indigoconcord

I made it in! I got into the Div School for an M.A. in Religions! (concentrating mostly on classical languages - it's a looong story) 
I am so nervous and excited! I have never been anywhere near Chicago!

Hi everyone, congratulations to those who got into schools this go round and best of luck to those preparing portfolios for next year. Here's a link to a great free video series for those who need to freshen up or prepare for the rigorous literary aspects of an MFA program. Several grad students who I know have mentioned how the theory aspect of their education was the most difficult initially, so this is a great way for us all to get a head start! Again, congratulations and best of luck to everyone!  
https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/literary-theory-audio/id341652579

I have a feeling that is not what michaelwebster meant. SAIC's performance department is the only one of it's kind in any MFA program in the country. It's also got a lot of "buzz" right now (as much as that can be defined), with recent alum winning awards like Furnace Fund and NARS in New York.

At least, that is my understanding.

Just heard from Columbia with a rejection email.  Now if Rutgers would step up and deliver a yes or no I would be happy to start planning my future!

Thanks! Photo!

Accepted to UChicago!!!
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. 
 
Good luck to everyone! Hopefully all the waiting is coming to an end. 

I dunno, seems like southern california is all about the casual surprise.

'modernism' in the greenbergian sense relied on an essentialism that has been logically beaten to death. its principles were also exploited and brought to their fruition by minimalism (fried fought hard but lost). art that is aware of its condition and history will never be 'going back' to any such ideology. all of its aestheticisms are now accepted in the contemporary vernacular as valid, if thats what you mean... but this notion that we are once again viewing and making art as a developmental evolution working towards some self-aware transcendental apex (kantian/hegelian/greenbergian modernism) is malarky. i think were quite stuck, and probably always will be (unless the rapture comeslol or we learn how to hone time-warp), in a cycle of contextual relativism. philosophy has been out philosophized and were swimming in a pool of meaninglessness. some see this and can only conjure negativity/cynicism/etc, others see this and realize an existence without inherent meaning allows meaningFULness to be formed in whatever manner each individual sees fit. if sincerity, emotion, empathy, compassion, and honesty is what is meaningful to you, than so be it - but nothing will ever be universal, and you should probably evaluate whether or not your beliefs are held because of a sentiment of universality before you make them the core of your being.

i think that is the condition of contemporary art and life, and i think it is wonderful and terrible at the exact same time.

however, the only contemporary art that i know of which fits the criteria you (emoree) describe, without contradicting itself in an unaware manner, is certain forms of social practice. for example, theaster gates

'modernism' in the greenbergian sense relied on an essentialism that has been logically beaten to death. its principles were also exploited and brought to their fruition by minimalism (fried fought hard but lost). art that is aware of its condition and history will never be 'going back' to any such ideology. all of its aestheticisms are now accepted in the contemporary vernacular as valid, if thats what you mean... but this notion that we are once again viewing and making art as a developmental evolution working towards some self-aware transcendental apex (kantian/hegelian/greenbergian modernism) is malarky. i think were quite stuck, and probably always will be (unless the rapture comeslol or we learn how to hone time-warp), in a cycle of contextual relativism. philosophy has been out philosophized and were swimming in a pool of meaninglessness. some see this and can only conjure negativity/cynicism/etc, others see this and realize an existence without inherent meaning allows meaningFULness to be formed in whatever manner each individual sees fit. if sincerity, emotion, empathy, compassion, and honesty is what is meaningful to you, than so be it - but nothing will ever be universal, and you should probably evaluate whether or not your beliefs are held because of a sentiment of universality before you make them the core of your being.

i think that is the condition of contemporary art and life, and i think it is wonderful and terrible at the exact same time.

however, the only contemporary art that i know of which fits the criteria you (emoree) describe, without contradicting itself in an unaware manner, is certain forms of social practice. for example, theaster gates

'modernism' in the greenbergian sense relied on an essentialism that has been logically beaten to death. its principles were also exploited and brought to their fruition by minimalism (fried fought hard but lost). art that is aware of its condition and history will never be 'going back' to any such ideology. all of its aestheticisms are now accepted in the contemporary vernacular as valid, if thats what you mean... but this notion that we are once again viewing and making art as a developmental evolution working towards some self-aware transcendental apex (kantian/hegelian/greenbergian modernism) is malarky. i think were quite stuck, and probably always will be (unless the rapture comeslol or we learn how to hone time-warp), in a cycle of contextual relativism. philosophy has been out philosophized and were swimming in a pool of meaninglessness. some see this and can only conjure negativity/cynicism/etc, others see this and realize an existence without inherent meaning allows meaningFULness to be formed in whatever manner each individual sees fit. if sincerity, emotion, empathy, compassion, and honesty is what is meaningful to you, than so be it - but nothing will ever be universal, and you should probably evaluate whether or not your beliefs are held because of a sentiment of universality before you make them the core of your being.

i think that is the condition of contemporary art and life, and i think it is wonderful and terrible at the exact same time.

however, the only contemporary art that i know of which fits the criteria you (emoree) describe, without contradicting itself in an unaware manner, is certain forms of social practice. for example, theaster gates

post-post-modernist?   oh gosh please don't tell me this is a buzz word lately.  

well, definitions aside, are you just basically looking for contemporary art writers who leave you with a warm fuzzy feeling inside?  

I can't think of many off the top of my head, but if you haven't already then u should read Homi K Bhaba, the Location of Culture.  
If that is too heavy, then maybe see if Bob Ross wrote anything about happy tree, clouds etc. 
 Also, going back into the 20th c. I know Donald Judd was not a fan of post-modernism, and if you can stomach it, try reading Ayn Rand's art theory.   I'd love to have those 4 people at a party, give them a bunch of whiskey and see what happens.

Hi Everyone! 
 
Good luck to all of you and much congratulations for those of you hearing good news! For those of you who have either had rejections or no news, keep your chin up. I've been there, believe me. 
 
I wanted to start a thread for those of you who have either applied or have been accepted to Rutgers, starting in the fall. I am here currently, going into the last bend of my first year. Now, I obviously can't answer questions like if you got in, when you will hear, etc. In complete honesty, we (the grad students) have no idea when the notifications can or will go out or who was selected this year. 
 
I can however answer any questions you might have about the program, New Brunswick, Rutgers as a whole, etc. For those of you thinking about coming, it would be great to build a little bit of a community before you might get here as well. 
 
So let the questions rip! Or if you'd rather PM me, by all means feel free to do so. 
 
Upward and onward, everyone! 

the best advice ive gotten on this topic is "the nicest outfit youre comfortable wearing."

im not comfortable in nice/expensive things. so i thought id probably end up looking underdressed, but it really didnt matter (and almost all 30 other interviewees were similarly "underdressed")

I'd advice not to wear anything you'd wear to a job interview. You don't want anything too business like (no suits). I wore a nice casual dress wih a cardigan, scarf, and tights to my interviews. Remember, you are interviewing for an mfa, not a MBA. Wear something nice, stylish and try to remember, how you look will be the first impression they get from you.

University of Arizona - Photo
application deadline - Feb. 1
acceptance - Feb. 19 (phone call)
 
VCU - Photo
application deadline - Jan. 15
request for interview - Feb. 19
phone interview - Feb. 26
acceptance - ?
rejection - ?
 
Washington University in St. Louis
application deadline - Jan. 14
acceptance - Feb. 16 (phone call)

SAIC
Deadline: Jan 10th
Request for interview: Feb 11th-15th (via snail mail) 
Interview: March 2nd or 3rd, depending on dept. 
Acceptance: ?
Rejection: ?

It seems no one has heard from Rutgers regarding concentrations in painting yet. So I imagine those acceptances are still coming.

ME TOO.  I would like to join the group of people saying they got calls from Rutgers.......any. minute. now.

these rutgers acceptances are making me nerrrrvous

yale funds students according to personal and parental income. if youre rich you pay. if youre not, you pay much less or nothing. cranbrook is not yale (financially or reputably). columbia is not yale (financially). yale painters dont attend the school because "Their application was weak. They didn't get into any other note-worthy school." that statement is not just inaccurate, its insane. yes, their program is large in comparison.... this is because they get 2-10 times the number of applicants of most programs. their acceptance rate is still one of, if not THE lowest in the country (for programs with a painting distinction). youre degrading programs with blatant over-generalizations and inaccurate assumptions. not every program that you view as "private + expensive" is a haven for rich, second-rate artists.

"The work is decent, but lacking. Hanging little geo-things in a bunch of environments is well played out by now." on an internet forum, an anonymous persons view of not-present work that he/she sees as 'decent, but lacking' means absolutely nothing. to try and influence opinions on specific schools using this tactic is ridiculous. can we please stick to facts instead of nonsensical hearsay? this thread is quickly unravelling with dumb angst and over-zealous ignorance. BASIC LOGIC TELLS US THAT AN MFA IS NOT WORTH MASSIVE DEBT. we dont need a thread of indirect testimonials about it.

We shant empower the troll.
 
Btw UCSD or UCLA news anyone?

This seems like a pretty ignorant question to ask on a forum full of potential graduate students in the field... Maybe this would be a more appropriate and information-gaining question: "Does the school subscribe to a particular theoretical ideology or does it simply stress intellectual pursuits over formal execution?"

This seems like a pretty ignorant question to ask on a forum full of potential graduate students in the field... Maybe this would be a more appropriate and information-gaining question: "Does the school subscribe to a particular theoretical ideology or does it simply stress intellectual pursuits over formal execution?"

no, just annoying

1000 elites out of 7.5 billion Worldwide = We are controlled by the .000000133333%