losemygrip

Arizona State has one of the best reputations in the country for printmaking. I don't know how traditional it is, but they certainly have other, intermedia faculty that you could work with.

Oh! Maybe Storr has decided to clean house. It's way overdue. He needs to bring in some people who actually care about education and aren't just using their positions at Yale for health benefits and ego-boost.

Well, I also want to applaud you for having the guts to point out the Emperor has no clothes. Very perceptive of you (and ballsy). The art world needs more of that. You and the girlfriend need to just apply to a range of schools of varying selectivity, and then make your decisions after you see what you're both offered. Don't go borrowing trouble when you don't even know what your options are.

Have you ever MET Alexander Alberro? Are you sure you really want to work with him? He's rather unpleasant in my experience.

Get that French and German under your belt if you. That'll help you a lot. Statement of purpose is (generally) low in importance. It's going to come into play in borderline cases, when making the last few decisions. I knew someone who was admitted to Columbia completely without one. She told them she was on an archeological dig and did not have the ability to send it in at that time. They didn't care. I'm going to make a couple of other suggestions. First, while you want to find an advisor who is relevant to your focus, you don't want him/her to be TOO relevant. Because then s/he thinks s/he knows it all and they will over-direct your work. You need to find someone who is more tangentially connected, e.g., uses similar methodology but with a different period or topic, or who studies the same time and movement, but a different country. Second, consider U. Texas.

The Rochester program is primarily Theory, with a capital "T." It's not particularly groundbreaking or interdisciplinary from what I can tell from its graduates. They're all theory mavens.

Yes, those are truly some terrible paintings. Laughable. And very much in keeping with what's happening at Yale these days. I saw the regional MFA show at CAA in New York this year. The Yale work was almost uniformly terrible, along the lines of the above pieces. I strongly discourage prospective students from going to Yale for an MFA. It has nothing going for it but its name and Robert Storr (and for the life of me I can't imagine why he permits this nonsense to be perpetrated under his watch). If you want to go east coast, try Univ. of Connecticut, VCU, or Tyler. I also saw some really interesting work in the aforementioned MFA show coming out of the new MFA program at Montclair State in New Jersey. If you want to go in NYC itself, it's probably Hunter (although SVA has had some good work in the past). Columbia's MFA program is somewhat mysterious to me. While they have dynamite faculty (at least reputationally), I rarely see their grads doing anything afterwards. They seem invisible. Maybe that's because they just stay in New York and become absorbed. I commend you for wanting to go somewhere different. I think the art scene in southern California now is more interesting than in New York, but you are correct in seeing this as an opportunity for growth.

In my opinion you are going to have a very difficult time in any of those programs, even if you are admitted (you stand the best chance at Pratt, and maybe CalArts). Your training is not really in art, but in the business of advertising. Graphic design--as taught in art departments--is still largely an art (visual) discipline. Give it a shot. If you have a superb design portfolio, you might get in. But once you get there, not only will you have to deal with the different pedagogical approaches in the U.S., you'll also have to deal with (basically) a new discipline.

7 years for a Harvard Ph.D. is highly optimistic. It will likely take much longer. In the old days, Harvard was notorious for lengthy doctoral candidacies. If we all knew what kind of student gets accepted at Harvard, well, then we'd all be going there. The two I have known personally came in with M.A. degrees, one from Ivy League and one from highly ranked state university art history program. Both were interested in subtle and densely theoretical stuff, but both also had practical experience (one as a working artist, one in museums). Neither had anywhere near the kind of foreign language skills that I did when I applied years ago. Now that I'm thinking about it specifically, I guess neither of these two took more than 10 years to finish. One of them may have done it in 7. (But remember--that was AFTER an M.A.)

Yes; certainly what I've said takes for granted you have a good body of work to present to these schools. However, I would argue against the idea that you have to sacrifice one for the other; that you should somehow be spending all your professional time just making art. Successful artists carve out a chunk of time for other professional activities. Admission committees look at a lot of interesting work (and even more that is boring). While a good exhibition record cannot replace images that catch the fancy of the faculty, it can help to distinguish you from others similar to you. And if you want an academic position eventually, you can't start too early on building that exhibition record. And yes, definitely if you want to do an interdisciplinary program, you need to show some interdisciplinary work in your portfolio (or else have one hell of an admissions essay to explain the discrepancy!)

Yes, absolutely. Those local shows won't help you much. Those are expected. Some national exposure and success competing nationally will help to make you stand out. Also, juried shows are by nature competitive--admissions committees may not know if a local show is juried or curated or whatever. You can also look in the back of _Art in America_, or on the CAA website for opportunities. If you want to be a professor, that's a legitimate reason to get an MFA. It's your union card. Your motivations are definitely something to discuss. I say this from years of experience with students (I've been a professor for almost 20 years). But you seem to have a rationale for it, so by all means go ahead.

You need to be entering juried shows on a regular basis. It amazes me at how many students these days expect show opportunities to fall into their laps. You need to apply to a range of schools, from highly competitve to "fall-back." Then you go where you get the best deal. You need to do your research on these schools. Look at the CAA guide to graduate schools in studio art. You need to know exactly why you're seeking an MFA. Terry Allen once said that if you want to be a professional artist, an MFA is a waste of time. Be very clear about what you hope to accomplish. Do not go to grad school because you're not sure what else to do and momentum is carrying you there, or because you can't make a decision about a career. Are you seeking more feedback about your work? Do you want to teach at the college level (really the primary reason for getting an MFA)? Do you want "free" studio space (this can be the case in New York City)?

Well, sure. The rankings are what they are. But they now factor in for programs being very similar statistically to those that rank high reputationally. That's why we've seen an evening out. And of course intra-discipline specialization is not taken into account. I wouldn't send someone to Harvard to do south Asian art history.

Harvard is not conservative anymore. They haven't been "conservative" since they forced out Sydney Freedberg, at least 35 years ago. They are, however, stodgy, and firmly convinced of their own superiority. If you go to Harvard with a completed M.A., guess how much credit you get for it? One semester of course work. That's it. Michigan is still a top 20 program. However, if you go by the recent NRC grad program rankings, the #1 program in the country is Berkeley. The next highest ranked public university in art history is U.T. Austin with UCLA right on its heels. All in between are Ivy League and private schools.

Avoid loans. Grad school in NYC. Massive loan debt. You finish, there you are trying to live in NYC as an artist--and you have $30K in debt. Grad school upstate. Paid off. You finish, you move to NYC to be an artist--and you have no debt. You can make your "connections" then. The whole New York thing is overrated. Plenty of successful artists don't live in New York.

Tyler. Cranbrook is tiny and on its way down. Tyler is having administrative problems, from what I can tell (deans have been rolling through there like lost golfballs), but it's big and you're sure to find a sympathetic peer group. To some extent both are resting on their laurels a bit, but Cranbrook much more so. Dare I say--Cranbrook hasn't been relevant for 10 years.

Most US Ph.D. programs in art history are designed as Ph.D. programs only. You might pick up an M.A. along the way as part of the curriculum, but you're applying to get a Ph.D. There are some "terminal" M.A. programs in the U.S. still, most famously at Williams College. They can be very good--they lavish all their attention and money on students at the M.A. level. Having an M.A. may or may not help you with getting into a Ph.D. program. If you go into Harvard with a completed M.A. from elsewhere, they only give you ONE semester credit. ONE!!! In the US the M.A. is typically two years of course work plus thesis. Ph.D. is typically two years of course work plus dissertation. The course work may be somewhat shortened depending on curriculum and your own course load. Average time to a Ph.D. in the humanities in the U.S. is ten years. Sounds as though that is not tolerated in the U.K. If you REALLY want to move to the U.S. for grad school, plan to come and get a Ph.D. and apply to all the programs that you're interested in. If you're just interested in getting a taste, apply to terminal M.A. programs (U.C. Riverside, Arizona State, Williams, Tufts all come to mind) and then return to England for your doctorate.

Most schools will require a minimum number of credits in art history (usually 24). This can normally include survey classes, so that's six classes beyond the surveys. Go ahead and get those--you need to make sure you're good enough at art history even to do an M.A. Other options: Dual MBA/MA art history program at SMU in Dallas. MA in Arts Administration at Seton Hall. I had a student go there; she loved it and was offered two jobs in New York as soon as she graduated, albeit low-paying ones. One was at MoMA--they have faculty visit from NY art institutions, and this person was so impressed by my student that she offered her this job. You also need to decide what aspect of museum work you want to go into. Preparator? Curator? Education? Exhibit design? Registrar? Check out http://www.nd.edu/~crosenbe/jobs.html for ideas. But for Pete's sake, don't get an M.A. in art history unless you're REALLY into art history.

Ohio State is primarily south Asian. For Japanese you should go to a west coast school (UCLA, Oregon, Washington) or better, Princeton, Harvard, Yale, etc. NYU. West coast will be easier to get into (except UCLA or Berkeley). Those auction house programs are expensive, and I don't think they offer scholarships. It's an auction house--they want to make money. Doesn't mean they're not good--just expensive. Going to London might be a good option for someone like you.

Georgia State is administratively dysfunctional. Don't know about UAB. Also, while both are technically urban, GSU feels more urban: little to no green space, big multistory buildings packed together, etc. I've generally heard nice things about Birmingham, and it has seemed pleasant on my brief visits there. Given that they're giving you more money, unless the programs are ranked WAY differently, I'd probably go to UAB.

In studio art, the MFA is equivalent to the Ph.D. You need a Ph.D. for art history. To be successful in academe in the U.S., you'll probably need to improve your written English somewhat as well.

Depends on WHY you're going to grad school. If you want to get into academe, I'd advise against England (or anywhere outside the U.S., except maybe Canada). It's too hard to find people here who understand foreign degrees, particularly in studio art. Most foreign programs are little known here (unlike art history programs). Otherwise, I'd say to look up all the recent Turner Prize nominees and see where THEY went to school. In most of the world studio art is not studied in an academic environment as it is here. It's only in art schools.

Worth resurrecting this relatively dead thread: Everybody "of an age" who went to Harvard has a Sydney Freedberg story. He once walked into a classroom, removed his glasses to clean them, and said in that ponderous, affected accent of his, "I believe that I am slowly going blind. And when I do, I shall become an iconographer." Story 2: former mentor of mine labored all semester on a ridiculous topic assigned by Freedberg for an Italian Baroque course (something absurdly broad like "Classicism in Roman Baroque painting"--in fact I think that was it!). His monstrously long paper (about 40 pages) was returned without a single mark except on the first page: "B+ Not bad"

The professor is correct in that it will be harder for you to find admittance than it would someone from, say, Swarthmore. Art history is a snobby world. But you can still get where you want to be in the long run. If you come into a program already having language skills, that's a huge plus. Get German and French under your belt NOW. That made all the difference for me years ago. I would also recommend that you apply to some terminal M.A. programs as fall-back schools. Admission is less competitive and you're more likely to receive aid.

You can do this at SUNY Purchase and SAIC, but the art history MA will be in modern art and theory. You won't know about ancient, renaissance, or anything else, unless you seek it on your own (weak distribution requirements). Better to get admitted to an MFA program at a school that offers a regular MA in art history, and then see if you can take art history courses, prove yourself, and be accepted into art history as well.