MFA after M.Arch

[curiouserandcuriouser]

I'm considering applying to an MFA program in photography after completing my architecture master's degree. I have also worked in photography (professional & personal) and graphic design consistently since undergraduate (BFA in design). To make a long story short, the only visual discipline you need a degree & license to practice is architecture, which is why I chose to pursue an M.Arch before an MFA initially. From the beginning I've worked across disciplines and incorporated each one into the others; this would be adding to the repertoire, not a transition out.

So in mulling over the decision to apply to MFA programs (for Fall 2012) these are the main issues...

PROS:

--Having seen other friends go through MFA programs [all disciplines.] I am completely convinced of the value of a grad program to provide the time, space, feedback, and community for artistic growth. The equivalent of 2 intensely devoted school years would probably take 10 years of independent study, trying to cram it in on evenings and between jobs.

--Opportunities for building connections

--It is a very different type of education than an M.Arch. While I do think that it can be a relatively smooth transition from one to the other, they are very unique approaches. In architecture, it's more "assignment" based and more policed - you are told what your project is, what representations of it to make, how many of each, what to present, when, in what format, etc. In short it is like high school. MFA is much more self-directed and independent and therefore scarier as your output is entirely your own responsibility. The schedule is also more sane. Architecture education is a boot camp where you are constantly harassed to produce quantity over quality, whereas in the MFA you have a reasonable amount of time and space to produce a decent body of work. But, you still get the critiques & feedback as you are producing it. After the hecticness and rigor of the M.Arch, I think I'm especially well set up to thrive in the self-motivated MFA structure.

CONS:

--It's expensive.

--Maybe money otherwise applied to tuition would be better invested in equipment or in realizing projects? (The issue is - would the work be as good as it would be without the scrutiny of a degree program?)

--I already have a Master's degree, in a "creative" field, from a good university. Is it viewed (by art schools) as weird to go for another Master's, even a complementary one that makes sense for my intended career path?

--Nothing stops me from making pictures - right now! (However, the limitation of running into people who don't take them seriously because I am MFA-less does limit access to shows, residencies, collectors, galleries, and publications.)

If any of you have some feedback or thoughts I'd love to hear them. I know I'd benefit from a MFA program, but do the cons outweigh the benefits in your opinion?

Edited May 26, 2011 by curiouserandcuriouser

[illum]

I graduated from college a few years ago and was debating whether to go for an MArch or MFA. I went to a liberal arts college with an art/pre-architecture major. I eventually decided to go for an MFA (starting fall 2011). Here's some of my thoughts when I was trying to decide - kind of the opposite of your situation but just to put it out there in case it might help...

I love architecture and I have the feeling that I would be able to do it well, and going for an MArch might make my life a bit simpler because I know exactly what I will become afterwards. Even if it might be extremely difficult to find jobs coming out of architecture school (like all other fields in today's economy), there is still a certain path I can kind of follow. On the contrary, an MFA doesn't guarantee me anything. I could be graduated and not only unemployed but also unprepared for any other kind of jobs. Starving, financially unstable, crazy artist. Though, when I decided to go for an MFA anyway, I was thinking that... I don't find myself as passionate about architecture - I love it, but I feel there are so many people who can build just as well, if not better, than I can, while I feel much more at home making art. The combination of MArch and my own personality under this kind of economy and constant social restructuring, I can see myself end up in a big firm doing photoshop, excel and maybe drafting for the already established names, rather than thriving on my own without drastically compromising my ideals. I also wasn't sure if I wanted to physically go through all those intense licensing and examination process that has little to do with creativity. So that's why I decided to go for an MFA, because it suits my lifestyle and aspirations better. Though, if I were more determined in becoming an architect, I would probably stick to the beaten path in today's world - get my MArch, intern in firms, work as an assistant in firms, become a junior architect, become an architect, etc. It might be more difficult to get there if I "take a break" for two years to get an MFA in the middle of this path. But of course, that's just me. Though, if you are pretty sure that you don't want to be an architect at this point, and are more interested in pursuing fine arts rather than architecture, then go for an MFA. I don't think the schools will find it weird that you've already had a master degree. It'll be interesting to combine the practice of both as well, if that's what you are interested too. But if you are pretty determined in becoming an architect, then it's probably not necessary to spend the two years + money + possibly moving to a different location just to get an MFA.

As for the money - there are fully fully funded programs (Ohio State, UMich, U of Iowa, U of Minnesota, Stanford, Cornell, and probably more that I don't know). Good schools like Upenn and Yale seem to offer pretty generous financial aid as well, if you can pay like half of the money. Also, there are high quality programs in Europe too, and they are much cheaper than American schools, even for non-EU students. Look at schools in the UK if you don't speak another language. I was working for an artist in London and she was telling me that when she was young (she's in her 50s), young artists could just move to New York or Paris or London, make art and wait tables, and become famous artists. But she thinks it's so much harder to do this kind of thing now, and many such "opportunities" simply do not present in the same structure. I also thought about using the money for something as a starting fund rather than MFA tuition, but then decided that an MFA might be better for me. Of course, I have friends whose parents are New York-based artists, or some friend's dad is a literature professor at Oxford, or someone's mom is the chief interior designer of so and so big firm, or someone's dad is a philosopher and mom's a poet, and they might not need an MFA to make like-minded friends and be in a creative-friendly environment. I need it because I wouldn't get to a circle of creative people otherwise. Anyways, these are just some personal thoughts and everybody's different so I can't say it'll help you...

I'm considering applying to an MFA program in photography after completing my architecture master's degree. I have also worked in photography (professional & personal) and graphic design consistently since undergraduate (BFA in design). To make a long story short, the only visual discipline you need a degree & license to practice is architecture, which is why I chose to pursue an M.Arch before an MFA initially. From the beginning I've worked across disciplines and incorporated each one into the others; this would be adding to the repertoire, not a transition out.

So in mulling over the decision to apply to MFA programs (for Fall 2012) these are the main issues...

PROS:

--Having seen other friends go through MFA programs [all disciplines.] I am completely convinced of the value of a grad program to provide the time, space, feedback, and community for artistic growth. The equivalent of 2 intensely devoted school years would probably take 10 years of independent study, trying to cram it in on evenings and between jobs.

--Opportunities for building connections

--It is a very different type of education than an M.Arch. While I do think that it can be a relatively smooth transition from one to the other, they are very unique approaches. In architecture, it's more "assignment" based and more policed - you are told what your project is, what representations of it to make, how many of each, what to present, when, in what format, etc. In short it is like high school. MFA is much more self-directed and independent and therefore scarier as your output is entirely your own responsibility. The schedule is also more sane. Architecture education is a boot camp where you are constantly harassed to produce quantity over quality, whereas in the MFA you have a reasonable amount of time and space to produce a decent body of work. But, you still get the critiques & feedback as you are producing it. After the hecticness and rigor of the M.Arch, I think I'm especially well set up to thrive in the self-motivated MFA structure.

CONS:

--It's expensive.

--Maybe money otherwise applied to tuition would be better invested in equipment or in realizing projects? (The issue is - would the work be as good as it would be without the scrutiny of a degree program?)

--I already have a Master's degree, in a "creative" field, from a good university. Is it viewed (by art schools) as weird to go for another Master's, even a complementary one that makes sense for my intended career path?

--Nothing stops me from making pictures - right now! (However, the limitation of running into people who don't take them seriously because I am MFA-less does limit access to shows, residencies, collectors, galleries, and publications.)

If any of you have some feedback or thoughts I'd love to hear them. I know I'd benefit from a MFA program, but do the cons outweigh the benefits in your opinion?

Edited May 26, 2011 by illum

[curiouserandcuriouser]

Hey, thanks for the reply!

I definitely have a list of schools narrowed down... based primarily on how well each program suits my interests, the faculty, etc. but also on the local cost of living (so probably no NYC!) During the M.Arch I have taken freelance work in other fields to stay in touch; if earning a MFA I'd probably get a p/t or freelance job with an architecture firm, or TA/TF in the school's architecture department, to stay involved. I don't think going to Europe is an option for me, for personal/family reasons. I did study abroad as an undergrad and loved it though. While I haven't written off the possibility entirely, I think that the expense of moving and being on a student visa versus being able to take on freelance work during school (like I did in undergrad & do now) would not be so great. Is it possible to gain exceptions to that or to get some kind of working student visa - do you know?

As far as what I want to do, I'm pretty sure I want to do both art and architecture, forever. With my background/skills at this point, I've found it advantageous to have an academic and work background that is 100% "visual/creative" but in a variety of art and design fields; even in this crappy economy I've never been out of work. I don't want to get more specific on here (lest I run the risk of publicly writing my application essay...!) but I have sorted that much out in my own mind.

Thanks for your response. It's kind of relieving to hear that it wouldn't be considered weird to also seek an MFA... I can't help wondering if going straight through is a good idea, or if time off to produce more work would be better. But I feel ready to go right now, rather than waiting until I'm any older!

I graduated from college a few years ago and was debating whether to go for an MArch or MFA. I went to a liberal arts college with an art/pre-architecture major. I eventually decided to go for an MFA (starting fall 2011). Here's some of my thoughts when I was trying to decide - kind of the opposite of your situation but just to put it out there in case it might help...

I love architecture and I have the feeling that I would be able to do it well, and going for an MArch might make my life a bit simpler because I know exactly what I will become afterwards. Even if it might be extremely difficult to find jobs coming out of architecture school (like all other fields in today's economy), there is still a certain path I can kind of follow. On the contrary, an MFA doesn't guarantee me anything. I could be graduated and not only unemployed but also unprepared for any other kind of jobs. Starving, financially unstable, crazy artist. Though, when I decided to go for an MFA anyway, I was thinking that... I don't find myself as passionate about architecture - I love it, but I feel there are so many people who can build just as well, if not better, than I can, while I feel much more at home making art. The combination of MArch and my own personality under this kind of economy and constant social restructuring, I can see myself end up in a big firm doing photoshop, excel and maybe drafting for the already established names, rather than thriving on my own without drastically compromising my ideals. I also wasn't sure if I wanted to physically go through all those intense licensing and examination process that has little to do with creativity. So that's why I decided to go for an MFA, because it suits my lifestyle and aspirations better. Though, if I were more determined in becoming an architect, I would probably stick to the beaten path in today's world - get my MArch, intern in firms, work as an assistant in firms, become a junior architect, become an architect, etc. It might be more difficult to get there if I "take a break" for two years to get an MFA in the middle of this path. But of course, that's just me. Though, if you are pretty sure that you don't want to be an architect at this point, and are more interested in pursuing fine arts rather than architecture, then go for an MFA. I don't think the schools will find it weird that you've already had a master degree. It'll be interesting to combine the practice of both as well, if that's what you are interested too. But if you are pretty determined in becoming an architect, then it's probably not necessary to spend the two years + money + possibly moving to a different location just to get an MFA.

As for the money - there are fully fully funded programs (Ohio State, UMich, U of Iowa, U of Minnesota, Stanford, Cornell, and probably more that I don't know). Good schools like Upenn and Yale seem to offer pretty generous financial aid as well, if you can pay like half of the money. Also, there are high quality programs in Europe too, and they are much cheaper than American schools, even for non-EU students. Look at schools in the UK if you don't speak another language. I was working for an artist in London and she was telling me that when she was young (she's in her 50s), young artists could just move to New York or Paris or London, make art and wait tables, and become famous artists. But she thinks it's so much harder to do this kind of thing now, and many such "opportunities" simply do not present in the same structure. I also thought about using the money for something as a starting fund rather than MFA tuition, but then decided that an MFA might be better for me. Of course, I have friends whose parents are New York-based artists, or some friend's dad is a literature professor at Oxford, or someone's mom is the chief interior designer of so and so big firm, or someone's dad is a philosopher and mom's a poet, and they might not need an MFA to make like-minded friends and be in a creative-friendly environment. I need it because I wouldn't get to a circle of creative people otherwise. Anyways, these are just some personal thoughts and everybody's different so I can't say it'll help you...