<p>I am considering applying to several art schools for fall 2011. In an attempt to establish a good portfolio for each school, I realize that not all schools have different emphasis on aspects of the arts. For example, Cooper Union is a highly conceptual school, and my portfolio submitted there will thus contain more conceptual pieces which are aimed to display an aptitude in creative thought. Contrastingly, I have heard that RISD looks for evidence of traditional skill (good drawing/observation skills etc.) I am considering a major in either painting or general fine arts. Besides these schools, I am considering Parsons, SVA, MICA, and Pratt. I am not sure about parsons, because I think it leans more towards design/illustration (is that true?) Does anyone know what sort of emphasis these schools have? Do they prefer a well-balanced portfolio? If you guys have specific examples or past experiences with applying that would be great!</p>
<p>Does anyone have any info? I would like to know as well…</p>
<p>This is just my opinion, but I don’t think you can go wrong with traditional realism work at most colleges, especially if you’ve got a lot of skill. I just think with conceptual/abstract work it’s harder to predict what people who see will like and what they won’t like. It’s more about you personally overall though, if conceptual work is your strong suit than go with that. I don’t think many colleges have any real bias one way or the other, except for maybe Cooper Union as you mentioned. Most schools should be able to appreciate a good portfolio with strong work regardless of their emphasis.</p>
<p>From my most recent round of portfolio reviews, i got the impression that most schools are looking for students who demonstrate technical ability AND originality with conceptual development being somewhat of the icing on the cake. That said, docrobert is probably correct in that traditional work is a “safer” bet for most schools. It would seem that you are much more likely to get in most schools with mediocre traditional work than mediocre conceptual work. But this is not the answer to your question. </p>
<p>The impression that i got at two recent NPD’s were that SAIC, SMFA, Calarts and MICA tend to look more for originality and innovation in their applicants as opposed to technical skill. RISD and Pratt on the other hand seem to have a higher technical standard that they expect applicants to meet. SVA, Art Center and CCA (california college of art) are somewhere in between the poles. Parsons is not really a fine art school. You can do fine art there of course but you will find that their fine art program is (in terms of the number of enrolled students anyway) relatively small and not to mention i have never come across any contemporary artist who studied fine art at parsons. There is of course Ryan McGinley but he studied graphic design and ended up being a photographer. Cooper Union is the only school in the US (to my knowledge) that expects serious conceptual rigour. Most schools look for “originality” which is quite different from conceptual development. These expectations however are not exclusive, you probably won’t get into cooper union with technically weak work nor are you likely get into risd with a portfolio composed solely of still lives and life drawings (unless they are somehow exceptional).</p>
<p>A lot of these schools have facebook groups where admitted students post their work. You should take a look at the student work and develop your own conclusions about the kind of students the respective schools are interested in as opposed to just taking anyone’s word for it.</p>