furthermore towards provisional painting and such types of art? Or will more types of painting (with perhaps the opposite philosophies that provisional painting has) be more recognized as long as it speaks of our time and engages the viewer?

"Bad" pretty much meaning having a letter of rec that's extremely generic and cut & paste. If you're out of people to ask for letters, you can ask your mom. Haha.

I always assumed it had to be an artist or art professor in your field that wrote about your art, but some school sites actually don't specify that.

I am applying for an MFA program in 2012 so my opinions are strictly from one looking in as well but I've been doing my research. The art you finished for your BFA several years ago should be seen as your old work...unless you had a solid professional series of work straight out of college for your BFA. You should begin a series of new work---work which speaks of you as an emerging artist and not simply as the art student you were as an undergrad and the art you made as an undergrad. The only real exception is if you knew you wanted to go to grad school a couple years before graduating and worked your butt off creating the best series you could to specifically use to apply with right after. Your best chance of getting looked at is by making artwork that catches their attention. They literally click through an art pieces on their projector every second. *click....click....click....click* They go through hundreds of thousands of pieces. Why will they stop for yours? They may ask you questions you may not have even asked yourself yet, such as "How does your work fit in with the contemporary art scene?" (Like Columbia might ask). Is that what you even want? Or do you prefer to stay traditional? (Like The New York Academy may prefer). These questions will guide you to choose which schools you want to apply to so you are honest with yourself and give yourself a real shot. Also,if you already have a lot of work in series, you should work on your Artist Statement and edit it over and over until it's the best you can get it. Grad portfolio day is a great way for you to hear honest critiques of your work and to see which schools give a damn about what your making...because remember: You may view painting and living as nearly synonymous and take personal pride in your work, but that doesn't mean too much to the art schools. They want more substance...passion is a given to apply. These portfolio reviews will give you the most clear view and since you say you have a lot of work already, you may want to be selective of your best which fit into a body of work you can articulate for. However, I advise making a new series if it's been several years since your BFA. That being said, there are a few people here who are very much qualified to critique artwork and suggest schools which fit your style and artistic philosophies. You can always upload images here (probably a low enough res so no one steals them) for some community critiques here. You may get reassurance or you may get a reality check. Good luck! And if you can, make your own luck =) Michael

As always, your input is much appreciated!

If the grad school you are applying to is interdisciplinary and you are applying for painting, should one streamline their portfolio not by one static approach but by with varying approaches to the same theme? (ex: digital projection, painting alone, etc). Whereas the thing that holds the pieces together is the theme...that it could all fit in a themed gallery albeit the pieces in it varied in approach and mediums? Has anyone applied by doing this? It teeters on what we are suppose to avoid, which is loosing a sense of a series of work. But if the theme is specific and carries throughout the work in an interdisciplinary way, shouldn't it be fine?

That's cool your transitioning from literature to art. Not a lot of people realize that lit/English majors share a lot of the same with art majors. I am also going to be applying for the first time next year. It's good that you graduated from Bard. It's in New York and has a good, though not top tier, program in art. New York is the center of the art world...you are fortunate! LA, however, is an up and coming place for art and many argue LA is producing more interesting work right now. LA is going to have a HUGE art event in October if you're interested in getting to know LA art. You can keep Bard as a good backup school...though it depends on your goals in relation to "top schools" and which schools fit your style. What you should be doing is working on a portfolio of work (10-20 on average...USC asks for more than most). You should know what your theme is. Be able to compare your work to contemporary artists and art. There are portfolio days available where many school participate in reviewing your work before you apply. But you live in New York so you are in a really good area already to scout out schools. I recommend going to school websites and seeing when they have galleries, showing of MFA student work. I suggest you look into what professors from schools you admire. Good luck!

So after my research I have definitely categorized Columbia in New York as, in my opinion, the best or close to the best, MFA Program for art/painting. So I randomly grabbed some work from someone from their first year with some questions: I personally have no strong opinion on the pieces from this artist though I do realize it is about the physicality of paint, the strokes and color in an abstract pure form. My real question is, how does a school like Columbia decide to bring a student such as this into their program? What exactly "WOW'ed" them? I ask because I feel there's a good deal of artists who have done or do such art and I was curious as to how they choose who they do. Is it the interview, letters of rec and resume that put this artist ahead to be accepted? What gave them the edge?

@truthbetold Thank you for your thoughts. Looks like I'll have to be prepared to take on some debt and balance out what is worth it for me when deciding on schools... @michaelwebster Wow, $40,000...is that figure going to incur interest or is it subsidized? With interest I imagine it can grow to $80,000. And yes...living costs will surely add a lot more to the figure...especially if I go to New York. But in terms of setting up job opportunities out of grad school, would it be easy to do that for another state or are all the connections within the area of your studies in Chicago? I ask because I want to go to the east coast but return to California. It would be detrimental for me to have little connections upon my return as well as a large debt to pay off. I would imagine grad school professors would be able to give good recommendations when applying for teaching positions however? Thanks guys.

Well I have been researching schools and working on my own work but I have neglected the price tag of schools thus far (seemed like it would be a buzz kill). However, it would seem pointless to get into a great school but be faced with insurmountable debt...that is no way to start a life!---And on an artist salary--- if I am lucky! Has anyone gotten into a 'top' school and can inform us of what kind of debt you are looking at having to pay back? I suppose 10-20k is understandable and worth it without much question...but I can't imagine having to pay more than that. I have been thinking about which schools to apply to a year from now but after reading more about debt and price tags, I am now thinking about applying to schools which are either cheap or offer full tuition---Hunter, Rutgers? USC? Like most of you, I am not rich by any means and just the thought of paying out-of-state tuition plus living costs freak me out. I live paycheck to paycheck afterall. After grad school I would actually like to start my life working in art as a professor (working towards it as an art instructor I suppose) and be married with all those responsibilities. With 25k+ debt and no stability in a career there's no way I'd be able to move on with life! Anyway, this is kind of a reality check for myself. I've heard some schools will give you 25%-50% funding but that is if you are lucky. Here's some popular schools people apply to... Out of state rates if applicable: Columbia- $43,304 per year ($86,608 two year program) Yale- $38,300 per year ($76,600 two year program) RISD- $38,295 per year ($76,590 two year program) MICA- $35,690 per year ($71,380 two year program) SVA- $33,080 per year ($66,160 two year program) Tyler- $21,044 per year ($42,088 two year program) Hunter-$10,359 per year ($20,718 two year program) Anyway, my question is...how does one pay for these schools we are all so excited applying to? Are the scholarships plentiful if you are accepted? Or that generous? Do you all apply just hoping for a huge scholarship? Is it common to get huge financial aid due to the high costs of these schools? How big of a worry should this be for me?