losemygrip

Karadactyl, if you're looking for an MFA program in Chicago, can't you go to UIC? Way cheaper than either Columbia or SAIC and very respectable.

I think the fact that UT-Austin has provided such a nice intro to graduate study in the field might make one more seriously consider their program. That shows both organization and strong mentorship of students.

The problem is that the really High Theory places (e.g., Rochester) have Ph.D. programs and you specifically mentioned an M.A.

And SVA has a gallery space in Chelsea as I recall (or at least I saw undergrad work exhibited there once. Question for nancie: does SVA provide any opportunities for grad students to get teaching experience? That's really important if you want to go into academe.

SUNY Purchase has an MA in Modern Art History and Theory.

find it here: http://www.artfagcity.com/2011/10/17/should-i-get-an-mfa/ This pretty much sums up why I'm always asking people, "Why do you want to get an M.F.A.?"

You just need to peruse the CAA directory of grad programs in art history and find all the schools with Northern Renaissance specialists (not every program has one, believe me), and then check out the funding statistics (CAA provides that in the directory as well, at least for schools that provided the info). I'm actually sympathetic to what I believe you're saying. When I went to grad school years ago, I really didn't care about becoming a disciple of a specific scholar. I just wanted a good program that had someone in my field and that would give me funding. (This was true for me at both the MA and PhD levels.) And it all worked out fine. Most schools do have some additional funding for dissertation travel/research, but as someone mentioned, you're expected to look for outside funding for that.

UCSB is at LEAST as good as UCI, which tends to be heavily into theory from what I can tell. SDSU would be comparable to CSU-F. It's a HUGE program. UCSD is better than many of the programs you listed. UCLA is the best in the country in my opinion, and along with USC, extremely selective in admissions. Art Center is great in design--less so in other areas. Cal Arts' best days are past, and it's pricey--I'd skip it. What is your goal in getting an MFA?

OK, so you need an MFA as a teaching credential. So the place you go actually matters, and needs to have some kind of reputation in academe. (This is why I always ask this question.) Being aware of the illustrative qualities should help you. You may want to address that in your statement so that people know you're self-aware. NYAA might not help much in getting an academic position. I'm going to suggest that you just cast a really broad net, and don't freak out if you don't get in on the first round. It may take a while to find the right fit for you. Here's what I'd suggest for some initial research: Arizona State U. Iowa WUSTL San Francisco Art Institute U. Illinois And here are some second tier schools that I think might be sympathetic to your work (mostly going on gut here) Southern Methodist U Bowling Green State (OH) U. Alabama U. Utah Edinboro U. of Pennsylvania However, these later schools will be less desirable in getting an academic job. I think you're really going to have to peruse websites and look at the work of all the painting faculty and see if you can find anyone whose approach or ideas seem to resonate with yours. Larger schools will have larger faculties, and thus more options to choose from.

Mid-range schools? Cal State Long Beach San Diego State Montclair State U Mass Dartmouth U Miami Iowa State U.T. San Antonio to name only a few.

I'm glad you didn't take my comments personally, and took the time to elaborate on your thinking. It's important that you get over the idea that there is some sort of antipathy towards naturalistic representation in contemporary art. (That seems suggested in your initial statements.) In fact, I think most artists agree with the rest of your discussion, and greatly respect earlier representational art, and feel that it is the foundation for their work. There are certainly successful artists working in representational styles today. You just have not advanced very far in developing your voice. I've seen work very similar to yours in many, many undergraduate classes. They look like the work of someone who has spent two years working on technical skills, as you say you have been. But for grad school, you're going to need to have been working on conceptual issues as well. Are your current teachers in a university environment? Without MFAs, that seems unlikely. You may want to consider taking some undergraduate courses at some of the schools you're considering. It might help to develop your work and to give you a sense of what the schools are like. Also, what are your reasons for wanting an MFA? If you're just wanting to continue to develop your work, you can do that in a variety of other ways.

Based on the samples you've provided, I'm not sure you're ready for grad school to be quite frank. There's no clear conceptual grounding and, while nice, they're not especially distinctive. What do your current professors say? Do you have additional examples?

Can you go as far south as San Diego? As far north as UCSB?

See comments here: about someone in almost your exact situation.

You know, you guys could chip in with your friends and buy this directory from CAA. It also may be available in your current departments, or your library. Do beware some of these stats.

Well, there you go. Then you should apply at Yale.

As always, I ask: what is your goal in getting an MFA? I'd drop Pratt and Parsons right away. They're just not that good, and they're expensive. I actually quite like your work, but you're going to run into an issue in that it seems sort of "illustration-y." The NY Academy of Art would seem ideal, but I can't say for sure without knowing what your professional goals are.

Paintcutter, it's really thoughtful of you to offer to ask questions for people, and to bring back this info. Regarding the debate about letters vs. statement: I think this may be dependent on school and field. I've definitely heard admissions essays derided as unimportant by faculty, but not in studio art. I can imagine that the statement is really seen more as an artist's statement than an admissions essay, which would give it more importance. I would not neglect getting good references, however. Honestly, in studio admissions you images are what will make or break you.

Something similar happened to me. At the master's level, I was admitted without financial aid to a graduate school, but after obtaining a terminal MA elsewhere, was given a great recruitment fellowship at the same institution. The odd thing was that I was told my GRE scores put me out of contention for a scholarship the first go-around, but the second time, those very same scores were what qualified me for the big fellowship.

Frankly, I think Dian Kriz would be very sympathetic to a topic like that as well.

No they are not. Virginia Commonwealth is pretty widely recognized as the best in sculpture. If you want to go in New York City, you'd have to try Hunter College, dreadful though it is. SUNY Purchase is better.

How about SUNY Purchase? I think they might like that. You definitely need some fallbacks. Your work doesn't look like it was fished out of a junkyard, so it probably won't go over at Yale. How about UNC Greensboro, Montclair State, and UMBC?

I was in the art history program there. I was never impressed with the MFA shows. That was two decades ago, though. Still, I think there are better programs, even just in Texas (North Texas, for instance).

That's a tough one. The Institute of Fine Arts comes to mind just because they work so closely with the Met, so you'd be able to work with that great collection. What are your career goals?

OK, how about Stanford, Princeton, Michigan and CUNY? Your fallbacks could be Rutgers, Emory (they're getting a new contemporary person), maybe Rochester if you decide to go heavy into theory.