MFA or bust?

You pretty much hit the nail on the head, Robert. A MFA is a the ultimate prize in academic version of fine art. It means you have achieved a level of competence in the various aspects of art but not an expert in any one of them. Academic studies in art no doubt help open doors for many people; especially in the education field. Like you say, Robert, no one asks who in a gallery, competition or exhibit has a degree in art. Having that precious degree really does not matter if you have talent and passion, does it?

My comment is so simple…BRAVO!

No one walks in looking for the artist with a MFA however, some galleries require that you have one to be considered for representation. I don’t have one but I am going to my room right now.

Saw this yesterday when I was looking through the exhibitors’ webpages from ArtToronto… “The Elaine Fleck Gallery Gallery Artist Submission Who should submit: Artists who graduated from school within the last 3 years with a Honours BFA / BFA/MA”… Honestly, I would not work with a gallery who has these parameters…That rules out pretty much all the good artists…

It really must be work – if trying to sell something as “truth” even if the idea is specious and not wholly thought out, then repeating it and reiterating it over again if done often enough will make the most illogical idea into the “Truth”, or convince enough people that it is. Then of course, one must also utilize such incendiary terms as “artkids”, and “wallpaper” and also mention the Meccas of Contemporary Art such as “London, New York, Berlin” and make reference to an Art God such as “Ingres” and the Art Fundamentalists are provoked into thinking that great pearls of “Art Wisdom” and “Finally, the TRUTH” have been cast before us unanointed (no MFA) swine (many labouring in our rooms churning out “plein air” gems). Must be a slow day for blog topics, Robert, for you to have tried to breathe life into such an old chestnut of illogical, and badly reasoned argument.

Whoa! let’s not get into BFA or MFA bashing as the evils of the art world. These degrees offer more opportunities to work in the art field than just being an artist. Only 5% of graduates are still working in any art field related to what they studied after 5 years of graduating — that BFA/MFA allows you to work for galleries, arts organizations, etc. I know many BFA and MFA students who have added greatly to cultural institutions and promotion of the arts. I know BFA and MFA grads who are brilliant artists and have wonderful trajectories to national and international standing. Graduating means credentials and a very high level of knowledge about a lot of things. And being tested, over and over during school. It doesn’t mean ‘better,’ but creates standards you can meet, exceed or ignore. The marketplace is still the final test. If nobody buys or shows your work or you can’t find teaching opportunities, well, something isn’t working. Perhaps one of the most valuable ‘take homes’ as a BFA, was having my work criticized over and over — and paying for this privilege. I’ve learned to take and understand critical criticism that helps me test myself and explore further. If anything, it made me much tougher and I have a better appreciation about the art world and how it works. Do BFA and MFA granting bodies work together with galleries, provincial and funding bodies, collections, to ensure that those students excel? Of course. That’s how the world works. That said, many artists have made it without academic degrees. Galleries don’t have guns held to their head to accept work just because the person is a grad. And, you can always create your own gallery. That’s the the real world at work too. But, to stay in business, galleries have to sell their work and they do want resumes to be impressive, the art to have great technical qualities, and show something that is different, interesting, challenging. So, make your own opportunities, create great resumes if you want the opportunities that grad students seem to have. The work still speaks. But make no mistake, hard work, diligence, brilliance, intelligence, good work, and good marketing is still the basis of success. BFA and MFA education cost a lot, but you have to use it well to have a greater degree of potential success than not having one. Monika

Education is never wasted. For a young artist looking for a direction, it might be true that an MFA is not that useful. Doing art is, as you say, the way to success. But real education that is broad can make you a better artist (or anything else for that matter.) I have two graduate degrees. Neither in anything directly art related. They are in psychology, theology, social ethics and related subjects. I don’t directly use any of that in my art. But the broad education makes a huge difference in my life, artistically and otherwise. Never stop learning!

These last three words from Dwight (above) are most important. Better to do it on our own terms, than those of all the various institutions.

Have you ever noticed that the ones who most frequently honor the credentialed are the also credentialed?

Certainly it’s brilliant and worthwhile to learn a lot about the history of art, the isms and schisms–but what are the advantages of learning to paint poorly from instructors who also paint poorly–instructors who, for the most part, have shaky art careers themselves and are teaching because it’s the only way they can use their MFAs?

I tell my friends that a college degree at any level does not indicate intelligence or talent. It means that you can set your sights on an abstract goal which is years away and jump through all the hoops and take all the B.S. necessary to achieve that goal. Not bad credentials for anyone.

Dear Robert, I am not entirely sure I believe in talent. Nor am I sure about “natural ability”. But there is an inherent curiosity about approaching a canvas, squeezing paint out of a tube and smearing it on a surface that makes us artists. There has to be that spark that makes us want to communicate. Maybe we are trying to strike the chord of beauty, or maybe we are trying a vocabulary of painting our inner voice. Every artist is different. The problem with some MFA students is when they graduate, they think there should be a contract for fame a fortune waiting for them. I am a graduate of the Emily Carr College of Art and Design. While I loved the freeing time spent there, my career started the day I graduated. I always tell young people, when they are wondering about school, that they will only benefit from more education. But being an artist is about the works. It is a jagged pill to swallow when looking at shit art and hearing “oh, they have a degree in painting”. Who cares? I am just interested in the work. I want to follow an artists journey and while having a good foundation in study can help, it is the quality and quantity of their work that is important. I know more “artist” who are schooled up the yingyang who are “waiting”. Waiting to hear back from a grant and waiting to get signed by a gallery. They may as well be waiting for the bus that never comes. No matter what education you have or lack of representation, artists need to be in their studios creating everyday. Paint like nobody is watching and do it like you don’t need the money. John Ferrie

Some highly trained and evcen educated artists/designers get paid a lot of money to design things like textiles and wallpaper… I’m sure…

All an MFA does is prepare you to teach at a college, since you’ll probably never make a living selling what you learned to make while getting your BFA (or more precisely, what you learned to talk about while getting your BFA, since making things is pretty much frowned on in schools, especially if you’re concerned with making them well.

So true about the abundance of MFA students out there … and the proliferation of schools offering these degrees. For the younger generation it has now become ‘respectable’ and ‘fashionable’ to be an ‘artist’ … and maybe, who knows, become Famous! You can even tell which MFA program these students attended by the work they produce. What these schools don’t teach is that becoming an artist cannot be taught. To be an artist boils down to be given a gift. A degree and diligence is not a guarantee that one can become an ‘artist’.

How about the old adage “great Art is ten percent Inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration”- or something to that effect

While I can certainly appreciate that in some fields formal study is critical to understanding – medicine and engineering come to mind first – liberal arts, (including fine arts) can be approached from a more independent direction. One benefit of this is that you don’t have to go deeply into debt as a result. I think we have made the notion of higher education quite skewed in favor of teachers, administrators and unions, but against students. There are many things one can do with one’s life, and figuring this out should be the most important consideration in every young person’s mind. Not everything requires a college education. My time at university (I dropped out after 3 years) were hardly a bulwark for independent thinking. Creating art requires sets of different skills, not so different from other tinkerers – or plumbers, cabinet builders, designers, etc. In these fields one learns by observing and doing, staying dedicated, not giving up. Being armed with a college degree is no guaranty of ‘gainful employment’ and you may well end up with the thrill of becoming a paper shuffler. O joy! And to think you might have borrowed $50,000 or more for that luxury. If you have set your sites on being an artist, it isn’t going to be any easier when you wake up each morning knowing you are deeply indebted and, rather than focusing on the challenges of making art, you have to worry about how to pay off your student loans.

Not all MFAs are created equal! I don’t know what an MFA in painting would involve, but I have one in theatre – set and costume design. Although I no longer work in that field, the skills I acquired have been enormously helpful to me. I now work as a calligrapher, including formal engrossing, illustration and illumination. My knowledge of drafting tools, colour systems and mixing, historical styles, and a variety of mediums and materials make me far more versatile than the average addresser of envelopes.

I have the BFA from 1983. While I would not trade it, I spent most of the last 28 years not painting and making anything, but art! (I was making babies, making beds, making dinner and making a living as a single parent.) For the past two years and five months I have been a dedicated painter, pouring in my knowledge of the discipline, and putting discipline into my knowledge. It isn’t just about knowledge, education or talent, it is about dedication and hard work. When I gave those two things to my work, I became a better artist than I ever thought I would be, ever and no matter what I did. The only reason I can see for getting an MFA at this point is the opportunity for artistic immersion with other artists, and social media has given me that without the cost of tuition. NOTHING replaces hard work. There is also nothing wrong with being well known a “back water.” In a small fish seems large in a small pond.

Thank you so much for this letter. It gives me courage to go on.

I taught drawing, painting, and materials of art for 32 years to both undergraduate and graduate art students. Don’t get me started!! LOL!!!

Like many artists, I am an autodidact, and proud of it. However, a few years ago I went to do a whole year of Saturdays with a local art teacher. I had a great time, but two things struck me quite forcibly. When we sat down on the first day and were asked “Why are you here?” the answers were almost all of the “Well I got an Art School place but couldn’t go” or “Now I’m retired, so…” This seems to me like Art as Secondary to Life. My answer? “I want to make stuff I don’t have to finish” (I work for myself, unfinished is no good for the bottom line). The teacher laughed, and we got on really well for the whole year. I learned a lot, not least that I could already do all this stuff, just needed to understand that I could. The second thing? So many students started timid (tiny drawings on huge sheets of paper) and expanded, but almost all returned to their cozy comfort zones at the end. Oh, and Life Drawing is the best thing ever.

As an artist, at times I feel I have been penalized “grant wise” because I didn’t have an MFA but an MA in Art History. Years ago, I advised a close relative, who had gotten a high school education at the NC School of the Arts and a BFA from Maryland Institute, not to pursue an MFA and more debt. He is an excellent portrait painter and had already gone through many courses to hone his skills. He is not a scholar and being dyslexic would be spending too much time studying art history and not enough time painting. I don’t think he has regretted it. He has had to work free lance doing many design and physical labor jobs; but, he does make enough to survive and even set aside times when the jobs are slim to paint. His life is one of dedication to his art which hasn’t permitted him to marry or have children. I imagine his life is lonely at times but full. I guess it depends upon what one’s priorities are. If you want to teach at the upper levels, you need an MFA. I have known less than 10 professors who became major painters or sculptors and taught at the same time. Academia has its own restraints on ones time – yet one is expected to exhibit or publish. Only you know if you can do it on your own without the MFA.

I am currently in an very fine MFA program on line from Academy of Art University San Fransisco. I have a MA in illustration and have had 59 books published prior to taking it. I’m 84, and old enough to know what I don’t know and find a school to fill in these gaps. Check my web site : www.jeanmorey.com My experience with galleries has been so-so. I prefer dealing with the publishing field (its going through a major change right now, however). Good time to develop new skills. I love the classes and the many fine artists I can associate world wide.

Forty years ago I arrived in Indianapolis, no contacts, no “ins”. I had excellent lessons in another city through Jr. High and HS with a private instructor as well as good HS art departments. I began to enter shows with paintings I made in a spare bedroom. Now I have provenance with work in four Indiana Museums; State Museum just acquired a second piece. Yes, I had a supporting family but apparently talent trumps MFA in my case.

I thought that my BFA was the time to experiment and learn all the techniques and all the rules. It also meant breaking the rules according the way the professor wanted it broken. But, upon graduation I was thrown into the cold, cruel world to find out what rules I wanted to break and how. Any degree gives you knowledge, but workshops and classes taken from other artists give knowledge, as does reading and looking at art. I agree that degrees don’t make an artist. What makes an artist is what is in your heart and how you define that with all the mediums and techniques available. Not even dollars make you an artist: Van Gogh never enough money to support himself. One of the quotations I remember from college was one Professor said to me when I kept diddling around with a design: “Just get to work!” Kind of like “Go to your room.” A lot of being an artist is just showing up and doing the work.

Back in the 70’s, my father did a stint as a temporary dean at Pratt Institute in New York. Way back then, there were about 300 applicants for every art teaching job. I’m sure it is worse now. What few jobs that were available were going to gallery artists with established reputations. The MFA was then and probably is now, a worthless degree. Hundreds of students leave art schools with them every year and there simply are no nice university teaching posts available. Galleries could care less about that degree and collectors care even less than they do. It is really unethical for universities to continue to offer this degree as it has no real value for the incredible expense involved. Does hanging around an art department for an extra year or so make anyone a ‘master’ of anything? It’s nice to see the renewed interest in classical art training in the United States today. Training, followed by years of practice is the only way to mastery.

There are a lot of people out there who are looking for art instruction. Many will never sell a single painting and are happy with that. I think it is encouraging that there is such a desire to create – even if the government has decided that the arts are no longer an important area to support. One of the drawbacks of intensive art training is that you loose yourself in the learning. There is a pressure to achieve certain marks, impress teachers and complete the course that is counter to self expression. Sometimes it takes years to get back to who you were but now with the understanding of composition and colour that allows you to be more than where you started. Art is definitely one of those areas that you can become famous overnight – after 10-20 years of working at it! You should paint because you have to – something inside just has to get out or it festers in a depression. What you create is up to you. The value judgment, of whether it is good or not, should also come from you. Do you like it? Is it what you wanted to say/create? If so it is good, if not it is ‘not right’ – no matter how many people think it is good. Paint to enjoy life – what happens after is not a current concern. If you want it as a job – then paint what people want, perhaps become an illustrator, and get paid for every piece. It is your choice.

The Art field is one of those professions where a degree is not a guarantee of success or even talent for that matter. The problem with education in art is the fact that in the end “art isn’t an intellectual pursuit” not does it appeals to the intellect of the viewer. Most great art of the past has wonderful undertones of intellectualism but was created to fill the soul and strengthen the heart. To make great art doesn’t mean the artist is dumb or stupid. On the contrary, to be an artist one has to be intelligent but the work must not rely on the intellectual to be good. When art is intellectual, the point it makes is quickly assimilated then leaves a bad taste in the mouth. It’s sleight of hand, a trick. Art based on emotion is ever lasting. It continues to intrigue and appeal to future generations. From what I see of emerging MFA’s from art schools is they are learning the business of art. Many don’t learn the techniques and method to produce traditional art. They are fed that anything they create is art worthy. When the work they eventually produce doesn’t work, they are left with nothing to fall back on to help them overcome the setbacks. They have little concrete skills in the basics of what it takes to make art. Schools have thrown out the rules in favor of spontaneity and inventiveness. Art has and will always be representative of our realities. Good art reflects our surroundings as well as our feelings about those surroundings. When an artist gets “abstract” they have narrowed the view of the world to one point. Their point. “Traditional” art opens art to all. We can see what the art is saying and in some case commiserate. It relates and touch something universal to all. “Ism’s” will come and go and the face of art will change with each generation. But we must not lose touch with what has come before and learn all that can be learned from those who have laid the ground work.

I agree that if you want to be any kind of artist, musician etc. then an MFA is not the path to becoming one. Universities traditionally had a different function and it was not to train people to get work. My experience in 30 years of teaching at university conservatory environments was that students who didn’t practice could use the course work as an excuse to not practice. A large percentage of them felt that just attending lectures and hearing from an accomplished teacher would somehow energize their brain and fingers to spring to life. In his early days the famous guitarist Pat Metheny taught at the U. of Miami and was fired for telling graduate students they had many hours of work ahead of them to correct problems they had embedded in their musicianship. However the Universities have a function and that is to make people think. If someone chooses to go there to do this they should not be discouraged. Not everyone can see a clear path to the future. A University should them get there. Then the work begins.

I’ve re-read MFA or bust over and over to see if I’m misinterpreting something. Surely you and Ms. Boyle cannot, ever, be suggesting that ANY form of education/learning about both traditional and non-mainstream ideas is a waste of time? Getting a Liberal Arts degree in any subject is to broadly educate and stretch the mind/ thoughts/ ideas/ knowledge of learners… not to train them. How narrow our thinking would be if we didn’t have scholars in this world. Such things as community colleges, apprenticing, workshops, the internet, and excellent/experienced mentors like you are “trainers”. If an artist or artist-wannabe is asking for something else–how to create light, how to handle shadows, how to compose in a traditional manner, how to draw …are you suggesting that they don’t learn about light, composition or drawing in the 4 or 5 years it takes to get an MFA? Also… New York, Paris, Berlin, and London have historically offered, and continue to offer a great deal more to this planet than “haughty halls”….. wow……. you sound a bit defensive and parochial/provincial. You’re too damn good for this kind of narrow thinking! Perhaps you might take a moment to learn the “Yes… and” philosophy of Second City and let go of the “Ya… but” philosophy you seem to be preaching from your ‘prayer-rug’. E.G.: Yes… New York, Paris, London and Berlin have offered the world incomparable museums and galleries of art… and… here in what we euphemistically call ‘the backwaters’, smaller communities have always known that brilliant artistic talent is thriving on the kitchen table next door!

Your current letter has kind of an interesting parallel in the world of music. While the commercial business of music flounders, searching for footing in the vast sea of industry changes brought on by the Internet, social networking and home recording studios; the creative world of independent musicians and music is in some ways thriving. Never have so many been capable of making their own recordings at home, and distributing them themselves through so many channels. Songwriting camps and song circles are happening everywhere, with people sharing their techniques and tips as well as their own music, in amazing new ways. This is not to say, of course, that one does not have to be extremely creative and talented to be able to make a real living with their music, or art. There are different levels of artistic excellence, and it takes a unique combination of skills to find ways to take your art to another level — artistically, professionally and financially. But it does appear that more people are getting in touch with, and being able to express, their own creativity. This is our mission in the Arts in Medicine program; as artists working with patients we are always moving towards that moment when they can proudly proclaim, “Hey — I AM an artist!”

I am an acrylic artist who has struggled with the fact that I lacked a degree. A few years ago I realized that I shouldn’t let that hold me back. I continued to paint and found the courage to start entering national shows. I won’t talk about the rejection letter, but soon my work began to be accepted into juried shows. Last year (on my birthday) I received notice that I had been accepted as a member of the Salmagundi Club, NYC, which is one of the oldest art clubs in the US. I was humbled and thrilled to be included among this group. A month later I was invited to become a member of the National Society of Painters in Casein & Acrylic. I also recently became a member of the Wyoming Valley Art League, a long standing local group. I have a number of framed documents on the walls of my studio. They are inspirational quotes which help keep me motivated……and there isn’t a degree among them.

Once again I say that dealing with a public that is uneducated in the humanities, an MFA or 100 has no significance. A degree in art doesn’t make an artist. It only teaches the evolution of the history of art and artists, styles and techniques. That is assuming the teaching incorporates such curriculum beyond one semester. However, museums, the so-called art-worthiness deciders love a degree glued to a name. After all would you go to a doctor without an MD after their name and a dozen certificates of achievement on their walls? These of course are not the ones made by the Gagosians and Dick and Harry of the art world who sell to the unsophisticated rich anything they can make money on. Every USA major artist of the last half century has been an artificially-inseminated-made artist. In addition I must add that the socio-political status of a country had much to do with it. To re-iterate, an uneducated public seals only with apple and potatoes art.

Its good to hear that things are changing but I still struggle to get into shows when I leave the space on the application blank that relates to my level of art education. My mosaics struggle to get respect when painters are involved in the application and judging process.

A really good reason for going to graduate school is that it offers intensive time to focus on your work. It echos the line you said Bob, “go to your room”. Even in grad school artists have to develop discipline and focus. Having two years dedicated to taking your work to another level, to delving deeper into questions about your own creative impulse can really be a fruitful endeavor. You may or may not bond with your comrades, but they are there and you are in an atmosphere of art. It is important to attend a graduate school that supports what you are interested in, even if that may changer during the course of time there. Having an MFA may not be necessary as a credential, but it is not a hindrance, and sometimes it helps people take you seriously.

Recently I was asked to become a teacher in a university , about a topic (creative strategy and design for marketing) that I’ve been not only doing for 30 years – I’ve also been teaching it in Extension schools and conferences, and have won dozens of international awards for it. So imagine my disappointment when at the last minute they asked, where did you get your master’s degree?? And I said,”I don’t have one.” I mean hell, I’ve been too damn busy to go back to get a master’s and I might not have even known what to get it in. The offer for the job was pulled! I get a feeling from speaking to some that one gets challenges as a painter and artist in an academic environment that would drive me to new creative heights. But others tell me I’ll spend the whole time writing theses and so on – not that writing is a problem. But I want to paint, not write. I’m from an educated family and high value has been placed on degrees…but what would I gain from it except a feeling of completion? What time would be wasted? Would I learn or grow?

Isn’t it a crying shame that an award winning, credentialed artist, with years of private teaching experience, whose sought after work has appeared in noted galleries and museums, major publications, covers and TV commercials, cannot get a teaching job because he lacks a Masters? So much talent and expertise to share.

I totally agree! I have never seen or heard a buyer stop and ask, “Does this artist have a MFA”? Many years ago I asked my teacher, who had an MFA among other degrees, if I should save my money and go for a degree. He told me I already knew more than most of them and what I had to do is just ‘go to my room’ and keep painting. He was right! I love your comment about the crows, but I have always gone with, ‘It’s hard to fly like an eagle if you hang around turkeys’.

Oh, yes. Go to my room and stay in my room! I worried over the lack of an MFA for years until I finally decided to just become happy with what I did and just keep on doing it! I earned my MA the hard way and continue to be grateful for all the times I said, “keep going” instead of “quit”. Now I have the time to be myself, the artist I am and am so happy with it!

Yes, by all means go ahead and study for an MFA. No, an MFA will not teach you to paint or draw well. I have never seen a contradiction here. A Master’s degree in any subject, Arts or Sciences, can only teach you about the subject – if you will, the grammar, syntax and vocabulary, to enable you to understand and communicate effectively within that specialty. If, like me, you have no talent but a deep and abiding interest in painting and drawing, a MFA (if you can afford it and spare the time) is an enjoyable thing to do and will teach you a lot about painting and drawing . You will learn about the development and history of the visual arts and the theories of perception and colour. As well as being fascinating, it will enable you to better understand and enjoy visual art from any time and culture and make you appreciative of how frustrating trying to to ‘get it right’ can be. Of course, you can learn this yourself, without formal education, but perhaps less thoroughly. You might even get some of it wrong! To become a skilled practitioner, you do not need an MFA, though having one will help you to understand what you are doing and to overcome mistakes. You must have an innate talent for the subject, intelligence and, most of all, enthusiasm and unrelenting hard work. The good part is that if you truly love the subject and have the enthusiasm, however hard the work is, it won’t feel like hard work, so much will you be enjoying yourself.

I have an MFA and don’t regret it, nor do I think I am better than someone who doesn’t. If a person wants to get an MFA great, if not, don’t. Its almost like asking for a guarantee that if I make this painting will somebody buy it? Either paint it or don’t …there are no right answers…accept that you should follow your instincts and your desires as you make yourself into the artist you want to be.

I personally think that only Art History warrants a degree

Currently in the US, you cannot get a position teaching art at the college level without an MFA degree. Show record, ability, and non-university teaching counts for nothing without that degree, which is the absolute minimum requirement for finding a teaching job at a University. However, even the most nationally recognized, talented, and successful artists hold teaching positions in Universities because they need to weather the vagaries of the market, have a dependable salary, and provide health care for their families (why can’t we have National HealthCare like Canada?!!). Yes, it’s generally true that no gallery cares a whit if you have that degree or not, but if you actually plan on making a living in your profession, suck it up and get the stupid degree. You might actually make a connection or two, and while you’re looking for a teaching job you can start actually learning how to paint by taking classes in a good atelier somewhere.

I’m glad people were encouraged by your letter. I was kinda surprised by the strength of it – nothing politically correct here! You sounded like Daddy Robert telling the kids to eat their spinach. And so true, of course. I used to hate going to a gallery and seeing some “abstracted” and ugly pieces hung there that had not been worked on – just overworked. A “waste of paint” is my favorite thing to say. Now I’m used to seeing a bunch of Photoshopped things hanging in galleries – not even a human hand involved there except as it held the mouse – but no real ideas and lots less ‘talent’. I think talent is a combination of things that include 1) practice & skill, 2) intuition and 3) a vision. I’ve tried working without one of those three and it hasn’t worked too well. Or I made nice wallpaper but nothing to write home about. A good vision can sometimes make for an interesting painting/picture. And skill can, too, but both put into the right composition (intuitively) is the best combo. And you can’t get that stuff from going to school. They hardly even teach technique in schools but I think they do teach composition elements and also let someone get used to the tools. I don’t know; I’ve never been.

A MFA gives you what? To do what? Define what you want and apply that to accomplish your goals. No degree will make you a better artist … those skills are agonized over in years of application, untold hours of personal study, and hopefully, the serendipital fruition of talent, labor, and applied skills into a magical product – a work of art. If one desires a career in an art related field a MFA is almost a necessity. You won’t appraise, sell, manage a gallery, affiliate with a museum, or have a similar association without it – but to become a competent artist? No. In years past the monetary investment for any credentials wasn’t near as costly. But securing a degree today is ridiculous … should an artist stack up a mountain of education loan debt in the hopes that investment will cancel out and be lucrative? Hardly. The general anemic benefit of any art school must be weighed. Again, define what you want. If becoming an artist skilled in technique to produce a work of fine art … don’t bother with a degree, but instead apply those academic hours to intense study of your craft. Investment/benefit/knowledge/skill/satisfaction/goals/cost … that’s an analysis only the individual can assess.

You can get those specifics you are talking about in the MFA program at Laguna College of Art & Design in Laguna Beach California, at least I was able to.

Excellent topic. Recently I heard a seminar on ” what is art? ” The professor with an MFA said that there is a need for gatekeepers to determine what passes as art. That not all of what is made is an artwork. That placement in a formal established (non commercial) gallery by a qualified curator is what determines an art work. He went on to say that there is a protocol to determine what is considered art based on the academic training, art history and curatorial experience. That art was elitist and that an artist must be willing to go through the process of examination by the establishment in order to have the work deemed as art. At first it was difficult to accept this. Yet, upon reflection it seems reasonable to have standards even if the standards are disagreeable to some. In my field, architecture, only a select few (the architect) are able to design buildings to have them built. Many may disagree that what they see is good architecture yet, we maintain qualifications and standards for the profession. Perhaps, this is the value in the MFA degree – that there is a regulated body of professional guardians of the profession. I work as a technologist in architecture but I am responsible to review my work with an architect before my detailing is allowed to be built. The analogy is that the work in the gallery is the equivalent of the built building. Anyone can draw up a plan of a house or building but it must pass the scrutiny of an architect and engineer to be made official. There is much nowadays of everyone is an artist and art is what you think it is. Perhaps some rigor is necessary along with an academia to protect the calling. Where it gets tricky is with the artist not the art professional. Again, to my comparison to architecture, the draftsperson is given technical training primarily with some theory. It is a practice not a academic profession. An MFA in studio practice seems to aquaint the practicing painter, sculptor etc. with the process of making his craft into a formal art. As the seminar leader I spoke of mentioned, he stated that one must be willing to play – to involve oneself in the historical and ongoing field of exhibited art. The degree is a commitment to engaging this – though it is not a guarantee of entry into the calling. That is determined by your work. Many are content to work on painting, drawing and so on as a hobby, a commercial vocation, for personal growth, spiritual expression and even vainglory. This is creativity not art, at least from what I heard from the seminar leader. I was really swayed by the arguement – I liked the idea of standards even if my likes or work did not meet the criteria of the professionals. The process is long – longer than an artist’s life. Work may be accepted after one is gone. The value of this discussion for me was in that one can simply do their work and occasionally place it forward for review. It is for others to decide if it is accepted into the canon of art. If it is accepted and carried forward through history by academic and museum acceptance, one becomes not simply a painter or sculptor but an artist – a higher goal to achieve. If everyone is given this status how can we determine quality? Many argue that the professional art world has gone astray. It may have. To me, it is for the critics and professors to debate and adjust the standard. Painters paint – whether it is accepted or not. This is why many seek refuge in the commercial gallery. It is a place where one is accepted by sales and popularity – a pluralistic environment. To me the great challenge for those that do traditional art is to do it so well that it transcends any bias which the arts professionals may carry. If you do meaningful work, it should move them from any fixed ideas they have. If you can do this, you too can become and artist. Perhaps it is not the MFA crowd which is the problem – but the artists which cannot convince them, with our work, that our work is worthy, in these modern, technical times, of being art. I am waiting for a painter who can challenge the overwhelming power of the photographic medium. So are the “gatekeepers”.

As the late Canadian humourist, Stephen Leacock, said, “I’m a great believer in luck, and I find that the harder I work the more of it I have.”

Never made it art school as planned. No degree of any kind. I got sidetracked. But back when I was a teen, I doodled and dreamed of being a pinup artist. Now in my sixties, I’m finally getting around to it. Finally realized that not having a degree is no reason not to pursue a road not taken. I dabbled in a bit of free-flowing abstract work recently, not using brushes but kept wondering if I could actually, maybe, become a real painter at this late point in my life. This last summer I went out and bought some brushes and a few tubes of better grade paints and got started. I figure I’m about as likely to make the big time as I am to get struck by lightning or win a lottery. But eventually I hope to make a few paintings that other people who enjoy this genre, will actually be willing to buy for a few dollars. Not sure how I’ll find my market but I’m confident that I’ll figure that out. No CV to speak of, just eye appeal. BTW, Robert, Painter’s Keys and your letters of encouragement have been a very real part of this happy decision.

What an amazingly timely letter! At 47 years of age, I have recently been giving thought to applying to a nearby university with the idea of earning my MFA. Or, possibly, a MA in Art History; both have their attractions for me. For many years, I have indeed “gone to my room” to create in private, away from the current trends and ideals of academia and big-city galleries. Has my art become better or worse? Hard for me to say, but it is certainly evolving in its own time. Your words have encouraged me to be careful about discarding my old-fashioned methods just to do something new. I will consider those words as I look at the options available out there, beyond my country home. I read your notes with delight and great attention. Thank you for including me in your audience!

What many of you are missing is that MFA also supports Interior design, Arts Admin, Art History, Multimedia and other useful fields. The real question is, in the MFA Fine Arts Department, can we afford to keep on these government workers (subsidized by often crushing student loans) when the end result is the rise of the few from the graduate pool to perpetuate the teaching charade?

I’m in here again…and really put off by all of the anti-educational comments. Maybe an MFA is not the answer, but for crying-out-loud get as much broad education as you can!

Here in the USA it helps to have a Master’s Degree when you teach art in the public school system…the pay is better.

I can’t help but think Mr Genn is wanking us a bit here as evidenced by the kind of discussion that makes this forum so excellent. Here’s one for you: Julie Kaldenhoven, in the featured comments above, states, “there are infinitely more people in the world making “poor quality art” without an art education than with one!” Is it possible that in many cases these “uneducated” artists are simply trying more difficult subjects than the “educated” ones typically try?

Those snotty folks who think their degree gives them the right to look down their noses at us poor folks. I have seen more talented folks without any letters after their name, than I have seen MFAs. True talent and sometimes genius, will out, regardless of the letters.

This letter hits on an important issue for all Artists but particularly for new Artists. Even when I got out of Art school (BFA on the G.I. Bill,1973) the MFA was only good for teaching at the University level. I did profit much from Art school but mostly from exposure to other painters, printers, and sculptors as well as in depth Art History. The profs were great at FSU and were my first contact with Artists who had shed provincialism…which is a mind set not a style. It is important that the individual do something to get away from their home grounds and experience different cultural aspects I feel. Personally I stuck out my thumb and rode that thing for the better part of a couple decades…and drew everyday. Painted several times a week. Read and thought about Art all day everyday…even dreamed about it sometimes. Hardships must be learned about and figured out how to be dealt with (ethically or with fine aesthetics). It has been my experience minimalism is the surest way to make time for doing Art. Do not take on bills that require one to submit to time consuming indentured work that leaves one too tired to do Art to pay for the shiny things. Eventually one must pick a spot and stay there to get the ball rolling, so people know who you are, so you can sell more often for better prices. In my opinion the most important thing though is to get your hand on some paint and squeeze it out of the tube. Really, just squeeze it out. The rest will take care of itself if one just paints…and has the courage to trust their instincts. The instincts will sharpen just like one’s drawing and painting skills will with use…if used. Thanks for this letter, it got me banging on my keyboard again.

If one is going to obtain an M.F.A. so that they can teach in a college-I would think twice. In my opinion from what I see and read the “golden” age of college level teaching fine arts for state colleges is coming or has come to an end. Way back in the 1960’s and 1970’s the economy was different and state colleges were expanding. One has to think of where they want to end up. Does one want to paint or does one want to add to the burden of paying back a student loan? I do think that depending on the program selected an M.F.A. may be of value. Ideas may be stretched , contacts may be made and growth can take place. Then again one could find a fine artist to study with or become involved with furthering their art education in other ways.

Mr. Sparks: My comment was simply a statistical fact: MFAs/BFAs are but a tiny fraction of the general art-making population (good or bad). N.K. Sims: The opposite is also true.

In retrospect, my MA in art history, MFA in Painting/Printmaking in the early 70s, was worthwhile, both to my teaching career as well as personal expressive development. To anyone who even considers doing it, just do it! Don’t waste time weighing the options; you’re already thinking about it, which means you should at least try! Opens up avenues and opportunities you never anticipated. No second thoughts, or regrets! Put it on your Bucket List and get busy!

Half a century ago I went to school with someone I considered to be, essentially, a dullard. He learned all the right stuff and could parrot it back to a fair-the-well. His papers were loaded with formulaic synthetic research. But, he was ambitious and worked hard, whereas I hardly worked (and occassionally indulged in hackneyed puns). I ran out of money, left school, went to help fight a war, went back to school, ran out of patience, got married, and found employment in the manufacturing sector. (My love of art was an early acquisition, but my practice of it followed by thirty years.) More recently I was told that the supposed dullard had just retired from a full professorship at a well known university. I have searched for his published works, and not being interested in purchasing specialty journals (in English literature) have not found any to read. What I suspect is that he was an uninspired scholar, but an enthusiastic teacher, probably better with the undergrads. So, what do I take away from this? Well, it takes all kinds. Hard work will probably bring rewards, but perhaps not the expected sort. There are many ways to be brilliant, not all of which are “creative” in the standard sense. Sometimes it’s enough just to be enthusiastic and dogged. The MFA (or PhD) will avail one of something, but it will not be an entre to the form of creativity that results in the plastic or literary arts. But it might be worth considering that it might be evidence of academic understanding, and that academic pursuits, and teaching, can be very creative activities.

“Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.”

Actually, referring to an earlier comment, you don’t need a BFA to get an MFA. I know two who got there without one. They got in on merit of work, a portfolio a meeting.) When I was thinking of doing an MFA, I interviewed the chair of the Fine Arts department. The professor was incredibly supportive and positive. The key message I was left with was this: it’s not about your past work, it’s about your potential, building on it, trying new things. Maybe working in clay is different. There is an institution in the USA who evaluate and critique art colleges–there is no requirement that instructors must have an MFA to teach in colleges or universities (that was stated in 2008) when they reviewed ACAD in terms of standards–they couldn’t grant anything as they are US based. That said, that’s what colleges demand now. Maybe you need an MFA, maybe you don’t. As the late great Stephen Jobs stated: Let’s go invent tomorrow! He didn’t graduate and was decidedly an odd figure educationally. But, who cares? his work speaks and to me is the ultimate outlier and ‘Black Swan’. Not too many really get there. Enjoy the journey! Monika

I must comment on one of the Donna Dickson workshop photos (featured at the opening to the workshop calendar section). Note the little drama going on in the left photo between the German shepherd and the little guy. Funny what you see in the backgrounds sometimes.

I think the value of a good MFA lies not in the arena of technique, but the participation in the intense critiques and learning to defend your ideas and your work in the harsh professional market place while in a (somewhat) sheltered environment.

well I read it all, and sort of agree to all…. not because I don’t have a mind, but because this is not a NO versus YES question, or it shouldn’t be! Funny the people not having a degree know the disadvantages of it and the havers are believers in their way. First, what is a BFA? Not the same… as if bread is just bread, one get it with and without fibers! Satistic doesn’t prove anything, as ” men run faster than women” is true… but some women run faster than most men! I don’t compare running with art here, I compare the way of polarized thinking, the either or way. A good education don’t hurt, it’s gong to be some eye openers that one cannot anticipate. I went to artist boot camp, marinated in studio work three years, then an art school detox is necessary – sometimes. Then one is way ahead of the point left before education. Not all the students at art school went there to become practicing artist, so looking at the rate of successes isn’t fair. In today’s media society something called star quality is asked for in the pop businesses, it helps having good looks or charisma even if you are a violinist or pianist… part of the unique sales points. I saw that tendency in the loop of openings as well, the show…

So many comments on a subject that I often muse upon. I have a MFA from the Royal College of Art, London, graduating in 1976. While I wouldn’t change that experience as part of my life, I certainly would not go into debt to repeat it. I was lucky, I had a scholarship part of the time, and it wasn’t expensive once accepted, which wasn’t easy. Did it help me as a person and as a learning experience? Yes. But I have learned much more about the nuts and bolts of painting in the years since. Most of the value in that time was in interacting with the other art students! The teachers were good examples of successful working artists, and we were exposed to all the happening art scene in London’s art galleries. I could have picked up the same experience if I had been hanging with artists in Paris during that time, availing myself of the wealth in their museums and galleries. I was a solo student of the world at that time, picking up all that was cheap or free, crewing on boats in the Mediterranean, hitching in Italy & Morocco. When I finally returned to the U.S.A. with my MFA, it was next to impossible to find a teaching job, so I joined a printmaking co-op and made prints for the interior decor market, a fine cry from grants, museums and cutting edge galleries. It all goes down to paying ones way, paying my dues and not ending up in debt or producing cringe-making rubbish for hotel room walls! The MFA has not done much but produce chuckles from art dealers and gallery owners (who have their own MFA’s, but now sell the paintings of others). You’re either hot or your not, and to get there you need to have charisma and contacts, all of which can be developed with hard work, a hard body and a thirst for schmoozing 24-7. Easier done when young, I may add. My most success was achieved when i spent my energy in connecting with the right people despite the fact that my work was forgettable and derivative. Location, proximity and the veneer of youth and success. But what about the art you may well ask? That came later, on my own, by going to my room. Now that I’m older and prefer the company of my studio and close family, my work has matured and I really feel that I’m getting somewhere creatively. But as far as artistic success like Gagosian solo shows/Basel Art Fairs/Berlin Museums/giant 10,000 sq. ft. studios/ a team of art assistants and five years of international retrospectives stretching into the future in prestigious locations, well, I’m not there. If the price for all that success is sacrificing my time painting/dreaming about painting in order to pursue my “brand” and promoting myself to the “right people” (a time sucking soul destroying occupation)….well, maybe the price is too high. The MFA doesn’t factor into any of that at all. All great experiences that broaden our vision of life, like having a family, travelling the world, studying under a great zen/yoga/art/music/dance master…: priceless. Going into debt is not a useful,worthwhile experience.

This article slamming MFAs is really very puzzling. Could the writer really be so unaware of the real reasons why artists pursue MFAs and what goes on in the process? Generally, people pursue MFAs because they are absolutely dedicated to their craft and humble enough to allow themselves to be educated. How could an intensive period of study in a community of others with the same interests, a huge pool of resources, and highly respected professionals as teachers be useless? The habit hobbyists have of calling themselves professional artists is a real shame, and it harms the people who sacrifice everything to go to university. Don’t slam professional artists just because they generally reject boring, unimaginative realism and you don’t understand their work.