NFP

The rigour of practice and colleagial and curatorial connections you get from studying a full time MFA are already evident to me at the end of my first semester. While I see an MFA will fast track these things/opportunities, none of the aforementioned benefits are worth being in substantial debt for. This was a BIG gamble as I moved half way across the world to do this and would not have come without a scholarship (which I got). Your decision should be pragmatic as a minimum. If you have the means, all well and good, if you don't, I'd say just keep practicing and enjoy your life and what you're doing. The burden and stress of debt will suck the joy from your life.

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."

Three years of my life was taken up preparing - applying 2 years running and then finally getting into Grad School, as well as applying for many many scholarships and grants.
Make sure the works in your portfolio are cohesive (as expressed already). This will be the first part of your application review. If you don't get this right, the rest of your application will never see the light of day.
Get someone else to review your portfolio before you send it. Lead with your strongest work and make sure you have professionally shot images. Your statement is important, and should be well crafted and sincere. Remember, faculty have read plenty of these before and will see through any B.S. Not sure how much emphasis panels place on referees, however you should select wisely just in case.
Be sure you're really ready, both mentally and emotionally - this is not undergrad and the pressure and expectation is far far greater. You may be in a new place - settling can be difficult. You will be working REALLY hard!!!! once you start, so if you like to party, forget it. It is gruelling, draining, elating, invigorating, devastating, exciting etc ........ Be well prepared and you will be rewarded.

I would also wait for a better funding offer, an assistant curator from an internationally recognised gallery told me that your school choice shouldnt matter and that really yu will be judged on your work quality and only lazy curators choose artist for exhibition based on schools. :-/

"Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck" - The Dalai Lama

As a 2nd rounder, the above Instruction from the DL has proved an invaluable thing (for me) to focus on.

If I'd taken 2nd prize from my first attempt in 2011:
I would never have been inspired to work even harder to get into my #1 choice next time - a whole new body of stronger work was the result
I would never have been offered my dream school this year - I believe this only happened because of my new body of work

Acceptance of the Universal decision is hard, but I believe there's always a reason even though it might not be clear to start with.

Go well into your new adventures.

PS Best to you Kazoo and congrats - your wait was worth it!

Congrats to everyone who has made deicions - and just to jump in on the reputation debate, it's interesting that a thread from last year was (assumedly by accident) commented on and therefore brought up to date. If you look at it, the person outlines artists showing at major galleries and which schools they went to. A lot of them come from top schools. However, Cal Arts graduates 524 people each year in all of their programs. How many of those people become stars in their chosen field? I'm not convinced that going to a name school ensures anything other than a lot of debt. Name schools have the luxury of being able to choose people with talent, and those talented people may have become well known regardless. LaToya Ruby Fraizer, who is in this years Whitney Biennial, went to Syracuse - and coincidentally, teaches at Rutgers. Tam Tran, a 2010 biennial artist, graduated from Tennessee. Furthermore, I agree with OutWest, that we all should be learning Portuguese and Mandarin - though I would also add Arabic to that list. The Middle Eastern Art Market is set to boom. New York and L.A. will always be staples in contemporary art. But the notion of the outsider is continuing to establish itself from a movement into a mainstay.

My point/rant being: that yes, going to a name school can help you. But when everything is said and done, it will be up to you to make your own career happen. And it's arguable that it might be easier to do so without $100,000 worth of debt.

Snail mail letter (dated 20 March) received today from SAIC - accepted

This entire application process, as many of you have noted, feels like–and often is–a crapshoot. Why are you accepted to one school and rejected by another? Why is it that last year you were wait listed and this year, not even an interview? How can a highly ranked school accept you and a nothing school reject you? For most of these questions, there are no clear-cut answers and in fact, it's largely situational. Similarly, life beyond school–as a working artist–will be just as much a crapshoot. You can do things to improve your odds of success (such as attend a reputable art school and make connections), but in the end there are no guarantees. Emphasis: no guarantees. I doubt that every Yale, RISD, and SAIC graduate to walk the earth has gone on to have enormous success or even gallery representation. Perhaps most do, and certainly more so than some little known school with a tiny program, but remember that attending an 'Ivy League' art school is still not a golden ticket to success.

You'll have a leg up for sure. For some people, that could make or break a career. For others, particularly those relentlessly driven individuals who are both dedicated but intelligent about their pursuits, their success might come in other (slower) ways. School is a large factor, but not the sole factor. Character, commitment, personality, and, of course, quality/marketability of work also play into it. The fact is that most of us will not succeed in the big-NYC-representation sort of way. The market is huge and always on the brink of saturation. Remember, you're competing with a world (literally) of artists, old and new, some of whom are very established. And, as with fashion, technology, etc, there are trends in art. Perhaps you'll find and lose success because you went from being 'in' to being passé. Perhaps you'll become jaded and realize that the kind of art that sells is no longer the kind of art you want to make. Or, perhaps your entire idea of 'success' won't even include galleries in major cities, but making art and sustaining life. Why should that be dismissed as a lesser form of success? Many people go their whole lives hating their jobs and being forced to sacrifice what they love just to make ends meet–I'd count myself lucky to just do what I love and be able to survive. Anything else is icing on the cake.

Here's a question I have to many of you who are torn: if you only wanted to go to a big name, reputable school, then why did you even apply anywhere else? There must have been some qualities about this lesser-known school that really resonated with you or you shouldn't have applied to begin with and you wouldn't have this decision to make. Take some time to look beyond name value and rank and really concentrate on the faculty, facility, and current caliber of student work. Can you get a pretty good, albeit not the best, deal for less and if so, is that worth a debt-free life? Are you in it to become a marketable, clamored-after artist or to make the work you want to make? What, in short, does pursuing an MFA mean to you? Knowing these answers might help you prioritize and decide because only you can answer them!

I know I've been playing devil's advocate, but I really have nothing against big name, highly ranked schools and I often think the investment is actually worth it–to an extent. I grew up in a frugal family and I know that I don't want a future mired in debt–it really can destroy your life–but some debt is certainly ok. Obviously if you're good enough to be accepted to any top tier school, you have some components of 'what it takes' to make it as an artist. If you don't get that leg up that goes with attending a Yale or RISD, are still driven enough to make it happen? If you do go, are you confident in your ability to leave school and start selling yourself/your work right away to start paying off loans (because it really is both that you'll have to sell). I say think long and hard about how much debt you can and are willing to assume–maybe there's a middle ground you can bargain your way to (don't forget about counter-offers!). Or, you might find that a fully-paid experience elsewhere is worth the extra struggle to catch up to your Columbia, VCU, etc peers. Or, you might feel confident that borrowing a ton of money is just simply the way to go. In the end, it's up to you. Just be sure to make your decision on more than one factor alone.

Yes, let's keep it civil. Posting about acceptances is one thing, but a school may get really upset if people are going around saying how much money they got, especially at a UC that takes like 5 people and may only give one of them a deal like Reaceurx. They wouldn't retract the offer but her may start there with really bad rep. As we know, rep is all that matters in this business.

I totally agree with you but just because we cant see each other doesnt mean we can abandon respect.... I have seen a number of other fields of study sayin gthere were any number of nasty replys and I was so pleasantly surprised that we have had NONE of that!!! perhaps a private message would have been the way to go... or simply asking why he wouldnt share... I dont know maybe I'm wrong I just think we are all peers and this is hard enough without having to rudeness on the forum. but its ultimately no skin off my back!!! good luck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually if you need to know my life story I just found this forum yesterday...

so like i said WHAT WAS THE POINT?

WHY WOULD SOMEONE DO THIS:

---------> I HEARD FROM A SCHOOL GUYS AND I KNOW THE MAJORITY OF YOU ARE NERVOUS AND ANXIOUS BUT I'M STILL NOT GONNA TELL YOU WHO I HEARD FROM.... SWEET!!!




I've applied to

Yale- Interview
SAIC- ACCEPTED
Calarts- Interview
UCI- Interview
UCD-Rejected
UCR- Rejected
UCSB- ACCEPTED.
UCLA-???
UCSD-??
Columbia-???
Hunter-???

EXACTLY

well is doesnt appear that you have posted anything of relevance about any school to which you have applied, nor have you contributed to the post in any productuve way so it seems slightly hypocritical to have said "what is the point." When in fact he same could be said of your post. You could have been more tactful.. we are all adults here. COME ON!

no need to be.

just think it's really dumb the question couldn't be answered.

so like I asked what was the point of posting?

Damn bitter much????

Can you please explain, what was your point of your post exactly ? You don't want to share which school... how do any of us benefit from such a mysterious post?


power trip?.... LAME!