losemygrip

Imogen, I'm not as up on photo, but New Mexico is still very well known, and U. Arizona. U. Houston has a pretty strong program.

Maler, why does that woman have blue paint dripping from her hands? Seriously, seeing your work, I'd say skip UCLA and SAIC. You know, I recently saw a view book for a grad program that had some work with some affinities to yours, but I can't remember where it was from. Maybe University of the Arts in Philadelphia? I also agree about RISD now. As fallback schools, I think any of the CSUs in southern California--Fullerton, San Diego, Long Beach--would get you into that region. For getting a faculty position, pedigree counts some, but not as much as exhibition record and making work that the hiring committee will like.

Get the CAA Guide to Graduate Programs in Art. It has lots of this kind of info, and more (although you don't get acceptance rates for every institution--participation was voluntary.)

D-ooooohhhh! You're right--that's one of very few states without a decent MFA program. What kind of painting do you do? That would affect where you might want to apply. First of all, I'd say don't waste your time with Yale. Not worth it. Just overall, if I were recommending to one of my students to apply to good/great painting programs around the country I'd say: UCLA, Iowa, SAIC, Tyler, ASU, Connecticut Next tier: North Texas, U. Houston, Tennessee, Indiana, Washington, San Francisco Art Institute Next tier: SIU Carbondale, UNLV, UNC Greensboro, SDSU or Long Beach or Fullerton, IUPUI-Herron That's just off the top of my head.

Mine was heinous, oh lo these many years ago. But had it been excellent, I truly feel it would have made no difference in my admissions acceptances and denials. They're accepting a class. So they look at whether the research interests match up with anyone (and this can be in a general or specific way), but also who has a full load of grad students, what areas they're looking to build upon, whether the student adds to the diversity of the group in various ways, in addition to evaluating the academic competencies. They look at the composition of the class--it can't all be modernists, for example. And so on. While your SOP got some attention, did they say it got you admitted? I doubt it. You wrote an excellent statement, but they probably would have admitted you anyway.

From the letters of recommendation and the transcript. Yes, and that's part of the statement of purpose. But my main argument has been that it is probably the least important component of the application in most cases, and that too much weight has been placed on it in many of these discussions.

What state are you in? You should apply to local fall-back schools where you could get in-state tuition. Exhibition record will definitely help, but the work is what makes the difference. If they don't like it, they won't look at your resume.

These are the things that kind of sound like an amateur. Sounds like, "I just LOVE painting, but I really don't care much for contemporary art--it's so ugly and complicated. Why can't they be bright and cheerful like Miro?" I'm not saying that's really you, I'm just saying that's the impression one can get. I do think that grad committees will look with some skepticism on an applicant without a BFA. You'll need a great portfolio, and great recommendations from serious people who will be able to convince the committee that you're the real deal and not a dabbler. And honestly, if you don't like "avant-garde," you should probably just skip grad school. You're going to be expected to THINK avant-garde, even if it's not directly reflected in your work. You're going to have to justify your work's place (intellectually) in the contemporary world. Very few programs are going to allow you to "just paint."

LOL! When you've been in academe as long as I have, you'll understand the reputation of English departments. Horrific politics and gamesmanship, generally acknowledged as worse than in any other discipline. It's the very idea of a "personal statement" that's goofy. I have definitely heard people on graduate committees roll their eyes talking about them. From my experience they are the least important part of an application. A bad personal statement will not harm your application if the rest is good, but a good one will not make up for anything else that's lacking. Admissions committees go to those to try to figure out how a candidate would fit in if it isn't visible elsewhere in the application. That's why you just need to address briefly the kind of research you'd like to focus on and with whom you're interested in studying, and perhaps your overall career plans. It's not a writing sample, because it isn't scholarship. If you have a great GPA, high GREs, strong letters, the statement won't matter.

Honestly, for Museum Ed you could also go the Education route--assuming you could stand the pointless, boring, repetitive coursework. But I really do think there are actual museum education masters programs somewhere, and if you're really focused on that, that's what you should aim for. You do NOT need an art history MA to do museum ed. In fact, an ideal museum ed person might have an undergrad degree in education, and a grad degree in museum studies.

You know, I wasn't holding out hope when I went to your website because your background sounded like a Sunday painter. However, your paintings have a "primitive verve" that I kind of like. I perceive a couple of problems: Your negative attitude towards anything not painting. Don't ever let on about that. Just talk about how committed you are to paint without mentioning anything else. The naive quality of your work. There's almost an outsider-artist feel to some of it. On the one hand, it's good you haven't been forced into the typical mold by going through the BFA curriculum. On the other hand, it's not good that you don't have the knowledge and sophistication about art as would someone with a BFA. Or am I just assuming? You don't really talk about exactly what your background is, so you sound sort of like a Sunday painter who has decided to get an MFA, rather like a contemporary Gauguin. I have had very bad luck with those. In a case like yours, admission is a crapshoot. Just apply to schools that you think you'd like and see what happens.

I interviewed a candidate with an MFA from Transart. She was an unmitigated disaster. I don't know what that says for the program--it's sort of interesting looking.

Haha! No kidding. That's what I love about him--he's totally above board about how he feels. He also has no patience for bullshit from what I can tell. That's why I can't figure out why he took the Yale job.

OK, I can't believe I'm coming back to this again. This odd research focus kept banging around in my head, so I did some Googling. Substitute "Wisconsin" for "Minnesota" above. They have a long-established Scandinavian Studies Department where you can actually take Old Norse, and there is a Viking person on the faculty. Minnesota does have a large German/Scandinavian languages department, but their art history department has really shrunk since I last looked at it. Probably not the best choice for that reason. I also discovered that Berkeley has a Viking specialist in their Scandinavian Studies Dept. And they have the best art history program in the country according to the NRC. I saw that Penn State also has a famous Viking expert. So I can see why you chose that. Too bad you can't go to England. They literally have "Viking Studies" programs there. Anyhow, I think that's the way to go. Seek out Viking scholars in any discipline, and when they happen to be in schools with good art history departments (with a specialist in early medieval), put that schol on your list.

My argument was that the writing sample was important, and not the personal statement. That's where the committee gets their information about your writing, not from a goofy statement of purpose. I actually don't disagree with anything you said prior to the above statement. Oh my god. You'll need to become less paranoid to survive graduate school. Oh, wait--you're probably in an English Department, right? You'll need to become much MORE paranoid. My use of caps is simply to add expression to the writing, not to insult you. Chill.

A former professor told me of his/her qualifying exams in ancient Greek art a the Institute of Fine Arts: Was shown a black-and-white photo of the severed hand of a statue (or maybe it was a plaster cast? can't remember. . . ) Anyhow, from just the hand s/he was to date, place, attribute (if a known artist or school), and otherwise completely contextualize. And comment on the relevance and meaning of the style and period. So imagine if you will--if you got the initial attribution wrong, with every succeeding minute of your response you just work yourself in a deeper hole. As crazy as it sounds, that's what you have to work with in Greek art. I learned a lot about art history when I did work in Greek art.

Oh, and this M.A. vs. Ph.D. thing--many grad programs are Ph.D. only. Some offer M.A. and Ph.D. And some are terminal M.A. In the first case, you apply and are accepted to the Ph.D. prgram straight from undergrad. You MIGHT pick up an MA along the way. In the second you would be admitted to the M.A. program and complete that, then re-apply for the Ph.D. program (or go elsewhere). In the third you HAVE to go elsewhere. Terminal MA programs are good fallbacks, since they lavish their money and attention on MA level students. I wouldn't worry about this, either. Apply to appropriate schools--this is just a structural difference in the programs.

I don't necessarily agree. Some grad programs may be this way, but not all. Some are actually looking for interesting minds with bright futures. No, they won't take if you you want to do Chinese and they have no faculty members anywhere in Asian art. But If you want to do Vikings and they have an early medievalist, that's reasonable enough, particularly if you note some vague methodological affinity. Or if there's someone in history or anthropology who does Vikings that could be a reader and consultant for you. My personal opinion is that you have a really interesting background, intriguing research, and a lot of schools would be interested. I don't know why you're so obsessed with this language thing. You have the German--that's what's important. You'll eventually need two languages for a Ph.D. You can pick them up before, or during. Some of the people in my program were still desperately trying to pass the German exam right before they graduated. (In fact, I think one of them NEVER passed it., but they let her graduate anyhow.) The real problem is if you end up somewhere that doesn't offer Scandinavian languages. You can always do French, and meet the requirement, but you'll need something Scandinavian for your research. If you couldn't get it there, you'd have to pick it up on your own. I think you're going to have to go to a gigantic state school somewhere (like Texas or Penn State, or Michigan--or Minnesota, where I think they are in general VERY into Scandinavian Studies--check it out!) where Scandinavian languages would be taught, and where you could probably find people in history/English/anthropology interested in your focus. You're going to need to be fairly interdisciplinary. I think admission committees will be OK with that. Many might really like it. I would research all the possible connections well for all your potential graduate schools. In my grad school (which happens to be one of the 3 I mentioned above) you were REQUIRED to have an "outside" reader on your committee. And some people had more than one. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think that the four I listed are really the only suitable places for you. Perhaps Minnesota most of all. Maybe Ohio State as a fallback school.

Hunter not interdisciplinary? The last time I checked they had a concentration in intermedia. I, too, question the wisdom of limiting yourself to the east coast. But the ones you have now chosen from the west coast are NOT interdisciplinary. You need to look to UCSD, UCLA, and Arizona State.

We recently had a faculty candidate who was initially rejected from all his grad school choices. He went somewhere as a special student a couple of years, built up his portfolio, and then was accepted at all of those same schools, attending one of the top 5 programs in the country in his field.

He might be doing that, but I've not heard any gossip about it. He should really hire Judy Pfaff. I've heard she's an awesome teacher.

Well, you MIGHT be able to work some with Alberro if you go to Columbia; he's on the faculty at Barnard, and there is some interaction between the two departments from what I've heard. But I wouldn't recommend it. James Meyer at Emory might be better. Look at the CAA list of recent dissertations completed and see where people have been doing dissertations on conceptualism. My general recollection is that many of them came out of the CUNY Grad Center.

Well, I AM in art history, and I respectfully disagree. Writing sample is important; personal statement MUCH less so. And grades and GRE scores were very much considered at my grad institution. My GRE scores were specifically what qualified me for a fellowship. In fact, my advisor told me once that the personal statement was the LEAST important thing in the packet. GRE scores can be really important if you're coming from a lesser-known school. If you're applying from Amherst College, the quality of your undergrad education is assumed. Much less so if you're applying from, say, UMass-Boston. But if your GRE scores are comparable or superior to students from those "better" schools, it reassures the committee of your capabilities. Your letters of rec are extremely important, much more than your personal statement. Better to get a strong, detailed letter from someone lesser-known than a standard template from someone famous. (Or only have one famous name, and the others be those who really know you.) And as I've said before, already having the appropriate language skills can also put you ahead of the pack. Get French and German under your belt.

Do you mean museum education? I think there used to be a whole masters degree program in that at GWU, or maybe Georgetown. You may also want to consider the arts administration program at Seton Hall. There is no point in doing a theory program if you want a job in education. The advantage to getting in a new program is there is generally less competition, and if they have resources, you'll get them. The down side is that if they're new, there may not BE any resources.

Another approach: What do you really want to study in grad school? Modern and urbanism? Then find a program that does that well, and mention in your statement that you've had a wide variety of interests as an undergrad but you've decided this is really what you want to work on. You might also mention something about your experience as a producing artist giving you firsthand insight into the creative process and the physical media of art. (That's what I did--I had a BFA when I applied to grad school.) I don't know that it's really necessary to try to synthesize all your interests in the statement. Frankly, I think you sound like a really interesting candidate because of all that--if you remain a little mysterious, you might incite their curiosity. I know that Texas used to have someone in architecture who did urbanism (Alofsin? might have retired), and they're certainly good in modern. Emory is good in African, but it sounds like you're turning away from that. That's also a good place if you want to do African interactions with the west. I think they just made a new hire in modern.