gentlebreeze

I guess I would disagree with you on multiple levels - it's a different approach to photography, and I think it's a valuable one, even if singular. Fom what I understand *all* of the other top mfa programs (versus more commercially oriented ones like SCAD, Brooks, etc.) foster the more conceptual/interdisciplinary approach. Those who want to work in that mode can go to myriad other schools, and those who want a straight photo approach with strong critics and a rigorous discursive level can try for Yale. I do think that the Yale/Papageorge pedagogy is a valid way of working in photography today, and isn't a matter of being "cutting edge" or not. Basically, there's room for all, and it would be a huge bummer to see the last top-flight straight school offering this track to disappear.

Well, from what I understand, Yale's department does allow a variety of approaches. I am thinking about graduates like Shannon Ebner, David Benjamin Sherry, Walead Beshty, etc. (just in terms of the last decade, and who have gotten quite a lot of recognition) in addition to what (I think) the more common stereotype is, the sort of "uncanny suburbia" shot on a Mamiya 7, that a lot of people do.

Yale faculty seems a little more skeptical of conceptual or nontraditional projects, initially. It's like "guilty until proven innocent" instead of the other way around, attitude wise, if that makes sense. If you make a weak showing of "conceptual" work you will get excoriated. Whereas a weak "photographic" edit might get more of a ho-hum review, "this is pretty bleh, not much to say here, do better next time." But when a conceptual project (i don't mean one singular project, but one's "Project" as an artist) is well done, it is supported and the artist/photographer who made it is supported. It's more like - a student couldn't show up to a crit and expect the panel to automatically think the work is interesting or had merit because all there is to say about it was, "It's a performance" or "Here's my identity politics statement" or "I was referring to ArtistName's x y z" or "I'm interested in this political thing that's going on."

I do think that the program tends to attract applicants who want a more traditional approach, but when someone who deviates from that gets in the program and the work is genuinely interesting, they can do what they want to do.

I guess I would disagree with you on multiple levels - it's a different approach to photography, and I think it's a valuable one, even if singular. Fom what I understand *all* of the other top mfa programs (versus more commercially oriented ones like SCAD, Brooks, etc.) foster the more conceptual/interdisciplinary approach. Those who want to work in that mode can go to myriad other schools, and those who want a straight photo approach with strong critics and a rigorous discursive level can try for Yale. I do think that the Yale/Papageorge pedagogy is a valid way of working in photography today, and isn't a matter of being "cutting edge" or not. Basically, there's room for all, and it would be a huge bummer to see the last top-flight straight school offering this track to disappear.