losemygrip

Regarding PAFA and NYAA:
These are appropriate discussions to have. I personally do not believe that a $100K degree from one of these places gives you any competitive advantage to make it worthwhile. They are well-known in the niche market of traditional representational painting, but not so well respected in the mainstream art world. If you can get decent funding, by all means. But otherwise, find a normal school with at least one good figurative person on the faculty, and go there.

Regarding PAFA and NYAA:
These are appropriate discussions to have. I personally do not believe that a $100K degree from one of these places gives you any competitive advantage to make it worthwhile. They are well-known in the niche market of traditional representational painting, but not so well respected in the mainstream art world. If you can get decent funding, by all means. But otherwise, find a normal school with at least one good figurative person on the faculty, and go there.

Regarding PAFA and NYAA:
These are appropriate discussions to have. I personally do not believe that a $100K degree from one of these places gives you any competitive advantage to make it worthwhile. They are well-known in the niche market of traditional representational painting, but not so well respected in the mainstream art world. If you can get decent funding, by all means. But otherwise, find a normal school with at least one good figurative person on the faculty, and go there.

It usually will come as part of a recruitment package. The best offers usually start with a year or two of pure fellowship, where you get paid just to be there (and free tuition, of course), followed by a year or two of TA. Sometimes they might start you right off with a TA and scholarship. Sometimes you might become an instructor for a semester or two after you've graduated. It all varies depending on the institution and their needs at the time.

Go for the best financial package you can get.

It usually will come as part of a recruitment package. The best offers usually start with a year or two of pure fellowship, where you get paid just to be there (and free tuition, of course), followed by a year or two of TA. Sometimes they might start you right off with a TA and scholarship. Sometimes you might become an instructor for a semester or two after you've graduated. It all varies depending on the institution and their needs at the time.

Go for the best financial package you can get.

Raphael Rubenstein wrote some articles for Art in America where he called this kind of stuff "provisional painting."

I agree that it's better than Yale. But still not much. Not very original or thought-provoking. And I find the sloppy workmanship on the paint surfaces downright offensive.

Remember--that may not be the type of work that gained the student entrance. Artists change.

Those are some pretty mediocre paintings, although not offensively so like the previous ones posted from Yale. They do, however, look very much like what's been shown in NYC galleries the past few years. That is, not "Bad Painting," but b-a-a-a-a-d painting. I get the concept, but I'm not a fan.

Listen, if you guys were offended or hurt just because someone referred to some artwork as "dismal," then maybe you better look for another field. And you're certainly not ready for grad school. You'll hear a lot worse there, and it will be said to your face about your own work.

By the same token, the OP's subsequent rant was a bit of an overreaction as well, if you ask me.

Listen, if you guys were offended or hurt just because someone referred to some artwork as "dismal," then maybe you better look for another field. And you're certainly not ready for grad school. You'll hear a lot worse there, and it will be said to your face about your own work.

By the same token, the OP's subsequent rant was a bit of an overreaction as well, if you ask me.

I will tell you exactly what to do.

You respond to this POI by saying, "Thank you so much for the information. I appreciate your time. At this time I already have a generous offer from another university. While I remain interested in your program, it probably doesn't make sense for me to bother your colleagues with phone calls or emails. Yours truly, etc."

Something to that effect. You need to let them know that others want you. That will make them want you more. But it sounds as if you're going to School A anyhow, so who cares?

This is, to some extent, conventional wisdom. It is also COMPLETELY WRONG! (Excuse my yelling.) Those that I knew in grad school who took the "reading knowledge" courses were completely unable to do anything except pass the language exam. They were not able to use the language for research effectively. The whole point is not just to pass a stupid exam, but to be able to use the language skills for your research. The best way to do this is to have a thorough, complete understanding of the language.

I STRONGLY recommend taking a regular sequence of study for language acquisition, both spoken and written. Do not worry about whether you get "credit" for it. Doesn't matter. You're doing it to learn. And really apply yourself. Conversation classes that I took vastly improved my reading ability, for example. It's ok if you take the classes at a community college, or the Alliance Francaise, or whatever. But make every effort to engage with it. I also found that the most important classes I took in college that supported my art history training were in upper-division foreign literature. There's nothing like learning nineteenth-century French literature in the original to help you understand the art of that period.

As a bonus, when you travel you'll be much more confident than your fellow students. And you can impress colleagues at other institutions.

Here's another example: I have participated in the International Congress of the History of Art several times. It's like the Olympics of art history, held roughly every 4 years since the 19th century (the next one is in Nurnberg this summer). Papers are read in 3 or 4 different languages, and you are expected to keep up. In one session I was in, papers were in English, German, and French. (The Latin Americans mostly used French or English, since Spanish wasn't an official language.) My paper was in English, but I answered questions in French. At another session, I posed a question in German. Believe me, your European colleagues will have NO PROBLEM doing this. I can't follow every word of all these foreign-language papers, but I can get the gist of it. Without language training, you might as well go for a coffee break and skip half the conference.

Furthermore, if you're studying Asian or Middle-Eastern art, how do you think you'll do field research if you can't speak the languages? So, let's start looking at language training as a positive thing.

Mckee, you keep up the good work. It sounds as if you're doing exactly what you need to keep up your French. You might also subscribe to Paris Match--that's always fun.

OK, diatribe over.

What's your current income like? If you're managing 2 jobs, it doesn't sound as though it's where you want it. If your goal is to feel good about retirement in a financial sense, then skip the MFA. Chances are small that it would help your income significantly. On the other hand, if you want to feel good about retirement personally, then knowing you've had that extra education, plus the boost it give your art, might contribute to a productive, happy retirement.

Only go get an MFA if 1) you want a college teaching credential, 2) you need studio space, or 3) you're feeling the need for some serious criticism and development of your artwork.

On the other hand, if your hard work at 2 jobs has provided you some financial security, you're free to do as you please.

One piece of advice: those low-residency programs are very expensive. If you're mobile, you'll be much better off just moving to a good program that's going to pay YOU for attending.

No, as I've said many times, I've viewed Yale student work in the regional MFA shows that CAA puts on, and it's consistently terrible. Here's a particularly egregious example.

Listen, if you guys were offended or hurt just because someone referred to some artwork as "dismal," then maybe you better look for another field. And you're certainly not ready for grad school. You'll hear a lot worse there, and it will be said to your face about your own work.

By the same token, the OP's subsequent rant was a bit of an overreaction as well, if you ask me.

Listen, if you guys were offended or hurt just because someone referred to some artwork as "dismal," then maybe you better look for another field. And you're certainly not ready for grad school. You'll hear a lot worse there, and it will be said to your face about your own work.

By the same token, the OP's subsequent rant was a bit of an overreaction as well, if you ask me.

Listen, if you guys were offended or hurt just because someone referred to some artwork as "dismal," then maybe you better look for another field. And you're certainly not ready for grad school. You'll hear a lot worse there, and it will be said to your face about your own work.

By the same token, the OP's subsequent rant was a bit of an overreaction as well, if you ask me.

I did an MA and a PhD without any student loans and with very minimal family support (just some small loans at the very end). It's definitely possible. (And that took a lot longer than 3 years.)

This is why I'm always telling people, "Apply to a range of schools." You want to get them to pay you to go to grad school. You're smart to apply to in-state schools, but many programs have out-of-state tuition waivers that are a nice scholarship for students. If the in-state tuition is quite low, that can be a better deal than staying in your home state. So you apply to very competitive, medium competitive, and less competitive, and then you take the best deal. I did it, and I've never regretted it.

Places like Columbia will usually offer some kind of aid package so that few if any people actually pay the real tuition. Still expensive, though.

I'd call them "competitive," particularly SVA. Just about ANY program in New York City is really competitive because of the vast numbers of people applying.



I see an up-and-coming school with a fairly fresh MFA program that not too many people know about, that's in the nation's 10th largest city with an interesting cultural backdrop. I also know of a superb recent graduate who's done very well (sculpture and combined media). Because it's newer and less known, the competition is easier for admissions and funding.

RE: New York Academy of Art
As I've posted elsewhere, their student work in this past year's CAA regional MFA show was the best of the lot. Seriously. (A million times better than Yale.) While figurative, it was also daring and innovative in many ways (I wish I could figure out how to post pictures here easily). But I really don't think they offer much at all in the way of financial aid. That's the problem with a lot of small private schools.

You know, you guys could chip in with your friends and buy this directory from CAA. It also may be available in your current departments, or your library.
Do beware some of these stats. 

Well, for someone who started out saying "I want to stay on the east coast," you've certainly had a change of heart.

My problem with your list is that you don't really have any "fallback" schools. Those are all pretty competitive. UIC is probably the closest you get to a fallback school. You might want to throw in a Cal State (Fullerton or San Diego)

I would dump UPenn for Tyler, and NYU for U Conn. Those are STILL really competitive, but there's really no reason to go to Penn in studio art. (And that pretty much sums up my thoughts on Northwestern as well.) NYU's MFA program is really new and has little track record (despite NYU's good reputation in many other arts areas). Throw something crazy in there instead--maybe SUNY Buffalo? I think they're pretty interdisciplinary.

This is, to some extent, conventional wisdom. It is also COMPLETELY WRONG! (Excuse my yelling.) Those that I knew in grad school who took the "reading knowledge" courses were completely unable to do anything except pass the language exam. They were not able to use the language for research effectively. The whole point is not just to pass a stupid exam, but to be able to use the language skills for your research. The best way to do this is to have a thorough, complete understanding of the language.

I STRONGLY recommend taking a regular sequence of study for language acquisition, both spoken and written. Do not worry about whether you get "credit" for it. Doesn't matter. You're doing it to learn. And really apply yourself. Conversation classes that I took vastly improved my reading ability, for example. It's ok if you take the classes at a community college, or the Alliance Francaise, or whatever. But make every effort to engage with it. I also found that the most important classes I took in college that supported my art history training were in upper-division foreign literature. There's nothing like learning nineteenth-century French literature in the original to help you understand the art of that period.

As a bonus, when you travel you'll be much more confident than your fellow students. And you can impress colleagues at other institutions.

Here's another example: I have participated in the International Congress of the History of Art several times. It's like the Olympics of art history, held roughly every 4 years since the 19th century (the next one is in Nurnberg this summer). Papers are read in 3 or 4 different languages, and you are expected to keep up. In one session I was in, papers were in English, German, and French. (The Latin Americans mostly used French or English, since Spanish wasn't an official language.) My paper was in English, but I answered questions in French. At another session, I posed a question in German. Believe me, your European colleagues will have NO PROBLEM doing this. I can't follow every word of all these foreign-language papers, but I can get the gist of it. Without language training, you might as well go for a coffee break and skip half the conference.

Furthermore, if you're studying Asian or Middle-Eastern art, how do you think you'll do field research if you can't speak the languages? So, let's start looking at language training as a positive thing.

Mckee, you keep up the good work. It sounds as if you're doing exactly what you need to keep up your French. You might also subscribe to Paris Match--that's always fun.

OK, diatribe over.

This is, to some extent, conventional wisdom. It is also COMPLETELY WRONG! (Excuse my yelling.) Those that I knew in grad school who took the "reading knowledge" courses were completely unable to do anything except pass the language exam. They were not able to use the language for research effectively. The whole point is not just to pass a stupid exam, but to be able to use the language skills for your research. The best way to do this is to have a thorough, complete understanding of the language.

I STRONGLY recommend taking a regular sequence of study for language acquisition, both spoken and written. Do not worry about whether you get "credit" for it. Doesn't matter. You're doing it to learn. And really apply yourself. Conversation classes that I took vastly improved my reading ability, for example. It's ok if you take the classes at a community college, or the Alliance Francaise, or whatever. But make every effort to engage with it. I also found that the most important classes I took in college that supported my art history training were in upper-division foreign literature. There's nothing like learning nineteenth-century French literature in the original to help you understand the art of that period.

As a bonus, when you travel you'll be much more confident than your fellow students. And you can impress colleagues at other institutions.

Here's another example: I have participated in the International Congress of the History of Art several times. It's like the Olympics of art history, held roughly every 4 years since the 19th century (the next one is in Nurnberg this summer). Papers are read in 3 or 4 different languages, and you are expected to keep up. In one session I was in, papers were in English, German, and French. (The Latin Americans mostly used French or English, since Spanish wasn't an official language.) My paper was in English, but I answered questions in French. At another session, I posed a question in German. Believe me, your European colleagues will have NO PROBLEM doing this. I can't follow every word of all these foreign-language papers, but I can get the gist of it. Without language training, you might as well go for a coffee break and skip half the conference.

Furthermore, if you're studying Asian or Middle-Eastern art, how do you think you'll do field research if you can't speak the languages? So, let's start looking at language training as a positive thing.

Mckee, you keep up the good work. It sounds as if you're doing exactly what you need to keep up your French. You might also subscribe to Paris Match--that's always fun.

OK, diatribe over.

This is, to some extent, conventional wisdom. It is also COMPLETELY WRONG! (Excuse my yelling.) Those that I knew in grad school who took the "reading knowledge" courses were completely unable to do anything except pass the language exam. They were not able to use the language for research effectively. The whole point is not just to pass a stupid exam, but to be able to use the language skills for your research. The best way to do this is to have a thorough, complete understanding of the language.

I STRONGLY recommend taking a regular sequence of study for language acquisition, both spoken and written. Do not worry about whether you get "credit" for it. Doesn't matter. You're doing it to learn. And really apply yourself. Conversation classes that I took vastly improved my reading ability, for example. It's ok if you take the classes at a community college, or the Alliance Francaise, or whatever. But make every effort to engage with it. I also found that the most important classes I took in college that supported my art history training were in upper-division foreign literature. There's nothing like learning nineteenth-century French literature in the original to help you understand the art of that period.

As a bonus, when you travel you'll be much more confident than your fellow students. And you can impress colleagues at other institutions.

Here's another example: I have participated in the International Congress of the History of Art several times. It's like the Olympics of art history, held roughly every 4 years since the 19th century (the next one is in Nurnberg this summer). Papers are read in 3 or 4 different languages, and you are expected to keep up. In one session I was in, papers were in English, German, and French. (The Latin Americans mostly used French or English, since Spanish wasn't an official language.) My paper was in English, but I answered questions in French. At another session, I posed a question in German. Believe me, your European colleagues will have NO PROBLEM doing this. I can't follow every word of all these foreign-language papers, but I can get the gist of it. Without language training, you might as well go for a coffee break and skip half the conference.

Furthermore, if you're studying Asian or Middle-Eastern art, how do you think you'll do field research if you can't speak the languages? So, let's start looking at language training as a positive thing.

Mckee, you keep up the good work. It sounds as if you're doing exactly what you need to keep up your French. You might also subscribe to Paris Match--that's always fun.

OK, diatribe over.

Please take this as constructive criticism--

First, watch your writing. "Pointillism style" should be "pointillist style," or better still for your case, "pointillistic style." That's a kind of freshman level error that will not go over well in a graduate school application. Phrases such as "my style of work" are also really awkward and unsophisticated. Saying you're concentrating on "space art" does not sound very sophisticated, either. You mean that you've turned to depictions of outer space, correct? Say it that way. Space itself is not the art. You're gong to have to work hard to theorize your work on a graduate school level.

Second, after looking at your link, I can only see one work that relates either to Impressionism OR pointillism. There are many different types of work there, and they do not make a cohesive portfolio. I would discourage you from trying to use those figure paintings to try to get into a graduate school. That one pointillist landscape is attractive, but what is in it to distinguish it from Seurat or Signac? In fact, a lot of that work seems very close to that of various historical figures.

I believe you're going to have to have a serious chat with various faculty in order to put together a coherent portfolio. Seek out people that you know are not sympathetic to your work in order to get the most criticism. You also may have to do more work in a particular vein in order to convince committees you are serious. It's possible that you just need to wait a little while to apply until your ideas have settled down more.

In my opinion, this POST is what's really ridiculous. The whole point of fora such as these is to share opinions and information. It's good to know what different opinions are of programs. And the pictures that have been posted may help someone to determine if this is for them. Why wouldn't one want to know if a program had its fans and foes? Oh, and don't assume all participants are current applicants. Some of us may be seasoned professionals just trying to help.

If you don't like the commentary that's coming out of a particular forum, don't write there. Your energies are better spent trying to figure out where you do want to write rather than ranting about the commentary you don't like.