<p>Hello, I am a successful student in Michigan who wants to major in art, and eventually become an art therapist or a college art professor. I have a 4.0 UW, several e.c. activities, travel experience, leadership experience, 31 ACT, and I just got back from an intensive month-long pre-college art program at Moore College of Art and Design. I was wondering if any experts out there could give their opinions of the best art schools/art programs at universities. I would really like to know more about good art schools, as I cannot find a comprehensive list on the internet. I know RISD and MICA are good, but I still would like to know more about them...
Also, if anyone knows how to compare University of Michigan's art program to others in the nation, please help. I hear undergrad class sizes are horrible, but I'm not sure. I've also heard amazing things. I would also like opinions on going to an art school or a university for my intended career. I had plans of taking other classes as well, but I'm not quite sure what would be best. Thank you.</p>
<p>Just to clarify, what area of art are you interested in such as Illustration, Painting, graphic design, digital arts, sculpture, glass, fiber, fashion design, jewelry design, animation and cartooning, game design etc? It would really help.</p>
<p>At some point your credentials as a college art teacher will probably be strengthened if you have an "art degree." Often this means an MFA.</p>
<p>I agree with Mackinaw. However, if you are majoring in Art History, you will need a PHD instead. </p>
<p>Moreover, Michigan is a very good school for most majors even art; however, it is not rated among the top 15 or so in art. If you aren't sure about art and want a broad based career, Michigan would be a good choice. If, however, you are set on an artistic career that involves some phase of fine art or design, you may wish to go to another school. I would check out Yale for example. Some of the other ivys have good art programs such as Brown and Cornell, but they are limited in offerings and scope. Moreover, most of the IVYs (other than that of Brown) have huge liberal arts requirements. For example, Cornell, requires 57 credits of liberal arts. This large liberal arts requirement is not normally found in the schools mentioned below.</p>
<p>If you want a strong broad based art or design program and want more flexibility of choices (without as high a required liberal arts reqiurement), you should generally seek an art school or a school that has a strong art emphasis. Examples of schools with strong art programs and fewer general education requirements are Syracuse University, CMU, and Skidmore ,and Univeristy of Cincinnati ( for design only). Some of the LACS have strong fine art programs in drawing and painting but also have larger general education reqirements.</p>
<p>However, I believe that the strongest preparation for art and design is provided in the stand alone art programs. Schools like Pratt Institute and RISD have far more offerings and more depth in each offering that that found at any university. For example, Pratt has three tracks for graphic design and four tracks for Computer Graphics and Interactive Media alone! Moreover, at stand alone art schools, all of their offerings and even liberal arts are geared towards improving the student as an artist. This is not necessarily true at universities. In addition, most stand alone art schools don't require as much liberal arts. For example, Pratt only requires 25% of their course work in liberal arts, which is around 30 credits, which gives you more opportunity to delve into artistic topics.</p>
<p>Thus, besides schools mentioned above, you might want to consider such schools as: CalArts, SAIC, Mass Art, MICA, Cleveland Institute of Art and many more. I could make more and better recommendations if I knew what area of art you are interested in pursuing.</p>
<p>Wow, thank you so much. I am interested in pursuing my degree in art first and then going on to whatever I choose. I am, however, most interested in fine arts...painting, drawing, and printmaking are my favorites. I'm also interested in sculpture, but mainly 2-d is my interest. Do you know anything about Minneapolis College of Art and Design too? I just looked over a mailer they sent me and they look kind of charming. Thank you for the tip about Yale too; I'll look more into that. But, generally speaking...an art college would be a better choice if I knew my career would be art related...still, Michigan would be really convenient...those are issues I have to hack out on my own I guess. Thank you again.</p>
<p>Minneapolis College of Art and Design is good as is Otis College of Art and Design. However, the better painting colleges are SAIC, RISD, and MICA, and Pratt. The better sculpture colleges are VCU, Afred University, RISD.</p>
<p>What about WUSTL? WUSTL has some art programs.</p>
<p>I think with your academic achievement I would tend to aim toward art schools that can reward you for academic merit. I know that Pratt Institute has this 12000(i believe) presidential merit scholarships that they give to students who meet a certain gpa or something like that because I received it and my gpa was roughly around the 3.66-3.8 area.</p>
<p>Also another thing to consider is that most art schools don't have large endowments to give good financial aid packages. Chances are that if you attend a good LAC or University you'll definetly get more aid and a better financial aid package through merit and if your needy then also through need.</p>
<p>Like USC, I'm pretty sure they'll try to lure you to their school because of you're academic achievement. However I'm not sure if their art program is strong. I do know they have a BFA and BA program you can do in Art.</p>
<p>WUSL is certainly a fine school. However, I get the impression that most kids go there to get a double major in something and not focus on one major. This was definitely the impression that they gave when they were at our high school, and it was definitely the impression I got when talking to an admission's rep.</p>
<p>Heart2, I think you've received some good advise and Id like to add my perspective on your situation. I am a UMich grad (in art history, not fine art), my husband has an MFA from an art school and my son is studying studio art and art history at Williams so we're fairly representative of all three routes. </p>
<p>I think that the choice between going for a BA at an academically focused college or university versus a BFA at an art school per se is entirely personal. Kids go on to spectacular art careers -- as artists, as teachers, as architects, as designers -- from all sorts of undergraduate degrees. To me, the major difference is whether you want to be surrounded by art 24/7 (e.g., all of your peers are also involved in the arts) or if you want a range of academic interests (e.g., your friends are artists AND botanists, historians etc.). There is really no right answer.</p>
<p>My son never really entertained going to art school; however he sought a college that had both a strong studio art and art history department. Because UMich is my almamater, we visited and were impressed by the art school facilities as well as the academic prowess. In the end, however, he decided that he preferred a smaller school. </p>
<p>The other schools that he liked in addition to Williams were
LACs: Hamilton, Wesleyan, Conn College, Kenyon, Skidmore. Universities: Brown, Yale.
I'd also suggest Tufts which has a tie in with the Boston Museum of Fine Arts that seems to be especially tailored toward teaching careers.</p>
<p>Just for fun I looked at the credentials of the art instructors at Williams' Studio Art Department. Their undergraduate experience covered the whole spectrum from Yale to Reed to Chicago Art Institute to SUNY. They all have an MFA or MARCH graduate degree, but not from the same college as their undergrad degree.</p>
<p>So, my advice at this point would be to keep your mind open and investigate several options. You have good academic credentials and would have a shot at most colleges. If financial aid is an issue for you, you'll need to consider that aspect as well.</p>
<p>i don't intend to major in visual arts later on, but it's been a major interest (See profile). i'm at a summer program at Pratt right now, so perhaps i might be of aid concerning pratt's curriculum and stuff. i feel that it is amazing preparation, incredibly intense though. i've spoken to former students, and they all feel that Pratt helped them grow tremendously as artists. A painter recalls that being literally forced to paint day and night for four years really changed his approach, whereas at "arts oriented" liberal arts colleges, art will be treated as more of an elective, rather enabling you to create art as opposed to directing or teaching you. this same person went on to columbia for graduate school to study art history, which he enjoyed, but regarded as a very different experience.
other places to consider that will improve your art might be cooper union (very much the old fashioned conservatory, TOTAL immersion), various academies with a more classical approach, and of course famous places like RISD and the others... parsons too, if you're looking into applied/industrial arts. Pratt is probably one of your best bets if you're looking into the fine arts.</p>
<p>I think Ontolome is quite correct. We were looking at Cornell for art. Yes, they really do have a good program. However, they also require 57 credits of liberal arts too. My daughter just felt that she would have more indepth artistic training going to a school that required less core requirements, not to mention would be less demanding in gen eds than Cornell. This way she could spend more time on her art.</p>
<p>As good as UMich and other top university art programs may be, I can't imagine that they can give the same intensity or same amount of choices as a stand alone art program. For example, Cornell has a strong new media/digital arts program. Pratt by contract not only offers a lot more courses in the subject but has 4 separate concentrations in digital arts. Cornell has no graphic design program. Pratt by contrast has 3 separate concentrations in graphic design. Although I am not familiar with UMich art offerings, I would bet the same comparison can be made with them and other stand alone art programs such as Pratt as I made with Cornell and Pratt.</p>
<p>Penn State is a very well recognized university with top programs. However, I just learned that if you wanted to major in digital arts/new media, their program is located in the basement of a freshmen dorm while they are awaiting a placement in another building. YUCH.</p>
<p>I should note that I do believe, however, the the liberal arts courses that are taken at major universities are stronger than those at stand alone art programs. They certainly have more choices of liberal arts than that of stand alone art programs in general. This is my belief. I don't have any hard and fast statistics justifying this.</p>
<p>Moreover, at universities, you will meet a lot of different students with differing interests. At stand alone art schools, everyone will be very artsy! This is a major sticking point for my daughter. She wants to meet lots of other types of people and not just associate with artists 24/7.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that you really need to check out the university and the offerings for your interest, the culture of the school, and the required courses involved. This will give you a much better picture.</p>
<p>If I could play devil's advocate for a minute....probably just muddy up the waters, but here goes...</p>
<p>It's been my experience in 20+ years in print/design fields....hiring, managing and firing....that design grads coming out of the pure 'art' schools (those with low requirements for other liberal arts courses - the courses that you think you won't use again), while they are usually amazingly creative and technical wizards with the software....sometimes lack in areas that deal with communication skills, understanding working within a budget, dealing with others (be they coworkers or clients) - being a 'team player', if you will....those areas not directly involved with the art/design aspect of their positions.</p>
<p>It just seems like they suffer from a real lack of exposure to things outside the art world...and many times their lack of patience and disdain for those non-artsy types they encounter (be they account reps - or clients, who are pretty directly repsonsible for these people's continued employment) can create major problems.</p>
<p>I've seen this in agencies, specialty newspapers, corporate settings - pretty much across the board....I can't guarantee that the lack of exposure to courses outside the art focus is the correlation, but it's something to consider. I'd like to see marketing and even accounting courses as requirements for design majors...especially for those with any thoughts of running their own business...just for the exposure to another side of things that will affect their careers. Come to think of it....these would also be good courses for - say, a sculpture focus, where this grad may work pretty much alone, but needs to be able to market his work and keep track of his books.</p>
<p>I said it before, and I will say it again, if you look at the education's of the 1900-20th centuries' greatest artists, the vast marjority recieved a broad-based liberal arts education at a liberal arts college or major research university. In order to be an artist of any importance, you need to have a mind to facilitate thought in others. You need to have something to say, you need to be informed on more than just blue and yellow make green. There is a great saying, that explains, an artist without an education, can learn that Blue and Yellow make Green, an artist with an education will learn this, as well, but even further, will learn what to do with the Green. If you go to an "all art school" your work will, yes be more technically oriented, however, you will in the end, remain only a technition. The only artists who recieve "art school only" training, and succeed as innovators, are the ones, who in themselves, seek concept and knowledge through their own individual ambition, to do so. Meaning if you go to an artschool be prepared to teach yourself what you NEED to know, to be able to say something with it. If you go to a University, you will recieve an education that will help you learn and figure out what to say. Good Luck!...</p>
<p>Mikestrman, All of what you said assumes that art kids don't take any liberal arts. Most decent art programs today require at least 25% ( and usually 30%) of their courses in liberal arts if they are NASAD accredited.</p>
<p>Taxguy, there is a BIG difference, between a broad liberal arts undergraduate education from a university, and the dilluted liberal arts classes provided by an art school. Most of those classes are pre-packaged liberal arts classes with a more artistic approach. A liberal arts class at a university, is of a higher quality, and goes much further into depth.</p>
<p>Mark Rothko(Princeton, BA), Motherwell(Harvard BA-Philosphy), Maya Lin(Yale, BA-Architecture), Andy Warhol, (Carnegie Mellon), Frank Stella(Princeton, BA-History), Barnett Newman (CUNY, BA-Philosophy), even Leonardo Da Vinci, the artist that EVERYONE knows, studied Historical References, Scientific and Mathematical Theory, Literature-Poetry, and Finally, the technical, or anatomical means in the academics of art.</p>
<p>Mikestrman, I have been giving some thought to what you said and bounced your posts by my interior designer wife. Both our attitudes are that having more liberal arts does NOT necessarily improve people skills or the skills necessary with dealing with clients. It is the personality of the person and their common sense approaches to life that makes the real difference. </p>
<p>Admittedly, pure stand alone art schools might generally get a special "cat" that has an artistic personality that does not gel well with people skills. However, this is a stereotype. There are a number of highly qualifed artistic types, like my wife, that have strong interpersonal skills too. These people will have these skills regardless of the type of college that they attended.</p>
<p>Likewise, there are brilliant humanities scholars that have the people skills of a rock!</p>
<p>My son, who is an accounting major, has better interpersonal skills than my daughter, who is a senior in a magnet humanities program. Despite taking numerous AP courses in liberal arts and even college liberal arts courses, she doesn't have the interpersonal skills of my son, and I doubt she ever will.</p>
<p>As far as learning to meet deadlines, from what I can tell with any strong art program, this is inculcated in a number of programs. That is why many art students work long hours in order to achieve their deadlines for projects.</p>
<p>Now, if you suggest that having a number of liberal arts courses makes those people better writers and maybe even better readers than those that don't obtain as strong a liberal arts background then you may have a point. However, even then there will be exceptions to the rule.</p>
<p>Taxguy, I have no idea where any of that came from. Are we even talking about the same thing. Did you even read my post, which listed to various educations of some of the last centuries greatest artists? Where did i say anything, about "people skills"? What I am talking about is being an artist. YOU NEED AN EDUCATION, in order to have something to say in your work...I really am not interested in how your wife deals with clients, that is irrelavent and not at all what this thread was about...this was about which is better for someone who wanted to persue a life/carear as an artist, in the arts etc. This has nothing to do with common sense, or someones ability to deal with clients??</p>
<p>Actually I was adressing Beachy's post. Sorry</p>
<p>Read over Beachy's post, and I think that my response will make sense.</p>
<p>Actually, Taxguy, I didn't mention meeting deadlines at all. And, while I agree with you and your wife that you can find problem people in all walks of life, what I said was that grads from 'art' schools SOMETIMES lack those people skills. I didn't say they all did. That said, I will stand with my opinion that of those people I've worked with who DO lack in those areas, the vast majority of them came from schools with minimal liberal arts requirements. They just didn't seem to be able to 'think' beyond their own immediate focus....couldn't - or wouldn't - grasp that any other interests beyond their own existed.</p>