Will Grad School cause me to drastically change my work for the sake of "concept"? I am dreading this.

[pearspears]

My best friend got a free ride to a fairly well respected program. She's a computer genius who does coding in conjunction with hand pulled prints that she then manipulates by hand and then rescans and makes move. It's really compelling stuff and very unique. She also does webcomics. 

 

She is miserable in her program because she has only had time to do her comic stuff on the side  and for her senior thesis show most of her time is being spent on making a 20 foot paper mache whale. No, I'm not kidding. 

 

Is a free fully funded degree worth it if it is going to result in a situation in which I am similarly spending 3 years arguing over my lack of "concept"? 

 

My work is very difficult technically so I'll admit that I have to better define what it is I'm trying to do but I have spent several years making a body of work that I'd like to have grow and change and evolve, not scrap completely because my graduate committee thinks it's crap. They haven't said any of this btw; it is just me being cynical. But does this happen often? How do you push back if this seems to be happening? DO you push back? I understand you have to take into account the point of critiquing is to criticize, to make better....but I see what happened with my best friend and its seems like she's spent the last three years putting on hold what she is actually good at and what sets her apart artistically to please other people, and the thought I'm walking into the same thing makes me wanna barf. Help.

[kierstin]

In my mind, an MFA is all about the conceptual aspect of making.  The reason we value these programs is for their ability to help us as young artist to question what we're doing and way, and hopefully provide insight into how we can each participate in a larger "art world conversation." The reason you go to school is to change for the better.

 

That being said, when I was looking at schools I only included those whose alumni work was interesting to me. I wasn't going to apply to schools where grads come out making work that I couldn't relate to.  Do you feel like your program fits your philosophy of making? Otherwise it may be better to continue to work outside of school until a better match presents itself.  Then again, you have little to lose if your finances are covered. In my opinion, you should take advantage of this great opportunity (I'm jealous) and look at it as a way to challenge yourself conceptually.  In order to make it in the art world you have to be able to speak about your work on a theoretical level, and an MFA program is a good place to develop those skills.

Edited March 16, 2014 by kierstin

[losemygrip]

If you don't want to be challenged, skip graduate school.

[Firenze]

My best friend got a free ride to a fairly well respected program. She's a computer genius who does coding in conjunction with hand pulled prints that she then manipulates by hand and then rescans and makes move. It's really compelling stuff and very unique. She also does webcomics. 

 

She is miserable in her program because she has only had time to do her comic stuff on the side  and for her senior thesis show most of her time is being spent on making a 20 foot paper mache whale. No, I'm not kidding. 

 

Is a free fully funded degree worth it if it is going to result in a situation in which I am similarly spending 3 years arguing over my lack of "concept"? 

 

My work is very difficult technically so I'll admit that I have to better define what it is I'm trying to do but I have spent several years making a body of work that I'd like to have grow and change and evolve, not scrap completely because my graduate committee thinks it's crap. They haven't said any of this btw; it is just me being cynical. But does this happen often? How do you push back if this seems to be happening? DO you push back? I understand you have to take into account the point of critiquing is to criticize, to make better....but I see what happened with my best friend and its seems like she's spent the last three years putting on hold what she is actually good at and what sets her apart artistically to please other people, and the thought I'm walking into the same thing makes me wanna barf. Help.

 

I question whether or not the critique process as practiced in art schools and MFA programs these days is actually beneficial to artists. It seems that the end result of critiques is to get students to conform to the current worldview of academic art rather than to help them grow as artists.  So, it's kind of a brain-washing process, as I see it. You can conform and make crap art or you can rebel and make life difficult for yourself in the program. It's funny that artists are supposed to have artistic freedom because that's really not the case in grad school. They give you plenty of freedom as long as you make work that fits into the narrow spectrum of what they view as "contemporary art". If people truly had artistic freedom in art school, everyone would be encouraged to make whatever the f*** they want to and would be given assistance and encouragement in doing so. Art-making is hard! Art students don't need to be torn down by nearly constant critiques....they need encouragement!

[kwonberry]

I question whether or not the critique process as practiced in art schools and MFA programs these days is actually beneficial to artists. It seems that the end result of critiques is to get students to conform to the current worldview of academic art rather than to help them grow as artists.  So, it's kind of a brain-washing process, as I see it. You can conform and make crap art or you can rebel and make life difficult for yourself in the program. It's funny that artists are supposed to have artistic freedom because that's really not the case in grad school. They give you plenty of freedom as long as you make work that fits into the narrow spectrum of what they view as "contemporary art". If people truly had artistic freedom in art school, everyone would be encouraged to make whatever the f*** they want to and would be given assistance and encouragement in doing so. Art-making is hard! Art students don't need to be torn down by nearly constant critiques....they need encouragement!

 

Are you speaking from experience having sat in on multiple professor's critiques at multiple institutions (and since you say art world) different continents to draw this conclusion? Your view feels pejorative and derived from a very narrow view or experience of critique. A critique IS fundamentally designed to make you question your work, and it's necessary considering everyone has blind-spots in their thinking/making. Criticism in critique shouldn't be a motivator to 'conform.' It's a means for the maker to experience engagement with their work, not strangers laughing at your baby screaming 'ugly' for 2 hours. If there is no criticism, nothing to question, what then is the point of a work if it's a closed loop? It's pretty?

 

Also to a broader point what is the 'current worldview of academic art?'   So when you say "would be given assistance and encouragement" you are basically describing a montessori school? Pandering gets a person how far? 

[pearspears]

"Criticism in critique shouldn't be a motivator to 'conform.' It's a means for the maker to experience engagement with their work, not strangers laughing at your baby screaming 'ugly' for 2 hours. If there is no criticism, nothing to question, what then is the point of a work if it's a closed loop? It's pretty?

 

Also to a broader point what is the 'current worldview of academic art?'   So when you say "would be given assistance and encouragement" you are basically describing a montessori school? Pandering gets a person how far? "

 

Sorry, I didn't mean this to lead into a discussion as to whether criticism is valid. Obviously we need criticism, and as we're dealing with a subject matter that has no right answer (and being that artists are the way they are) obviously some feelings are going to be hurt and toes are going to be stepped on. 

 

I took a  look at your website by the way, and I like some of your work and some of it I don't really get, but I appreciate it none the less. But what if you were teaching a first year graduate level art class, and the second coming of Albrecht Durer walked through the door. And he didn't want to make installations or neo Dada or anything having to do with the current sociopolilitcal climate. He wanted to keep making elaborate anal retentive engravings of biblical scenes full of pathos. 

 

Would you say that's bullshit? Like, who decides? I have a friend that does nothing but flower paintings. I would agree with you that they're kind of empty and soulless and I personally would never make art that looks like that, and don't really see the point of that vs. her taking a picture. But come hell or high water I can't see her ever wanting to do anything else. To her, what her paintings represent are Buddhist nature poems (she's Japanese). Noone could ever guess that was the inspiration by looking a it. Are you saying, then, that her work is "failing". Or, at least in that capacity? Would that be her major stumbling block in graduate school? I've never sat in on a graduate level critique so I'm honestly curious. 

[Firenze]

Are you speaking from experience having sat in on multiple professor's critiques at multiple institutions (and since you say art world) different continents to draw this conclusion? Your view feels pejorative and derived from a very narrow view or experience of critique. A critique IS fundamentally designed to make you question your work, and it's necessary considering everyone has blind-spots in their thinking/making. Criticism in critique shouldn't be a motivator to 'conform.' It's a means for the maker to experience engagement with their work, not strangers laughing at your baby screaming 'ugly' for 2 hours. If there is no criticism, nothing to question, what then is the point of a work if it's a closed loop? It's pretty?

 

Also to a broader point what is the 'current worldview of academic art?'   So when you say "would be given assistance and encouragement" you are basically describing a montessori school? Pandering gets a person how far? 

 

Yes, I have sat in on multiple professor's critiques at multiple institutions, including SAIC. I haven't attended critiques in non-US schools. However, in investigating non-US MFA programs I've gotten the impression that most of those schools have critiques as an integral part of their curriculum. As for critiques being designed to make you question your work, WHY do artists need to have their  work questioned? That implies from the beginning that there's something wrong with it. Why do art students even have to explain why they're making a particular piece of art? Art students should be free to make whatever work they want to and not have to justify it. Critiques seem like hostility towards art-making in general that actually discourages creativity rather than encouraging it. In the critiques I've attended everyone sat around with bored looks on their faces not really making strongly helpful comments to anyone and RARELY said anything positive about anyone's work. I think that's wrong. If you see positives in other students' work you should be allowed to express it. Also, there's a subtle pressure to conform instituted by the critique process. In relation to that, a few summers ago SAIC's student newspaper published a letter from a group of Jewish students attending SAIC saying that they didn't feel free to express their faith/beliefs in their artwork at SAIC. Coming from a Catholic perspective, I felt equally unwelcome to express any sort of values based on my beliefs in my artwork. The prevailing culture there tends to be against religious expression, against beauty, and leans towards a more atheist view. For example, the professor for one of my courses gave us readings that included one that was aggressively anti-Christian. In that environment, you know that putting up a painting with religious content is going to be treated with disdain at critiques, so why bother. Where is the artistic freedom?

 

You asked, "If there is no criticism, nothing to question, what then is the point of a work if it's a closed loop?" Just the act of putting the work up for display in a critique session ensures it has a point because other art students and professors see it. That in itself prevents it from being a closed loop because it has an influence on others. I think critiques should be "discussions" in which the person making the work of art talks about any areas of their work they're struggling with, gets comments on this from classmates and professors, receives suggestions for improvement where/if needed, and also receives comments on any positives of the work.

 

The current worldview of academic art leans towards atheism, dislike of beauty, dislike of order, dislike of introverted "lone-genius" artists, and denies that there is any sort of universal truth in this world. Giving assistance and help to art students isn't pandering....it's being human. Actually Montessori schools are pretty great because they encourage creative thinking.

 

I took a  look at your website by the way, and I like some of your work and some of it I don't really get, but I appreciate it none the less. But what if you were teaching a first year graduate level art class, and the second coming of Albrecht Durer walked through the door. And he didn't want to make installations or neo Dada or anything having to do with the current sociopolilitcal climate. He wanted to keep making elaborate anal retentive engravings of biblical scenes full of pathos. 

 

 

 I'll tell you what would happen if Albrecht Durer walked through the door....everyone would tell him he's too stuck on detailed work and would tell him he needs to branch out and try something different. Then he would start making a bunch of meaningless abstract paintings, everyone would stop hassling him and another great artist would bite the dust. There was a guy in one of my SAIC classes who drew beautiful detailed imaginary landscapes in pen. Based on comments he got in critiques, he started making drab abstract works. That's the effect the class had on him so I'm sure they would do the same thing to Durer.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Firenze

[seeingeyeduck]

Here's the thing. Why would Albert Durer need to go to grad school? That sort of work has already been done extensively in the history of art and grad school is expressly for contemporary art (ie forms like new media, social practice and ways of looking at traditional media in a new way).

If you are already happy with your practice then why still go to school? Why not keep making as you have been, as it's obviously been working for you? One professor told me that they want students who are interested in challenging themselves and pushing into new territory because otherwise it's just a funded residency, not an education. If you really want to keep making the work you're making, then perhaps residencies are the answer. I think they are more designed to provide space for artists to do what they want, and don't involve as much of a push to experiment.

Quite frankly I think that the newer stuff needs more support because it's less established and artists have much less of a chance finding any commercial outlet / getting paid for things that deal with sociopolitical issues.

I've never been in grad critiques but I have been in undergrad ones, and I can't imagine the teachers I've had standing for a negative atmosphere. They made it clear that bringing people down for no reason was unacceptable and their comments were observations of different options you have for developing the work further. It really depends on the culture of the school.

Have you considered just showing your faith based work and seeing what happens? Have you actually tried to engage them in a conversation about it? It's one thing if they lash out and pan your work and prevent you from expressing an opinion, but if you've never attempted to make your disagreement explicit or stand up for your views, then I don't see how you can really say that they were actively discouraging you. Sometimes I think we have to be brave and actually start a difficult conversation. After all, if none of us can expect people in the real world to just accept our work and be encouraging of everything we want to do either.

[kwonberry]

Ha sorry I was addressing firenze, but i'll start with a response to OP:

 

In a hypothetical scenario involving Durer Jr, if he was accepted to the program, there was a reason for it. As I've experienced, my peers and professors all come with their own voices, tastes, parameters (or lack of) on the notion of what art is, etc. Some would call bullshit, some would appreciate conviction, it's kind of a toss up, and ideally, in a what I define as a good program, isn't that ideal? 

 

I guess I'm a little unclear, would her flower paintings be the stumbling block, or unwillingness to do anything else? If I were looking at it, and couldn't surmise the 'buddhist' inspiration behind the work, I'd probably make the point that it's not there. If it is about communication, is it important to the artist that the buddhist element is readable? Not having seen this work, I'd probably ask where does this go beyond illustration (as you said, whats the point when photography exists).

 

Point is, to address 'who decides,' it's everyone that does. Art school (maybe all school for that matter, just my take), as far as my experience goes, is practice in communication. If your friend is making art purely for the sake of it, would she be labeled as a 'sunday painter?' undergraduate programs pick people they think/hope have potential, graduate level it's a wildly different case by case picking process. I'd argue the majority of my peers do what they want to, and that kernels of important advice/criticism have to be discovered as floods of opinions have to be filtered. Have a contentious peer or faculty that is unbearable? Don't listen to them is probably the solution. I know in my own work, some elements of my old work persist, others get left behind. What I would hope, and argue is the purpose of grad school, is that blind spots are at least hinted at and to question the work isn't to obliterate old ideas but to find out what's worth keeping and whats worth moving on from. 

[kwonberry]

And in response to firenze:

 

I would specify that questioning work isn't implying there is something wrong. I'd closer align to the word 'flaw' in the best possible sense. Your position feels defensive, which is understandable but I'd measure not the whole picture. I say this because it seems like you have a staunch definition of art. Wording is specific "The prevailing culture there tends to be against religious expression, against beauty, and leans towards a more atheist view." Art theory as I understand doesn't fall off the hinges of trends in philosophy, and aren't there more than a handful of 'anti-christian' philosophers studied in 101 courses globally?

 

I don't know what classes you have sat in on, but they must have been bad if it was just a barrage of criticism without anything good to say. Why I believe in critique is that you have the opportunity to actively engage in the conversation, or at least be privy to listen. I understand at the undergrad level, it's not uncommon for everyone to be bored, even if a single crit lasts anywhere from 20 to 45 minutes. I know my brain shut off after a while having to constantly reset and look at something new without the willingness, opportunity, or even capacity to look and speak about a work for a longer period of time, at least in undergrad.  I don't know if you've sat in on graduate critiques, but ours can go from 2 to 4 hours, depending on the professor. Not only is the critique longer, but it's coming from people with VERY different backgrounds. Who are you critting with in undergrad if not people who have basically the exact same art theory and history background, and even personal background. The vast majority of your peers are between 18 and 23 who all took the same fundamental classes. It's just the first step in understanding, and everyone is on the same level, so yeah, crits will only go so far at that point. 

 

Is it communication if you make whatever you want and not justify it? I wouldn't disagree that an art student should make whatever they want, but if it's unable to engage with anyone but the maker, then, under the assumption that this artist would like to sustain off of said work, who would buy/notice/(whatever form of attention) it? Pressure to conform is being the only one without the flavor of the month style in the playground. Critique to me is analysis through personal taste and dialogue, it's not always going to make you happy. 

 

I don't think 'just the act of putting the work up' is really addressing what I meant by closed loop, as far as concept. I'm saying work itself CAN be a closed loop, if there's an unwillingness to communicate, or to put in more cliche terms, block off the viewer from entering or engaging. That feels reductive, like saying Sherrie Levine and Richard Prince only plagiarized. There's a deeper meaning behind their work, and it's something that is/can/has been teased out, along with other artists who utilize appropriation. That said, I would feel nothing seeing someone try to pull off this sort of gesture in school. Along that line I don't know if Durer Jr. would elicit a response greater than 'it's exquisitely crafted.' if it's not going to address the past but simply sink into it. I find the example a little far fetched to begin with, considering image saturation today. 

 

I don't know if de-aestheticized work is the end all of the 'worldview academic art,' and I would completely disagree that it 'denies any sort of universal truth.' This is where your stance seems to really reveal itself. Dogmatic language associated with religious conviction seems to be blurred  with 'definable truth' within art from what I'm reading. I think the best art is about experiential truth, that doesn't have to involved constricting dogma. What is Christian Marclay's "The Clock" if not a universal exploration/celebration of time? or of freezing it?  Now if that comes off as atheist, it's because I am. That doesn't mean I disregard 'The last supper.' I'm also quite unsure what you mean by 'dislike of order,' You mean dislike of religious structure? Can we not address institution without having to revere it? Serrano's "Piss Christ" is one of my favorite works of art. It's not black and white blasphemy, it's an engagement with the larger concerns of christian imagery and its cheapening, which is also relatable today with image saturation through the internet, on and on it can go. 

 

Abstraction is certainly prevalent, but it's not meaningless. 

 

I think that most grad school applicants in some form or another, want a dialogue with the art landscape. Why bother with it if that isn't the case? And yes I went to Montessori school, and not to sound insulting, but it's for children, and I'm all for it.

 

If it isn't clear yet, my opinion is quite fluid and I try to avoid anecdotal evidence to prove any point, but that's sort of the mentality necessary if you really want to not be miserable in grad school. A measure of conviction to do what you love, be able to listen to everyone but pick out whats important, drop what you will probably outgrow, a develop a thick skin.

[kwonberry]

Here's the thing. Why would Albert Durer need to go to grad school? That sort of work has already been done extensively in the history of art and grad school is expressly for contemporary art (ie forms like new media, social practice and ways of looking at traditional media in a new way).

If you are already happy with your practice then why still go to school? Why not keep making as you have been, as it's obviously been working for you? One professor told me that they want students who are interested in challenging themselves and pushing into new territory because otherwise it's just a funded residency, not an education. If you really want to keep making the work you're making, then perhaps residencies are the answer. I think they are more designed to provide space for artists to do what they want, and don't involve as much of a push to experiment.

Quite frankly I think that the newer stuff needs more support because it's less established and artists have much less of a chance finding any commercial outlet / getting paid for things that deal with sociopolitical issues.

I've never been in grad critiques but I have been in undergrad ones, and I can't imagine the teachers I've had standing for a negative atmosphere. They made it clear that bringing people down for no reason was unacceptable and their comments were observations of different options you have for developing the work further. It really depends on the culture of the school.

Have you considered just showing your faith based work and seeing what happens? Have you actually tried to engage them in a conversation about it? It's one thing if they lash out and pan your work and prevent you from expressing an opinion, but if you've never attempted to make your disagreement explicit or stand up for your views, then I don't see how you can really say that they were actively discouraging you. Sometimes I think we have to be brave and actually start a difficult conversation. After all, if none of us can expect people in the real world to just accept our work and be encouraging of everything we want to do either.

 

 So many times this. 

[0000]

Yes, I have sat in on multiple professor's critiques at multiple institutions, including SAIC. I haven't attended critiques in non-US schools. However, in investigating non-US MFA programs I've gotten the impression that most of those schools have critiques as an integral part of their curriculum. As for critiques being designed to make you question your work, WHY do artists need to have their  work questioned? That implies from the beginning that there's something wrong with it. Why do art students even have to explain why they're making a particular piece of art? Art students should be free to make whatever work they want to and not have to justify it. Critiques seem like hostility towards art-making in general that actually discourages creativity rather than encouraging it. In the critiques I've attended everyone sat around with bored looks on their faces not really making strongly helpful comments to anyone and RARELY said anything positive about anyone's work. I think that's wrong. If you see positives in other students' work you should be allowed to express it. Also, there's a subtle pressure to conform instituted by the critique process. In relation to that, a few summers ago SAIC's student newspaper published a letter from a group of Jewish students attending SAIC saying that they didn't feel free to express their faith/beliefs in their artwork at SAIC. Coming from a Catholic perspective, I felt equally unwelcome to express any sort of values based on my beliefs in my artwork. The prevailing culture there tends to be against religious expression, against beauty, and leans towards a more atheist view. For example, the professor for one of my courses gave us readings that included one that was aggressively anti-Christian. In that environment, you know that putting up a painting with religious content is going to be treated with disdain at critiques, so why bother. Where is the artistic freedom?

 

You asked, "If there is no criticism, nothing to question, what then is the point of a work if it's a closed loop?" Just the act of putting the work up for display in a critique session ensures it has a point because other art students and professors see it. That in itself prevents it from being a closed loop because it has an influence on others. I think critiques should be "discussions" in which the person making the work of art talks about any areas of their work they're struggling with, gets comments on this from classmates and professors, receives suggestions for improvement where/if needed, and also receives comments on any positives of the work.

 

The current worldview of academic art leans towards atheism, dislike of beauty, dislike of order, dislike of introverted "lone-genius" artists, and denies that there is any sort of universal truth in this world. Giving assistance and help to art students isn't pandering....it's being human. Actually Montessori schools are pretty great because they encourage creative thinking.

 

 

 I'll tell you what would happen if Albrecht Durer walked through the door....everyone would tell him he's too stuck on detailed work and would tell him he needs to branch out and try something different. Then he would start making a bunch of meaningless abstract paintings, everyone would stop hassling him and another great artist would bite the dust. There was a guy in one of my SAIC classes who drew beautiful detailed imaginary landscapes in pen. Based on comments he got in critiques, he started making drab abstract works. That's the effect the class had on him so I'm sure they would do the same thing to Durer.

 

Not to sound snarky, but why exactly are you applying to MFA programs then?  It seems that engaging with art in an academic environment is not for you (which is perfectly fine).

[0000]

As for critiques being designed to make you question your work, WHY do artists need to have their  work questioned? That implies from the beginning that there's something wrong with it. Why do art students even have to explain why they're making a particular piece of art? Art students should be free to make whatever work they want to and not have to justify it.

 

WTF?!?!?!?

[mlk]

Yes, I have sat in on multiple professor's critiques at multiple institutions, including SAIC. I haven't attended critiques in non-US schools. However, in investigating non-US MFA programs I've gotten the impression that most of those schools have critiques as an integral part of their curriculum. As for critiques being designed to make you question your work, WHY do artists need to have their  work questioned? That implies from the beginning that there's something wrong with it. Why do art students even have to explain why they're making a particular piece of art? Art students should be free to make whatever work they want to and not have to justify it. Critiques seem like hostility towards art-making in general that actually discourages creativity rather than encouraging it. In the critiques I've attended everyone sat around with bored looks on their faces not really making strongly helpful comments to anyone and RARELY said anything positive about anyone's work. I think that's wrong. If you see positives in other students' work you should be allowed to express it. Also, there's a subtle pressure to conform instituted by the critique process. In relation to that, a few summers ago SAIC's student newspaper published a letter from a group of Jewish students attending SAIC saying that they didn't feel free to express their faith/beliefs in their artwork at SAIC. Coming from a Catholic perspective, I felt equally unwelcome to express any sort of values based on my beliefs in my artwork. The prevailing culture there tends to be against religious expression, against beauty, and leans towards a more atheist view. For example, the professor for one of my courses gave us readings that included one that was aggressively anti-Christian. In that environment, you know that putting up a painting with religious content is going to be treated with disdain at critiques, so why bother. Where is the artistic freedom?

 

You asked, "If there is no criticism, nothing to question, what then is the point of a work if it's a closed loop?" Just the act of putting the work up for display in a critique session ensures it has a point because other art students and professors see it. That in itself prevents it from being a closed loop because it has an influence on others. I think critiques should be "discussions" in which the person making the work of art talks about any areas of their work they're struggling with, gets comments on this from classmates and professors, receives suggestions for improvement where/if needed, and also receives comments on any positives of the work.

 

The current worldview of academic art leans towards atheism, dislike of beauty, dislike of order, dislike of introverted "lone-genius" artists, and denies that there is any sort of universal truth in this world. Giving assistance and help to art students isn't pandering....it's being human. Actually Montessori schools are pretty great because they encourage creative thinking.

 

 

 I'll tell you what would happen if Albrecht Durer walked through the door....everyone would tell him he's too stuck on detailed work and would tell him he needs to branch out and try something different. Then he would start making a bunch of meaningless abstract paintings, everyone would stop hassling him and another great artist would bite the dust. There was a guy in one of my SAIC classes who drew beautiful detailed imaginary landscapes in pen. Based on comments he got in critiques, he started making drab abstract works. That's the effect the class had on him so I'm sure they would do the same thing to Durer.

 

People who don't feel "comfortable" expressing their views in an institutional environment need to prioritize their desire to grow as artists versus their desire to be treated "respectfully" by their idiot classmates and dogmatic professors. The art that I have made with gay themes in it has been met with blank stares, misunderstanding, outright criticism and ignorance inflected with homophobia. It was difficult to process the responses but the one thing I tried never to do was get jaded about the difference that created this rift between me and my audience. I don't expect my art to be appreciated because I am gay, and I have come to expect people to find it once more removed from their frame of reference. But attempting to bridge that gap, or deciding to be solipsistic, are decisions that need to be made thoughtfully as your practice grows. Sometimes those obstacles are the very things that inspire one's art.

 

I sympathize with you having to read anti-christian texts in your class - but you cannot play the victim here, especially not in a graduate school context. Find out who the pre-eminent religious scholars are (art historians like Louis Marin, Lyotard, Derrida and surely loads more have a lot of smart things to say about Christian theology's relationship to philosophy), read them, and bring up their material in class. If your professor does not accept that, respectfully and humbly bring it up to the head of the department in the name of pluralism.

 

Against religious expression? That probably means against art that retreads the religious iconography and content of the 15th through 19th century. Or art that is merely illustrative of Christianity. Having religious content does not exempt art from having to be good - that is, being unique, using materials in an interesting way, being unusual. I am POSITIVE that any artist who came from a spiritual standpoint and made interesting religious art about it would be welcomed, if not tokenized and overcelebrated. Think of Marc Chagall. The problem is that more often than not religious artists fixate on the religious content of their work as a substitute for intellectual and emotional complexity.

 

It sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder and you are being lazy about asserting your own unique identity to the degree that is necessary to get recognized. Stop blaming the art world. It is just as homophobic (ever heard of anti-decorative?) as it is anti-religious and getting over that fact has only made me a better, stronger and more autonomous artist. Moreover, it is true that the art world is totally ridiculous and favors horrible artists but we could all just as well name tons of examples of artists who are making beautiful, spiritual, orderly works. Find some CONTEMPORARY examples that inspire you and try to figure out what is making them stand out. And stop starving for the approval of your peers. Use your critiques to challenge them and force them to speak thoughtfully about your work rather than letting them be idly anti-religious. It is fair to expect your peers to have an open mind and you are allowed to demand that.

[seeingeyeduck]

Agree with a lot of the above ^

Also want to say that a lot depends on the culture of your location. For example, there would absolutely be no homophobia in the Bay Area (at least in art programs). There is a lot of LGBT friendly activism and thinking here so the art scene is going to reflect that. But then the reception to religious themes may be lukewarm on the other hand.

So I think it is a balance of both challenging yourself and practically speaking finding the scene that is most receptive to what you are doing. I do think it would be smart to go to a place where your ideas would get at the very least a neutral reception. There's no point in banging your head against the wall at a location where the culture is aggressively anti-your-identity.

Edited March 17, 2014 by seeingeyeduck

[pearspears]

I don't think 'just the act of putting the work up' is really addressing what I meant by closed loop, as far as concept. I'm saying work itself CAN be a closed loop, if there's an unwillingness to communicate, or to put in more cliche terms, block off the viewer from entering or engaging. That feels reductive, like saying Sherrie Levine and Richard Prince only plagiarized. There's a deeper meaning behind their work, and it's something that is/can/has been teased out, along with other artists who utilize appropriation. That said, I would feel nothing seeing someone try to pull off this sort of gesture in school. Along that line I don't know if Durer Jr. would elicit a response greater than 'it's exquisitely crafted.' if it's not going to address the past but simply sink into it. I find the example a little far fetched to begin with, considering image saturation today. 

 

So you're saying you prefer the work of Duchamp to the work of Durer because Duchamp was trying to say something relevant to the current art climate that could be understood by other people, while Durer's was in many ways very personal ( as personal as his own depression, e.g. Melancolia....which could still be argued to be universal by defacto, because it's about sadness).

 

?

[pearspears]

"The art that I have made with gay themes in it has been met with blank stares, misunderstanding, outright criticism and ignorance inflected with homophobia."

 

MLK where are you going to school? That's really unfortunate. Sorry you had to deal with that. Even in my bodunk town the universities where a little more accepting. 

[pearspears]

Here's the thing. Why would Albert Durer need to go to grad school? That sort of work has already been done extensively in the history of art and grad school is expressly for contemporary art (ie forms like new media, social practice and ways of looking at traditional media in a new way).

If you are already happy with your practice then why still go to school? Why not keep making as you have been, as it's obviously been working for you? One professor told me that they want students who are interested in challenging themselves and pushing into new territory because otherwise it's just a funded residency, not an education. If you really want to keep making the work you're making, then perhaps residencies are the answer. I think they are more designed to provide space for artists to do what they want, and don't involve as much of a push to experiment."

 

Well, I was using the example of someone LIKE Albrecht Durer....obviously if it were actually him he wouldn't have been copying his own artwork from previous centuries. 

 

I suppose my take on it is that just because a medium has been done extensively in the past doesn't mean it's DONE. All through undergraduate school I heard that figure painting was DONE. That painting in general was done. It had been taken as far as white paint on white gesso on a canvas and there was nowhere else to take it. That was ten years ago and people are still painting....figures too!

 

The argument that EVERYTHING has to be contemporary reeks of blind assimilation, of appeal to authority, of everything art is supposed to not be about. I'm not sure I know who Firenze is, but I could guess, and I could also guess he's going to a classical school there that is more of an atelier. And I honestly can get what he's saying. Much of the criticism I can get in critique is political, not really even addressing the work at hand outright, but dismissing it it as "already done". What, exactly, has not already been addressed? Every human emotion under the sun has been addressed in the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, any mythic tradition of any ancient culture really. Every emotion under the sun has been felt before. We're just using different mediums at this point. Why is one to be rejected outright because it's old? I just really don't understand this at all. 

 

Surely there is another school of thinking as far as this is concerned?

[kierstin]

Here's the thing. Why would Albert Durer need to go to grad school? That sort of work has already been done extensively in the history of art and grad school is expressly for contemporary art (ie forms like new media, social practice and ways of looking at traditional media in a new way).

If you are already happy with your practice then why still go to school? Why not keep making as you have been, as it's obviously been working for you? One professor told me that they want students who are interested in challenging themselves and pushing into new territory because otherwise it's just a funded residency, not an education. If you really want to keep making the work you're making, then perhaps residencies are the answer. I think they are more designed to provide space for artists to do what they want, and don't involve as much of a push to experiment."

 

Well, I was using the example of someone LIKE Albrecht Durer....obviously if it were actually him he wouldn't have been copying his own artwork from previous centuries. 

 

I suppose my take on it is that just because a medium has been done extensively in the past doesn't mean it's DONE. All through undergraduate school I heard that figure painting was DONE. That painting in general was done. It had been taken as far as white paint on white gesso on a canvas and there was nowhere else to take it. That was ten years ago and people are still painting....figures too!

 

The argument that EVERYTHING has to be contemporary reeks of blind assimilation, of appeal to authority, of everything art is supposed to not be about. I'm not sure I know who Firenze is, but I could guess, and I could also guess he's going to a classical school there that is more of an atelier. And I honestly can get what he's saying. Much of the criticism I can get in critique is political, not really even addressing the work at hand outright, but dismissing it it as "already done". What, exactly, has not already been addressed? Every human emotion under the sun has been addressed in the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, any mythic tradition of any ancient culture really. Every emotion under the sun has been felt before. We're just using different mediums at this point. Why is one to be rejected outright because it's old? I just really don't understand this at all. 

 

Surely there is another school of thinking as far as this is concerned?

 

It's useful for me to think about what it means to be an artist as the participation in a giant conversation.  The dialogue happens between the artists, critics, museums, galleries, historians, collectors, MFA programs, and the larger contemporary culture.  Obviously each of these parties enter with different emphasis, with different stakes, and are inevitably in conflict.  That's why it's exciting! It's the participation in this big argument about what art is which makes someone an artist, more so than making work, even. Being holed up in your studio making work irrelevant to anything outside itself isn't worth it, in my mind.  For me, it's all about relevance. 

Edited March 18, 2014 by kierstin

[seeingeyeduck]

I understand you mean someone like Durer. I'm not saying people shouldn't reinvent traditional media but that's the key word - reinvent, and that's where "conceptual" comes in. IMO that word is just a way of saying "reworking ideas." It's not that you can't use traditional media, it's just that if you have nothing to add to bringing it into the future, then you are working within established templates. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not what contemporary art is about. I mean, a lot of those media were groundbreaking in their time too and contemporary practice is about that too.

Last year I saw an art show where one guy had etched fairly traditional images of saints into bath tubs that were shown upright. He didn't invent a new field or anything but it was an interesting take on altars. I don't think it's really a matter of what kind of media is better but a certain sector of the art world is specifically interested in the new. And I wouldn't even say that's near everything. As far as I can tell a lot more work that's fairly traditional sell much better.

[Firenze]

Here's the thing. Why would Albert Durer need to go to grad school? That sort of work has already been done extensively in the history of art and grad school is expressly for contemporary art (ie forms like new media, social practice and ways of looking at traditional media in a new way).

 

He might want to go to grad school to get the MFA credential so he could open an art school that promotes traditional art techniques for those of us who are interested in that. Said art school could eventually offer an MFA that involves researching using  traditional techniques in the contemporary world. The people who graduate from the program with MFAs could go out and promote this way of doing things elsewhere. E voila.... a revolution.

Have you considered just showing your faith based work and seeing what happens? Have you actually tried to engage them in a conversation about it? It's one thing if they lash out and pan your work and prevent you from expressing an opinion, but if you've never attempted to make your disagreement explicit or stand up for your views, then I don't see how you can really say that they were actively discouraging you. Sometimes I think we have to be brave and actually start a difficult conversation. After all, if none of us can expect people in the real world to just accept our work and be encouraging of everything we want to do either.

 

Yes, I have. In the public arena it has been well received, won awards, and been purchased. In academic settings, it has been less well-received, particularly at SAIC. One classmate there looked at it and said, "I don't give a shit" and another one said, "Beauty isn't popular in art right now" (or something to that effect). You are right about the necessity of being brave and starting a difficult conversation. The poster on this thread, mlk, has clearly been courageous in enduring homophobic responses to his work. I feel encouraged by his example.

 

 

And in response to firenze:

 

I would specify that questioning work isn't implying there is something wrong. I'd closer align to the word 'flaw' in the best possible sense. Your position feels defensive, which is understandable but I'd measure not the whole picture. I say this because it seems like you have a staunch definition of art. Wording is specific "The prevailing culture there tends to be against religious expression, against beauty, and leans towards a more atheist view." Art theory as I understand doesn't fall off the hinges of trends in philosophy, and aren't there more than a handful of 'anti-christian' philosophers studied in 101 courses globally?

 

True, trends in philosophy definitely affect thinking in academic art circles, which is ultimately derived from the university setting as a whole. Someone should have told me that you need to study philosophy to be an artist.

 

I don't know what classes you have sat in on, but they must have been bad if it was just a barrage of criticism without anything good to say.

 

It wasn't really a barrage.....I'm just sensitive, like many artists.

 

Is it communication if you make whatever you want and not justify it? I wouldn't disagree that an art student should make whatever they want, but if it's unable to engage with anyone but the maker, then, under the assumption that this artist would like to sustain off of said work, who would buy/notice/(whatever form of attention) it? Pressure to conform is being the only one without the flavor of the month style in the playground. Critique to me is analysis through personal taste and dialogue, it's not always going to make you happy. 

 

I definitely think art students should explain their work. Many of them in my classes didn't really do that. I was genuinely curious about what they were saying or trying to achieve with their work so that was kind of frustrating at times.

 

I don't know if de-aestheticized work is the end all of the 'worldview academic art,' and I would completely disagree that it 'denies any sort of universal truth.' This is where your stance seems to really reveal itself. Dogmatic language associated with religious conviction seems to be blurred  with 'definable truth' within art from what I'm reading. I think the best art is about experiential truth, that doesn't have to involved constricting dogma. What is Christian Marclay's "The Clock" if not a universal exploration/celebration of time? or of freezing it?  Now if that comes off as atheist, it's because I am. That doesn't mean I disregard 'The last supper.' I'm also quite unsure what you mean by 'dislike of order,' You mean dislike of religious structure? Can we not address institution without having to revere it? Serrano's "Piss Christ" is one of my favorite works of art. It's not black and white blasphemy, it's an engagement with the larger concerns of christian imagery and its cheapening, which is also relatable today with image saturation through the internet, on and on it can go. 

 

While art about experiential truth is interesting, and may be something many people relate to, I don't personally consider it the best art. I prefer art that transcends the part of our existence that is only detected with our senses, but then I'm not an atheist. By "dislike of order" I'm referring to dislike of using patterns or geometry in art. If I were to make a piece of art using the golden rectangle, golden triangle, and Fibonacci spirals derived from nature, people would probably look at me like I have three heads. Then again, I might be pleasantly surprised by their response. Hope springs eternal.

 

Abstraction is certainly prevalent, but it's not meaningless. 

 

I believe I referred to it as boring. I agree that it isn't meaningless.

 

If it isn't clear yet, my opinion is quite fluid and I try to avoid anecdotal evidence to prove any point, but that's sort of the mentality necessary if you really want to not be miserable in grad school. A measure of conviction to do what you love, be able to listen to everyone but pick out whats important, drop what you will probably outgrow, a develop a thick skin.

 

Good advice. The thick skin part will take work.

 

 

Not to sound snarky, but why exactly are you applying to MFA programs then?  It seems that engaging with art in an academic environment is not for you (which is perfectly fine).

 

 

I was a science major for undergrad so I feel I need an MFA for the credential and to be able to teach. (Waits for 0000's head to explode at the thought of Firenze teaching). 

 

 

People who don't feel "comfortable" expressing their views in an institutional environment need to prioritize their desire to grow as artists versus their desire to be treated "respectfully" by their idiot classmates and dogmatic professors. The art that I have made with gay themes in it has been met with blank stares, misunderstanding, outright criticism and ignorance inflected with homophobia. It was difficult to process the responses but the one thing I tried never to do was get jaded about the difference that created this rift between me and my audience. I don't expect my art to be appreciated because I am gay, and I have come to expect people to find it once more removed from their frame of reference. But attempting to bridge that gap, or deciding to be solipsistic, are decisions that need to be made thoughtfully as your practice grows. Sometimes those obstacles are the very things that inspire one's art.

 

Your courage in continuing to make art while enduring homophobia makes me feel emboldened to speak up and defend the sort of religious art that I like to make. I hope you can show your work to an audience that has people who understand and appreciate it as we all need affirmation and encouragement. Thank you for sharing this.

 

I sympathize with you having to read anti-christian texts in your class - but you cannot play the victim here, especially not in a graduate school context. Find out who the pre-eminent religious scholars are (art historians like Louis Marin, Lyotard, Derrida and surely loads more have a lot of smart things to say about Christian theology's relationship to philosophy), read them, and bring up their material in class. If your professor does not accept that, respectfully and humbly bring it up to the head of the department in the name of pluralism.

 

Great advice....I've thought of pursuing that course of action. It goes against my nature, though, as I abhor conflict.

 

Against religious expression? That probably means against art that retreads the religious iconography and content of the 15th through 19th century. Or art that is merely illustrative of Christianity. Having religious content does not exempt art from having to be good - that is, being unique, using materials in an interesting way, being unusual. I am POSITIVE that any artist who came from a spiritual standpoint and made interesting religious art about it would be welcomed, if not tokenized and overcelebrated. Think of Marc Chagall. The problem is that more often than not religious artists fixate on the religious content of their work as a substitute for intellectual and emotional complexity.

 

^^This is helpful. I think the religious piece I'm currently working on would qualify as "being unique [and] using materials in an interesting way." 

 

It sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder and you are being lazy about asserting your own unique identity to the degree that is necessary to get recognized. Stop blaming the art world. It is just as homophobic (ever heard of anti-decorative?) as it is anti-religious and getting over that fact has only made me a better, stronger and more autonomous artist. Moreover, it is true that the art world is totally ridiculous and favors horrible artists but we could all just as well name tons of examples of artists who are making beautiful, spiritual, orderly works. Find some CONTEMPORARY examples that inspire you and try to figure out what is making them stand out. And stop starving for the approval of your peers. Use your critiques to challenge them and force them to speak thoughtfully about your work rather than letting them be idly anti-religious. It is fair to expect your peers to have an open mind and you are allowed to demand that.

 

Maybe it's laziness or maybe it's the need for this shy sensitive artist to become more assertive.

Yeah, I've heard of anti-decorative. I was thinking of using patterned backgrounds for some of my work and that idea got labeled by a professor (somewhat sneeringly) as "decorative". [GOD FORBID something should be decorative.... oh the horror.] Maybe the anti-decorative stance stems from an underlying fear on the part of faculty that the art department won't be taken seriously by other departments in the university if art is seen as "decorative".

I have found some contemporary examples and studied them quite a lot to my benefit.

Good points....thank you.

 

 

I suppose my take on it is that just because a medium has been done extensively in the past doesn't mean it's DONE. All through undergraduate school I heard that figure painting was DONE. That painting in general was done. It had been taken as far as white paint on white gesso on a canvas and there was nowhere else to take it. That was ten years ago and people are still painting....figures too!

 

I agree. Humans having been painting for millenia and will most likely continue to do so as long as we retain our human characteristics. If they start implanting computer chips in us or tinkering with our DNA in the future, however, all bets are off.

 

The argument that EVERYTHING has to be contemporary reeks of blind assimilation, of appeal to authority, of everything art is supposed to not be about. I'm not sure I know who Firenze is, but I could guess, and I could also guess he's going to a classical school there that is more of an atelier. And I honestly can get what he's saying. Much of the criticism I can get in critique is political, not really even addressing the work at hand outright, but dismissing it it as "already done". What, exactly, has not already been addressed? Every human emotion under the sun has been addressed in the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, any mythic tradition of any ancient culture really. Every emotion under the sun has been felt before. We're just using different mediums at this point. Why is one to be rejected outright because it's old? I just really don't understand this at all. 

 

I haven't been to an atelier but have cobbled together a combination of undergrad university art classes and workshops in traditional painting techniques such as icon painting. You make a good point about nothing under the sun being new. We do have technological advances but many of the issues we face as humans were pondered by Greek philosophers and written about in the Bible thousands of years ago and still remain with us today. I don't understand why techniques are rejected outright because they're old, either. In fact, who's to say that if Albrecht Durer appeared today and made his beautiful woodcuts with apocalyptic themes that it wouldn't be contemporary art? There's a certain segment of the population that is Christian and believes the Book of Revelations. Those woodcuts would be just as relevant to them in 2014 as they were at the time they were originally made. From their perspective, the work would be contemporary because it speaks to events that Christians believe will happen in the future. In addition, the fact that the work of the most well-known artists from history is available online, work from thousands of years ago can still be studied and have an influence on artists in the present. I would argue that it has the effect of collapsing time boundaries, in a way. If I can study the work of past artists and learn from it, they are having an effect on me just as surely as if they were still alive today. Their work should not be discounted as irrelevant to the present just because they are no longer living, in my opinion.

 

Side note: I'm actually a woman.....probably should have indicated gender on my profile.

[0000]

Why do art students even have to explain why they're making a particular piece of art? Art students should be free to make whatever work they want to and not have to justify it.

 

 

 

I definitely think art students should explain their work. Many of them in my classes didn't really do that. I was genuinely curious about what they were saying or trying to achieve with their work so that was kind of frustrating at times.

 

 

lol.

 

 

[Firenze]

lol.

 

Complements of dictionary.reference.com for adding little to the discussion.....

snark·y [snahr-kee] Show IPA Slang.

adjective, snark·i·er, snark·i·est.

1.

testy or irritable; short.

2.

having a rudely critical tone or manner: snarky humor.

Origin:

snark²  + -y¹

Related forms

snark·i·ness, noun

[mlk]

any student you are in a class with who says "I don't give a shit" and speaks in general statements or platitudes like "beauty isn't popular in art right now" is being plain ignorant. just as you are figuring out how to deal with your differences in identity from your peers, he or she is testing out philosophical credos and pretensions of knowing it all - probably not with bad intentions but unfortunately with ill effects (i.e. not being helpful to you in a critique). next time someone says "I don't give a shit" you say "try using your mind for one second before and force yourself to meet the work halfway. perhaps you might learn something yourself."

students are idiots. trust me. I have been at an ivy league school for a masters (not in art), a VERY liberal liberal arts school for my ba and studied at an art school in between. ALL students are grappling with so much knowledge and differences in ways of thinking that it becomes difficult for them not to be reactionary. rise above that (and above 0000). stand your ground, but be patient, thoughtful and generous. I believe there is catholic term for that: forbearance.

[Firenze]

any student you are in a class with who says "I don't give a shit" and speaks in general statements or platitudes like "beauty isn't popular in art right now" is being plain ignorant. just as you are figuring out how to deal with your differences in identity from your peers, he or she is testing out philosophical credos and pretensions of knowing it all - probably not with bad intentions but unfortunately with ill effects (i.e. not being helpful to you in a critique). next time someone says "I don't give a shit" you say "try using your mind for one second before and force yourself to meet the work halfway. perhaps you might learn something yourself."

students are idiots. trust me. I have been at an ivy league school for a masters (not in art), a VERY liberal liberal arts school for my ba and studied at an art school in between. ALL students are grappling with so much knowledge and differences in ways of thinking that it becomes difficult for them not to be reactionary. rise above that (and above 0000). stand your ground, but be patient, thoughtful and generous. I believe there is catholic term for that: forbearance.

 

Being an older student, myself, I forget what it's like to be a regular college-age student still forging your identity and belief systems. Thanks for explaining that and reminding me of their perspective.

Patience, thoughtfulness, generosity and forbearance are definitely traits I hope to display when I start an MFA program this fall. That's an excellent goal. Best wishes to you, as well.