The majority of those who teach art are not stars, and many of them wield more power at school than in the world at large.


If sales are to serve as the marker, then tradition-bound programs stressing craft would win. If visibility is the barometer, then the interdisciplinary programs that turn out idiosyncratic hipsters who talk big and make quirky assemblages stand out. If eligibility for teaching is what you seek—cognizant that the field is overwhelmingly composed of poorly paid adjuncts—then the statistical dominance of introductory courses in drawing and design should suggestto you that cultivating technical skills will open more doors.

Theory, whose aura still hangs over a handful of high-profile
 MFA programs, remains something
 of a double-edged sword. Some teachers treat it as a measure 
of worth, either of your intelligence
 or of your status as an upstart art world insider. 


These scenarios may seem improbable–and in truth, there are lots of art schools, especially outside New York City, that are quite generous in their allotment of space to students. However, the cost benefit to art schools of low-residency programs and “post studio” curricula is that they allow them to charge you without providing pricey real estate. Leave it to neoliberal college administrators to try to use conceptual art to rationalize the elimination of studio space and the downsizing of facilitiesfor traditional media production.

Share the postShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInShare on Facebook