Josholas

Nice! Thanks!

I agree that an art community is essential. So...I say we all move to the Rockies and start a hub for contemporary art. Who's with me? Yes, I realize I'm a dreamer. But I'm okay with that.

Actually, that's a very good point. I wish to be able to visit those places at some point, especially Sequoia. The main reason I have been avoiding California is actually due to the high cost of living and bad economy in general. I have relatives there, and most of them aren't doing well financially. Getting an MFA is already a risky investment, and so I'm very hesitant to move to a state where the economy itself is struggling so severely. I will admit, however, that California has much to offer in terms of environmental beauty, I just fear that the costs outweigh the benefits.

Is anyone else a bit disappointed that none of the schools that ranked for "Painting and Drawing" are located in any western or pacific states except for California? Colorado, Utah, Oregon, Washington, Arizona. You would think those would be the PERFECT setting for great art schools. But somehow, all the ones with top painting and drawing programs got stuck in the major metropolitan areas (and states). I understand big cities have their artistic benefits, but as a person who gets most of their inspiration from nature...I personally need some (western/pacific) options that are a little less metropolitan. Just imagine...a first-class art school at the top of the Rocky Mountains, or nested within a deeply forested National Park, or at the edge of the Grand Canyon? Sounds like a good idea right?

I agree. It's encouraging to know that there are others who are genuinely wrestling with balancing their relationships with grad school opportunities. I know that I, for one, am completely unwilling to leave my wife and child for any career advancing opportunity, including grad school. This country already has an epidemic of fatherlessness, and I refuse to be part of that statistic. Art is important, but my family is my art. In some ways, I feel like nurturing a healthy marriage and growing a happy family is the ultimate and most challenging art form, even if it doesn't make it into any of the big fancy art museums and magazines. If spending quality time with my family means I don't produce enough "good" art to get into the biggest art schools, then so be it. My happiness is alive and well and is not dependent on the quantity of rejection or acceptance letters I receive. Coming home to the open arms of my wife and daughter is the only acceptance letter I will ever need. If the art world doesn't agree with my priorities, then it can go *paint* itself. Although...I'm not convinced it would make that great of a painting. Sorry, that rant should probably go on a different thread. lol.

Nope. I called a couple weeks ago. They said it would probably be after spring break and no later than April 1.

Just got a rejection letter (mail) from U. Oregon. Sad day :/

Are the rankings that are being updated Wednesday replacing the old online rankings or the printed ones in their magazine? Just curious.

You're not the only one. I applied to Tyler (painting) and have not heard back and my online application status has not changed.

How did you find out about the Washington rejection? (Mail, Email, or Phone?)

Rejection letter from UNT today.

Congratulations OutWest! My application hasn't changed...so hopefully they haven't updated the painting/drawing applicants yet. We shall see.

Awesome! Thanks! I was just about to give up hope

@ berto and liam.zev - What programs were you applying to at U. Oregon? I was told that painting applicants would be notified mid-to-late March...

Thanks Ebonie! I'm glad you liked it!

@michaelwebster - I think your reasoning is solid for not calling it "abstract expressionism", especially since the term now describes a reference point in art history, and might be too loaded with historical connotations to describe new contemporary art. I think that is a great point. So with that in mind, what would you suggest as an alternative "label" for it? Or is it better to just stick with something descriptive like "non-representational abstract painting"? And however it is described, what sort of consistent qualities help the average person distinguish the good kind from the bad? The reason I ask, is because I feel like this general sort of painterly "abstract non-representational" art (and distinguishing between its various offshoots) is becoming increasingly esoteric, to the point where the vast majority of people fail to see any difference between those offshoots at all. And what's more, I feel that the general public is becoming desensitized to it, thirsting for something that is (at least visually) substantially new and innovative. There are certainly artists today who fit those criteria, but I haven't yet found any contemporary (painterly, abstract, nonrepresentational...etc.) art that the average person would find to be new and innovative. Perhaps this is my problem, as I feel a strong bias that art should serve more than just the artistic elite (or even the artist him/herself), and if this is a fault, then it is one that I willingly embrace. But don't hear me wrong...I'm not saying that there isn't a place for that sort of art, I'm primarily just suggesting that I feel it is time for the art world in general to stop focusing so much attention on finding all the leaves and branches of a good idea. Perhaps its more worthwhile to find another tree altogether. Let me know if that makes any sense.

I actually agree with you, and my own work certainly has traces of abstract expressionism in it, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I think, in many ways, abstract expressionism can be more meaningful and connect more directly to the emotions than representational work. With that said, I have a question that I think gets at the "real" heart of the matter... How does one effectively distinguish between good abstract expressionism and bad (lazy) abstract expressionism? Is the artist statement all that can be relied on? If it is marketable (and I absolutely agree that it can be), how do marketers find the best "quality" work?

Still working on my website, and I'll post a link to it when it's finished. In the meantime, most of my recent works can be viewed here: http://www.behance.net/gallery/Natural-Linguistics/1029033 I would definitely appreciate any feedback, good and bad

Okay, so I think what I wrote was a little premature. It would be really helpful to read the artist statement in this case. My sentiments are less directed at this particular artist and more at artists who hide personal laziness behind the veil of abstract expressionism. I'm sure if this person got into Columbia, the artist statement must have substantially clarified the work. As was previously stated, the person behind the art is an important key to grasping the nature of their work.

My thinking is...if you want to create art like that, and it means a lot to you, go for it! ...Just don't expect for people to buy it or see it as innovative. Like leetimko said...the art world has been there and done that. It's not avant-garde if 20 million artists have already done it, imho. Sorry if that sounds harsher than I meant for it to. Just being honest.

I like your Soulmate series. I think you captured the emotion of modern "loneliness" pretty well. For me, it rides the line between sadness and humor, which I find very intriguing.

@blkjwl - When did you receive your rejection for Tyler painting? Was it by mail or phone call? Thanks!

Thanks! You too!

Mine still says that.

Ironically I just got a rejection letter from UNM in the mail. So keep an eye out.