kukin

those are two completely different programs, and attending either one depends again on what you would like to get from them. a digital arts department will most likely train you and prepare you to master software to best translate your ideas through the use of the computer. you will probably be spending your time learning every technical aspect of the digital media world. if you were to go to a painting program you will probably not learn much about that technical knowledge that you will get from a digital program. you will have to be creative with the knowledge you already have and if you do want to learn more regarding computer software you will have to do that on your own. what's more, you will probably be encourage to incorporate other elements into your creative process and your digital ground will be one aspect of the whole picture. remember that school is a tool to expand your ideas and knowledge. it doesn't or won't define you as an artist. you take that tool and after you graduate you use it to become or do what you want to do. if you go for a more digitally oriented program you can use that knowledge to later on create and make art that doesn't necessarily need to be commercial. one example is ryan mcginness, who went through a graphic design program and is now creating paintings and prints using that knowledge he got from school. his work has become more "fine arts" oriented because not only is he applying paint to create unique logos but because he addresses other issues besides the formal aspects of his work.

The Yale/SAIC/MICA/RISD group of schools will try to mentor the student towards a more complete experimental experience in art making. The NYAA mentality is directed more towards a more representational development. If there is indeed an experimental side in the latter I doubt it resonates with the type of approach that Yale embraces, where experimentation might encompass the questioning of materials, the work's context in contemporary art, technique choices, etc., to name a few; and the impact of this approach will be the same no matter if you are a figurative or abstract artist. In a nutshell, Yale will try its best to make you think outside the box, whereas NYAA will probably nurture you to best illustrate an idea within a more conservative relationship with your materials. now, what most artists want of course is recognition from the art world, but this difference in academics doesn't translate into someone who comes from Yale is a better artist than a NYAA alumnus. neither does it mean that a NYAA graduate will not achieve the level of success a Yale artist will. the problem usually becomes evident when an aspiring artist views how much hype is given to what school you come from and the level of statistics regarding Yale (or the likes) alumni both showing in prestigious galleries and being written about in art magazines. it's true that the art world does give favoritism to the kind of work coming out of more experimental institutions, but not all of it (or most) is good art. and what matters for any artist should be to make good art, as opposed to let the name of your school give you the freedom to create crap and receive unwarranted recognition for it. it's great that you want to know the difference between these two mentalities because you do need to know what kind of education best fits your process of art making, but one can't (and i'm not saying you are) choose to go to a school just because it has a certain type of prestige. you go to a school because you know it will help you mature as an artist. i believe the time to apply for grad school is the time when you know exactly what kind of artist you are and what kind of school will better help you develop to your full potential.

Hi feather, from what i've read so far from everyone responding here and after looking at your work i have to agree that you do need to let your work develop before applying to your preferred schools for the following reasons: in order to understand the comment "he can paint so what?", you can not be truly told easily in a few paragraphs, or even long discussions. that understanding will only come to you from growing and maturing. i know that sounds vague but words will always lack the enlightening moment that only growing up can give you. in fact, once you are at a point where you understand it you will realize how far behind you were from actually having a shot at Yale or the likes. all these discussions regarding skill, gerard richter, technique, ability, are vastly inconsequential when attempting to go to the grad schools you have your eyes on. like mutt mentioned above, it doesn't matter how you create things, but why, because at this point the art world has become so eclectic that formal uniqueness doesn't stand out alone anymore. our current art world is different even from that of richter and even talking about his contribution to the arts is perhaps at this point better left to art history, as a way to learn, not the facts, but how the artists of that time thought with regards to their own contemporary issues. i believe now schools like yale expect artists to understand that to a certain extent and expect to see a level of human maturity and complexity complementing their work. this doesn't mean you need to have every idea fully realized, but that you have reached a point where you know that certain ideas you have are not always conscious, but are not purely unconscious either. they want to know that you are an open minded person, but with a level of artistic grasp that you will not struggle with formal issues but rather thrive with experimental endeavors. they want an artist with the potential to take what they've done on their own and take it even further (that word "further" again is something that you can only understand empirically). some of this potential will be shown to them first in the form of a cohesive portfolio, where the main interrogations of your work lay outside the formal aspects of it, into a more personal realm, and secondly in a well composed statement, where these interrogations are expressed clearly and concisely. however, no matter how good you might develop all these points, it also depends on the subjective view of who's reviewing your work. i would say the firmer you stay on your own path, and i don't mean visual path, but the path created by your own life experiences that are then translated into art, the better chances you have to say something that might sound clever by its very personal and intimate nature. be patient and work as much as you can. there is a great saying: "creative breakthrough occur unexpectedly and unconsciously after an extended period of hard conscious labor"

hey kylebta, did risd let you know recently about your acceptance, or did they call you right after the interview?

thank you!

do any one of you guys know if RISD has already notify anybody yet?

Hey lfwd, when were you notified?