• Monday, May 28, 2012

Previous

Next

What Students Should Look for in a Sculpture Program

March 22, 2011, 3:53 pm

A sculpture student at Cottey College (courtesy of Cottey College)

By Daniel Grant

Deciding to go to art school seems like an answer, but it is actually only the start of a series of questions. Do art schools care about my grade point average? Should I go to an independent art college or to a liberal-arts college with a studio-arts program? What are the differences between B.A., B.F.A., and diploma programs? What does the admissions department look for in a portfolio? Are there scholarships available?

For prospective sculpture students, the questions only increase. Does an admissions portfolio for a sculpture student differ from one for a painter? How broadly is sculpture, or 3D, defined? Are there dedicated facilities for glass, metal, neon, wood, paper, stone, found objects, and installations, and experienced faculty to go with them?

Most people who major or concentrate in sculpture in art school didn’t know they were interested in sculpture from the outset. Few high-school art classes offer anything more than drawing and painting, so most fine-art applicants to art schools assume that they will be painters. It is through the first-year foundation courses that students gain the opportunity to try out a variety of media, including print making and computer applications, as well as different types of two- and three-dimensional art.

At the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, for instance, perhaps two or three students entering the fine-arts program see themselves as sculptors, says Barry Parker, head of the sculpture department. However, 25 percent, or 15 seniors, in the typical graduating class of 60 students leave as sculptors. “Maybe, two or three are figure sculptors, another two or three work in video or performance.”

Fewer and fewer students, however, are exposed to intensive, hands-on sculpture as cost, safety, and pedagogical considerations decrease those offerings. A shrinking number of independent art colleges and college art departments actually have faculty and facilities to teach carving, mold making, welding, modeling, and other specialized skills.

“Many schools have closed down their foundries,” says Parker. “They are expensive to run, and they are an insurance liability.”

A foundry runs on gas that needs to be turned on all day, with a certain number of daily scheduled pours required to make the operation cost effective. Foundries also require expensive systems for venting fumes and disposing of waste.

“For schools that want to save money, a foundry is an easy thing to cut,” says Amy Hauft, chair of the sculpture department at Virginia Commonwealth University, whose studio-art program includes complete facilities in a variety of three-dimensional media. “It’s an expensive skill set to teach.”

Several students currently enrolled in independent art colleges that do not have foundries were surprised that their sculpture options were so limited. One student, who asked not to be identified, says he asked about producing a bronze from a clay model and was told by the head of the sculpture department, “This isn’t the place to do anything like that. You might want to transfer.”

Beyond cost and safety, a growing number of programs have moved away from a focus on technical processes toward the conceptual and theoretical. The older, more traditional approach is for students to learn a specific medium in depth, their ideas developing with their growing sense of what they can and like to do. Increasingly, though, students are encouraged to develop their artistic ideas, which may be realized in two or three dimensions, and then to learn the processes through which to achieve those visions.

“We try to be idea-based and obtain the materials that students need to fulfill an idea,” says Gilles Giuntini, who heads the sculpture department at the Hartford Art School of the University of Hartford in Connecticut.

The trend toward idea-focused learning is perhaps best enunciated by the University of Virginia professor Howard Singerman in his 1999 book, Art Subjects: Making Artists in the American University:

“Although I hold a Master of Fine Arts degree in sculpture, I do not have the traditional skills of the sculptor; I cannot carve or cast or weld or model in clay. … It was clear at the time that the craft practices of a particular métier were no longer central to my training; we learned to think, not inside a material tradition, but rather about it.”

Not every art program takes this approach, but an increasing number of them do. There is still a place for students who like to make things with their hands, learning more about the technical aspects of production than just the available computer software. According to Bonnie Biggs, head of the sculpture department at the Cornish College of the Arts in Seattle, “the hot topic in the art world, particularly with sculpture, is, are you a maker or a thinker? And, do the two worlds come together?”

Prospective students and their parents, then, should investigate where a particular school falls on the spectrum.

“We are trending more to the conceptual, but we still have our feet firmly planted in the making” said Bob Smith, head of the fine art department at the Milwaukee Institute of Art & Design. He says the school has developed a two-track system for sculpture students, with the conceptually oriented steered toward installations and public art, and the more hands-on directed toward carving and casting. It is possible, however, for students to cross back and forth between the two, he says.

To get a feel for a program’s approach, students should, if possible, visit the school, examine equipment and facilities, sit in on classes, look at the student body to determine whether or not one will fit in, identify what percentage of students are majoring in fine or applied arts, look at class sizes, etc.

Some of that information, and course outlines, may be online. At times, the Web site might even seem overly specific. Virginia Commonwealth University’s art department proudly offers a detailed list of its tools and machinery, much of which  would be unknown to all but professionals in the field. How many high-school seniors, after all, choose a college based on whether it has a “complete ceramic shell system including 2′ x 2′ x 5′ aerated stucco bins and 5′ x 5′ cylindrical bell-type dewaxing furnace.”

But “the point,” says Amy Hauft, “is to show that we are well equipped, even if most prospective students and their parents don’t know what this stuff is.”

If a student interested in sculpture doesn’t see a foundry, one might still be available. Cornish College does not have a metal or glass foundry, Bonnie Biggs says, but the school has arrangements with professional, artist-run foundries in the area where students may learn processes and techniques, as well as produce their own work.

There are benefits and drawbacks to this type of system. On the plus side, a professional foundry may have an apprentice system with more people on hand to teach than might be found at a school. The Hartford Art School’s Gilles Giuntini says that “some professional foundries and glass factories are better than a college foundry. Ours gets by, but money is always an issue.”

Of course, the school would need to make legal arrangements with the outside foundry concerning the health and safety of its students, and it is not as easy to enforce those guidelines as at a foundry on campus.

“My guess is that most parents would prefer that everything their children do be on campus instead of somewhere else,” Giuntini says.

Alfred University has an M.F.A. program in addition to its B.F.A., but not all do. Of the 40 members of the Association of Independent Colleges of Art and Design, all of them award B.F.A. degrees in sculpture, but only 29 offer M.F.A.’s. Based on a 2009-2010 survey by the National Association of Schools of Art and Design, which includes liberal arts colleges and universities, 83 institutions offer the B.F.A. as the highest degree in art and design while 115 offer the M.F.A. as the highest degree (most of them also award B.F.A.’s).

“It’s not shortchanging the student’s experience here not to have an M.F.A.,” says Bob Smith of the Milwaukee Institute of Art & Design. But Amy Hauft, of Virginia Commonwealth, says that “it’s a great asset for undergraduates to be around M.F.A. students,” because the graduate students reveal the “next stage.”

That next stage can be difficult to contemplate. Graduating art school comes as a slap in the face for many students, particularly those who majored in sculpture. They leave behind a studio, instructors, mentors, discounted supplies, tools, and equipment, entering a world in which large, affordable work space is in short supply and foundries are few and far between (plus, they charge by the hour).

Perhaps, the art of our time will be defined as much by the cost of production as by the social, cultural, and political milieu.

“You see more digital work in New York art galleries these days,” Hauft said. “New York artists have a harder time finding tools, equipment and space to create sculpture, but you don’t need much space to set up a computer.”

Daniel Grant is the author of several books on the arts, all published by Allworth Press, including The Business of Being an Artist (4th edition, 2010), Selling Art Without Galleries (2006) and The Fine Artist’s Career Guide (second edition, 2004). He has been a features reporter at Newsday and The Commercial-Appeal, a contributing editor for American Artist magazine, and a regular contributor to ARTnews magazine and The Wall Street Journal.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • shilton

    An interesting article, but Daniel is mistaken about foundries needing to run “all day.”

    It is more energy efficient if consecutive pours are made, but they need not run day in day out like a glass studio.

  • jayc5697

    Having taught sculpture for over 18 years at RISD and now being president of Minneapolis College of Art and Design I can tell you there are art schools that blend skill acquisition and conceptual development. But, if you don’t have the facilities you don’t have the option. At MCAD we have a full foundry in addition to metal fabrication, a woodshop and 3-D prototyping, CAD/CAM vacuforming, sewing and more.

    MCAD students do work that ranges from traditional object making incluudiing figurative work (though less every year) and functional work, to sound and video installation and everything in between. The world of sculptural practice is probably the most interdisciplinary area in an art school with students working in multiple dimensions, taking on a range of spatial considerations (indoors and out), utilizing materials from the stone age to the digital age and venturing into performance and and all sorts of installation practices.

    For students with the ambition and interest in embracing the tactile world (to some extent) it is a great but challenging pursuit. The skills you develop can be applied to multiple careers from traditional gallery pursuits, to public art/landscape architecture, to working for the automotive industry and a vast array of areas in the world of entertainment and much more.

  • archiapolis

    I have a BA in Fine Art from a Big Ten university. I also have a Masters of Architecture from the same university but 13 years separated the two.

    I graduated with the BA and got a handshake and a diploma in the mail. No support, no discussion about the next step to becoming a “working” artist. If there were classes like “The Business of Fine Art” then I completely missed those offerings. I also don’t remember any kind of discussion with faculty/staff about how I planned to use my art degree. Maybe this is the result of attending a giant university but the art school itself was probably smaller than the private schools mentioned in the article.

    When I got out of school I floated around with no idea how to use an art degree and did the usual (worked in restaurants). In my opinion, schools need to get WAY more involved with what the student hopes to achieve with an art degree. It is invaluable as an architect to know how to weld, cast concrete and actually *make* things with my hands. Too bad I had to float around for 8 years wondering how to use the skillset that I had learned in undergraduate sculpture to actually make a living. I longed for a way to get back into the studios at school and make things but was turned away time again for liability issues/money (I wasn’t paying the student service fee). I asked about a way for graduates to pay a fee to utilize the studios until they got established and got rebuffed. Tell me that there is more support and more ways for students to utilize school resources while they are trying to get established. These are the things that I would ask about as a student in retrospect.

    JayC – care to comment?

  • http://twitter.com/#!/ProprietaryEd ForProfitEd
  • http://twitter.com/kinkoesus esther-queen

    How we all help for-profit colleges profit: http://shankerblog.org/?p=2240

  • AlanCollinge

    First you have fallen into this false “non-profits=good, for-profits= evil” dialectic, which is stupid, because the default rates of non-profits lags not far behind that of the for-profits.

    Second, you make an absurd appeal to “The Taxpayers” by claiming that ultimately, they will be footing the bill.

    The problem with this assertion is that the government PROFITS ON DEFAULTS, and has for a LONG TIME.

    Many years of Presidential Budget Data show clearly that the government has been profiting for years on defaulted loans, getting back $1.22 for every dollar they pay out on defaulted FFELP loans. Collection costs and the government’s “cost of money” on defaults comes to, at most 5-7 cents on the dollar (and this is being very generous when comparing these costs to generalized, defaulted bank debt.

    No amount of handwringing, apology, and lies by people like Mark Kantrowitz, Jason Delisle, and “unnamed Department of Education sources” can make this not so. Similarly, no amount of slanted reporting by the Chronicle, the Wall Street journal, or others can explain this predatory, government profiteering on defaulted loans.

    This perverted incentive for default, which extends up and down the federal student loan system explains alot. Like inflation, like a high default rate, like indefensibly horrible government oversight, and many other drastic failings of this system. One specific example: the gainful employment rule, however well intentioned or designed, will have NO TEETH by the time it becomes law as long as the government is making money on defaults, and the current corrupted student loan executives are running the Office of Federal Student Aid.

    I hope one day the Chronicle will take its responsibility to report fact seriously, and not allow its journalism to become trash in honor of its advertisers. Feel free to challenge me on any of these points of fact. I am happy to support them in a free and fair debate/conversation/blog forum.
    Why don’t you, as a Chronicle Blogger, sink your teeth into something that will cut through the corrupted rhetoric, and not get caught up in this silly debate? You are becoming irrelevant as we sit here.

    Alan Collinge, Studentloanjustice.org

    justice@studentloanjustice.org

  • http://twitter.com/#!/ProprietaryEd ForProfitEd

    Alan,

    Make no mistake, Mark Kantrowitz profits from for-profit colleges. He is in the lead generation business, the Kantrowitz owned site http://www.fastweb.com is a hotbed of FPC lead generation.

    Ed

  • http://twitter.com/#!/ProprietaryEd ForProfitEd

    I miss policy wonk Ben Miller of Education Sector.

  • lizziec

    I don’t disagree with you about the issue of student loans (I have some doozies myself – all from high-end traditional institutions), but please let’s not confuse the issues.

    The issue of the quality of the for-profits and the predatory recruiting practices is a separate issue from that of over-priced tuition in all sectors, and the role of the government and student loan industry, which I agree – is an issue that needs to be addressed.

    These are both important issues – let’s keep them separated so their arguments and issues can be examined without muddying the waters, as both are complex enough already.

  • lizziec

    gotcha (thanks)

  • AlanCollinge

    I make no mistake. Trust me on that.

  • lizziec

    ALSO – on the worst day, degrees from the respectable brick-n-mortars put those grads to the head of the line ahead of the best and brightest from any for-profit, no question. Also, many of these folks are able to make a nice salary and can pay their loans without compromising their standard of living, something that many, MANY of the for-profit victims will never know.

    The reason they will never know this is that most will be no more “educated” when they leave than they were when they entered the institution and the degrees that they believed with their whole beings would save them from a lifetime of poverty are not really considered college degrees by many employers.

  • studentperspective

    I venture the same answer applies to all the higher-ups in the for profits too. They talk the talk but I sincerely doubt they walk the walk.

  • AlanCollinge

    Unfortunately, it is impossible to separate the two issues. They are both symptoms of a system that has been corrupted, and the motivations of the oversight elements perverted to favor the lender, and school over the borrowers. As long as the financing system behind both non- and for-profits has so badly compromised the governmental oversight of each, these discussions are pointless, and any conlusions drawn, rules created, legislation passed etc will be fruitless…and this holds whether the “fix” is for for-profits, non-profits, or both.

    Which is why I keep coming back to the point.

  • AlanCollinge

    I agree Ben Miller did good work from what I saw. Erin Dillon also did a fine job in a report that showed a 10-year default rate of 10.6% for a large sample of 1993 graduates taking more than $15,000 in loans (Note: compare that with the much more recent IHE study which found a monstrous 15% default rate after only 5 years regardless of amount borrowed, and the severity of the crisis we now face becomes urgently clear, btw).

    I had alot of respect for Both Kantrowitz and Delisle until recently. Over thousands of email engagements, collaboration on various research projects, and more, Mark displayed good consistency, albeit with a pro-lender bias. Jason also has done quality research in the past, particularly with regards to the fiscal reality behind guarantors (they make a majority of their income from collection costs and fees on defaulted loans).

    But on the hugely important question of whether or not the government has been profiting on defaulted loans, they both clearly and obviously bent the truth in an intolerable way, knowingly, for the purpose of misleading the public, and without valid basis.

    Mark began this on a piece by Charlie Mintz in the Oakland East Bay Express that we both interviewed for. Over an intense exchange over 4 days, I proved conclusively that his analysis methodology was flawed. Ultimately, the editors chose to completely delete the entire issue from the article. Later, the same dynamic occurred for a piece in the Wall Street Journal (Melissa Korn), and the resulting headline, instead of “Government profiting on student loans”, was “Government sees high return on defaulted student loans”. The conclusion of the piece was that the government wasn’t losing much money on defaulted loans…and this was promptly spun by Fox Business News as a good thing for the taxpayers, instead of incontrovertible evidence that the government has been running a predatory lending scam on the population. Big difference.

    Then, after agreeing to engage in a three-way, joint analysis that would answer the question once and for all, Jason Delisle skipped the debate, and published a junk-piece for the New America Foundation which essentially repeated the inexcusable analysis that Mark had perpetuated (I’m happy to elaborate on this by email or otherwise).

    Finally both of these “experts” fallacious methodology and their asnine conclusion was repeated, along with supporting words from an “unnamed Department of Education spokesman” by Kelly Field, a Chronicle reporter who I had respected, and had fed many stories to in the past, including the most important Higher Ed story of last year, where she got the Department of Education to admit that of 1995 graduates, fully 20% had defaulted by 2010.

    I am hugely disappointed with Kelly’s loss of critical analysis skills displayed by this piece (to be very generous), but I am even more disappointed with the callous disregard for fact, and the contempt displayed by Kantrowitz and Delisle for the millions of borrowers whose lives have been trashed by this bad-government, predatory lending system.

    I wish I could identify the bad people within the Department of Education who participated in this lie to the American Public. I could guess Deputy undersecretary James Kvaal, who I interchanged with at length prior to the press getting ahold of this issue, but I’d only be guessing.

    This was the last straw for me. I will not tolerate lies from the “experts”, be they “good guys”, “bad guys”, or otherwise. Not when millions of people lives, livelihoods, and those of their family members are at stake. Never. (I could go on for an additional page, here, about Lauren Asher making blatantly false statements to Congress about consumer protections for federal vs. private student loans, but I will save my breath).

  • Marjani

    I can already tell you how that is going to work out.

    I got ditched by a school that ended up being shut down by the Fed for financial aid fraud and because it claimed to be accredited when it was not.

    I STILL got left holding the bag of debt that they created in my name. It’s been 18 years and I was never able to return to a legitimate college to finish school because Sallie Mae wants me to pay for their theft ring since the insurance money ran out after only a few of the ripped-off loans were covered.

    Even the bank that underwrote the loans and got Perkins/Stafford backing was shut down by the Federal Reserve/FDIC for making the illicit loans in the first place. The school AND the bank no longer exist.

    But this is what happens when you have a President who deregulates everything so there is no real “watchdog” over unmitigated unchecked for-profit educational entities that are backed with federally guaranteed money and a low-end liability insurance policy.

    It wasn’t about them guaranteeing me a job after graduation, it was about me not having a degree from an accredited school to even put on a resume.

  • Student_Advocate2

    I believe you are misunderstanding the question. I do not believe Dr. Donaghoe was asking why military students are choosing online schools, rather he was questioning the sudden interest many admissions departments have in the military student. And in that perspective, my answer is the correct one.

    Schools who received federal funding through the government are not permitted to accept more than 90% of their revenue through government programs. At least 10% of the monies they bring in must be from some other source (students paying cash for classes, employer reimbursement, or obtaining their own private loans) or they stand to lose their ability to participate, and thus receive funding from the federal financial aid program. For “some reason” the monies received through the GI Bill and veteran’s benefits do not count toward that limit of 90%, as if those monies were not also coming through a government program. It is a loophole that allows schools to actually receive 93 – 94% of their funding…directly from government sources. It is ever so much easier to get money from the government than it is to find people who are willing to pay cash as they go.

    I’m sorry, I wish I could assure you that these schools appreciate your sacrifice and are patriotic and want to do “right by our soldiers”…but that simply would not be true. Military funding is a cash cow to them.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/ProprietaryEd ForProfitEd

    adanz1 said:

    “appreciate the innovation brought by the “for-profit” schools to education”

    So, you believe chicanery is innovative?

    “Students at for-profit schools pay 100% of the cost of their education”

    Students pay for Pell grants? Really? I’m pretty sure that the Federal Government funds Pell via taxpayers. How about the state aid for-profits lobby so hard for locally. Take the recent California State grants for example.

    “nobody seems interested in understanding why students exercise individual choice to attend a for-profit school over a non-profit school”

    I think many people understand it as does the Dept of Ed. It is because they are uninformed about post secondary options, comparative costs, realistic outcomes and they are told whatever they want to hear by commissioned sales representatives (aka Admissions Counselors).

    Sounds like you had a company meeting today, and you bought what you were fed.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/ProprietaryEd ForProfitEd

    Intered Inc Robert Tucker? Sounds right on.

    Check out forprofitedu.com (for-profit education industry site) discussing “How big a deal is tuition cost”
    from: http://www.forprofitedu.com/admissions/how-big-a-deal-is-tuition-cost/

    “How big a deal is the sticker price/Tuition cost in enrollents & conversions

    The cost of tuition is always a concern, however, its easily overcome by the cost benefit discussion of the value of a degree, the whole “make a million dollars more discussion” and all. Also, of you have a sharp group of rapid responders who establish a rapport with the prospects they most likely not even learn about the differences in tuition costs as they likely (if your reps. do their job right) won’t talk to another school. Clearly it has been established that if you get to the prospect first and do a solid job of establishing the value of the degree and solidifying the prospects desire they wont even take the other call with another school. If you do find yourself in the your tuition is much more discussion then you need to re-establish the “you get what you pay for” understanding as well as the degree now pay later principle.”

  • trendisnotdestiny

    This isn’t about getting what you paid for sunshine. This about legitimizing a new privatized model of education and turning a profit… Of course, in the beginning they sell against the problems in the system, but you have to ask yourself what are they going to replace the problems with…. The answer: is an equally expensive replacement of You’re On Your Own (YOYO)……

    Please do not troll here like you do not have a vested interest in this discussion. You remind me of another flavor of these people (http://www.alternet.org/media/149197/are_right-wing_libertarian_internet_trolls_getting_paid_to_dumb_down_online_conversations/?page=entire

  • http://twitter.com/#!/ProprietaryEd ForProfitEd

    trendisnotdestiny: Are you drunk?

  • lizziec

    If you are a middle-class (or higher SES) kid who went to a decent K-12 school and have a solid family (i.e. educated, or at least interested, parents), you’re not very likely to be suckered into a high-price/low-quality online for-profit “education”. The people who are targeted (intentionally, based on their inability to make a critical comparison) for these high-priced/low-quality programs offered by too many large, publicly-traded, for-profits are least able to make an informed decision and understand what they are signing on for.

    Paying $30,000 or more for an associate’s degree that is not transferrable to anywhere else (i.e. real university/college), that teaches you very little (see my comment on rigor in a previous post) and is NOT going to be recognized by employers as anything more than what a H.S. grad would bring to the table, is a particular affliction of the most vulnerable in our society. These people will for the most part never get work commensurate with the money they have invested, and after spending that kind of money and time, many are not willing or able to return to the local community college to get what they needed in the first place: coaching on reading and writing at a college level, support for learning difficulties (many poor people suffer from undiagnosed learning disabilities, including reading deficits, which make them pretty much doomed from the start in an online class).

  • lizziec

    I think forprofited is one of the good guys (great article on AlterNet, by the way – thanks for sharing!)

  • http://twitter.com/#!/ProprietaryEd ForProfitEd

    Thanks lizziec.

  • donhunt32

    Are veterans steered towards for profit?

    Well, I think that is a bigger question. While I don’t deny that advertisements may help veterans make the choice, there are other factors that really take the choice away from them.
    1. Most vets can’t attend full time while on active duty and as it takes much longer for them to make progress on their degree.

    2. Once they leave the military, the find it difficult to find jobs that will consider their experience in place of education.

    3. They need to get a well paying job sooner than later because their compensation while in the military isn’t a lot.

    4. Many have families and other responsibilities which make the urgency to get something quicker than later a necessity.

    5. Vet’s have to consider that they may still have to move around until they are able to get established.

    All these factors forces a vet to seek solutions that are flexible and that will be adaptable based on their lives which isn’t normally the traditional schools. If they start a degree program with a traditional school and have to relocate before they can complete, many schools won’t apply their credits the same way they were earned and thus makes it even harder to complete their degree.

    It simply becomes a matter of both need to earn a better living and a need to be able to get that done from where ever they are without loosing traction at every change in life events.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/ProprietaryEd ForProfitEd

    Very well said lizziec! Also, non-profit colleges tend to give realistic cost estimates. Online for-profit colleges “find the pain”, make the prospect “feel the pain”, give them a hard sell on “no out of pocket expense” and when mentioning tuition quote cost per credit hour or part time tuition for a 9 month “academic year” when the program requires attending classes all 12 months. For-profit colleges also tend to manipulate credit hours so that a student is actually attending part-time but they receive full-time FSA. Example 1 course, 2 courses, 1 course, 2 courses. This usually amounts a far longer time to completion than the admissions representative quoted the student during the hard sell phone conversation.

    Look at the forprofitedu.com link I posted above.

  • studentperspective

    I would like to talk with you further. Email me at studentwatchdog@gmail.com if you are interested.