So I went to my interview, the course leader was late and hadn't read my personal statement, so he almost solely asked me technical questions about my painting, which threw me. As ever in interview I don't feel I acquitted myself very well. I felt I flustered and bluffed badly. Then it struck me I don't know what an MA is really supposed to give me. I mean yes the opportunity to develop my work and the chance to study again is what every body sites, but actually I don't desperately need a space to develop my work and I'm happy with the critical discussion at Magenta. But I do need the qualification to progress my career and I do enjoy critique even if I do get defensive in the moment when my work is discussed (I assume every one does, its that or get upset) and I am looking forward to writing about art again.
If you've done an MA what did you get out of it that just being in the studio with other artists would not have given you? I'd like to know, I don't want the CV spiel that you give when you're trying to impress or trying to justify going back to Uni, I'd just like an explanation.
I'm a portrait artist, I'm exploring the genre and developing my work, finding out what works for me without aping the work of others. I don't really know what an MA will do for me apart from hot house that process, how should I have answered the question 'What do you want from an MA?'?
No comments:
Post a Comment