MFA 2013 All Art ADMISSIONS freak-out forum!!!!!!!!

[douchamp]

<quote>your undergrad program might be a bit confused. im pretty well-versed in contemp art theory, and ive never heard of 'painting theory' as an autonomous thing - is it some sort of formal venture? or does it refer to re(-)presentation? if the former, no self-respecting interdisciplinary program will be involved with that. if the latter, thats a wide-ranging concept that applies to all media.</quote> 

 

I took it to be a general term to describe all the issues painting discusses (picture planes/2d space, edges, surfaces, abstraction s representation, support structures (panels/canvases) painting sans material practices, the death of painting, etc...

[douchamp]

your undergrad program might be a bit confused. im pretty well-versed in contemp art theory, and ive never heard of 'painting theory' as an autonomous thing - is it some sort of formal venture? or does it refer to re(-)presentation? if the former, no self-respecting interdisciplinary program will be involved with that. if the latter, thats a wide-ranging concept that applies to all media.

 

 

 

 

I took it to be a general term to describe all the issues painting discusses (picture planes/2d space, edges, surfaces, abstraction s representation, support structures (panels/canvases) painting sans material practices, the death of painting, etc...

Edited July 25, 2013 by douchamp

[agrobaby]

I took it to be a general term to describe all the issues painting discusses (picture planes/2d space, edges, surfaces, abstraction s representation, support structures (panels/canvases) painting sans material practices, the death of painting, etc...

 

When I read aschelp's response, I was surprised by the claim that painting theory doesn't exist, and that I was referring to all art theory. Painting theory is a huge, very specific discussion revolving only around painting. Is repoussoire anything but a painter's discussion? I don't know how someone could say they studied paintings without acknowledging the thousand year build up to the conversations we have now surrounding painting. Very specific conversations, that simply don't take place when you are talking about sculpture or performance. I studied with professors and visiting professors who were academic descendants of Paul Klee and Hans Hoffman. There were rigorous painting-related arguments occurring constantly. 

 

Yes, douchamp, I spent 4 years talking picture planes, death of painting, studied pentimento, took two years of color mixing and color theory (Arnheim to Albers), studied painting restoration from a master in Italy, even made rabbit skin glue for sizing....all merit badge activities in a painting heavy program. The work I made in that program and the work I make now has progressed dramatically since I found my own voice and got over not being a painter. 

I just don't want that experience again in a grad program of being well-versed in a conversation but having very little interest in the outcome of the discussion. 

[aschelp]

... are we talking about 1950 or 2013? any painting concepts that are still applicable today are applicable to most/all media, hence the advent of in-touch programs without media-distinction. my point was that being concerned about having to talk about 'painting theory' in an interdisciplinary program is like worrying that there's meat in your dish at a vegan restaurant. sorry for the misunderstanding - maybe i was being facetious. im not saying that 'painting theory' doesnt exist (because it does at places like yale and vcu), im saying it doesnt exist autonomously in relevant contemp art theory.

[agrobaby]

... are we talking about 1950 or 2013? any painting concepts that are still applicable today are applicable to most/all media, hence the advent of in-touch programs without media-distinction. my point was that being concerned about having to talk about 'painting theory' in an interdisciplinary program is like worrying that there's meat in your dish at a vegan restaurant. sorry for the misunderstanding - maybe i was being facetious. im not saying that 'painting theory' doesnt exist (because it does at places like yale and vcu), im saying it doesnt exist autonomously in relevant contemp art theory.

Litigious banter aside, I think it is totally relevant to worry about the focus of conversations in interdisciplinary programs. My close friend is at MICA for an interdisciplinary MFA right now and complained that the program was very painting heavy last year.

[agrobaby]

* I'm not discouraged necessarily by MICAs program because they have a new head, so there may be changes this year.

[douchamp]

 

... are we talking about 1950 or 2013? any painting concepts that are still applicable today are applicable to most/all media, hence the advent of in-touch programs without media-distinction. my point was that being concerned about having to talk about 'painting theory' in an interdisciplinary program is like worrying that there's meat in your dish at a vegan restaurant. sorry for the misunderstanding - maybe i was being facetious. im not saying that 'painting theory' doesnt exist (because it does at places like yale and vcu), im saying it doesnt exist autonomously in relevant contemp art theory.

 

Don't you think it would be helpful to identify which school of thought you qualify as relevant contemp art theory? Are you saying that all contemporary theory that is relevant is interdisciplinary/blurs traditional disciplinary boundaries - that relevant contemp art theory is postmodern?

 

Also, you have to remember that professors still claim their programs to be interdisciplinary regardless of how truthful that claim is because (1) they themselves studied under a single discipline and thus only know how to talk about that one discipline or (2) honestly believe that interdisciplinary means talking about works they identify as alien to their chosen discipline but still attempt to alk about it in that context. I.E a sculpture professor talking about painting in the context of sculpture or a graphic design instructor discussing video in terms of graphic design instead of talking about the larger issues of language/semiotics that both disciplines share. Things like this happen even at the mos interdisciplinary programs.

[aschelp]

Litigious banter aside

lol

I think it is totally relevant to worry about the focus of conversations in interdisciplinary programs. My close friend is at MICA for an interdisciplinary MFA right now and complained that the program was very painting heavy last year.

 

ok, so i definitely dont mean to say ALL interdisciplinary programs fit this model im championing. its a select group. MICA offers like 10 different MFAs or something (including degrees in segregated traditional mediums)... the interdisciplinary programs im referring to have a single MFA degree in a larger academic institution and dont thrive by spitting out 60+ graduates a year. i agree that 'interdisciplinary' is feigned at MICA and other places, especially art-specific schools. 

Don't you think it would be helpful to identify which school of thought you qualify as relevant contemp art theory?

 

sure - any school of thought whose ideology hasnt been exposed as blatantly illogical.

 

Are you saying that all contemporary theory that is relevant is interdisciplinary/blurs traditional disciplinary boundaries

no. im saying that the modern day MFA program should not concern itself with medium segregation - and the ones that do are antithetical to a relevant master's level eduction in contemp visual arts. 

 

 

Are you saying... - that relevant contemp art theory is postmodern?

some postmodern concepts are still relevant, sure. no, im not saying that the only relevant theory is of a postmodern bent.

 

Also, you have to remember that professors still claim their programs to be interdisciplinary regardless of how truthful that claim is because (1) they themselves studied under a single discipline and thus only know how to talk about that one discipline or (2) honestly believe that interdisciplinary means talking about works they identify as alien to their chosen discipline but still attempt to alk about it in that context. I.E a sculpture professor talking about painting in the context of sculpture or a graphic design instructor discussing video in terms of graphic design instead of talking about the larger issues of language/semiotics that both disciplines share. Things like this happen even at the mos interdisciplinary programs.

i couldnt disagree more. youre basically implying that all artists are one-dimensional and incapable of critical thinking and seeing beyond base levels of analysis. theres a reason the good interdisciplinary programs are housed in some of the world's best universities. the faculties are diverse and the vast majority of professors are interdisciplinary artists themselves or contribute to art theory/criticism in multiple genres...

[douchamp]

i couldnt disagree more. youre basically implying that all artists are one-dimensional and incapable of critical thinking and seeing beyond base levels of analysis. theres a reason the good interdisciplinary programs are housed in some of the world's best universities. the faculties are diverse and the vast majority of professors are interdisciplinary artists themselves or contribute to art theory/criticism in multiple genres...

 

How am I implying that "all artists are one dimensional and incapable of critical thinking and seeing beyond base levels of analysis"? 

 

The absolute most you can claim I'm saying is that some art professors understand "interdisciplinary" to mean "discussing works (they identify as) traditionally falling outside their disciplinary practice within the context of their discipline's problems". That statement does not imply that all artists behave this way or even that discussing work in the context of a discipline constitutes inadequate critical thinking or basic analysis. 

 

Discussing the works of one discipline in the terms of another may be an incorrect approach and do the work in question no justice but it doesn't imply a superficial analysis either. And it does occur even at the most renowned institutions. Maybe you should regard as what I said as experience. 

 

Furthermore, which programs do you regard as the best programs? 

[aschelp]

 

 

How am I implying that "all artists are one dimensional and incapable of critical thinking and seeing beyond base levels of analysis"? 

 

The absolute most you can claim I'm saying is that some art professors understand "interdisciplinary" to mean "discussing works (they identify as) traditionally falling outside their disciplinary practice within the context of their discipline's problems". That statement does not imply that all artists behave this way or even that discussing work in the context of a discipline constitutes inadequate critical thinking or basic analysis. 

 

Discussing the works of one discipline in the terms of another may be an incorrect approach and do the work in question no justice but it doesn't imply a superficial analysis either. And it does occur even at the most renowned institutions. Maybe you should regard as what I said as experience. 

 

Furthermore, which programs do you regard as the best programs? 

 

the banter has gone from 'litigious' to patronizing - "Discussing the works of one discipline in the terms of another may be an incorrect approach and do the work in question no justice but it doesn't imply a superficial analysis either." give me a break.

I'm not going to regard what you say as valid experience, because even experience can be flush with assumptions (actually, its prone to them) - which you clearly have in writing statements about mediums remaining in their own exclusive theory, rendering individuals outside of that theory incapable of recognizing and speaking to it. im sure there are a few professors throughout the country within interdisciplinary programs who can only speak to the vernacular of a specific medium they were 'trained' in, but to use that as a crutch to discredit or question the idea of 'interdisciplinary program' is absolutely ridiculous. for every one professor that fits your description in i.d. programs, there are 5+ that dont. 

i wrote out a long response, but realized afterwards how hopeless it was. i'll just digress. (also, ive already written down a few of the programs i consider worthwhile)

Edited July 27, 2013 by aschelp

[aschelp]

"douch(e)amp" ..... i see what youre getting at there... its all very clear now

[douchamp]

I'm not going to regard what you say as valid experience, because even experience can be flush with assumptions (actually, its prone to them) - which you clearly have in writing statements about mediums remaining in their own exclusive theory, rendering individuals outside of that theory incapable of recognizing and speaking to it.

 

I did not say that. Recap. 

 

I said, I took "painting theory" to refer to a set of problems and discussions historically developing within the discipline of painting. I also said that even at ostensibly interdisciplinary programs, sometimes one may encounter professors who go about the wrong way of critically discussing works. You...didn't seem to understand what I mean't. So I clarified my point. Then I said that these discussions with those art professors may still be insightful even if they aren't the discussions you wanted to have. When I suggested that I might have some experience, you denied me by employing a metaphysical position...

 

Disciplines - categories are nothing more than conventions existing only to facilitate and streamline discussions. While we're on the subject of experience being colored by assumptions, have you considered that your interpretations of what I typed may be a case in point? Perhaps these slights are imagined?

 

 im sure there are a few professors throughout the country within interdisciplinary programs who can only speak to the vernacular of a specific medium they were 'trained' in, but to use that as a crutch to discredit or question the idea of 'interdisciplinary program' is absolutely ridiculous. for every one professor that fits your description in i.d. programs, there are 5+ that dont. 

 

I never attempted to discredit the validity of interdisciplinary programs. I have no reason to. The disciplines listed in my profile are "painting" and "design", traditionally segregated fields. My post was in reaction to the fear expressed in this thread of enrolling in an "interdisciplinary" program only to find that the program really isn't that interdisciplinary. That is apparently what happened to the one who enrolled in Mica's graduate interdisciplinary program. This fear is valid when one may end up 50k+ in graduated debt from an mfa. 

 

i wrote out a long response, but realized afterwards how hopeless it was. i'll just digress. (also, ive already written down a few of the programs i consider worthwhile)

 

 

I can't help but take this as condescending. Whereas I've explained my reasoning at every opportunity and asked you to clarify your own points, you've digressed at every opportunity. I ask you which theories of contemporary art you identify as relevant, you deflect the question by responding every theory that isn't "blatantly illogical'-which is quite a wide net if I may say so. I ask which schools offer strong interdisciplinary programs, your response is that you've already done so elsewhere - as if typing a few acronyms or copying and pasting was such a strenuous task. And just when you claim to have drafted a longer - more thoughtful - response, again you choose to digress because it was "hopeless". My patience wears only so thin.

 

You claimed to have a highly informed opinion on contemporary art theory. You also claimed to have privileged knowledge concerning strong interdisciplinary programs. When it was suggested that you might actually contribute to this discussion by sharing your information, you averted the opportunity like the white plague. Even when you misinterpreted and distorted what I said, I disregarded it and entertained this discussion, because at one point I believed you could offer some contribution. But I refuse to be caught up in this fictional pedagogical battle your waging against me.

 

And frankly, discrediting someone's opinion because of their username is childish. You might research the term "Ad hominem". Sorry.

Edited July 27, 2013 by douchamp

[aschelp]

contradictions and manipulations abound. im not dodging anything - just exhausted by rhetoric. you can click on page 103 to view institution names.

ad hominem lolol - theres something else called "sarcasm," might also be a term to 'research.'

Edited July 27, 2013 by aschelp

[agrobaby]

aschelp- you said "columbia, usc, university of chicago, northwestern, ucsd, and carnegie mellon" had great interdisciplinary programs. can you elaborate on how you know this? I won't be able to visit all these places before application time, so it would be great to have a first hand experience to think about.

 

I think the big worry seems to be a mistrust of new programs promising a truly interdisciplinary, experimental focus. It's like 'collectives', which have just become a buzzword for lazy curators, and artists who want to feed off of one person's energy, and not the amazing collaborative post-fluxism one would hope. I worry that 'new media' and 'interdisciplinary' programs may just be the fetishization, then institutionalization of 'new' praxis. 

 

I was looking at UCLA's interdisciplinary and new media programs. any thoughts?

[agrobaby]

also, DOOOOODS, lets play nice and get back on topic, xo

[agrobaby]

oh and if you are into pursuing an interdisciplinary/theory/avant garde focus, check out the residency at Palais Tokyo in Paris. I just visited it, incredible! And I don't think Americans really know about it yet. Their 2014 applications aren't up now, but its something to watch.

[kafralal]

aschelp- you said "columbia, usc, university of chicago, northwestern, ucsd, and carnegie mellon" had great interdisciplinary programs. can you elaborate on how you know this? I won't be able to visit all these places before application time, so it would be great to have a first hand experience to think about.

 

I think the big worry seems to be a mistrust of new programs promising a truly interdisciplinary, experimental focus. It's like 'collectives', which have just become a buzzword for lazy curators, and artists who want to feed off of one person's energy, and not the amazing collaborative post-fluxism one would hope. I worry that 'new media' and 'interdisciplinary' programs may just be the fetishization, then institutionalization of 'new' praxis. 

 

I was looking at UCLA's interdisciplinary and new media programs. any thoughts?

I'm planning to visit calarts, ucsd, and ucla in the fall so I can give a mini report then. I did a quick visit to ucla this spring during the mfa #4 grad show and talked to one student from ceramics and one from new genres. They seemed to have only great things to say about the program and the faculty.

 

Can we bring the rest of this discussion over to the new thread so it will be easy for others who come later to find?

[agrobaby]

I can give a mini-report on calarts- its totally weird! I never really got this vibe (from their website/hype) til I visited, but the Disney connection is palpable. Also the buildings feel very much like they were designed to be a medical center. It's so far removed from LA, so located in the suburbs, that it feels like an island from any intellectual centers on the west coast.

[kafralal]

Good to know!

[douchamp]

also, DOOOOODS, lets play nice and get back on topic, xo

 

The bickering is disruptive and a waste of energy, I agree. I'm willing to disregard everything and move back on track. If I can do so without being accused of hating interdisciplinary programs all the better. 

 

Anyhow,  I too am interested in UCLA. One of the things that attracts me to this program is how seriously the faculty takes the written component of the MFA. Elsewhere it's typically a formality. I think I heard that the written supplement one has to complete to graduate from the MFA program is a minimum of 15 pages. 15 pages may seem like standard fare equal to a typical final written assignment in an undergrad humanities course, However I've typically seen that the written component is 5 or so pages.

 

I haven't actually heard much of Columbia. All I know is that they have star faculty members.

 

I think if your interested in sculpture, Yale may be a disappointment as the facilities are a bit limited compared to other schools.

 

Bard college appears to be truly interdisciplinary. I read an article in the Brooklyn Rail a few months ago which discussed its MFA program. It's interdisciplinary to the extent that professors and graduate students of performing arts, creatie writing, music, acting and other creatives sit in on your critiques and offer feed back as much as the art professors. The article also mentioned that its a low residency summer only program and that the school struggles to award much in funding ti its enrolled students. I think you can find it online on the website. I'll try to pull it up later.

 

Cranbrook is another school I'm interested in, there are no classes, grades, or professors. There are only art students and visiting artists. Despite it all the school is still considered to be among the most respected institutions. It still has departments divided into disciplines (with no interdisciplinary department), but it seems like the program encourages and invites you to draw from and incorporate other mediums in your work. Definitely a more experimental school. It seems like a very intense program with focus being emphasized on producing work thorough critiques. Students must even submit written critiques to their peers.

 

The discussion of interdisciplinary programs also reminded me of Cooper Union. I heard a while ago that Cooper Union was developing an MFA program. It's easily the most selective undergraduate art school and has some really interesting faculty. The program is entirely interdisciplinary even at the undergraduate level. Does anyone have more info on the program/heard any news?

[pulpandink]

Does anyone have any advice for someone in their Mid-30s applying for the 2014 Fall Admissions Cycle?  While I have kept my practice current, the only potential recommenders I have are those who have taught summer courses at Ox-Bow and community art classes at LillStreet Art Center in Chicago.  I am relatively certain that my undergraduate professors have probably forgotten me and my work today has little resemblance to what I did as an undergraduate Studio Art major (thank God!).  If the Ox-Bow and LillStreet folks are unable to provide me with recommendations, I'm not sure where to turn--thoughts?  Also, I'm currently looking at UT-Austin, Indiana University, University of Michigan, Northwestern University, and UW-Madison.  Some of these programs require one to apply to a specific area, but my current work doesn't really fall into one particular category, though I feel it is most closely aligned with Printmaking (I create marbled paper collages, marbled canvas pieces, and recently have been creating marbled monoprint/ collages using acetate)--I am wondering if it will hurt my chances if apply to Printmaking departments, because my work doesn't read as print media, per se.  

[kafralal]

I hope you don't mind, I'm going to copy your post over to the discussion for fall 2014 admissions. That's where the discussion is for this round.

[pulpandink]

Thanks so much!

[Neen]

Anyone hear anything about what UArts MFA program is like in Studio Arts? In terms of the faculty, administration..

[oakchild]

Just heard from RISD--got an interview! Now the real nerves begin.. 

 

I know you guys are already talking about interview questions, I'm wondering if anyone knows a good way to tackle the question

"where does your work fit within contemporary art?" 

Are they looking for your knowledge of contemporary art? Or are they looking for you to make an argument for why anyone should give a s**t about your work?