Are artists born or made? While raw creativity seems to be a function of genetics, today's most acclaimed contemporary artists have something in common other than the luck of the draw: many hold a Masters of Fine Arts degree.
Dana Schutz, Presentation, Oil on canvas, 10 x 14 feet. Courtesy of Zach Feuer Gallery. Columbia University School of the Arts; MFA, 2002.
There are now close to two hundred institutions in the United States that offer a Masters of Fine Arts degree, and thousands of newly-minted MFAs emerge from these programs every year. Not surprisingly, today's art schools differ radically from the academies that once served as the primary training ground for aspiring artists. Technical competence, once the sine qua non of formal artistic training, now shares equal importance with breadth of organized knowledge.
For many artists, the two-year course of study is a rite of passage that allows them to develop their technical skills, undergo an intense critical dialog with their peers, and learn how to best position themselves within the art world. Professional practice has become a key component of the contemporary MFA curriculum. The founder of the Bauhaus, Walter Gropius, suggested that "art is not a profession which can be mastered by study," yet there is no doubt that learning to effectively navigate an increasingly complex art world is, for right or wrong, a skill that can increase an artist's chances of success.
Michael Hilsman, If I had known that my robe would come loose, I would have tied it tighter (Fruitman), Oil on canvas, 84 x 54 inches. Hunter College, MFA Candidate.
Sarah Awad, Arms, Oil on canvas, 22 x 28 inches. UCLA, MFA Candidate.
Today's art schools operate under the belief that successful artists can be made. Masters of Fine Arts programs are now firmly entrenched within a radically expanded and institutionalized art world where they function as both incubator and launching pad for emerging talent. Largely because of them, more individuals than ever are able to consider the job of "working artist" as a viable career path.
While many U.S. art schools have seen alumni go on to achieve great success, certain programs have, at certain times, seemed to be virtual hot beds of creative activity. The Yale School of Art was such a place in the 1960s, when artists including Eva Hesse, Richard Serra, Brice Marden, and Chuck Close attended; Cal Arts had its turn in the late 1970s when, under the watch of a visionary faculty that included John Baldessari, artists such as David Salle, Mike Kelley, and Ross Bleckner emerged. In recent years, art world professionals and collectors have closely followed the art schools at Columbia and UCLA, as graduates including Dana Schutz and Analia Saban have come to rapid prominence.
Jeremy Couillard, Company Jet, Acrylic on canvas over panel, 48" x 48 inches. Columbia University School of the Arts, MFA Candidate.
Njideka Akunyili, The Rest of Her Remains, Transfers and mixed media on paper, 84 x 108 inches. Yale School of Art, MFA Candidate.
Working with Randi Hopkins, Associate Curator at the Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston, New American Paintings reviewed the work of more than 900 current MFA candidates with a concentration in painting, from 125 schools, in search of the most promising emerging talent. The result of this review is the 2011 MFA Annual edition of New American Paintings, which will be released this week. The publication features the work of 40 artists and an incredible diversity of aesthetic viewpoints. Artists from 30 schools are represented, including Yale, Columbia, UCLA, and The School of the Art Institute of Chicago. If earlier editions of the MFA Annual are any indication - Matthew Day Jackson and William Cordova are among past edition alumni - then a number of artists featured in this year's installment will be widely discussed in coming years.
For additional information and images from the MFA Annual, please visit New American Paintings.
Joyce Ho, Picnic, Oil on canvas, 40 x 60 inches. University of Iowa, MFA Candidate.
NOTE: I, by no means, believe that graduate level education, or any formal training for that matter, can define an artist's potential. I am privileged to know, and work with, several artists who have little to no academic training, and who produce significant bodies of work. The MFA Annual is an edition of New American Paintings that explores a specific area of activity within the art world. It is not this author's, or this publication's, intention to imply that higher education is required for an artist to be successful.
New American Paintings magazine is a juried exhibition-in-print and the largest series of artist competitions in the United States. Working with experienced curators, New American Paintings reviews the work of thousands of emerging artists each year. Forty artists are selected to appear in each bi-monthly edition, many of whom go on to receive substantial critical and commercial success. Additional content focuses on the medium of painting, those who influence its direction, and the role contemporary painting plays within the art world.Visit New American Paintings for more information or to subscribe.
Follow Steven Zevitas on Twitter: www.twitter.com/newampaintings
I live in Australia now, where they give PhD's in fine art and that's what the galleries want to see on your CV.
But, never mind, I've survived this long and my work is just getting better. My definition of a successful artist is about making art not selling it. If you can somehow afford to make it, your a success in my book.
By the way, I'm not fooled. This is just an infomercial trying to disguise itself as "news".
Just checking out the London or NY art scene shows the dismal point our "anyone can be an artist" society has gotten to.
A born gift for art, years of hard work, coupled with an education (if the artist chooses) is the subscription to entitle you to call yourself an artist.
It seems in this generation, talent isn't necessary whether it's in the fine arts, music, writing etc. Anyone can be whatever they want.....And because of this we are the generation of mediocrity.
In my experience of being a professional artist for over 10 years I can say that it's usually the artists that seem to focus on formal education. It's usually one of the first questions that an artist will ask me and I rarely get that question from my clients. I can't count how many times artists with formal eduction have emailed me asking me for tips on how to sell their art. I don't mind, because I think there is room for everyone. What it really comes down to are three things. 1.) Have a strong recognizable body of work 2.) Have a strong marketing plan 3.) Sales. Without these three things, I don't care how much art eduction you have (or not), you will fail. I wish all of Tomorrow's Art Start good luck :)
I want to promote 2 ideas:
More artists have access to these programs financially without drowning them in debt for life.
And that some untrained, outsider artists get recognition by the Art World.
ericdubnicka.com/blog
But let's cut the pretense, MFA programs in fine art deliver tinkertot education that is little more than "Let's Play Art Star" combined with "Now We Are Elite WIth Our Degree". If these MFA programs are so rigorous in honing artists' talent, how come they never kick anyone out? Every student passes who pays tuition regardless of talent, application or development.
There is no rigor to these programs, they are often the cash cows for universities, they are bait-and-switch ego massage parlors where the carrot of "art stardom" is dangled and switched to student loan servitude. The old back-up for these programs was that at least the sky-high degree allowed a range of employment opportunities, but those jobs have dried up for good... but the student loan debt has not.
There is no demonstrable difference between art produced at MFA studio programs and art made anywhere else. Fewer and fewer galleries are impressed with an MFA on the application of an aspiring artist. But I bet each of the thousand checks to New American Painters cleared... for that is the unspoken truth about MFA studio art candidates for decades now: Green suckers willing to part with mom and dad's dough for an "IN" into the world of art.
The article is not meant to promote MFA programs, or suggest that they are necessary for an artist's development. I address this at the bottom of the piece:
NOTE: I, by no means, believe that graduate level education, or any formal training for that matter, can define an artist's potential. I am privileged to know, and work with, several artists who have little to no academic training, and who produce significant bodies of work. The MFA Annual is an edition of New American Paintings that explores a specific area of activity within the art world. It is not this author's, or this publication's, intention to imply that higher education is required for an artist to be successful.
However, having done hundreds of grad school crits and lectured at a number of art schools over the years, I strongly disagree with your stance on the value of the MFA degree. In my experience, well structured programs can help students focus their energies in a positive way. Is it the right thing for everyone...probably not. Do some come out the other end no better than when they entered...of course. Like any other area of formal education, you get what you give.
And btw,,,the title of the piece is meant to be provocative. Art Stars are definitely not made...they earn it, which in some cases means that enough people believe it.
Have to take great exception with your line "Like any other area of formal education, you get what you give."
Do you want to be examined by the medical school graduate who shows up and never learns anything? Fortunately, that student will not be matriculated, but art schools just pass everyone, there are no standards and no demands made of the students to produce anything - it is tougher to get a public high school diploma or its equivalent than it is to get an MFA. The MFA degree represents LESS than ZERO because of the "attitude" it not only bestows upon its recipients, but the "lack" that it implies among artists without it.
You can append any and all essays with qualifiers, but that does not change the reality of MFA graduates clinging to the one thing they have accomplished - the right to lord their degrees over artists who have not matriculated at the post-graduate level. To ignore the realities of the culture of artists themselves and their egos unleashed is a denial you are choosing to embrace. The MFA today IS a requirement... a requirement among artists to "win" debates with their colleagues by settling disagreements with the line "Well I know because I have an MFA."
As to your other critical points I will let other parse.
I would like to note that I appreciate that you are someone who cares about the visual arts, well enough to comment anyway.