kwonberry

frankly no. many from a definable period of light and space, are retired or have passed.

If you're applying for DMA I can't really provide much help. If they do things similar to the art dept, I suppose just be yourself, it shouldn't be a serious interrogation just some chit chat, a few maybe easy questions regarding practice/ moving to LA, they're getting a vibe of you. Bear in mind, this doesn't apply to other schools that conduct a more rigorous interview process (e.g., Yale).

@corey, haha no i'm not scouting admissions, I just peak in the year's freak out forum and say my bit if its pertaining to UCLA. And I suppose as techno said, I've been through it and maybe what bit I say can help alleviate some anxiety from the mystery of it all.

1. Yes 2. official notices go out some time march. if you haven't been called/emailed regarding finalist status around now... 3. Yeah I'm working on my thesis show.

UCLA is pretty much this. good luck hopefuls.

It's a toss up but most people at my program lie somewhere between 28-32.

I think I heard they give exactly 1 full ride per year.

So many times this.

And in response to firenze: I would specify that questioning work isn't implying there is something wrong. I'd closer align to the word 'flaw' in the best possible sense. Your position feels defensive, which is understandable but I'd measure not the whole picture. I say this because it seems like you have a staunch definition of art. Wording is specific "The prevailing culture there tends to be against religious expression, against beauty, and leans towards a more atheist view." Art theory as I understand doesn't fall off the hinges of trends in philosophy, and aren't there more than a handful of 'anti-christian' philosophers studied in 101 courses globally? I don't know what classes you have sat in on, but they must have been bad if it was just a barrage of criticism without anything good to say. Why I believe in critique is that you have the opportunity to actively engage in the conversation, or at least be privy to listen. I understand at the undergrad level, it's not uncommon for everyone to be bored, even if a single crit lasts anywhere from 20 to 45 minutes. I know my brain shut off after a while having to constantly reset and look at something new without the willingness, opportunity, or even capacity to look and speak about a work for a longer period of time, at least in undergrad. I don't know if you've sat in on graduate critiques, but ours can go from 2 to 4 hours, depending on the professor. Not only is the critique longer, but it's coming from people with VERY different backgrounds. Who are you critting with in undergrad if not people who have basically the exact same art theory and history background, and even personal background. The vast majority of your peers are between 18 and 23 who all took the same fundamental classes. It's just the first step in understanding, and everyone is on the same level, so yeah, crits will only go so far at that point. Is it communication if you make whatever you want and not justify it? I wouldn't disagree that an art student should make whatever they want, but if it's unable to engage with anyone but the maker, then, under the assumption that this artist would like to sustain off of said work, who would buy/notice/(whatever form of attention) it? Pressure to conform is being the only one without the flavor of the month style in the playground. Critique to me is analysis through personal taste and dialogue, it's not always going to make you happy. I don't think 'just the act of putting the work up' is really addressing what I meant by closed loop, as far as concept. I'm saying work itself CAN be a closed loop, if there's an unwillingness to communicate, or to put in more cliche terms, block off the viewer from entering or engaging. That feels reductive, like saying Sherrie Levine and Richard Prince only plagiarized. There's a deeper meaning behind their work, and it's something that is/can/has been teased out, along with other artists who utilize appropriation. That said, I would feel nothing seeing someone try to pull off this sort of gesture in school. Along that line I don't know if Durer Jr. would elicit a response greater than 'it's exquisitely crafted.' if it's not going to address the past but simply sink into it. I find the example a little far fetched to begin with, considering image saturation today. I don't know if de-aestheticized work is the end all of the 'worldview academic art,' and I would completely disagree that it 'denies any sort of universal truth.' This is where your stance seems to really reveal itself. Dogmatic language associated with religious conviction seems to be blurred with 'definable truth' within art from what I'm reading. I think the best art is about experiential truth, that doesn't have to involved constricting dogma. What is Christian Marclay's "The Clock" if not a universal exploration/celebration of time? or of freezing it? Now if that comes off as atheist, it's because I am. That doesn't mean I disregard 'The last supper.' I'm also quite unsure what you mean by 'dislike of order,' You mean dislike of religious structure? Can we not address institution without having to revere it? Serrano's "Piss Christ" is one of my favorite works of art. It's not black and white blasphemy, it's an engagement with the larger concerns of christian imagery and its cheapening, which is also relatable today with image saturation through the internet, on and on it can go. Abstraction is certainly prevalent, but it's not meaningless. I think that most grad school applicants in some form or another, want a dialogue with the art landscape. Why bother with it if that isn't the case? And yes I went to Montessori school, and not to sound insulting, but it's for children, and I'm all for it. If it isn't clear yet, my opinion is quite fluid and I try to avoid anecdotal evidence to prove any point, but that's sort of the mentality necessary if you really want to not be miserable in grad school. A measure of conviction to do what you love, be able to listen to everyone but pick out whats important, drop what you will probably outgrow, a develop a thick skin.

Ha sorry I was addressing firenze, but i'll start with a response to OP: In a hypothetical scenario involving Durer Jr, if he was accepted to the program, there was a reason for it. As I've experienced, my peers and professors all come with their own voices, tastes, parameters (or lack of) on the notion of what art is, etc. Some would call bullshit, some would appreciate conviction, it's kind of a toss up, and ideally, in a what I define as a good program, isn't that ideal? I guess I'm a little unclear, would her flower paintings be the stumbling block, or unwillingness to do anything else? If I were looking at it, and couldn't surmise the 'buddhist' inspiration behind the work, I'd probably make the point that it's not there. If it is about communication, is it important to the artist that the buddhist element is readable? Not having seen this work, I'd probably ask where does this go beyond illustration (as you said, whats the point when photography exists). Point is, to address 'who decides,' it's everyone that does. Art school (maybe all school for that matter, just my take), as far as my experience goes, is practice in communication. If your friend is making art purely for the sake of it, would she be labeled as a 'sunday painter?' undergraduate programs pick people they think/hope have potential, graduate level it's a wildly different case by case picking process. I'd argue the majority of my peers do what they want to, and that kernels of important advice/criticism have to be discovered as floods of opinions have to be filtered. Have a contentious peer or faculty that is unbearable? Don't listen to them is probably the solution. I know in my own work, some elements of my old work persist, others get left behind. What I would hope, and argue is the purpose of grad school, is that blind spots are at least hinted at and to question the work isn't to obliterate old ideas but to find out what's worth keeping and whats worth moving on from.

Are you speaking from experience having sat in on multiple professor's critiques at multiple institutions (and since you say art world) different continents to draw this conclusion? Your view feels pejorative and derived from a very narrow view or experience of critique. A critique IS fundamentally designed to make you question your work, and it's necessary considering everyone has blind-spots in their thinking/making. Criticism in critique shouldn't be a motivator to 'conform.' It's a means for the maker to experience engagement with their work, not strangers laughing at your baby screaming 'ugly' for 2 hours. If there is no criticism, nothing to question, what then is the point of a work if it's a closed loop? It's pretty? Also to a broader point what is the 'current worldview of academic art?' So when you say "would be given assistance and encouragement" you are basically describing a montessori school? Pandering gets a person how far?

Yes basically this. I mostly ended vague cause I don't know how much I can/can't say involving the process other than my experiences when I had applied/was accepted.

it varies by department. there are 15 first years, 40 total give or take. sculpture, new genres, photography take 3, ID and ceramics take 1-2 (ish?) and painting is 4. if you haven't been called/emailed by now, uh...

ya know there are quite a few state university programs that are also at the top.

Interview is a loose term. Though it varies by medium it's more a conversation.

aren't they gutting their program, or am i thinking of a different uc.

it's not really like applying for undergrads. I don't think a 'safety' school has any value unless you are actually interested in the location, faculty, pedagogy, and facilities

why are the highest admission rates of interest?

secrets

What are your concerns about facility?

I'm drawn to many of them and ideally meet with as many if not all of them at some point. Only met with 2 this first quarter so far. Lari Pittman, Andrea Fraser, Mary Kelly a few that I hope to meet with. Community is good, but as with any school with a relatively small student body that is wildly variable. Look forward to seeing you at open studios.

essentially 2 for me, about the same for the other. the experience is pretty great so far. faculty are fascinating but it really comes down to the fellow grads.

Noticed the traffic here is pretty quiet. Guess I've been busy, or more importantly everyone else is? Should I stir the pot? Things to mull for the '14 applicants that helped me/ that I've noticed. Don't over-think the image count/video count. Your best work is all that matters. That said sometimes your best work is that embarrassing thing you haven't had the heart to put on your site. Every school is looking for something different, but generally speaking they are trying to create a group dynamic of divergent opinions/backgrounds. They are also arbitrary and fickle. Stylistic/superficial alignments to faculty (tailoring your work to fit a 'dream school') is basically a supreme waste of time. One of my fellow first years tailored the statement for each school, I wrote one for all apps, whatever works. Write in a matter that reflects you, not your expectations or perceived expectations of what a statement should be. I might think of more.

There's quite a bit of interesting material, but also some measure of bloat, to the detriment of the specific maximalism you discuss. I enjoy certain pastiche qualities, the confrontational twist of grotesque to femininity-cake-mold-land, though wish it had a certain more aggression rather than the sort of shock/awe effect. Going through the site I think there's something to be said about your bio "eldest of 9" that could lend a certain emotional or biographical quality to your statement. Artists who call themselves (or fall under against their will) 'feminist' is always a slippery slope of maintaining my interest unless theres a sense of what I consider 'balance.' Kathe Burkhart, Beverly Semmes, both artists who taught at my undergrad maintain a tight balance between their material delivery and specific statement they choose to make. Cindy Sherman's Society Portraits series was enjoyable because it was hard to tell where the masquerade and where the self deprecation was specifically, and that vagueness against the meticulous photography was compelling. Just some initial thoughts, I'll probably read this tomorrow when my brain is less sluggish and go 'wtf...'

"completely obsessed with my own experience," might be the most interesting bit (wink). Does relevance matter? I'd rather not over think that. Rather not overthink alot of insecurities you have relayed here and there in the thread Most of your statement refers to dichotomy and polar what-have-you's, but that needs a stance or specificity to have any interesting grounding otherwise it's a very blanket condition of anybody considering themselves artists. Your work, within Chanterelle, sketchbook doodles, and Minor Devastation are compelling. I wouldn't really include the figure works in an application portfolio as you even describe them as exercises. I get a mix of apocalypse ramshackle and romantic chaos that connects well within the first three units (yes the sketchs definitely tie together with your main bodies of work). Some title/dimension/medium/year info? Best to flesh those out over time then crunching it in January. Your list of schools is nothing short of amazing (and most all are in the top percentile of selectivity), that said I hope your ready for cold if you get into a NE or Midwest based graduate program. Might as well toss in Rutgers as one of my old professors is an alum and has quite a reputation for painting. Same goes for Cranbrook and SAIC (no reason not to apply unless you hate chicago) Not just for you but for anybody in this year's round of applications, really think about where you would like to live. Personally I didn't apply anywhere I didn't see myself locating and making a permanent residence (yale excluding as that transitions back to NYC for the most part). I can see quiet and wooded great for residency programs but I don't see the particular merits of a school that is pseudo-secluded.