What exactly does it take to get into Yale?

[thatOneGuy123]

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!

[abdefghijkl]

featherlight53: My experience as a prof and student has shown me that the graduate admissions process is a little mysterious and can be quite subjective - even at Yale the profs might not be able to quite sum up how the decisions get made (beyond obvious stuff like a bare minimum g.p.a., etc.). But generally, at a school of that calibre they want to see that you know yourself as an artist and show signs of intellectual maturity and independence. They want to see that you'll get in there and make the department a more interesting place, and that you'll finish on time without becoming a burden to the department (you need to be driven and a self-starter).

You can convey all of that with a very direct and specific statement of intent that names the big concepts that fascinate you (not just interest you, but fascinate you), specifically how you plan to explore them in the Yale program, what faculty you've talked to there who are willing to work with you and what longer term goal that serves for you as an artist and thinker. You'll want to edit your portfolio so that it conveys a certain amount of versatility that shows your skills, but mostly presents a single style or vision that conveys your personality and uniqueness as an artist. You want to spell out for the admissions committee what you have to offer them as much as what you will learn there -- like a job application, really.

As for specifics like gpa's, GRE scores and that kind of junk: the quickest way to an answer is to visit, phone or email the faculty member in that program who is the director/coordinator/manager of the graduate program. Don't beat around the bush, tell him/her you are very interested in his/her impressive graduate program and that you'd like to know, on average, what kind of credentials (gpa, GRE, professional experience) successful admissions have so that your application will answer the questions they need answered. Put the whole thing in terms of you doing them a favour! Also, you are well within your rights to ask about this. If you go to school there, you'll be making a big personal investment in Yale's graduate program so you should know as much about it as possible to make sure it's the right place for you. If he/she won't tell you what you want to know, send me an email and I'll see if we can't come up with a way to the information.

P.S. Don't be too dazzled by Ivy League reputations - they will cost you lots of money and (no offence to the Ivy League schools) many of them are great 90% of the time but they still have weak spots, programs, faculty - so do your research to make sure you are getting the best of that school...

[michaelwebster]

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!

Unfortunately, you can't very easily plan to make a portfolio for a school, you should instead make your work, and see what school likes you. You can never know what a school will love, so setting your sights on Yale is fine, but its a roll of the dice for even really great artists. You should post your portfolio though.

[michaelwebster]

Also, here is the link to the MFA painting exhibition from this year at Yale, so you can see some examples of work.

http://art.yale.edu/Painting1MFA2012

[thatOneGuy123]

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!

[jackthecrow]

Unfortunately, you can't very easily plan to make a portfolio for a school, you should instead make your work, and see what school likes you. You can never know what a school will love, so setting your sights on Yale is fine, but its a roll of the dice for even really great artists. You should post your portfolio though.

I agree with this 100%. You really have to stay true with a body of work and not attempt to cater to a school's taste (not that some schools have one in particular...but many do).

As for illustration and 3d modelling; your focus on representational strength can help, but it can also hurt. A focus on a certain craft or technique may deter viewers from a certain concept -- so while it doesn't hurt to know certain tools, application of such would probably fall under the 'use if needed' basis (which probably goes for everything..I guess :|). I thought critic Jerry Saltz said something interesting in Artnet, stating:

"All great contemporary artists, schooled or not, are essentially self-taught and are de-skilling like crazy. I don't look for skill in art...Skill has nothing to do with technical proficiency... I'm interested in people who rethink skill, who redefine or reimagine it: an engineer, say, who builds rockets from rocks."

Anyway...I totally forgot where I was going with this -- but going back to what mwebster said, don't worry about what a certain school is looking for because we really don't know what the criteria for admission are and it changes every year. Just work hard and have some conviction, and you'll be fine -- Yale or not.

[michaelwebster]

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!

 

 

If you are sure you want to go to grad school this year, I would recommend applying to many schools with a variety of reputations and appraoches to painting. I would also look at as much artwork from grad students at the schools youre interested in as soon as possible. MFA students are usually 3-8 years out of undergrad, so your going to need to work on the maturity of material manipulation and probably your writing too.

 

I don't really see a strong correlation between your work and work from Yale students, but that doesn't mean that faculty won't like your work if you put it all together well. Keep in mind Yale probably accepts 3% of painting applicants.

[thatOneGuy123]

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.

Edited June 20, 2012 by featherlight53

[jackthecrow]

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.

I'm not at all dismissing the notion of 'skill,' and I certainly didn't say representation is uninteresting -- I'm simply implying that you've made some comments and questions regarding 'skill' in terms of illustration and representation -- so I wanted to give a general view point of how it may help and/or hurt what you are trying to do with your work. I also threw in Saltz's statement of skill vs technical proficiency just to possibly give an added perspective to the mix, or at least another voice in the dialogue.

So please don't take my comment as an insult or dismissal of "representational" or "skillful painting," I just wanted to question what it meant to be "skillful."

If it means anything, I myself have also have BFA in illustration from an already very illustrative school, so maybe I can relate to your problems in some way in terms of painting proficiency (and the meaning thereof).

I'm also curious on your meaning of "how they've done, what they've done," do you mean how said artists technically construct a painting?

Edited June 20, 2012 by jackthecrow

[thatOneGuy123]

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.

[jackthecrow]

Indeed, I can see how Saltz's word choice can lead to an argument of semantics...I thought of the same thing when I read it...and I'm sure technique and skill are still interchangeable most times. But, judging from the first part of the quote, I think he defines "skill" in this sense as the' tool set' (experience, expertise, etc) an artist gains in during his "education." I took his statement much like you did -- I think the crux of his interest stems from an artist's proficiency, not in terms purely of skill, but the utilization, or at times deconstruction and re appropriation of an artists learned skill. So skill itself isn't formally directed towards those that can render in an illustrative sense, but basically the vocabulary we use to inform our work (such as a minimalist's effective choice of color and space very much dictates skill). But I could also be totally off..eh.

Or maybe there's even more to it...I guess I should find the whole article.

But anyway, regardless of how you interpret it, my point in including the quote is to raise (or at least rephrase the question) of what it means to have a successful painting. Because when you asked if it helps having a background in illustration and 3d modeling, It's hard to answer yes or no..simply because it's sometimes both. While the obvious answer is "yes," since you clearly have great interest in representation, it becomes more complex because there's simply more to it.

Can you give us more information regarding your current focus? I do agree with you, your work seems to be very varied...and others have also stated the importance of cohesion -- but I'd like to add that perhaps one of the most important aspects is conceptual cohesion/direction, and not simply aesthetic cohesion (which more or less, you may not even need). 'hope that helps.

[michaelwebster]

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...

Its been awhile since Kehinde Wiley went to Yale. What you see in the most recent exhibition is a great example of the discourses happening in contemporary painting today. So if they accept maybe 1 or 2 painters out of hundreds of applicants who are painting in perspectival tradition that makes a good fit for the program?

Edited June 20, 2012 by michaelwebster

[thatOneGuy123]

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.

[thatOneGuy123]

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.

Edited June 20, 2012 by featherlight53

[michaelwebster]

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?

I am just not sure that youre ready for Yale, or maybe any grad school, yet. I think Yale could definitely be in your future, but I personally don't think youre quite there.

You could surely get into some good grad schools, but if you want to realize your potential (and go to a school as competitive as Yale) I would keep developing your work and apply further down the road so you get the kind of school you want.

Most BFAs don't adequately prepare artists to get an MFA, hence why most MFA students are 30 and have been out of school for 6 years developing their work in residencies and the like.

[thatOneGuy123]

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.

[thatOneGuy123]

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?

[phale]

after looking at your website, i'd say give yourself a few years to really develope your skills. they're going to say, he can paint so what? it's what you do with it that will get into yale. how do you move forward with your set of talents?

[thatOneGuy123]

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?

[thatOneGuy123]

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?

Edited June 28, 2012 by featherlight53

[michaelwebster]

Richter is not a superstar because of his technical ability. There are thousands of painters in the world today as good as he is. The reason he is a superstar is because of how his body of work engages the history of picture making, vernacular photography, archives, and the tension between surface and depth, to name a few things. I think what phale is saying is that you need more than technical skills to have a strong body of work to get into competitive schools.

Edited June 28, 2012 by michaelwebster

[jackthecrow]

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?

Yeah...no. Richter's "technical ability" is not why he is revered. The quote where you paraphrased: "not be talking about anything at all" sounds like something he said in an interview in Robert Storr's book Gerhardt Richter: Doubt and Belief in Painting (sorry, I'm too lazy to find the page)-- which if you have not read, I suggest you do -- because it will have some information regarding the complexities and themes of Richter's work. He is also known to say things just to throw off critics, so keep that in mind.

I also suggest, If you ever interview at Yale (a school in which the dean happens to be the man responsible for virtually introducing Richter's work to these United States) and you mention Gerhardt Richter, you best stay away from such generalities as his "technical skill" and have a more in depth approach to statements regarding his work.

"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?

Perhaps you're looking at Phale's question's the wrong way. What does it mean to be able to "paint?" Does your painting have value outside technical skill or is the value the skill itself?

It seems to me that this whole time the discussion has focused on the fact that you place some great importance in representation, but there hasn't been any mention of why this is important to your thesis regarding life in the womb and why is it do you consider yourself and expressionist? How do you tie method and message together? or does it matter to you if you do?

Judging from from your responses, you have put a lot of emphasis on the "skill" of painting, which definitely is not a bad thing...but I think the significance you place in it may have you be suited towards other great schools not named Yale, such as PAFA or the New York Academy and the like. Or not, who knows...Yale's taste is varied.

Edited June 28, 2012 by jackthecrow

[thatOneGuy123]

michael:

Doesn't this statement,

Richter is not a superstar because of his technical ability. There are thousands of painters in the world today as good as he is.

Contradict this one?

The reason he is a superstar is because of how his body of work engages the history of picture making, vernacular photography, archives, and the tension between surface and depth, to name a few things.

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.

Edited June 28, 2012 by featherlight53

[R. Mutt]

i think the question is not how you paint - but why the hell you are doing it.

[jackthecrow]

michael:

Doesn't this statement,

Richter is not a superstar because of his technical ability. There are thousands of painters in the world today as good as he is.

Contradict this one?

The reason he is a superstar is because of how his body of work engages the history of picture making, vernacular photography, archives, and the tension between surface and depth, to name a few things.

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 won't attempt to answer for MWebster, but I will chime in. No, those statements do not contradict. The term you specified as 'craft,' (which I will assume you meant as the ability to render an image), is only a small part of the process in his subject -- a larger part (as per our Saltz conversation) is his convergence between his chosen language (painting, installation, mixed media, whatever) and themes -- many of which are complex (some may even say vague)...so when M-web states that "he engages the history of painting and photo..etc.." he means Richter does not simply accomplish this because he illustrates a picture that tells a narrative, he does so with various angles which may or may not be image driven (or even painting)

there is also a difference between the statement of why everyone else reveres Richter and why you revere Richter. Also, if your revery for him stems from his laborious process of image making (which he himself claims isn't very special or skillful at all since most of the time he simply takes photos and projects them into his canvas using a projector and copies and/or smears them), then do you just discount his work that deals with pigments of paint simply smeared on a photo? what of his installations? and did you further ignore his work that deals with non-specific imagery and abstraction...which is probably of even a greater body than his photo-based works?

But enough about Richter..lets move on to your dialogue..

when you state "The gestural fetus talks less about the individual identity of the fetus itself, and more about the fetus as a whole," why does this very general "expressionist" view on abstraction supersede other types of abstraction? what is your line of demarcation of abstraction, or do you have one?

You've seem to have thrown in Abstract Expressionism, which in itself is a very complex subject -- since it doesn't sincerely have a unique type of mark making that would equate it as an official style; rather, the term "abstract expressionism" is sort of the label people call work coming from a certain time period from a specific location (i.e. New York/USA). so you would have to be more precise with your terms...and probably art history.

But anyway, we can go on and on...and I guess you could fully explain your work in greater detail--but I think what the others are suggesting in regards to you taking more time to really mature is the fact that they may mean for you to expand your experiences in the contemporary art world a bit more, so you have a more specific understanding of your work as well as others in your field. I understand your great interest in the painting tradition, and it just feels that you may also benefit from schools that share your same viewpoints (aforementioned PAFA, NYAA, LCAD...etc) but seem to have ignored.

Edited June 29, 2012 by jackthecrow