The "Hot" School(s)?

[truthbetold]

I know this is going to seem really obsessive and nerdy, but I thought it may be of interest to others, particularly those facing some difficult decisions -- or those facing reapplication next year.

I've been thinking about different schools for a few years now, both about where I apply and where I might go if accepted. There is definitely a waxing and waning of different graduate programs (both in perception and reality). And timing does matter -- where and when you go to school can make a career.

What is the state of things in 2011? I am interested to hear what you all think and if you've read any articles that have swayed your opinions.

As a starting point, I have done a little historical retracing. Here are some pieces in the late 90s about LA schools:

"Too Cool for School" - Spin 1997

(scroll to page 86)

"Surf and turf" - Artforum summer 1998

"How to Succeed In The Art World" - NYTimes June 1999

…There is a REALLY interesting moment in the "Surf and Turf" article:

Bruce Hainley puts his money on a dark horse, Columbia's renovated program, chaired by former Yale honcho Ronald Jones. "He has his eye on LA," ventures Hainley. "He wants to steal their thunder. Maybe he will, maybe he won't. But his success will have more to do with the art world's fashion cycles than with whether there is interesting work coming out of Art Center or UCLA. It's going to be, Okay, we've heard about LA for the past five years, we want something new."

…it would seem that Columbia did indeed steal some of the LA thunder (though UCLA is still holding strong and USC is the school with the Buzz in the area). Here's some of what I have read about Columbia:

"Professional Grade" - Artforum 2004

"The Rise of the Columbia MFA 2005" Contemporary Magazine, Issue 76 2005

I can't really find anything more recent about Columbia.

What I deduce from the first 3 articles about LA schools are that changes in administration can make a big difference! It seems like CalArts really suffered from administrative changing of the guard. The opposite can also happen; Columbia rose to prominence after it re-organized itself.

The other thing I noticed is how 1 or 2 students can really shine light on a program and provide a spark. This is after all what brought Yale to the forefront back in the '60s during the first MFA boom. And more recently… Jason Rhoades from UCLA '93 (it became twice as selective as Yale for a period of time), Dana Schutz from Columbia '02 (though notable artists like Barnaby Furnas '00, Banks Violette '00, and David Altmejd '01graduated before her -- and many since). Kara Walker and Julie Mehretu did this for RISD painting in the mid-90s, I think.

And as the "Surf and turf" article also suggests, these rises are often coupled, too, with the arrival or departure of certain faculty. Josef Albers to Yale, Baldesari to CalArts and then to UCLA w/ Paul McCarthy and Chris Burden. Beuys in Dusseldorf in the '60s, etc.

What will happen to Yale with the departure of both Peter Halley and Jessica Stockholder? In the near and medium term, I mean. It'd take a lot for Yale to implode. I think it is still the old guard, conservative school, though, maintaing its rigid department structures and medium specific conversations, though painters make sculpture and video and sculptors make photos and do performance, etc. New department chairs could shake this up for better and/or worse.

It is a very different world now vs 1999 or 2003.

Columbia's open studios are not swarmed by collectors any more. (There is still plenty of market speculation in young artists though.) So without Financial support for students, which Columbia lacks, and the post-MFA sold out solo show more the exception than the rule, does this change things for Columbia?

"Arts Students at Columbia Paint a Bleak Money Picture" NYTimes 2004

http://query.nytimes...756C0A9629C8B63

Alumni since 2004 are still doing incredibly well (going on to Marie Walsh Sharpe, putting lots of artists in Greater New York 2005 and 2010, etc), though obviously some are carrying (a lot of) debt or had financial/family assistance. There are still plenty of artists willing to make the gamble or with parents who can and will support them. In other words I don't think the high tuition cost alone will break Columbia's stride. Here is an entertaining debate about the economics in the comments here on that:

http://howtobuyart.b...l-money-go.html

I think location definitely matters. Which means New York, LA, or close proximity. That is not to say that there are not incredible grad students/artists and schools elsewhere -- VCU's sculpture department for example. But it does mean that no one is watching when they graduate and they have to then move to NY or LA and work to get attention and make connections; they are more on their own to find an audience and find their way into the scene -- which are 50% of the success equation (the work itself being the other 50%).

I feel like the size of the program matters. USC's notability is on the rise (2 alumni featured in New Phototography 2010 recently at MoMA, for example) It is as selective as UCLA Yale or Columbia but with a fraction of the applicants. The program is so small I wonder if it can be a powerhouse. The other extreme might be Hunter, which produces a lot of great artists, but it is so large that the notable alumni are somewhat diluted.

There's still a huge number of applications with many schools only taking 2-3% of applicants. The MFA is still hot.

Sometimes things change by the year, sometimes they change by the decade.

So, I am curious what you all think the HOT school(s) for the next 2 years, or the next 10 years will be -- and why?

And also curious if you have seen any RECENT articles about schools from '09, '10, '11? All I've really seen is which doesn't really speak to the question:

"What it means to get your mfa now" by gallerist Edward Winkelman, October 2009

http://www.edwardwin...a-now-open.html

Edited April 10, 2011 by truthbetold

[firewalkwithme]

@truthbetold will you be attending school this fall? if so which?

Edited April 10, 2011 by firewalkwithme

[truthbetold]

time will tell

[drip]

Thanks for sharing these articles. I've been trying to dig up articles on NYU and UCSD. These two programs are under the radar despite their geographic advantages. I'm wondering why this is so. The SD program is better regarded but, then this brings into question the legitimacy of the ranking systems.

It's been really hard to weigh the pros and cons against one another. UCSD is the better value ticket wise and it's supposed to be an up and coming school. (Although, I can't tell if this is what the program wants their admits to believe)

Have you heard anything about the NYU program? Any info or thoughts would help...

time will tell

[morninwood]

when I think of "hot schools" the first MFA programs that come to mind based on reputation, success of alumni ( showing, residencies, grants, teaching ect...), prestige and location are Yale, Columbia and UCLA.

But the hottest probably between Yale and Columbia

@Drip I visited UCSD. It seemed very cliquish. It's really hard to break into the SD art scene and the scene is mostly made up of SD students. When talking to some of them I got the impression that most chose SD because of the financial aid they were offered, location and the laid back vibe of the program.

With schools like Columbia it's very intense with a great amount of pressure you have studio visits every week and people in and out of your studio regularly

at SD according to a current grad, it's up to YOU to request visits ( you could basically hide out in your studio and never talk to anyone if you wanted ).

[lurkinglurk]

"hot" is a relative terms really.

there are the old standbys of yale, columbia, ucla, but most of those schools hadn't any breakout names coming from their program.

The reality is that most of your favorite artists didn't attend any of those schools.

sure they turn out people middling "success," but often that success is quantified with "gallery representation"

Which can be broken down even further. who has had continuous gallery representation? whose work is more widely seen/known? how many have put out multiple bodies of work with a clear sense of change and growth?

who shows outside of their gallery on a consistent basis?

who teaches?

These are all really big questions. sadly or awesomely (depending on point of view), the artworld is largely unregulated and lacks that hard data.

personally i think an artist will do just as well in any school that is probably in the top 50.(estimate)

and getting into a hot school is almost impossible.

This is mostly because faculty turnover rate tends to be fairly high, funding is almost always in flux (more aid = better recruiting) and the all important x-factor.

sometimes a school gets lucky and gets a really awesome student who becomes something on just chance.

sometimes, students are able to capture a communal energy that exists just between them.

in all cases, people come afterwards in hopes of riding that wave of hotness.

Its just that the hotness probably happened 3-5 years ago and everything is probably different now.

although, i must admit, that the big schools probably do a great job of recruiting future good artists by emphasizing mystique over the realities of the situation.

For instance, when i interviewed at yale. I asked about recent faculty turnover and what that would mean if i attended. and their response was essentially. "well, its yale"

[morninwood]

I would say that my reality is that many of my favorite artists were making art at a time when MFAs were either not sought after, important or necessary.

Some of my current favorite artists do have MFA's and a good chunk from "hot" schools

"hot" is a relative terms really.

there are the old standbys of yale, columbia, ucla, but most of those schools hadn't any breakout names coming from their program.

The reality is that most of your favorite artists didn't attend any of those schools.

sure they turn out people middling "success," but often that success is quantified with "gallery representation"

Which can be broken down even further. who has had continuous gallery representation? whose work is more widely seen/known? how many have put out multiple bodies of work with a clear sense of change and growth?

who shows outside of their gallery on a consistent basis?

who teaches?

These are all really big questions. sadly or awesomely (depending on point of view), the artworld is largely unregulated and lacks that hard data.

personally i think an artist will do just as well in any school that is probably in the top 50.(estimate)

and getting into a hot school is almost impossible.

This is mostly because faculty turnover rate tends to be fairly high, funding is almost always in flux (more aid = better recruiting) and the all important x-factor.

sometimes a school gets lucky and gets a really awesome student who becomes something on just chance.

sometimes, students are able to capture a communal energy that exists just between them.

in all cases, people come afterwards in hopes of riding that wave of hotness.

Its just that the hotness probably happened 3-5 years ago and everything is probably different now.

although, i must admit, that the big schools probably do a great job of recruiting future good artists by emphasizing mystique over the realities of the situation.

For instance, when i interviewed at yale. I asked about recent faculty turnover and what that would mean if i attended. and their response was essentially. "well, its yale"

[tsu]

Really interesting articles, thanks for the resources!

I honestly don't know what will be hot or not. My belief is that going to an MFA merely expands and concentrates your work, but what you do *after* you graduate is way more important.... I don't know how difficult it is in USA to show, but I was doing shows during my undergrad years (it was less than 200 bucks to exhibit if you did group shows) and some commission/paid work but it was never as complicated a process as the articles mentioned.

[truthbetold]

Earlier today I stumbled across an article in Modern Painters:

Which Art Schools Rule, and Why? (print only, but here its at least listed in the table of contents)

They surveyed working artists, rather than professors (like US News), asking them to rank schools. I am not sure how scientific the process was, but the results were:

1. Yale

2. Columbia

3. Bard College

4. UCLA

5. SAIC

6. USC

7. CalArts

8. RISD

9. Hunter

10. SVA

Edited April 17, 2011 by truthbetold