Is the MFA Necessary? The "Con" Side of the Debate

[TheStranger]

The following excerpt from Huffington Post (7/13/11): http://www.huffingto...d_b_895753.html

"I participated in a public debate on Sunday. The July 10 debate was part of Artillery Magazine's ongoing series "Artillery Sets the Standard," and was held at the Standard Hotel in downtown Los Angeles. Many thanks to publisher Paige Wery and editor Tulsa Kinney for inviting me to participate. There were four debates and it made for a lively and informative afternoon (the free vodka didn't hurt).

The debate was: "MFA: Is it Necessary?" I was debating the "con" side of the question. The format was a four-minute presentation, followed by a two-minute rebuttal, a one-minute rebuttal and a 30-second conclusion. When Artillery posts the full video of the debate, I will post it on my blog. Meanwhile, here is the text of my presentation and conclusion along with my Power Point slides:

Hello. My opponent has made some interesting points, some of which I'll address in my presentation, others will have to wait for the rebuttal.

I don't have a degree in anything -- I dropped out of college in my junior year. I felt I was wasting my parents' money, majoring in marijuana and guitar.

A degree is not something I look for when selecting artists for Offramp Gallery. The bottom line is always the work. I look for work that's honest, creative, original, skillfully executed and intensely visual. It's supposed to be VISUAL art after all.

Everyone has an opinion on this subject. But I wanted data, facts to back up my point of view.*

First of all -- the only situation for which you are required to have an MFA is if you want to teach studio art at the university level. There are precious few tenured teaching positions available and competition for them is fierce. Most artists I know end up chasing adjunct jobs across several counties and/or have an unrelated day job.

Then I looked at the artists I've shown at Offramp. 48% have MFAs. So, there is no advantage, no disadvantage.

But what about other commercial galleries? I spent an insane amount of time researching artists from several successful commercial galleries. You may be surprised at what I found.

LA Louver: 56% have MFAs

Blum & Poe: 55%

Ace: 41%

Gagosian 34%

If you put those numbers all together (including Offramp), only 40% of the artists have MFAs.

Next I looked at ArtFacts.net which ranks over 200,000 artists using a special algorithm based on which galleries and museums artists have shown at, with whom, etc. I looked at their top 50 living artists -- and of those 50 top living artists only 11 out of 50, or 22%, have MFAs.

Typical costs for a two-year MFA in studio art are $28,000 - $73,000, and a three-year program would be $41,000 - $109,000. That's a lot of student debt to carry after graduation.

I also put together a little survey and sent it to my email list. I asked the respondents who were artists to what degree they were able to make a living as an artist. As you can see there wasn't that much difference between artists with or without an MFA.

I looked at the Pollock-Krasner Grant recipients for 2009-10. Out of 75, 40 have MFAs, or 53%. Again, no clear cut advantage.

So, from all the statistics I was able to put together there seems to be no distinct advantage to having an MFA -- for getting a gallery, showing in museums, for making a living as an artist and for getting grants.

And what are these schools teaching? I personally think there is an over-emphasis on dialog and an under-emphasis on content. We're teaching artists to TALK about art. Anything is art as long as you can justify it using the codified language of academia. As my friend Ted says, there's no good art, no bad art, just an endless dialog about art.

Finally I want to quote New York Magazine art critic Jerry Saltz in a recent article about the Venice Biennale and what he calls "Generation Blank":

"It's work stuck in a cul-de-sac of aesthetic regress, where everyone is deconstructing the same elements... A feedback loop has formed; art is turned into a fixed shell game, moving the same pieces around a limited board. All this work is highly competent, extremely informed, and supremely cerebral. But it ends up part of some mannered International School of Silly Art. " 

I couldn't agree more, and I do believe that MFA programs are largely to blame.

Conclusion:

To go over my main points again:

My research shows that an MFA doesn't give you an advantage in getting into commercial galleries or museums, making a living as an artist or getting grants.

It's very expensive and saddles you with student debt that you have very little chance of paying off by working in your chosen field.

Save your money, live your life, read, travel, pay attention, learn to think for yourself. Work hard, look inside yourself and make yourself the best artist you can be.

Oh, and BTW, I won :-)

*A word about my research: it is completely unscientific and was limited by time and resources. I included only living artists and excluded artists for whom I couldn't find enough information. I feel I just scratched the surface, but results were fairly consistent across the board."

Edited October 28, 2012 by TheStranger

[bengston]

Saying that her research was "completely unscientific and limited" isn't even generous, it's misleading. Her research and numbers mean nothing.

If you say 60% of artists in major galleries don't have MFAs and 40% do that doesn't really tell you anything about the value of an MFA, you actually have to compare those percentages to the Total percentage of artists with or without MFAs.

I think if you were to do a random poll of artists and ask them "Do you have an MFA?" the percentage would be much much less than 50%, which would mean that the pool of total artists without MFAs is actually much larger than the pool with MFAs. This would mean that having the MFA actually did give the artists a leg up, all she shows is that having an MFA isn't a requirement for success 100% of the time. I think people already know that.

Edited October 29, 2012 by bengston

[michaelwebster]

All that you need to question this woman's judgement is to look at the work that her gallery shows. Also, as an object maker it is much easier to make a living off of your work, so maybe an MFA isn't necessary, but with artwork that doesn't find an easy home in the market, an MFA is much more of a boost to opportunities.

Edited October 29, 2012 by michaelwebster

[losemygrip]

Is the MFA Necessary?

No.

Terry Allen once said, "If you want to have a career as an artist, an MFA is a waste of time."

I actually agree with the person's arguments in the debate. Regardless of the counterargument made by bengston (a very valid correction and clarification), the data provided clearly show it is NOT necessary to have an MFA to be a successful artist. That is, IF you define success as exhibiting in galleries and museums. People may have different notions of what successful is.

This is why I'm constantly asking people in these forums, "Why do you want to get an MFA?" You need to have a clear reason, and it should not be, "to further my career as an artist." And depending on what the answer is, that will affect the schools to which you should apply.

[michaelwebster]

I don't think an MFA is 'necessary' to make good work, but unfortunately art education in our school systems is terrible. If there were art literacy levels then I think graduating seniors from most high schools would be 'arting' at an 8th grade level. That translates into most BFA programs leaving students years behind where they should be, and why students need 5 years out of school to be ready for an MFA most of the time.

So I don't think an MFA is absolutely necessary, I have seen a couple high school students who could get into MFA programs on their work alone right now, but that is generally not the case, and most of us need the extra 2 years beyond the BFA to reach the level we want to be at. I know I did.

[bengston]

I would definitely agree that it is by no means necessary. I just wanted people to understand how flawed that data is before they use it to help them make a decision. I think the only really good reason to not get an MFA is the cost. Trying to be an artist is a gamble and taking on debt to go to school for it adds a certain amount of financial instability to that bet. That being said, I think the advice she gives is a little antiquated:

Save your money, live your life, read, travel, pay attention, learn to think for yourself. Work hard, look inside yourself and make yourself the best artist you can be.

For better or worse the art world has been systematized and although not necessary, the schooling can help you get yourself on track.

This isn't the 60's or the 70's, we can't all get 2000sq/ft lofts in NY for pennies and only work 2 days a week while being at the center of the art world. The options to live cheap, not be isolated, and have adequate space and time aren't necessarily available in the same ways that they were in the past. Working a job where you can save money, travel, and make art isn't always so easy or necessarily a better bet. If you aren't sure you want to be an artist or absolutely cannot afford it than maybe that is what you should do, but I think it will be a lot harder to keep making work than she makes it seem.

[TheStranger]

I think the only really good reason to not get an MFA is the cost. Trying to be an artist is a gamble and taking on debt to go to school for it adds a certain amount of financial instability to that bet. That being said, I think the advice she gives is a little antiquated:

I've been thinking about the risk factors of post MFA graduation...I am a little uncertain nowadays if it is worth it. I've been playing with the idea of working my day job and doing art and connecting with communities during my off time. How many people do this? I almost feel like I should be financially stable before committing to an MFA, if at all. I plan on getting married and everything within the year...the poor struggling artist image doesn't appeal to me the same as it did when I was an undergrad single college student.

[Chai_latte]

A few years ago, I knew someone who was having this same internal debate. He decided to get his MFA in order to bolster his network. We've lost touch, so I don't know if he feels the investment was worth it, but networking was the deciding factor for him.

[bengston]

I've been thinking about the risk factors of post MFA graduation...I am a little uncertain nowadays if it is worth it. I've been playing with the idea of working my day job and doing art and connecting with communities during my off time. How many people do this? I almost feel like I should be financially stable before committing to an MFA, if at all. I plan on getting married and everything within the year...the poor struggling artist image doesn't appeal to me the same as it did when I was an undergrad single college student.

I think a lot of people do this with varying degrees of success. I think it also depends a bit on what your goals are and what you see yourself doing to generate income for the rest of your life. Almost nobody lives off of their art alone, most "successful" artists that have gallery representation do a certain amount of teaching or have some other side business to generate the rest of their income. That is just a reality of the art world. Some artists don't ever get major representation with a NY or LA gallery or the recognition of the art world but are able to live off of the sales of their artwork through smaller commercial galleries. A lot depends on the kind of art you want to make and the market it is for. There aren't a lot of positions for art professors, but if you want one you need an MFA, and if you want a job that actually keeps you intellectually involved in the art world being a professor seems like a pretty good one.

I am by no means an expert on any of this, I can just relate what I have seen in my experience. I think that if you want to be a part of the larger "serious" art world that means not only making and showing art, but participating in the academic world also. Artist talks/lectures at institutions, visiting artist positions at schools, for some people even writing for journals etc. I think if you want to do that, an MFA will help you get you there faster than anything else. Some people certainly chafe against this and want nothing to do with it, but I think more serious artists like to talk about art as much as they like to make it. You may not need an MFA to do any of this, but if you take a look around you will see that most of the people doing that will have them, and a lot of the people who don't are older artists who come from a different generation.

My advice—in regards to working a day job and being an artist—is to move to one of the major art hubs like New York or LA and then stay there. Sure, you could make art in a smaller city, but there are going to be a lot less people to interact with and a lot less money to support it. I lived in Chicago for a year before moving to New York and found getting into the art world in New York to be much easier. To me it seemed that everyone in Chicago already knew each other, in New York people seemed more receptive to meeting new people and talking to them/helping them out. But I am aware that that is a anecdotal and subjective experience and other people may feel differently. Another thing to consider are residency programs, they are less of a commitment than school, but would offer you access to a similar community.

I am trying to be as practical as I can in my advice because that is how I am looking at this for myself. I don't think that MFA programs are the only route to being a good artist or a successful artist and I don't think that there is anything about LA or New York that will necessarily make your work better. I do think that for the most part the movers and shakers are in those locations, and for the most part they pay attention to whats going on in their immediate line of site because it's easy and they have to narrow their focus somehow.

Like I said before, trying to be an artist is a gamble. You are no more likely to see a financial return on it than you are buying a Powerball ticket. But that isn't really how you should be looking at it. Trying to be an artist is more like getting married or having a kid, in the end it may be a lot of work and money but you do it to enrich your life, not to make a profit. Getting an MFA, talking to other artists, having a gallery, are all things you do to enhance this experience, not monetize it.

Edited November 7, 2012 by bengston

[Curious12345]

You have to realize that Jane Chapman (who was the person giving the presentation) has always been somewhat unfriendly to the idea of a MFA. Almost all of those statistics are skewed in one way or another. Look at all of the artists who have work in the major collections, who show at the other 90% of galleries in LA she didn't include in her stats, they don't even look at you if you don't have a MFA.

With that said...is it worth the TIME, not the money, but the TIME. I'd say it is, I'd say the connections are crucial, the polishing, the professionalism...it is all very important.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Curious12345

[losemygrip]

A few years ago, I knew someone who was having this same internal debate. He decided to get his MFA in order to bolster his network. We've lost touch, so I don't know if he feels the investment was worth it, but networking was the deciding factor for him.

Seems ironic that he lost touch with you while actually trying to bolster his network. Kind of self-defeating.

[caaiii]

I lived in Chicago for a year before moving to New York and found getting into the art world in New York to be much easier. To me it seemed that everyone in Chicago already knew each other, in New York people seemed more receptive to meeting new people and talking to them/helping them out.

I agree with all the points you made, but have experience in this one. I wanted to add that I grew up in Chicago and now live in Brooklyn, and for what its worth, I think what you said about both places is right on. Everyone does know each other in Chicago, making it more difficult to get a foot in the door. And even if you know those people, there is only so much pie. In New York, the opportunities are all over, and there seems to be a constant baking of fresh pie. Ok, that was a stupid metaphor, but you get the point. It can be a more demanding place to live, but I've found it to be worth the effort.

I am applying to MFA programs in NY after living there for 5 years, and I feel like my work ethic, the quality of my work and the contacts that I have made give me a resolve that I wouldn't have otherwise. And my hope is that an MFA will allow me to contribute to a greater breadth of artistic practices and cultural production - in all its forms. I like to think of it as if I am applying to do masters research in theoretical physics. It is something that is incredibly hard to explain and not very practically applicable, but the brainpower contributed to the world is necessary to further human knowledge.

And, you only live once.

[TheStranger]

Everyone has had really insightful advice regarding MFA's. I am currently networking while working my full time day job. By next year I plan on positioning myself in a higher paying job that allows me the flexibility to go part time if I get into school --- as far as I'm concerned this job is already prepared for me in the coming months. If I get into a school I will only do it if it's a scholarship type deal...I don't want to pay for the degree or go into any debt. Even then I want to postpone starting for a year to just build up several kinds of savings accounts and store up as much as possible before the financial change. I don't make art for money at all and it is very much a personal creative process. If I can't get a scholarship than it's not for me....that's my plan.

[losemygrip]

Everyone has had really insightful advice regarding MFA's. I am currently networking while working my full time day job. By next year I plan on positioning myself in a higher paying job that allows me the flexibility to go part time if I get into school --- as far as I'm concerned this job is already prepared for me in the coming months. If I get into a school I will only do it if it's a scholarship type deal...I don't want to pay for the degree or go into any debt. Even then I want to postpone starting for a year to just build up several kinds of savings accounts and store up as much as possible before the financial change. I don't make art for money at all and it is very much a personal creative process. If I can't get a scholarship than it's not for me....that's my plan.

You're being smart.

[stofo]

The percentages of artists at commercial galleries is very misleading. The problem is that the art world has gone through major changes in the last 20 years. 20 years ago, you could make a living off of selling your work through a gallery with no degree at all. There are many older art professors with no MFA, some with no degree at all.

With the IBR program, it is irrelevant to consider the high cost of tuition a factor (or any kind of funding or scholarships for that matter) in either getting or not getting a graduate degree. This program reduces my loan payments from $1,700/mo for 20 years down to $24/mo for 20 years.

[NFP]

The rigour of practice and colleagial and curatorial connections you get from studying a full time MFA are already evident to me at the end of my first semester. While I see an MFA will fast track these things/opportunities, none of the aforementioned benefits are worth being in substantial debt for. This was a BIG gamble as I moved half way across the world to do this and would not have come without a scholarship (which I got). Your decision should be pragmatic as a minimum. If you have the means, all well and good, if you don't, I'd say just keep practicing and enjoy your life and what you're doing. The burden and stress of debt will suck the joy from your life.

[Emoree]

I have been thinking about this, in case I don't get accepted this year. It is somewhat comforting to think that I could potentially be saving tens of thousands of dollars that could--- theoretically-- go towards supplies and building up my own printmaking studio. I don't have a huge amount of debt from undergrad, so I'm not terribly concerned about graduate debt, however I didn't realize that the interest rate on graduate student loans is much higher than for undergrad. i was expecting ~3%loans, instead they are apparently 6+%... But, hopefully loans won't be an issue and i'll get scholarships instead!

[HopeDreamPaint]

Just to add some extra perspective. I applied last year to 7 MFA programs, interviewed at one and ultimately was rejected by all.

Since, I've been incredibly (lucky??) successful. I've WORKED MY BUM OFF and it has paid off to the point of scratching out the starving before artist slogan. I could list all of the accolades/recognition ect. but that drowns my point. An MFA is not the be all, end all. Working hard is, whether that is networking within a program or outside of one. Do not let this process or the thought of an MFA being needed cripple you or your creativity.

Hit the ground running and let an MFA be an afterthought.

Also two other points of interest:

Con: I've heard through respected circles that an MFA is "desperate" or as a "last resort".

Pro: I've heard through same said circle that an MFA is wonderful for someone with no connections at all and looked upon great if the person was given a "scholarship" of sorts or is mentored under a respected artist/faculty with some merit.

Full disclosure -by "respected" I mean artists, art critics and art curators- convo was over cocktails

My personal opinion is that if you get into a FUNDED program, grab it and run! Loans or Debt, run the other way and preferably into a crowd to start networking.

Hope this helps someone/anyone. Cheers and good luck! Well wishes to all!

Edited December 17, 2012 by HopeDreamPaint