What exactly does it take to get into Yale?

[thatOneGuy123]

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.

Edited June 29, 2012 by featherlight53

[michaelwebster]

Also, can you show me examples of artists you think can paint as well as Richter?

I would say many if not most of the MFA graduates (and faculty) from NYAA can technically paint as well as Richter. I believe you could give a Richter painting to most of those students and they could copy it, maybe they would need a little practice to get the smearing right.

[thatOneGuy123]

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?

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).

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?

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.

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.

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?

Edited June 29, 2012 by featherlight53

[kukin]

Hi feather,

from what i've read so far from everyone responding here and after looking at your work i have to agree that you do need to let your work develop before applying to your preferred schools for the following reasons: in order to understand the comment "he can paint so what?", you can not be truly told easily in a few paragraphs, or even long discussions. that understanding will only come to you from growing and maturing. i know that sounds vague but words will always lack the enlightening moment that only growing up can give you. in fact, once you are at a point where you understand it you will realize how far behind you were from actually having a shot at Yale or the likes. all these discussions regarding skill, gerard richter, technique, ability, are vastly inconsequential when attempting to go to the grad schools you have your eyes on. like mutt mentioned above, it doesn't matter how you create things, but why, because at this point the art world has become so eclectic that formal uniqueness doesn't stand out alone anymore. our current art world is different even from that of richter and even talking about his contribution to the arts is perhaps at this point better left to art history, as a way to learn, not the facts, but how the artists of that time thought with regards to their own contemporary issues.

i believe now schools like yale expect artists to understand that to a certain extent and expect to see a level of human maturity and complexity complementing their work. this doesn't mean you need to have every idea fully realized, but that you have reached a point where you know that certain ideas you have are not always conscious, but are not purely unconscious either. they want to know that you are an open minded person, but with a level of artistic grasp that you will not struggle with formal issues but rather thrive with experimental endeavors. they want an artist with the potential to take what they've done on their own and take it even further (that word "further" again is something that you can only understand empirically).

some of this potential will be shown to them first in the form of a cohesive portfolio, where the main interrogations of your work lay outside the formal aspects of it, into a more personal realm, and secondly in a well composed statement, where these interrogations are expressed clearly and concisely. however, no matter how good you might develop all these points, it also depends on the subjective view of who's reviewing your work. i would say the firmer you stay on your own path, and i don't mean visual path, but the path created by your own life experiences that are then translated into art, the better chances you have to say something that might sound clever by its very personal and intimate nature.

be patient and work as much as you can. there is a great saying: "creative breakthrough occur unexpectedly and unconsciously after an extended period of hard conscious labor"

[Resendes8909]

I've been lurking around - forgive me for the interjection.

I didn't apply to Yale, nor am I a painter by profession. I am going to graduate school for graphic design. However, I did attend undergrad at what is generally considered one of the more popular or "revered" institutions of fine art where I initially intended to study fine art rather than design.

Featherlight, I think you pose a valid argument that many who study illustration AND who study painting often pose. What is the value of proficiency in painting in this modern era, and what does proficiency in painting even mean anymore?

(Paint is a medium in which you can express something)

I don't have an answer because its not *my* question. But perhaps this question or the exploration and research that could result from asking the question could be *your* focus.

I guess what I am getting at is this - finding a thread to follow and make your own is the most difficult task there is for an artist working in any medium. But it is essential. Graduate programs seek students who have a grasp on it but want more direction.

I certainly haven't fully grasped my own, but I am working on it.

[thatOneGuy123]

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/

[jackthecrow]

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/

he didn't say it doesn't stand out, he said it doesn't stand out alone.

Edited July 2, 2012 by jackthecrow

[thatOneGuy123]

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

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?

[kukin]

The Yale/SAIC/MICA/RISD group of schools will try to mentor the student towards a more complete experimental experience in art making. The NYAA mentality is directed more towards a more representational development. If there is indeed an experimental side in the latter I doubt it resonates with the type of approach that Yale embraces, where experimentation might encompass the questioning of materials, the work's context in contemporary art, technique choices, etc., to name a few; and the impact of this approach will be the same no matter if you are a figurative or abstract artist. In a nutshell, Yale will try its best to make you think outside the box, whereas NYAA will probably nurture you to best illustrate an idea within a more conservative relationship with your materials.

now, what most artists want of course is recognition from the art world, but this difference in academics doesn't translate into someone who comes from Yale is a better artist than a NYAA alumnus. neither does it mean that a NYAA graduate will not achieve the level of success a Yale artist will. the problem usually becomes evident when an aspiring artist views how much hype is given to what school you come from and the level of statistics regarding Yale (or the likes) alumni both showing in prestigious galleries and being written about in art magazines. it's true that the art world does give favoritism to the kind of work coming out of more experimental institutions, but not all of it (or most) is good art. and what matters for any artist should be to make good art, as opposed to let the name of your school give you the freedom to create crap and receive unwarranted recognition for it.

it's great that you want to know the difference between these two mentalities because you do need to know what kind of education best fits your process of art making, but one can't (and i'm not saying you are) choose to go to a school just because it has a certain type of prestige. you go to a school because you know it will help you mature as an artist. i believe the time to apply for grad school is the time when you know exactly what kind of artist you are and what kind of school will better help you develop to your full potential.

[thatOneGuy123]

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.

Edited July 3, 2012 by featherlight53

[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.

[kukin]

those are two completely different programs, and attending either one depends again on what you would like to get from them. a digital arts department will most likely train you and prepare you to master software to best translate your ideas through the use of the computer. you will probably be spending your time learning every technical aspect of the digital media world. if you were to go to a painting program you will probably not learn much about that technical knowledge that you will get from a digital program. you will have to be creative with the knowledge you already have and if you do want to learn more regarding computer software you will have to do that on your own. what's more, you will probably be encourage to incorporate other elements into your creative process and your digital ground will be one aspect of the whole picture.

remember that school is a tool to expand your ideas and knowledge. it doesn't or won't define you as an artist. you take that tool and after you graduate you use it to become or do what you want to do. if you go for a more digitally oriented program you can use that knowledge to later on create and make art that doesn't necessarily need to be commercial. one example is ryan mcginness, who went through a graphic design program and is now creating paintings and prints using that knowledge he got from school. his work has become more "fine arts" oriented because not only is he applying paint to create unique logos but because he addresses other issues besides the formal aspects of his work.

[eco]

Can someone check out my portfolio and let me know what you think.

Thank you!

 

http://www.erikaostrander.com/portfolio.html