thatOneGuy123

I came up with another question, while thinking over the arguments made about Richter's relationship to skill. I have a lot of the skills I need to make my concepts already as a digital artist. Say I were to drop the whole painting thing, and just express my concepts using that medium. Would a painting program still be the correct department for me to do that? Might I do better in a digital arts department? If so, does anyone have suggestions/recommendations for this? My current understanding is that most digital arts departments gear their students towards a commercial arts, rather than a fine arts, career.

Mindfields: I've thought about making the status of skill in painting my subject before, but have let that convo go. It's really not what I'm interested in. I'm more interested in talking about social/humanitarian issues, and things affecting our experience of living. Kukin: Ah, very good advice indeed. Probably the most informative to date. Yes, I agree, it seems like schools with that experimental approach do graduate alum's with more recognition. By chance, do you happen to know if there is an official term for that experimental approach? I have some thinking to do on this whole subject. Luckily, I still have time to work/research before I make any major decisions on this.

I still think one of the moat important questions that needs answered is:

Sorry my internet is out and im replying from my phone; can give my nirmal long winded response. Kurkin: If formal uniqueness doesnt stand out anymore, how can you account for a lot of the artists previously involved with deitch projects? http://www.deitch.com/

Well, all are good points. Though, all that you mentioned do still involve certain amounts of skill. But as michael said, it does look like he's pretty average as far as superstar painters go (after looking at the NYAA website, who boasts professors such as Saville, Fishl, & Will Cotton, all of whom are pretty well recognized). There is no reason for this expressionist type of abstraction. I could very well abstract the images in the computer and then paint the abstracted images photo-realistically. It's merely an aesthetic choice. Can you give me an example of a "line of demarcation"? It sounds like you're asking me for some kind of really calculated response. I mean, I certainly have influences if that's what you are asking for. But regardless of my painting influences, I also have an understanding of how abstract images function, simply from being a visually literate person. This kind of understanding fuels my decisions in the painting more than anything. Not sure if this answers the question or not. Agreed. In retrospect, I should not have brought up the big A & E. The thinking behind my using the word expressionist is very broad. Like "elevator-speech" broad. I also brought it up because the perspectival tradition was brought up, and I wanted to move the conversation far away from that line of thinking (which I am not particularly concerned with). In any case, I think the most important (and most pertinent) question of late has been about the Academies. Can anyone please flesh out the differences between the line of schools mentioned (PAFA, NYAA, LCAD) and those I brought up (SAIC, MICA, RISD, Yale)? It would be nice to know, in language, the difference between the kinds of educations that these different schools offer. What kinds of things will I be learning at Yale, vs. the NYAA? I mean, as far as I know, an Academy only offers more technique & figurative based studies. Is this really the only difference?

jack: Great response. I'm going to chew it over and respond later, probably tomorrow. I will think about the Academies you mentioned. My reason for overlooking them is because I don't think they have the prestige some other schools might (like SAIC, MICA, RISD, Yale). Another thought I have is that maybe it wouldn't be beneficial for me to attend a school that reinforces my own point of view, but rather challenges it. Thoughts? I'm not dismissing them, and am open to exploring that option, with some reasoning/convincing. What I don't understand is, if the thinking is that it's best for a painter to explore his talents at a school with a 'traditional' viewpoint, why do these other schools have painting departments at all? I mean, if Yale Painting graduates aren't interested in the tradition of painting, why are they accepted into that department at all? From my understanding, any time you pick up a brush to paint on canvas, you are entering into that tradition - whether you like it or not.

michael: Doesn't this statement, Contradict this one? Wouldn't his ability to paint pictures that engage the history of painting, photo, and the tension between surface and depth be considered his craft? Otherwise, it seems like he's better off having some of the other painters who are as good as him, paint for him. He should spend his time thinking about surface/depth, and the history of vernacular photo. I guess the bottom line question is: if there are many painters who can paint as well as Richter, why does he even bother to paint? I mean, if there are more qualified aritists to make his paintings than him, maybe they should - especially thinking about how some artists like Jeff Koons run their practices (stating that he considers himself an "idea man", and hiring craftsmen to do the labor). Also, can you show me examples of artists you think can paint as well as Richter? jack: I know that I'm talking about skill a lot. My work isn't entirely about skill but that is a large part of it. Think about Richter's practice. His paintings are incredibly laborious, even though in the end they might about the relationship between photo and painting. That labor translates to hours and hours in the studio, physically doing the craft of painting. In my mind, it's really painful to dismiss all those hard-worked hours, to say "this painting isn't a worthy testament to skill", and reduce it to being merely about concept. And, I think you can't disregard the labor that is in his work. He simply wouldn't be able to communicate some of the concepts he does, without having the technical ability he does. As far as the fetuses go, I use the work expressionist kind of loosely. I've been told the term abstract expressionism refers to the expression of mark, rather than emotion. And I think I fit into that based on the way that I paint I choose to paint this way, because it allows me a level of abstraction in the work that I couldn't achieve with realism or photorealism. It adds a perceptive quality to the work. Painting the fetus realistically vs. painting it gestural says something completely different. The gestural fetus talks less about the individual identity of the fetus itself, and more about the fetus as a whole. It also calls attention to the environment, because the way I plan to paint it will place an emphasis on that. Also, the way the fetus will be framed and the size of the paintings, will put the viewer in the viewpoint of being in the womb with the fetus. The point here is to create a phenomenological experience for the viewer, hopefully, for them to understand what it is like to be a fetus in a womb. None of this is to dismiss painting. I could certainly achieve a similar state by creating an installation. For one, that's just not what I do. I'm a painter and I make pictures, which I have a certain attachment to. Secondly, I am still interested in having a dialogue on painting. The process I'm taking to make these works (doing the research, drawing, 3d modeling), very much has a commentary on the role of contemporary painting. I don't think many painters would have been able to create what I'm painting, in the way I'm painting it 20 or 30 years ago, simply because the technology didn't exist. And I think that's a valuable point worth exploring, but beside the point. Plus, when you paint you enter into a dialogue about the history of painting. The fetus here is a continuation, for me, on the idea of figure painting. This usually is done with an artist in a studio with a model, but I can't physically see the model (the fetus) I will be painting. It is interesting because of the way I have to go about painting it, but also because of the stage of life I am painting. It's almost like painting "pre-life", a time when many people wouldn't even consider the fetus to be a living person. It intriguing because it questions the notion of "figure painting". Is this person really a figure? I hope this is enough additional info to continue the discussion. I've been having this all year, so I know there are a lot of loose ends tied into this concept.

phale: I get what you're trying to say and I appreciate it. For the sake of discussion though, what exactly do you mean when you say "he can paint so what?". I've gotten the "so what" or "why should I care" question before, from some profs. Not really sure how to respond to a question like that. "Why should I care that you know how to paint?"... You shouldn't? If you can't appreciate the painting for what it is, maybe you should be reading a book instead of analyzing the brushwork of my paintings...? Doesn't it sound like I'm being asked to state the value of painting as a discipline, rather than talk about specific reasons my work is interesting? Is this just a side effect of a poorly phrased question? "You can paint, so what?" Isn't the fact I can paint the "what"? If the interest is in looking at the painting, shouldn't the fact that I can do it (competently) be of value? Consider asking Gerhard Richter the same question: "Yeah Richter can paint, so what?" I mean, it's a self-defeating question isn't it? Richter is revered for his technical ability; so much so that he has claimed to "not be talking about anything at all" (can't remember where I got the quote, sorry). Perhaps I'm overlooking some larger concept. Do you get the question I'm asking here?

Susan: I called in and talked to the administrator in the painting department. As far as grades go, she made it sound like they're pretty much overlooked. I asked if someone with a terrible GPA, but a great portfolio, would be considered, and she said "yes". The order of importance goes: 1. Portfolio 2. Statement 3. References R. Mutt: Can you tell me how the application process went for you? Do you have any tips for the interview?

In any case, I'm still interested to hear other people's thoughts on getting into competitive schools. Anyone on here who's actually gotten into Yale?

Yeah I can take that. I'm still going to go through the application process this year though, because it can't hurt. Thanks for the advice.

Michael: Another point worth mentioning. Personally, I consider myself more of an expressionist than anything. Though, the carousel you see on my website is very indicative of the perspectival tradition you mentioned. That was a commission I did for a museum here in town, which I took for the experience. The point was to strengthen my skills painting & drawing representationally so that I can call upon them if needed. Also, that painting is 11' wide, so it was good experience working at that size. What I consider to be my 'true work' is more like the Boxer or Cabaret Girl. The other works are really just class assignments.

Michael: We're arguing kind of a moot point here. Kehinde Wiley is just one example, of a wildly successful Yale graduate that does representational painting. In the following links are the portfolio sites of representational painters/drawers, who are currently attending Yale, taken directly for the school's website. http://waydemcintosh.tumblr.com/ http://meenahasan.com/home.html http://mariodmoore.blogspot.com/ http://www.austinlee.net/artwork/OnTheWay.html Beyond that, I don't think Yale would be a good fit for me based purely on style/craft. The program is pretty much a hodge-podge in terms of the artists they accept. A speaker came in to my school who said they are very strategic about this (they will literally go through, and pick out one realist, one expressionist, an abstract painter, etc.). The point is to get a very well-rounded and diverse group of artists, so that they all learn from one-another. Besides this point... it sounds like you are really against Yale for me (or maybe just in general?). Do you have any suggestions of what schools you think suit me? jack: I understand your point now. I think it would be interesting to read the whole article that quote is from. I might look for it later on today. Yeah I can tell you about my current focus. This is really a continuation of my BFA thesis. The work is based around the concept of what life is like inside the womb. What interests me about this is because it has a relationship to fantasy, one of my favorite genre's. The womb requires a similar kind of construction to the way a fantasy painting might. Meaning that, it is much unlike painting a still life or from a model (where you can literally sit down in front of the object and paint it). The major hurdle has been developing an understanding of what all occurs in the womb (what the environment is like, how the fetus is positioned within it, what colors exist in it, etc.). The next step is to create a visualization of this. I've tried a number of different things - I built a few sculptures, tried to cartoon it out. But I've found the most practical and controlled way of doing this is by using a 3d model, which I am still currently working on. Once that is finished, I will essentially have the reference which I can paint from. I could go on and on about this. I spent the entire last year defending the point, and arguing it from almost all angles. I'm not sure how much more info you'd like to hear on it, or if it is even relevant to the discussion at this point... lol.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on Salt's idea of skill and technical proficiency. He says "I'm interested in people who rethink skill, who redefine or reimagine it". Doesn't he mean to say he's interested in people who are re-thinking technique, and that re-thinking of technique is the skill that the artist has? It sounds to me like he's using the words skill and technical proficiency backwards... The whole statement is just confusing. Yes, that is what I meant. At least for me, when I walk up to most paintings, I take a look at the subject matter, but I am also highly engaged by the craft. The way things are painted, colors, how they are represented... all falls into a category of high interest for me. This isn't to dismiss the concept or idea within the painting. A painting that is pure skill is solely an illustration, and often lacks important levels of depth and meaning. Also, a painting that is pure skill has less contemplative value. But the point I'm trying to make is that technique (or skill?) is pretty important in painting, regardless of how it is viewed in other forms of art. This may be different for me because I'm a painter, but I do know a lot of non-artists who think in a similar manner.

Michael: Yeah I see your point about the correlation between my work and Yale students, but judging only from the link you posted. In the past, they've had a wider variety of work that the students produce. A lot the work in that link isn't even painting. And none of it is representational... Jack: I kind of see your point about skill, but not entirely. It sounds like you're dismissing skillful painting/artwork. So Vincent Desiderio, Eric Fishl, or John Currin don't make interesting work because they have a focus on skill? For these three artists, at least, I agree that concept is important, and is usually a driving factor in the work. But to tell you the truth, the reason I look at the paintings for all these artists is to take an interest in how they've done, what they've done. Great points about applying to multiple schools/sticking to a body of work. Just want to note though, that I'm still interested in learning how/what it takes to get into a high calibur school like Yale, so I'd like to not move too far away from that discussion.

My portfolio is here: I minored in illustration and 3d modeling in undergrad, which isn't adequately showcased on my site. Any thoughts on these skills? Can they help me get into the painting program? My strategy behind those minors is because I want to have 'full control' over my representational painting (illustration and 3d modeling have given me the craft to do that). Michael: I'm making a body of work now that I think will look pretty amazing when finished. I'm not making it particularly for Yale, but I've wanted to go there for a while, and I think that my direction/style/interests in painting will fit with their program. Prof. Susan: Thanks for the very informative post. Let me make a few calls/emails and I'll get back to you in a week. Note: I applied (just for fun) this year with pretty much the portfolio you see on my site. I got rejected almost immediately... thoughts? Thanks again!

Yale is my dream grad school. Foremost because it is one of the best rated schools for painting, but also for the name. Plus, I think the access to alumni will be very valuable, and I would like to get to know the "ivy league population" while I am there. What kind of portfolio are they looking for? I'm pretty skilled as of now, but my work is kind of all over the place. Do they want to see just one, singular direction/body of work? I just graduated, and am taking the year off, so I have about 6 months to put together a portfolio for next year. What about the application process? Do they want to see particular grades? What about letters of recommendation? Are there any strategies for writing my personal statement? Anyone who's gotten into Yale, or currently goes there, opinions would be appreciated greatly. All other advice would be very helpful as well. Please ask if you'd like to see my portfolio site, or know more about my work/grades, etc. Thanks a lot!