losemygrip

Your applications may not even be seen by the same committees in this case. However, I would say if you really can't make up your mind, go for the MAT. You need to be super-committed to do an MFA.

I'm a little late to this one, but: I would never apply to MFA programs with all my letters of rec from Art Ed people. Use ONE art ed person who can talk about what a great TA you were. The other two need to be studio art professors who will talk about your artwork.

It's not the best MA for someone looking to go on and get a PhD. It's really more for artists and curators who want an advanced art history degree. I know someone who did it simultaneously with her MFA.

It's a degree in modern and contemporary art history only. You should check on the distribution requirements. If you decided to get a PhD later, you might need a broader range of courses. (Although these days, people specialize SO young . . . .)

Oh, and CCA--you are talking California College of the Arts, right? I just haven't heard of anybody significant coming out of their program in a long time, nor seen many of their grads on university faculties. I just hear absolutely no buzz about them. Why do YOU think they're so great?

Well, you're very articulate and a credit to NYU. : ) My reaction would be: you're just absorbing the attitudes of your mentors there. Don't you want to be challenged? You mention "focused student body," "academic rigor," and "ideological growth" as your reasons for getting an MFA. Going to a program that just reflects the biases of your current instructors does not foster ideological growth. I think you should be looking for something that's "different." Also--people who think there's nothing going on outside of the coasts (like your instructors) tend not to be practical about issues such as cost. I base my reactions to your selections on the success I've noticed from graduates either in academe or in exhibitions. Being in academe, I see where people's degrees are from. And if you attend gallery and museum shows you can also see where the artists went to school. Given, there's a lot of regionalism for sure. (For some reason, New York City does not think it is another region, but it is.) We're in a global art world now. To think that you have to be in New York or (barely) L.A. to be making significant art is ridiculous, and getting more ridiculous by the day. It's a very old-fashioned and (frankly) provincial attitude. Anyhow, good state schools for an MFA would include most of the UC campuses (UCLA being the best in the country in my opinion--and among the most competitive), Arizona State, U. North Texas, U. Iowa, L.S.U., U. Washington, V.C.U., SUNY Purchase, U. Conn., U. Florida (or South Florida), etc. One of the advantages of such programs is they are gigantic and you're bound to find peers. Another is that being on a comprehensive university campus as opposed to an art school helps with interdisciplinary work. At UNLV, I met an artist who was working with the engineering school doing 3-D printing, way back when that was brand new. He was also using their anechoic chamber for something--I can't remember what. But you seem to have a good head on your shoulders, so you'll do what's right for you. I just think you were ripe for some outside opinions and ideas.

Phoenix, the country's sixth largest city, is not urban? Oh dear. Nor San Diego, the 10th largest? I would just say that seeing what your stated interests are, you should not allow regional biases to interfere with your artistic development. Cal Arts' best days are over. I don't know how CCA made it on your list in the first place. I'm infamous for my low opinion of Yale. VCU is good because of 1) facilities 2) faculty 3) success of their students. The other issue, of course, is the lack of fallback schools. I think you might get in to SAIC, but you would have to pay your own way. I'm of the opinion that you need to go to a school that's going to pay YOU. Thus, you need a wide range of schools, from highly competitive to least. If you're insisting on NY, Chicago, LA, at least include U. Illinois-Chicago and some Cal State schools.

Well, I did say it could even be Roman!

If you're applying to different schools (and you should), just do as michaelwebster suggests. If you're applying to the same schools, I would recommend all new work (unless you had some indication that they really liked you before, but you just didn't quite make the cut).

No. Terry Allen once said, "If you want to have a career as an artist, an MFA is a waste of time." I actually agree with the person's arguments in the debate. Regardless of the counterargument made by bengston (a very valid correction and clarification), the data provided clearly show it is NOT necessary to have an MFA to be a successful artist. That is, IF you define success as exhibiting in galleries and museums. People may have different notions of what successful is. This is why I'm constantly asking people in these forums, "Why do you want to get an MFA?" You need to have a clear reason, and it should not be, "to further my career as an artist." And depending on what the answer is, that will affect the schools to which you should apply.

Your portfolio looks good (except I don't get the two Figure pieces). I don't know why you have your heart set on that odd group of schools, particularly CCA. They're all private (except UCLA) and expensive, and not particularly well known for sculpture (although I certainly encourage anyone to apply at UCLA, for any field). Most people who are ambitious in sculpture would put VCU at the top of their lists. I think you should also consider Arizona State. What's your reason for getting an MFA? That can really be important for school selection.

As I've noted elsewhere, I have found the student work from Montclair to be more diverse and interesting than any of the more famous schools you list (except Rutgers and the L.A. schools). Frankly, the atmosphere in those competitive programs may not be conducive to the sense of community you're seeking, but instead be one of paranoia and one-upmanship.

I have no idea how to comment on the GREs since they've changed the scale.

Why do you think it's Aristotle? It seems to be cropped--would help to see the whole thing. My guess is Italian 16-17th century. But it could even be Roman.

Does anyone else remember Linda Richman's invocation: "Let me give you a topic. The Christian cathedral is based on the design of the Roman basilica. Discuss!"

UNM and Princeton have reputations in photo history. I actually have a personality conflict with Anne McCauley, but others I known who've worked with her absolutely loved her. For the MA level, Arizona is BIG into photo, so that's a good option. You should send Eggleston a fruit basket for doing all that good research for you.

You desperately need some fallback schools. Since you seem determined to stay in the NYC area, how about Montclair State? I've seen excellent work coming from there. And in southern California, Cal State Fullerton or Long Beach.

Like WC Fields said, "Never work with children and animals." It's hard to depict animals and not come off cutesy. The place where you succeed is the parrot piece with all the dates. That's very intriguing, and you don't get a sense that it's done because of a love of animals.

How about "counter-modernism?" It seems to me to be much like Sydney Freedberg's discussion of the "counter-maniera" in Renaissance art. (I.e., not "anti" modernism, but just the other side of the coin.)

This thread is a perfect example of why it is important for everyone to learn to write clearly. Do you not realize that in your topic you asked about programs in the "Middle East?" That would be Israel, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc. I think you want to know about the "Midwest" and "Mid-South".

I just want to say that I congratulate you for posing this very specific and materialist inquiry. It's nice to see such a "brass tacks" approach!

I agree with Bearcatt. Be very organized about your letter requests. Provide all lists with addresses, deadlines, your CV, maybe statement of purpose, in some kind of file so that they can easily access everything. I can't help with the translation service. Why don't you ask the French Department at Hunter who they might recommend?

So you don't know what career you would like to pursue after getting a graduate degree in art history? Then definitely, just go for M.A. Find a nice terminal M.A. program somewhere. You can always apply elsewhere for a Ph.D., but no point in making that gigantic commitment if you don't know if you'll like it, or if there's even a job you're interested in. You should at least research and decide if you want an academic career or one in galleries/museums.

If you're not sure which medium on which you want to focus, you may not be ready for grad school. Work a little longer, and if you find a way to incorporate all of them, then you could pursue intermedia or something like that. Otherwise, you may be spread too thin.

That's a good list of schools. You have a couple of good "fallbacks." If I may be candid? Looking at the portfolio on your website, I would leave out the first seven images. They look like illustrations for articles in The Atlantic about alternative energy sources, or eco-trends. Great illustrations, but illustrations nonetheless. Identity is the best-looking painting. Some of the others look a little unfinished to me--there's this one central image, but it's not dynamic or complex enough to provoke me. I'd like to see you start to include more elements, as in Identity (but not treat them so literally that they become illustrations).