Tormented Representational artist, right fit, and approach to MFA?

[Onedayx3]

I've been lurking...and cross referencing alot of schools mentioned. I have alot more work to do apparently.

The two streams of thought I've gotten on where to get your MFA:

1. go where you can get classical training and not where the faculty can't teach you anything but abstraction

2. screw education, because everything you know you taught yourself, and go for the connections and reputation of the school= future opportunities

I'm torn.

I am a representational/ figurative artist needing a program with permiable boundaries because I also do installations and want to work with ceramics, yet I want to push my technical skill. The only school that I feel does that really well and is even on the first page of rankings is Indiana at Bloomington.

University of North Carolina, greensborough kind of goes there but is very small.Bigger school= greater funding right?

Also has anyone heard of Laguna college of art and design out of CA? Would that be a wasted effort?

So far I'm only semi decisive about Indianna, SAIC, and Yale for why-the-hell-not's sake. I have a contact who is working with Calarts and said they are a hot school right now, but they seem to cater to "new media". I'm doubting I will fit, but from their website I can't get a good feel.

Thanks for your insights!

[michaelwebster]

All students accepted to UNCG from other states get the in-state price, less than 10k a year. They also get an assistantship. Thats actually a great price for an MFA. Also look at the NY Academy of Art, they seem do have a little clay work coming out but mostly painting. You get traditional skills and can be in NY.

[losemygrip]

The MFA work from the New York Academy that I've seen was stupendous. But I don't know if they do much clay. I'm pretty sure Yale does not do clay at all. Forget CalArts if you want to be a representational painter. Laguna would be expensive, and a waste of time DEPENDING on why you're getting an MFA. So tell us, why ARE you getting an MFA?

I might suggest to you as a backup Bowling Green State in Ohio. I've definitely seen some successful representational painters coming from there, and they have a huge school of art.

Also, make sure that your application is more cleanly written that your post was here. That stuff counts.

[Onedayx3]

I want to get an MFA so that I can teach at the college level. If I end up doing something else later in life and not teaching, that would be fine. but I feel like I want to go the MFA route because it's the terminal degree, and for the opportunities it provides. I also happen to be a single mom, so I have an increased sense of urgency to reach financial independence. I know I want a career in the arts, and I don't think I can afford to take a few years off in between, so an MFA seems to be the practical step to take.

I have an ex-professor from the New York Academy who really pushes me to apply there, but it it is private with only a few scholarship opportunities. I worry most that I can't afford it. I have seen work from graduates there, and I agree it's impressive.

As much as I would like to be in New York, I will have to put my daughter in a public school (kindergarten), so I was hoping to find a great school in an area that wouldn't be as hard to navigate with a child.

[Childofcalamity]

Hi Cat,

It was nice to read your post as I think it pretty much sums up the type of art I would like to create and the dilemma I'm also facing in finding the right programs.

Indiana at Bloomington looks to be my top school right now as well. I live/ study in NYC right now and know a few people who have graduated from NY Academy and have heard mixed things the program.

One of them is a great draftsman, two of them are pretty terrible draftsman, and I don't think any of the art they are making art that seems particularly engaging.

I'm not trying to knock the program, just give you one impression I've had about a few of its alumni.

Laguna would be expensive, and a waste of time DEPENDING on why you're getting an MFA. So tell us, why ARE you getting an MFA?

losemygrip, do you considering her answer of "wanting to teach at a college level" a strong enough reason? I ask because that would be a big part of my reasoning too.

Also, does anyone know about the program at Tulane? It doesn't seem to be a particularly great school (maybe even not a good school?)

but each student gets a full ride plus 14k stipend a year plus you are living in NEW ORLEANS!

Is this in itself a ridiculous reason to consider it knowing that the main reason one is going to school is to get the degree to teach?

[michaelwebster]

Is this in itself a ridiculous reason to consider it knowing that the main reason one is going to school is to get the degree to teach?

Its not a ridiculous question in itself, we all want to have stable income. I think if your working in a more 'representational' or figurative type of painting and are having a hard time finding grad schools to apply to, then it may become a little tougher of a question. Most faculty have years of exhibition experience between the MFA and teaching positions. Also, not many schools are going to be looking for figurative painters to teach, most that do will have positions as adjuncts. I think the toughest question since 90% (just a guesstimate) of painting applicants will be applying with figurative work but only a small percentage of those will even get into a MFA program is whether your one of the best who might have a shot a teaching position you can live off of. Just about everyone wants a teaching position, and they are getting tougher to come by.

[losemygrip]

OK, if you're wanting the MFA as a teaching credential, you do have to be careful where you end up. That's why I asked.

First let's obliterate this false dichotomy I see developing.

One misconception is that if a faculty includes abstract painters that they will be unwelcoming of representational painters. The other is that said faculty members would have nothing to offer to a representational painter, especially technically, since they have no technical skills. Both notions are completely false.

Another questionable premise lurking in the background is that somehow representational/classical painting is a satisfactory end in itself. Well, it might be for you personally, but not for getting an MFA. You still need conceptual content. THIS is actually where the conflict arises. There are some representational painters around who feel that continuing to do landscapes, portraits, still-lifes in a very traditional manner, indistinguishable from zillions of others, is perfectly fine. Intrinsically, there's nothing wrong with it. But you won't get into grad school in the 21st century without a serious conceptual framework and something original. It's not just all about technique.

Now, assuming none of the above is an issue, I'd say go ahead and apply at the Academy. You don't have to go there if you don't get a scholarship.

I would look for schools in which both the faculty and students demonstrate a wide variety of styles. That's your cue that they are open to many forms of expression. Very large departments are probably a good idea, as you're more likely to find a compatible advisor and fellow students. And don't forget to apply to a range of schools, including some fallbacks.