losemygrip

It is, of course, my own opinion. Obviously others will disagree. However, unlike some people, when I disagree I don't run around drawing unwarranted conclusions and making unfounded statements about other posters who hold different opinions. To elaborate: what I have primarily been thinking of is that Columbia grads are rarely seen in academe, which may be by their own choice. However, in my experience they are also rarely seen outside of New York, where they are much more common. Unlike many, I don't see New York gallery representation as the pinnacle of artistic achievement. I believe that neither Columbia nor Yale is represented in the broad spectrum of the art world in a way that matches their vastly outsized reputations. Nor do I believe that the education you would receive there is so much better than many other schools simply because of the brand. And it's very difficult for a program such as Northwestern's, which is so small, to make much of a dent in terms of reputation simply because there are so few graduates out there. Doesn't mean you can't get something great out of it--and there may be specific, specialized reasons for attending a particular program. This is all just generalities. There is another thing to consider as well. Students in programs full of "star" artists (such as Columbia, though I have no specific knowledge of the particulars there) sometimes find they have very little contact with these stars, who aren't all that interested in teaching. It's true in other disciplines as well. The academic star may only teach one small class per semester (and may even be out of town for a lot of the time as well). Keep that in mind when looking at faculty lists, and ask those questions about faculty contact when investigating programs.

Good lord. If you have a good package at UCSB, I'd forget about OSU. The only one on your list I'd take over UCSB is U. Washington. (And I suppose most people would say, Columbia as well.)

Northwestern, Penn, and NYU really don't have such great reputations in studio art. NYU in particular is very new. They're great schools, but not outstanding in this discipline. While Columbia has a very famous faculty, I've not seen many successful artists come from their program. Far more from UCLA, for instance. Cornell DOES have a nice studio art program, but it's really tiny. However, I've seen some good artists come from there. I haven't seen your whole application obviously, but I don't think that those paintings can get you admitted to any of those programs. At least, not with funding (and you don't want to go ANYWHERE without solid funding.) I could be wrong, of course--wouldn't be the first time. I really think you need some fallback schools.

I think you should apply to terminal MA programs. Tufts if you like, but don't put all your eggs in that one basket.

Double check, but I don't think Edward Sullivan is actually at the IFA. He's at NYU. There's a separate art history department there, even though the IFA is part of the university. I'm not sure how much the faculty cross over.

I liked it, too. Less fond of those hexagonal paintings. I wish you'd applied to some different schools, though. Of your list, I think only Cornell might give you what you need.

They're beautifully painted, but the iconography makes them seem like studies. Can you find some more interesting subjects? It feels as though you just paint whatever happens to be in view rather than making the subject part of the content of the art.

Any department in a city with decent museums should work for you. UCLA, Chicago, Boston area, etc. Delaware would be fine--you could be near that museum program, but not have to enroll in it directly (although I think they now have an art history track there for those interested in museum professions). Williams is the most famous incubator of museum professionals. Most departments have decent representation in the 20th century area. UT Austin has produced a lot of successful grads in modern, a good number in museums.

It's good. And you have a good-looking resume. I'm sure you'll be offered something. Where have you applied?

In my opinion, this is horrible advice. I disagree completely. It's not that networking won't help your career. But remember--Jesus never made it in Nazareth. You'll be taken for granted if you've always been there. If you're the fresh new face, you'll get more attention.

It's a little too late now, I imagine, but I believe it would be fine to include your triptych as one piece. They don't want more than "one work per file." The triptych is one work. It's just in three parts. What they're trying to avoid is PDFs with your entire portfolio in one document--that sort of thing.

MA? Not MFA?

Oh, and the landscapes sound much more interesting now. I think you'll have to figure out a way to make that conceptual piece a LOT more evident in your portfolio.

Oh, OK. Then you have lots of options. My main piece of advice to you would be--don't let being excited about a program lead you to paying a bunch of tuition. Be sure to go for the best financial aid package. That initial excitement will fade for sure, but the debt will not. Go for the best financial aid package at the best program you can get into.

FWIW, I don't understand the philosophy of "I'll apply there next round." Why waste a year? Go ahead and apply at a whole range of potential schools. If you get in, you don't have to go, but if you don't apply, that option is closed. The goal is to apply to a range of schools, from highly competitive on down. Then you go to wherever gives you the best financial package. So if you get into Yale with only 1/3 tuition, but U-Conn offers you full tuition plus stipend, you go to U-Conn. So if your goal is not to get an academic positions afterwards, you can really go wherever you want. You'll be able to do what you're talking about at nearly all good programs. But I would say you need to go to a large program as opposed to a smaller one. Think about Arizona State as well.

A friend of mine did an MFA in printmaking there a few years back, and I don't think they even had a tenure-track printmaking professor. He had to work with part-timers and lecturers. Their faculty is too small to offer an MFA, really. They've had a series of poor chairs. The university doesn't want to fund them because they're so disorganized. I'm surprised they haven't eliminated the department.

Really, "insidetharoom", your list should be a model. Public, private, large, small, geographic diversity--you've cast the broadest possible net. I'll look forward to seeing what happens for you.

Just take a good prep course and do the GRE over again. If you're not committed enough to do even that, then you're not committed enough to be successful in graduate school.

Re: those Florida schools, of the ones you mention, UF has the most prominent reputation, but I think that USF is the real up-and-comer. UM is a total mess. Avoid. Colorado has a very nice art department in all respects, but not the reputation of some of the others on your list.

That's an interesting list. You do have a fallback or two, so that's good. Good luck!

Is that a PAINTING of the cover of the CS Lewis book? Hysterical. I, too, am certain someone will snatch you up, but I would still recommend you apply to some less competitive programs. I would suggest Iowa (still competitive), UCSD, and U-Conn for a northeast option. What is your goal in getting an MFA?

If you want to get a college teaching position at some point, do not go to a low residency program. But they're fine for other purposes.

There is some very nice painting going on there, but I have a little problem with the subject matter. Which is to say, it just seems incidental. It's hard to keep landscapes from being cliche. I would suggest you cast a broader net if you're really serious about an MFA. Those first three schools are highly competitive. You need some lower tier options. I know nothing about Tulane's program; what's the attraction there?

You have plenty of schools on your list--I don't think FIU and UNLV are needed. UNLV is a mess, and has been for years. They're hiring FOUR new faculty members this year. Not new lines--replacements. Lots of upheaval. They do have some nice grad studios, although their main building is horrible (unless they've gotten money for a new building in just the past few years). FIU is a very young program, and the department also has a checkered past. Depends on whether you want to deal with Miami. If you want to apply to Rutgers, go right ahead. What's to lose, other than an application fee? It's like the lottery--you turn in your entries and hope for a prize (the prize being full funding).

Claremont isn't expensive if you get the appropriate financial aid. You should not go ANYWHERE if they are not paying all or most of your way. As far as "I would definately not go to Tennessee or anywhere in the south," sorry to see that you're letting bizarre regional biases limit your potential. Because it certainly sounds as if you're rejecting an entire region based on nothing. Of course, you're entitled to do that if you wish. I'm assuming you'll take more care with spelling and punctuation in your application than in your writing here.