aethiryn

Got a call from UCSB about 3 weeks ago saying they accepted me! Still haven't received anything funding wise from them. I know that they said they were 'going to give funding first to non cali residents, as it is more expensive for them' and then I should expect some sort of package. Not sure if I should feel good that the professor was so open about how the funding process works, or should be worried that their response wasn't 'don't you worry, we want you! we'll take care of you!' Glad to hear some people are hearing back from SAIC. I'm a little bummed I haven't heard back from them.

If the schools dont mention sizes I would just adhere to what other schools provide as guidelines. For example UCLA states, "Maximum file size is 1024w x 768h at 72dpi. File sizes may not exceed 3MB per file." I've found that most schools follow this guideline. I would double check to see what the guidelines are. It may be on the website, or on the application site/slideroom. Good Luck!

Thanks everyone for your input! I feel better about my application to UCSB now. I basically explained what an image still was, if there were any parameters to a performance, or indicated if it was part of a series. I think it will be better to stay away from explaining intent, I don't want to be talking at the jury. Thanks again, best of luck with the applications!

Hey, I didn't think this was worthy of a new thread, but I was wondering what people were doing for their descriptions of works in slideroom/applications? I know this is silly but, what do you think they are looking for? Do they want a really nice (but relatively short) concise analysis of what you think your work is saying, or do they just want an explanation of whats going on in the image such as, "in case you can't tell, this is me rolling down a hill naked and this is an ongoing series." (obv would make it sound a lot nicer)

As someone currently in the bay area I can tell you a little bit about CCA. They are definitely trying to gear themselves up for having a more conceptually driven program, but as it is right now it's very lackluster. They offered one of my friends a full ride (who didn't apply but is a well known conceptual artist in the bay area) if he attended. But I haven't heard that for anyone else who attended. They have a lot of money, but their funding doesn't seem to make much sense in terms of distribution. After looking at your website, I think you would definitely fit in better at CCA than SFAI (even though it's not on your list). My impression of the entire program at CCA is they want to have one foot in the conceptual fine art world and another in the more "marketable" fine art world. (I don't mean that in any negativity, I just think they know how to respond better to object based work that could make you a living) The SF art scene is in an interesting mode right now. SF caters to more of the "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" where as I would consider Oakland to be more interested in personal narratives. Hopefully that's some food for thought.

Thank you losemygrip. I know that USC is probably not keen to my practice, but I honestly fell in love with the studios, the fact it was in LA, how much funding they had. It sounds so weird to say, but it felt very similar to Yale's 'cool kid' crowd. (I think the best I can describe it) But fuck. I would LOVE to work with A.L. Steiner. I grew up in Orange County and visited Fullerton and Long Beach a lot and have had friends attend both schools. I know they would be back ups, but I don't think I would be happy at either school. Now that deadlines are approaching and the possibility of not getting in anywhere is ominous, I think I've come to terms with accepting that if it doesn't happen with these schools this year then maybe next year. (who knows, save money make more work, do some residencies) I think the schools I'm applying for I would be happy at, and when things are meant to happen I think they will. Thanks for the back up info though!

So I just had a studio visit and they told me I needed to add more "details" of the pieces I have in the portfolio. I think I was under the impression that they want @20 strong different pieces of work. The way my portfolio is looking now is it pretty much consists of about 10 different pieces with some of the pieces consisting of an image and accompanied video. So in total I have about 17 images right about now. I feel like at this point I am burnt out on making new work, and so I only have older pieces that I'm not sure are as strong, so I don't know how I feel about adding them in. I'm having a meeting with a professor at UCSB tomorrow and hopefully I will get some feedback about the portfolio.

Thank you so much for your feedback everyone! Also working with Nick Cave would be a dream. So in terms of SAIC, you're both right, I wouldn't have anything to lose by applying, except the fee. I went to SFAI for my undergrad, and so at times it felt like SAIC was our sister school...except their grad program is definitely better than ours at this point. Maybe that's why I didn't initially consider it.

Thanks, I feel like I have two bodies of work and I'm trying to figure out a way how to blend them, if at all. I came from a photography background and I think the Ana Mendieta-ish pieces where at a point in time when I was discovering performance, and I added those pieces because when I look at my body of work I feel like it lacks...(in the words of Tim Gunn) "sophistication and luxury". I think my work is more humorous than reserved, so maybe I will have to eliminate those pieces. I've been working on soft sculpture pieces for the past yr, and I feel really strongly about working with a foreign, amorphic body. Do you feel like those two pieces feel out of place? I have been working with some of the costumes with green screen and placing them into virtual backgrounds, maybe those will work better with my portfolio. (btw I was super self-conscious once I saw caitlingms body suits, but alas great minds think alike!) I will post some of those soon. I really don't know where I would go on the east coast/elsewhere. I really want to get into school for free/as little of money as possible.

*phew* here goes! Sooo, here is my website. http://jenaleeharmon.com/ I am working on my artist statement, and CV at the moment, so it's mostly just my work up there. Any feedback would be really appreciated. Everyone's work looks amazing!

My friends and I call it "popomo". I just think popomo is a sexy word.

So I have a question regarding my Recs. Also, I know this is late to be reconsidering but I figure the deadlines are 6 weeks away, and at the very least the 3 recs I have are confirmed. So right now I have 2 professors. (and as a friend has pointed out, I'm emailing two more just for back ups/if anything happens) They both worked with me and know my work and I TA'd for one of them. My question is regarding my 3rd rec. My 3rd rec was the head of the pre-college program I TA'd for, and we got to know each other very well and they have offered NUMEROUS times to write my letter of rec. I really want to use them because I know they would write an awesome rec, BUT here are my concerns. (or at least things others have brought to me) They've said numerous times how they would write how wonderful a TA I was/would be. I definitely want to TA because A.) it can help with the burden of tuition B.) I fucking love talking about art, and leading a class and enjoying the experience of the class with others C.) I want to eventually teach, and I think TAing would really help me with job opportunities after school. But I'm afraid what if they only write about me being a TA? Is that good or bad? They are currently in school for their Doctorate in Education. (but their BA was in Art History) How do people feel about someone who is currently in school? Am I over thinking this? I know one of the professors I have down is a phenomenal walking art history text book, and I would say the same for my 3rd rec who is currently in school. What is your advice on this? Should I attempt to reach out to an art history professor from 2 yrs ago? Or Should I continue with my 3 that I have.

I have been staring at my portfolio all day thinking what a mess and disconnected it is. Thanks TheStranger, that was a great boost of confidence.

Hey tierneya2 *I just want to say this with forewarning that I am not a painter and don't have a plethora of knowledge of contemporary painting* I think you definitely have some interesting work. I think if you edited down your painting portfolio you would have a stronger portfolio, though. After reading your artist statement on the home page, I find that there are two bodies of work with your paintings. To me, there are clear 'process' driven works that seem to be enamored with the thick physicality of the paint, and then the works that are more 'architectural' driven. I personally find the architecture works much more interesting, and would really love to see an artist statement from your perspective on those. I think your statement as it stands is not contextualizing your work in a contemporary way. And that might sound really harsh because it seems like your artist statement is really about the personal process you go through while your making the work. (or as it may sound the romanticism of the composition, paint, layering, etc) Process is important but I feel unless your re-contextualizing the creative process within the work, then your statement should try to expand on the other ideas you are using. But seriously props to you for writing a statement, I get crippled with anxiety every time I think about mine. I think by editing down some works, and then expanding on the ideas you really want to seek out, and then finding a way to contextualize it with a solid artist statement would really push your work further.

AWGH!! I died looking at "Woman in Rhinestones" and "Amanda" *le sigh* they sing to me. Your paintings are so sensual and juicy! Also Michael Webster I am super jealous of your work. Stop being so awesome, you're making me nervous about grad apps now.

I loved my SFAI undergrad experience. Although I was in New Genres which was sort of treated like the red-headed step child....needless to say we got away with a lot and it was seriously a magical experience. I will however say this with warning. They JUST received a new President, (they've had a few in the past 10 years) they are vigorously expanding their program to include more students, and they have been trying "new things" with the graduate program. (like, lets have vernasage more like an art fair than a graduate show) I shouldn't name names, but the person who is in charge of the graduate program is a huge misogynist who really doesnt put in much time for the students like the other professors. I'm friends with a few graduate faculty, and my studio is on the same floor in a warehouse as the sfai studios...so I just want to point out that I personally think you could have a better experience at a different grad school. And I say that with all the love in my heart for my school, but seriously the art scene here is nothing but 'bro art' and I personally think SFAI undergrad is better than the grad school. (and better funded) I'm glad you like the campus and the people, they're both great!

This thread made me so incredibly happy!! I know a lot about the funding of the schools here on the West, but it was great to see what schools I should look into on the East. To add; my friend just graduated with her MFA from Montclair. I talked to her a lot about the program and where it's heading, and it appears like it definitely is heading towards a more interdisplinary route--which is good for me as an artist. I was also SHOCKED to hear the artists that came through and gave talks and studio visits. (My friend had lunch with Vito Acconci...jealous) It was by no means on my radar, and it sounds like hell to live in Jersey for 2 years, but I think I'm going to attempt applying there. Edit: Sorry, just wanted to add that my friend had to pay full 1st yr, but then 2nd she got a fellowship.

what are you doing? get back in the studio!

ahhh...just reread the Yale's requirements...skimmed over 'not' required. I thought for some reason Stanford and Yale required GRE scores, guess it's just Stanford.

Oh good! I have a friend at UCSB right now and I could see your digital and installation working there. From his POV, it sounded like UCSB is really into the whole 'net art' (I know, old lame term) thing, if you wanted to apply there I'd say if you tweaked your portfolio for each school, I could see it working there. A big question about your photographs: Do you need a darkroom? I think (can't be certain) Long Beach still has one, UCSB has a pretty good set up. Also I have legit seen that sweater before, bummer someone put it up on reddit w/out permission!

When I went to visit the UCLA MFA studios about 2 years ago, (a friend and I snuck in and got an impromptu tour from an MFA student ) & they do have a New Genres concentration. From what it sounded like, they only accepted about 2 people into that department each incoming yr. (perhaps it's changed) UCI is good but I've heard that there is a lot of required critical writing. (it is a 3 yr program, maybe the last yr is just thesis?) I actually grew up around UCI and I really liked the area, you're right in between SD & LA less than an hour to get to driving. I've seen some solid performance work from undergrads, MFA students are a little different. A professor friend went down to give a lecture and he said the program is really rigorous and theory based that it leaves some of the students crippled with anxiety? Of course, that was his experience. Are you a resident here? I think in California you need to live here for about 1 yr before you can become a resident. I only mention because I wonder if that effects the application process?