losemygrip

Washington University in St. Louis is currently searching for someone in contemporary. I just saw an ad.

You'd probably like U. Texas. You could work with Shiff and Ann Reynolds. They're VERY good in modern--among the best, really.

Sure to be controversial. This is from the Art History Blog. The industrious author (god bless him) went to the trouble of trying to make sense of the new NRC grad program rankings. Basically, he just averaged the two different ranking categories in order to create numbers for a single ranking. The original list was complex (and all prospective grad students should refer to it, as it provides a lot of interesting data about length to degree, financial aid, etc.) I should also add that this is based more on objective data than the old "reputational rankings," where they just ask people what are the best programs in the field. It helps to eliminate the ones that are resting on their laurels. NRC Rankings, Revised by Jon Lackman | 1 September 2011 | Books, Career I just discovered that the NRC revised its rankings back in April after discovering errors in its data. So, I should go back and revise the findings of my last post on this subject. Using my (admittedly arbitrary) method of average the NRC two rating systems, I get this revised ranking: 1 University of California-Berkeley 2 University of Chicago 3 Columbia University in the City of New York 4 Yale University 5 Princeton University 6 New York University 7 Harvard University 8 University of California-Los Angeles 9 Northwestern University 10 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 11 University of Texas at Austin 12 University of Pennsylvania 13 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 14 Duke University 15 Brown University 16 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 17 University of California-Santa Barbara 18 University of Southern California (*) 19 University of Wisconsin-Madison 20 City University of New York Grad. Center 21 University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Campus (*) 22 Stanford University 23 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (*) 24 University of Maryland College Park 25 Bryn Mawr College 26 Temple University 27 University of Delaware 28 Johns Hopkins University 29 Washington University in St. Louis (*) 30 Penn State University 31 Emory University 32 University of Washington 33 Rutgers the State University of New Jersey New Brunswick Campus 34 Indiana University at Bloomington 35 University of Minnesota-Twin Cities (*) 36 Case Western Reserve University 37 University of Kansas 38 University of Georgia 39 State University of New York at Stony Brook 40 Boston University 41 University of Iowa 42 University of Virginia 43 Ohio State University Main Campus 44 University of Missouri – Columbia 45 Cornell University 46 State University of New York at Binghamton 47 Florida State University 48 Virginia Commonwealth University 49 University of New Mexico Main Campus 50 University of Louisville *: An asterisk indicates that the program scored the same as the one above it.

Do not ask a department chair for a reference letter unless s/he actually has good familiarity with you and/or your work. (And in a positive way, not because you were summoned in because of a problem.)

OK, if you're wanting the MFA as a teaching credential, you do have to be careful where you end up. That's why I asked. First let's obliterate this false dichotomy I see developing. One misconception is that if a faculty includes abstract painters that they will be unwelcoming of representational painters. The other is that said faculty members would have nothing to offer to a representational painter, especially technically, since they have no technical skills. Both notions are completely false. Another questionable premise lurking in the background is that somehow representational/classical painting is a satisfactory end in itself. Well, it might be for you personally, but not for getting an MFA. You still need conceptual content. THIS is actually where the conflict arises. There are some representational painters around who feel that continuing to do landscapes, portraits, still-lifes in a very traditional manner, indistinguishable from zillions of others, is perfectly fine. Intrinsically, there's nothing wrong with it. But you won't get into grad school in the 21st century without a serious conceptual framework and something original. It's not just all about technique. Now, assuming none of the above is an issue, I'd say go ahead and apply at the Academy. You don't have to go there if you don't get a scholarship. I would look for schools in which both the faculty and students demonstrate a wide variety of styles. That's your cue that they are open to many forms of expression. Very large departments are probably a good idea, as you're more likely to find a compatible advisor and fellow students. And don't forget to apply to a range of schools, including some fallbacks.

Please take this as constructive criticism-- First, watch your writing. "Pointillism style" should be "pointillist style," or better still for your case, "pointillistic style." That's a kind of freshman level error that will not go over well in a graduate school application. Phrases such as "my style of work" are also really awkward and unsophisticated. Saying you're concentrating on "space art" does not sound very sophisticated, either. You mean that you've turned to depictions of outer space, correct? Say it that way. Space itself is not the art. You're gong to have to work hard to theorize your work on a graduate school level. Second, after looking at your link, I can only see one work that relates either to Impressionism OR pointillism. There are many different types of work there, and they do not make a cohesive portfolio. I would discourage you from trying to use those figure paintings to try to get into a graduate school. That one pointillist landscape is attractive, but what is in it to distinguish it from Seurat or Signac? In fact, a lot of that work seems very close to that of various historical figures. I believe you're going to have to have a serious chat with various faculty in order to put together a coherent portfolio. Seek out people that you know are not sympathetic to your work in order to get the most criticism. You also may have to do more work in a particular vein in order to convince committees you are serious. It's possible that you just need to wait a little while to apply until your ideas have settled down more.

Those could be very reasonable fall-back schools. I don't think either really does hard-core 18th century French (Rococo, etc.).

You should certainly include San Diego in your net. Since you're geographically limited, if I were you I would just apply to every reasonable program in your geographic radius and see where you get the best deal.

If you're interested in community college teaching, it shouldn't be such a problem (and there's nothing wrong with that). So given the career goals you have in mind you're probably OK staying put. The LA art scene is great; I've certainly gone on record here many times as recommending southern California to everyone. But it's easy to become complacent and/or insular (New York is a perfect example) when you just experience one place. I've seen some nice work from Fullerton, unless that's where you are now. The others you mention are all good; UCLA is the best in the country in my opinion. Again, you may not be quite as attractive to them being that you're a "local product." (Classes of grad students are also put together thinking of diversity.) But you really don't have to go to a school like UCLA to do what you want. Those private schools will be really expensive. If you're accepted there make sure it's with complete funding. Can you go as far south as San Diego?

In my opinion, this POST is what's really ridiculous. The whole point of fora such as these is to share opinions and information. It's good to know what different opinions are of programs. And the pictures that have been posted may help someone to determine if this is for them. Why wouldn't one want to know if a program had its fans and foes? Oh, and don't assume all participants are current applicants. Some of us may be seasoned professionals just trying to help. If you don't like the commentary that's coming out of a particular forum, don't write there. Your energies are better spent trying to figure out where you do want to write rather than ranting about the commentary you don't like.

Mary Sheriff at UNC would seem to be ideal for you. Brown also has an 18th century specialist. You might see if you could find an 18th century specialist somewhere in southern California, since the Huntington Collection is there. Unfortunately, Mary Vidal died a few years ago (she was at UCSD).

Oh, and I once worked in a department with an MFA student who was functionally illiterate. When I questioned the chair as to what the expectations were for students' academic abilities, his response was, "But her paintings are amazing." I can't imagine this student could have had a 3.0 (I can't even imagine how she earned a bachelor's degree, or even a high school diploma), so clearly not everyone requires great grades.

Stranger: I disagree. Sometimes the local connection can help with an academic job because you're a familiar known quantity. You get in based on personal contacts. However, that is typically not how the "better" schools work. You want diversity in your faculty, and that includes diversity of background and education. Otherwise it gets incestuous and looks bad, like a sort of closed shop. Local products can get the part-time or temp jobs, but probably not tenure-track. Not to say it doesn't happen--there are certainly faculty and departments that think like the person you're talking to. But I don't think it's an advantage. It's also not good for your development as an artist to always be in the same environment. Simpatico: I imagine if they say 3.0, they mean 3.0. That may be a requirement of the institution's graduate school and not the department. It's possible that your application would be knocked out of contention before it ever reached the department. You could call the departments and ask, but in a competitive environment, they're looking for any reason to reject applicants, and that's an easy one. How many courses would you have to repeat to bring up your undergrad GPA?

The MFA work from the New York Academy that I've seen was stupendous. But I don't know if they do much clay. I'm pretty sure Yale does not do clay at all. Forget CalArts if you want to be a representational painter. Laguna would be expensive, and a waste of time DEPENDING on why you're getting an MFA. So tell us, why ARE you getting an MFA? I might suggest to you as a backup Bowling Green State in Ohio. I've definitely seen some successful representational painters coming from there, and they have a huge school of art. Also, make sure that your application is more cleanly written that your post was here. That stuff counts.

Yes, absolutely mention this in your application.

I think you sound quite promising. All that work in the field is a huge plus. You're pretty accomplished for a beginning grad student. A lot of students finish their dissertations without doing this much stuff. No, nobody is going to be spooked by the contemporary art--and if they are, screw them. You don't want to be in a department like that, right? Modern/contemporary: not dreaded. Yes, there are more people in it--but there are many more jobs available. I think you have every reason to be positive.

This is fine if your goal is to be an artist and advance your understanding, but if you want an academic job, it is not a good idea. At all. Just FYI for anyone thinking about doing this. I think your list is pretty good, except as everyone knows I'm very down on Yale. If you want to go to the NYC area, SUNY Purchase is better than Hunter. And from the description of your work, I think you'd find a more welcoming environment there. Consider U. Conn also. I concur with your friend's high estimation of Iowa in painting.

In that list, Rutgers and Bard are more or less your fallbacks. If you feel that the list is too long, my opinion is to edit out Yale, NYU, Berkeley, and Cranbrook. If you'd like more fallbacks (and you insist on getting out of the southeast), think about U. North Texas (huge--maybe as big as ASU) and maybe Cal State Fullerton or San Diego State. Back in the day, it was possible to request application fee waivers if you were financially independent. I successfully did that with almost everyone when applying to grad schools. I think only Berkeley turned me down. (But that was years ago.) Worth investigating.

Yes, and you may find this to be the case elsewhere, too. You might inquire to see if your other art accomplishments might be accepted in lieu of credits. Or, perhaps you could be provisionally accepted, come in and do deficiency work for a year, and then enter the program.

NYU's MFA program in art is not well-established. I would not recommend it for someone like you. Newer programs typically have fewer financial resources for students as well. Seriously, I think you need to look at Carnegie-Mellon. And VCU, which is tops in sculpture.

Well, that didn't work. Where are the instructions for posting images?

No, as I've said many times, I've viewed Yale student work in the regional MFA shows that CAA puts on, and it's consistently terrible. Here's a particularly egregious example.

It's not totally unusual. A lot of artists hate this kind of work, so they just put the burden on you, the requestor. It suggests they think well enough of you that they're willing to say whatever you like (or that they care so little that it doesn't bother them). Thinking back on it, I believe my main recommender may have asked me to do this when I was applying to PhD programs in art history. It's less common in that field.

I think you're worrying unnecessarily. As long as you can get good recommendations, you should get in somewhere with that background. Just avoid expectations--don't get fixated on Brown. Good luck, and don't stress.