losemygrip

It depends on your goals. Why are you going back to grad school in art history?

It sounds as if the OP is not theory oriented, but truly interested in the actual history of collecting. Try Delaware also. The Institute of Fine Arts is basically next door to the Frick reference library and has intensive connections to the Met, so that might be a good place as well.

I know of no art history grad programs that are entirely online. You might, however, find something in art production or direction via Savannah College of Art and Design, or through one of the Art Institutes International (most major cities have one). Thank you for your work as a soldier. Are you deployed in North Carolina? Maybe you could start to take some classes on a part-time basis. If nothing else, if you're serious about art history, you could get started on your language study. French and German.

Will your M.A. be from Hunter, or Sorbonne? I'm guessing your plan is to apply to U.S.A. doctorate programs. Correct? You just need to meet a minimum TOEFL score--whatever the Graduate School requires at the specific university. It's usually not too high. Having recommenders from the U.S. will also allay any concerns about language skills. I believe being from France will actually help your chances. If you're interested in continuing with Johns and that era, consider Stanford. Richard Meyer has just moved up there from USC. Brandon Joseph is at Columbia, I believe. Texas is also excellent in modern, with many faculty. A lot of people on these boards have successfully contacted faculty members that they are interested in studying under. Personally, I would be a little intimidated to do that (back in my day, there was no email--you had to write an actual letter if you did this). I would probably just state in my application that I wanted to work with Professor X because of his/her interest in the 50s and 60s; or that you're interested in being in the program at the University of XYZ because of their strengths in modern, such as faculty A, B, and C. However, if you can get an introduction from a current faculty member, you can write and say, "My advisor, Suzy Q., suggested I write you." In this country many applicants use a "folio service" that forwards copies of your letters. The university from which you graduate will often provide this service. However, most faculty here also know that they will be sending letters. It's part of the job. Once you have a letter written, it's pretty easy to crank it out for various applications.

The fruit/vegetable images look sort of cartoony to me, and not as sophisticated as the rest of the work.

If that's what "metamodernism" means, they need a better word.

Why are you in such a hurry? What's your reason for getting an MFA? I mean, you can always re-apply.

I'm glad you're applying for painting. There are some really good ones there. The more abstract ones are the best. I'd dump those ones with fruits and vegetables. The ceramics is kind of "bleah" to put it bluntly, so I'd avoid letting admission committees see that work. Maybe temporarily drop it from your website. I think your paintings are ready to go. Let me suggest U. Iowa as a top choice. Also, you probably don't know the work of Jered Sprecher at U. Tenn., but your work has some affiinities. You might consider that program as well.

WM, you could also go the other way. Just look at your work and change your statement to reflect it better. But for me, that wouldn't solve the problem of the pieces looking like figure studies. If you were my student right now, I'd suggest that you forget about your statement and all this "isolation" and alienation. Instead, do some actual studies, except experiment much more broadly. 1. Do a non-representational painting that uses all of your favorite painting tricks and focuses purely on a challenging composition. 2. Do a painting with a tiny figure. 3. Do a painting with an entirely imagined figure doing something mundane, but unexpected. 4. Do a painting with a group of figures (more than 4) that conveys a narrative. While you're at it, switch media. Make a sculpture. Incorporate collage. Sometimes that can be really cathartic.

Nacht, I don't think you have any idea what you're getting into. Have you worked in any medium besides photography? I disagree with some of the others. The complete lack of formal training is a problem. I actually WOULD encourage beginning classes, particularly in design and drawing. You could take those at a community college or anywhere. Also, art appreciation and art history would be essential. Just because you've taken lots of photographs, that doesn't mean you're ready to be an artist. You probably don't even have the vocabulary to talk about your work with anyone. Once you learn more about what "art" is really about, you can see if your photography fits in and if you really want to be a part of it.

Ahhh. Good. It's very difficult to do. You're going to have to think carefully about who the figures are, how they are posed, what settings they're in, how they're dressed, etc. Thinking is the hardest part about making art. Part of the problem is there are a lot of self-portraits that look like studies. If you're going to have a bunch of self-portraits taken seriously, you have to be like Rembrandt. He was always painting himself as characters (or Cindy Sherman!). You're going to have to pick (or invent) models based on what you want to express, not on what's available to you. They're not interchangeable neutral components. Think about what the painting's theme is going to be, then decide what physical type will express that best. Think about scale: what about some tiny figures? What about close ups of some portion of a figure? Think about composition--HARD. Your compositions aren't particularly unusual or innovative--that's another reason they seem like studies. Space? There's a lot of undefined, flat backdrops, as though figures are floating in limbo (again--reads as "figure study"). Everybody is at a sort of middle distance, even if they're cropped. On the other hand, you could go the other direction and make the figures flatter, more abstract, more symbolic. Lots of options to explore.

Your best piece is the two heads at the top. It's the only one that doesn't look as if it originated with, "Let's find a model so I can get started." In contrast, the two heads seems to have started with an idea. And that's the way it should be. Idea first, means of expression after. Every single image is a torso or head. Or torso AND head. (Except the drawing of a dog.) So it suggests that you have a limited formula based on individual figure studies. For me, the sense of isolation and individual struggle is not coming across at all. I can sense that maybe you're trying to do that with paint and color, like Kokoschka or Schiele. Tough shoes to fill. Your figures (with some exceptions) don't seem to be struggling--they're just standing there. They often don't really even have expressions on their faces--some of them don't even HAVE faces. Using solitary figures is the most simplistic and cliche way to suggest isolation. Some of the most successful images of isolation and alienation involve crowds of people. Have you seen George Tooker's The Waiting Room or The Subway? It makes me question--did you come up with this idea about isolation and individual struggle because you thought it matched up with these images of solitary figures? What came first? I have to say I have a lot of students in my department who have this issue. They have some instructors who rely on using lots of models in class, so they get used to that as their starting point, then just try to figure out some gimmick to make it look different from their peers. But they can't conceive of starting a painting without a model. Don't get me wrong--these pieces are beautifully painted; wonderful passages of brushwork and color abound. But the subject needs to ADD to the content, not just be a coat hanger for you to try to hang the content on. This is not to say that you couldn't still get into a grad school somewhere with beautifully painted figure studies. But your options would be limited. They'd probably like this work at Pratt, for instance. Also, don't get discouraged by this criticism. Just use it as leverage.

That's a great sign that you weren't offended by my honest comments. You'll get some really harsh criticism in grad school, so it's good that you're up for it. Make absolutely sure that you have your BS (a.k.a., artist's statement) completely and thoroughly under control for lustration and subsequent works. Make sure that you know ALL of the contemporary art that is similar or conceptually connected. So, ARE those red nudes really tiny? I imagine them to be maybe 3 inches. What's great about those is they show graceful rendering with economy of means--like the Lascaux cave paintings. And with a conceptual subtext.

I respect your daring and your clear conceptualization. I can't help feeling I've seen a lot of it before, however. Lots of people do ontological performances, so it's not easy to stand out. That most recent series (lustration) is probably the best, so that's good. That stuff with bodily fluids has kind of been done to death (all those "menstrual prints"...) That said, there was something neat about the tiny female figures in blood or red ink. I hope they're really as small as they seem.

These are extremely skillful but the limitation in subject is a problem for me. Heads and busts. Who are these people and why should we care? The more abstract, later ones start to move away from illustration, but kind of start to remind me of Marlene Dumas.

I think you need to DO something with those figures. They're still too much like studies. And why is there always just one of them? There is interesting stuff going on with the actual painting, but the subject isn't adding much.

You've got a perfectly reasonable degree for a conservator. Just go back and pick up the additional coursework in art history and chemistry, and you'll be fine.

You don't have to have an MA to get into a conservation grad program. Just the equivalent of a double major in art history and chemistry!! They have a grad program in conservation at Buff State, I think. There's not many of them around--3 or 4, I think.

I disagree. It's mostly a warning about the terminal MA at the IFA. I believe it to be mistaken, however, to extend that warning to all other terminal MA programs. I also don't think that these fora have encouraged a "myth that one needs to have an MA from somewhere before applying for the PhD." Quite the contrary. There has been lively debate about this.

Congratulations on your list. You did what many people do not: applied to a wide range of schools. Wise move.

Wait . . . what?! This makes no sense. Why would completing an MA make you ineligible for further study as well as unemployable? You don't need a bachelor's in art history to pursue graduate study. You have a related degree. You've now strengthened your transcript. So you're ready to apply for grad school in art history. You'll apply to a range of programs, from PhD to terminal MA, from unlikely to likely. And then you'll go wherever you get the best deal. Case closed. No need to fret.

It happens. It depends on the situation. For instance, you couldn't apply to grad school in Latin American, Islamic, or Asian without already knowing some of the language for those areas. But you could start picking up your second language (usually the dreaded German) after you started the program. I took lots of French and German as an undergrad, but only started Italian in grad school after deciding I might want to do a thesis on a Renaissance topic. I just took the regular first-year Italian course. Then continued in 2nd year Italian my first year in a PhD program, just so that I could get a better foundation (even though I wasn't working on Italian projects anymore).

Here is what I would suggest: Apply to MFA programs at schools that also have terminal MA degrees in art history. Once you get there, start taking art history courses, do well in them, and THEN ask to enter the MA program.

How did this thread get revived a year later? Stranger, are you trying again?

Most schools worth their salt will be perfectly receptive to abstract painting. Any good painting program will do. Thus: Iowa UCLA ASU Backups: U. Houston U. South Florida