<p>this isnt something i had looked into very much, but i think i will have to start… except i really have no idea where to start. basically, since a couple hours ago, i started wondering about these art schools and their stance on their approach to art:</p>
<p>im most concerned about these four schools as im getting the feeling that they have very strong illustration/GD programs (they are my top choices so far):
SVA
Pratt
MICA
art center</p>
<p>still looking into:
CIA
MCAD
CCA
Otis</p>
<p>im looking to go into graphic design, but also want to do illustration/digital art as emphasis - </p>
<p>anyways, by approach to art, i mean, are they more traditional, or conceptual? im getting a feeling that a more traditional oriented art education will help me career wise far more than conceptual. and this is a bit of a bias, but i keep thinking that a more traditional art based school will help their students get more connected to the work world, give more opportunities for gaining jobs, and are more commercially oriented in nature - i dont know, im confused. </p>
<p>in fact, im not even completely sure what it means for an art school to be traditional/conceptual. </p>
<p>traditional = classic, learning the basics, strong foundations, realism, ??</p>
<p>Conceptual art programs usually tend to be those which emphasize a fair amount of performance art, installations, and overtly political art. And at times if one is outside their various social agendas and perceptions it can be a difficult fit. The advantage is that these tend to be pretty high energy programs with a fair amount of freedom of expression. But, sometimes what’s learned there is of little application outside that venue…sort of the problem of the institutionalized avant garde. </p>
<p>Traditional schools tend to emphasize technical aspects, formalist modes of art history, and usually assess work premised on standards of execution. The dilemma with these is they can be a little stifling, and if one isn’t willing to knuckle down and really work on the technique theories aspects its very easy to fall behind quickly and terminally. </p>
<p>If your going into illustration or graphics you might be better served by a more traditional school insofar as you’ll get more of the tech/design theory aspects.
And that will be more what the gateway employers are likely to want most. In general for gateway jobs you’ll be doing the nuts and bolts work first. </p>
<p>And modernism, not really in either modernism is a school of art going back a generation. And in design its about dead…</p>
<p>again im not quite sure how to find this information - would looking at student work give a good indication of where an art school stands on the conceptual/traditional spectrum? i would like to go to a school that stresses technique. “expressing”, well, i can do that on my free time, and frankly i dont see how it would help in commercial/industry art.</p>
<p>I’d have to say that modernism is not in a conceptual realm anymore… it’s become a basic. That said, I’ve got a strong impression of all of the top schools you mentioned, as well as Otis, as being rather commercial. This is based on their graphic and industrial design programs, so take it with that grain of salt, but I would suspect that their illustration programs wouldn’t have a totally different approach than their design programs. On the other hand, CIA and CCA are more conceptual/experimental schools overall.</p>
<p>I think there’s another aspect to this. My daughter had a classmate who earned a BFA in industrial design (ID) at RISD. After working in the industry for a few years she earned an MFA in ID at Art Center (Pasadena). She described the difference between these programs to me this way (and it wasn’t just the BFA vs. MFA aspect). </p>
<p>RISD places far more emphasis on creativity and originality. Art Center places far more emphasis on “finish,” and on the “professional look” and “presentation” of designs. In the latter case, this probably comes from Art Center’s original focus on advertising and promoting an “industry standard” look.</p>
<p>What this means in part is that Art Center grads are often highly employable immediately; they learn how to produce work that’s highly polished and can fit right into many organizations. Their portfolios look like they’re ready to present to an industry client. RISD grads may still have to acquire such polishing skills, but are perhaps more likely to do original designs because that’s the emphasis in their training and where they will devote more of their effort.</p>
<p>This isn’t a “conceptual” vs. “traditional” distinction in the way the OP presented it. It’s to some extent a different dimension. RISD students all have a strong foundation in art/design as well as in their major fields, and have strong practical skills as well. But they emphasize creativity rather than polish in their training.</p>
<p>In the same vein, if you’re interested in close connections to industry, immediate employability in certain types of jobs, you need to check out the internships, placements, and career development of grads. For example, my brother, who works as an illustrator/animator in “Hollywood,” tells me that CalArts (also known as the CIA – in Valencia, CA) has very strong direct links to Hollywood Studios and the CalArts was created and supported by the studios as a training ground.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty of room for creativity at all arts schools; and your later employability depends on your ability to create and present great work for clients. But there may be different emphases within the programs (and different reputations) that have practical consequences for your early career development.</p>
<p>Otis is very traditional and commercial with their design programs. I would personally advice you look into Digital Media at Otis, as it combines illustration and I feel graphic design in a way.</p>