01010101010101101010101010

Thanks for the sweet list. Is there a category for no-questions-asked full-funding?

I was accepted to that program but could not afford attendance. Do you think the cost was worth it? Do you feel like you've got a leg-up on any MFA prospects?

Really excellent technical skills. I see a lot of conceptual potential; your polluted beehive for instance really gripped my attention and encouraged me to undertake a bit of my own research. I personally think your art is moving into a zone of a social criticism which I empathize with heavily. Good luck on your apps.

What if you make nothing and your parents make nothing? How often do people get full tuition?

Does anyone in here have any experience with Hunter? Program, finaid, cost of living etc. The art coming from there looks quite diverse and I've heard rumors of tuition waivers (though as of yet I haven't confirmed it).

Good paintings, I'm curious to read some of your written material.

I think your 4th painting in the 2012 section is a direction that you should push toward. It attempts to transform a study-like landscape painting into something more imposing, almost as if the sky is threatening to crush that street. There are some interesting things taking place in your paintings technically speaking, and you are certainly prolific, but most of the work looks like simple studies (I am working through very similar issues which allows me to notice the similarities). I think we tend to get too comfortable doing the same thing over and over again and it ends up stifling us in the end. I wish people would not be so emphatic about this-department-only silliness. I don't think it's helpful whatsoever to students who want to cross disciplines. But I agree with michaelwebster, your collages do look like paintings, so maybe a step toward paint, photopaper on canvas isn't too much of a leap. I don't think you need to make images entirely out of paint to call them paintings, but I would think there should be at least some painting techniques involved (even if you simply use tar gel, enamel etc.). That would give you a foothold to argue that they are in fact paintings and said painting department can thus untwist its bowels a little.

Thank you for the excellent ideas. I really want to have fun and experiment but I feel like my clock is ticking with MFA apps coming up so soon, and I'm afraid that if I don't make more paintings in a similar vein to what I've been doing then my portfolio won't retain whatever continuity it possesses. Am I worrying too much about seeming consistent? Is the bureaucracy of graduate school antithetical to good art-making? Do all prospective mfa students struggle this much?

I will be cutting down the misused-artspeak before I get myself in trouble. I will also be looking into Camus, as you and TheStranger are edging me toward his work. I see now that the further in time I go, the less academic my paintings look. I think this curse is partly to blame on my undergrad education; strictly traditional and not even remotely challenging until my final semester. My professors were scarcely helpful and most would just lay on flattery and never criticize. What good is that? I also begrudge them for not giving me more advisement about graduate school. Alas I am now a baffled young man grasping at straws. Thank you for your reply lady. I'm relieved to learn that you weren't trying to condescend, and my apologies for being so defensive. I took a look at David Kassan, and though I don't aspire to paint photorealistically, I do appreciate what he's doing with his sitters by placing them in this bizarre, pseudo-industrial confessional booth (still closer than I'd like to be to portraiture though). I see elements of the void in this work, and they are excellently painted, though I also see weaknesses similar to my own e.g. redundant perspective, figure-study modeling, cliche mannerisms. I'm glad you (collectively) have brought this to my attention, otherwise I would not have seen it, and now it is so painfully obvious I feel like I need to start over. Klein's 'Into the Void' is amazing, I remember this from art history. It possesses a sort of jovial madness that I find myself lacking and could definitely use a dose of. When contemplating the void, my first instinct is to shove some hapless body into an empty space (which I now see as being the easy way out). Klein does it in a freaking suburb that he probably lived in and does so masterfully (someone in an earlier post said thinking is the hardest part of making art, this photo is full of brainstorming and I think that's why it's so effective). To answer your question (which I think was rhetorical anyway) this would definitely not be as potent if it were painted rather than photographed. I'm fairly sure he's going to injure himself, there's no risk of that in paint. I think my current challenge is signifying void while being rooted in reality. My most recent painting is quite a different approach to this problem and I'll let you know when I've posted it.

I thank you for the kind words. I'm given a bit of solace knowing that you connected with the work (I don't believe one has to "know anything" about painting in order to read or feel a painting). But I want to make it abundantly clear that I am not opposed to criticism, in fact I value it above praise. What I am opposed to is criticism that doesn't seek to improve anything, like a child being scolded for bad behavior then given nothing to build upon. I value what TheStranger has to say, but I feel it could have been more tactfully said.

Well, thanks for your very blunt (condescending?) bit of criticism. My vocabulary is not intended to look flashy, it's to reach my core ideas as closely as possible. Some words are just more specific than others, and I wouldn't be so bold as to shallowly plug artspeak where it isn't needed. If I speak of Expressionism it is for the element of cultural criticism that goes with it. I am foremost a critic of my world, whether that's apparent in my work is a matter that needs addressing. I would never wish to elevate my art to something it isn't (nobody likes a cheater, least of all myself) which is one of the reasons I come to this forum, to gain insight from others regarding what needs work and what is working. Clearly, my paintings aren't speaking as I want them to speak. That much has been made obvious by LoseMyGrip, and I understand that what I see isn't what other people see. But I referred LoseMyGrip to my artist statement to give him/her a better idea of not what I've already accomplished but rather what I'm working toward. Alhough I appreciate an honest opinion, I feel like your comment wasn't really constructive. I am struggling to find my way like every other artist.

You make it seem so glaringly obvious. I hadn't even considered putting the figure in a real place, opting for a more ambiguous location (which was intended to communicate a sense of lost place). I've been taking a sort of stream of consciousness approach wherein these nameless/faceless people are meant to occupy nondescript, dreamlike voids. I WANT them to be in voids, but it's apparent now that that message is not clear. I'm not certain if you had a chance to read the statement on my blog but my goal is to describe an almost hopeless sensation of being inconsequential and ineffectual (without becoming political or preachy [though maybe that's what I need?]). Do any contemporary artists come to mind with similar M.O.s? I almost feel like I'm against a wall, unsure of how to move forward.

I'm just about floored by your insight. I forget how valuable criticism can be (haven't really had any since undergrad 2+ years ago). I find it funny that you found the two heads most successful because I felt the opposite about it . I don't give my figures faces because my goal is to strip them of identity, to make them disposable and remove their uniqueness (hence the mask imagery). You pose a strong argument, that the solitary figure is sort of an easy way to approach the problem. I'm working on a triptych now that I feel handles the situation more effectively (i'd love to hear your criticism when I finish/post it). I don't my work to just be seen as beautifully painted figures, I want the figures themselves to be messages.

Is that to say you don't think I'm on the MFA track? I don't expect to be the best possible artist I can be this early in the game, I'm learning as I go like everyone else which is my central reason for even wanting more school. My paintings include only one figure because my art is about isolation and individual struggle. I feel that adding multiple figures would sort of dispel the lonesomeness I seek to depict. As for the paintings resembling studies, my goal is to dabble with allegory rather than flood the work with it. But if you perceive them as studies I imagine a panel of professors might feel similarly. How to remedy this? Edit: In retrospect, yeah, they do look like studies. Never really saw them as such before. Must. Not. Discourage self.

I think the painting 'David' is your strongest piece. It takes the portrait to a new level and really evokes thought on a different level (rather than "ooh nice painting" I'm thinking to myself "ooh nice content"). Your other paintings are quite good but don't speak to the same degree as this one. In my opinion, WHAT your painting says is probably more important than HOW it says it. 'Farhan' is also excellently painted, though it sort of teeters between being a portrait and sharing a message. I feel your pain with the funding. I will literally be unable to attend graduate school if I can't get the funding under control. Waived preferably.

Hello artists, I would love to hear criticism on my paintings. Thanks.

What's the consensus on having non-artists write recommendations? I have a certain English PhD interested in writing for me and I think their writing skills would greatly illuminate my art.

I'm fairly new to this game, but I haven't heard of anybody touting around a hardcopy portfolio in some time. But considering you're a photographer, I doubt it would hurt your chances. My portfolio shows a transition from the earlier work to where I am now. I don't necessarily paint in series, but the work shows consistency in content and execution (which I think bears more weight). It probably depends largely on the program, but I personally wouldn't try to stick too much interdisciplinary work into my packet. Being a painter who works pretty traditionally, it would appear erratic if I tried tacking a bust onto the end of my slides. Now if your work revolves around the interactions between media then by all means include it.

Thanks for the reply. Last season I was rejected from VCU's painting MFA program but accepted into their summer painting program (I declined the summer program because there were no funding opportunities available). Do you think this is any sort of indication that I was kind of B-listed, and that a second application could potentially carry more weight? Does having familiar work give you any sort of edge with the faculty jurors? Edit: In retrospect, these questions of mine seem to be unanswerable. Shots in the dark, probably.

What is the consensus on applying to the same school two years in a row?

Someone told me recently that "figure painting" isn't really a thing anymore, that the idea of the portrait painter is outdated or stale, and the phrase itself tends to marginalize the work we're making. I made the mistake of basing my portfolio on that damnable phrase last year and I'm fairly certain it cost me a position at GSU. As an artist who paints images of people, it was too tempting for me to throw around the word, and I think that says something about the plug-able nature of it. Sort of a go-to space filler when we are at a loss for a more descriptive and accurate term. Of course it could just be semantics, but I've been thinking about what I do very differently since that little epiphany occurred. After being rejected from all of the schools I applied to last season, I'm still debating on whether or not I should try again so soon. I will definitely only consider schools that give tuition waivers and/or work study (or whatever the grown-up phrase is). Do any of you fine creative people know of any such schools offhand?

IMO, the strongest aspect of your work is the self-created psuedo-science mythology. You build your own context through which the pieces are to be viewed, and the Institute counterpart seems like an almost obsessive-compulsive medium for the work to be seen in its "natural" location.

I'm fond of the brutally "human" colors in your work, as if your models are bruised under fluorescent lights. I wouldn't use the word garish because it has such a negative connotation. I think using such a palette adds to the realism of your content, evoking sensations of abuse or even subjugation. Sort of reminds me of the man-dominates-the-weaker-sex cultural stigma, but it's turned on its head considering the cross-gender associations in your work.

Well folks, I was accepted into 0 schools. I guess that's just the way she goes. I've got some newer stuff on my blog; any and all feedback is appreciated. Gracias. http://waynemarcelli.blogspot.com/

only managed to send 3 apps. alas, that is the way of things. it's out of my hands now. . . my fate is at the whim of panelists.