I'm considering applying to an MFA program in photography after completing my architecture master's degree. I have also worked in photography (professional & personal) and graphic design consistently since undergraduate (BFA in design). To make a long story short, the only visual discipline you need a degree & license to practice is architecture, which is why I chose to pursue an M.Arch before an MFA initially. From the beginning I've worked across disciplines and incorporated each one into the others; this would be adding to the repertoire, not a transition out.
So in mulling over the decision to apply to MFA programs (for Fall 2012) these are the main issues...
PROS:
--Having seen other friends go through MFA programs [all disciplines.] I am completely convinced of the value of a grad program to provide the time, space, feedback, and community for artistic growth. The equivalent of 2 intensely devoted school years would probably take 10 years of independent study, trying to cram it in on evenings and between jobs.
--Opportunities for building connections
--It is a very different type of education than an M.Arch. While I do think that it can be a relatively smooth transition from one to the other, they are very unique approaches. In architecture, it's more "assignment" based and more policed - you are told what your project is, what representations of it to make, how many of each, what to present, when, in what format, etc. In short it is like high school. MFA is much more self-directed and independent and therefore scarier as your output is entirely your own responsibility. The schedule is also more sane. Architecture education is a boot camp where you are constantly harassed to produce quantity over quality, whereas in the MFA you have a reasonable amount of time and space to produce a decent body of work. But, you still get the critiques & feedback as you are producing it. After the hecticness and rigor of the M.Arch, I think I'm especially well set up to thrive in the self-motivated MFA structure.
CONS:
--It's expensive.
--Maybe money otherwise applied to tuition would be better invested in equipment or in realizing projects? (The issue is - would the work be as good as it would be without the scrutiny of a degree program?)
--I already have a Master's degree, in a "creative" field, from a good university. Is it viewed (by art schools) as weird to go for another Master's, even a complementary one that makes sense for my intended career path?
--Nothing stops me from making pictures - right now! (However, the limitation of running into people who don't take them seriously because I am MFA-less does limit access to shows, residencies, collectors, galleries, and publications.)
If any of you have some feedback or thoughts I'd love to hear them. I know I'd benefit from a MFA program, but do the cons outweigh the benefits in your opinion?
