Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Lancaster vs. Slade, anyone? I'm kind of regretting not applying for lancaster, the only con is that it is not in london (which maybe isn't a con at all). Their ba in fine art and film seems good. wish i could swap my goldsmiths application for lancaster...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I never saw such a mess in admissions like goldsmiths...First they registered me as a late applicant (which was incorrect, if I didn't ring them to verify...), then they took ages to send me the portfolio upload link, also, I was setting a skype interview with someone and now he's on vacation or something and the email i'm supposed to redirect is full... i'm starting to don't give a ****. Maybe it's just the fine art department...
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ksader)
    Lancaster vs. Slade, anyone? I'm kind of regretting not applying for lancaster, the only con is that it is not in london (which maybe isn't a con at all). Their ba in fine art and film seems good. wish i could swap my goldsmiths application for lancaster...

    If you look at the size of this thread I doubt you'll get a pro Lancaster response from here.

    IMHO (bearing in mind I have never been to Lancaster uni).:

    Lancaster, judging by the entry standards, league tables etc., has a good art course. However its not, as I have been told, a good place to study fine art, largely because a) its wet b) although close to several it is not in or very near a big bustling city/hub, meaning it doesn't have a strong urban art scene (this is a generalisation of provincial towns btw). whichc brings us onto point C)that it is not highly regarded (despite its league standings and good courses).
    If good and proper teaching, value for money and the countryside on your doorstep is what you're after then Lancaster is for you.

    Slade on the other hand is contemporary cutting edge stuff (with regard to the past, not like Goldsmiths which seems to hate anything pre 20th century perhaps even prewar...) and therefore teaches (i would assume) in a more fine arty way, it disregards more classical approaches to painting like landscapes etc (is this your thing?) and likes to take a more original stance on such things. It is also very keen on taking a more scientific approach and utilising academia (it being part of UCL, a very good university that leads in the sciences).

    Regarding your being in London point, Moving outside of the all consuming metropolis you get a proper British uni experience, affordable accomodation 2nd3rd year, less debt, good learning recourses and more space to create in. however you are missing out on the 'contemporary' arts scene (if only for a few years) and all the great contacts, inspiration, oppurtunities that it provides. So you've got to get your priorities right here. I've only applied to one London course (Slade) as its the only university that provides fine art (cept Goldsmiths) and has great tutors who I find inspiring. The rest are in Uni cities and places cos I want that experience.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ksader)
    I never saw such a mess in admissions like goldsmiths...First they registered me as a late applicant (which was incorrect, if I didn't ring them to verify...), then they took ages to send me the portfolio upload link, also, I was setting a skype interview with someone and now he's on vacation or something and the email i'm supposed to redirect is full... i'm starting to don't give a ****. Maybe it's just the fine art department...
    Organisation is for squares, Goldsmiths live life on the edge...
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    90 posts till we reach 1000, and only one or two of those will be celebratory. gr8.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bertiewallace123)
    If you look at the size of this thread I doubt you'll get a pro Lancaster response from here.

    IMHO (bearing in mind I have never been to Lancaster uni).:

    Lancaster, judging by the entry standards, league tables etc., has a good art course. However its not, as I have been told, a good place to study fine art, largely because a) its wet b) although close to several it is not in or very near a big bustling city/hub, meaning it doesn't have a strong urban art scene (this is a generalisation of provincial towns btw). whichc brings us onto point C)that it is not highly regarded (despite its league standings and good courses).
    If good and proper teaching, value for money and the countryside on your doorstep is what you're after then Lancaster is for you.

    Slade on the other hand is contemporary cutting edge stuff (with regard to the past, not like Goldsmiths which seems to hate anything pre 20th century perhaps even prewar...) and therefore teaches (i would assume) in a more fine arty way, it disregards more classical approaches to painting like landscapes etc (is this your thing?) and likes to take a more original stance on such things. It is also very keen on taking a more scientific approach and utilising academia (it being part of UCL, a very good university that leads in the sciences).

    Regarding your being in London point, Moving outside of the all consuming metropolis you get a proper British uni experience, affordable accomodation 2nd3rd year, less debt, good learning recourses and more space to create in. however you are missing out on the 'contemporary' arts scene (if only for a few years) and all the great contacts, inspiration, oppurtunities that it provides. So you've got to get your priorities right here. I've only applied to one London course (Slade) as its the only university that provides fine art (cept Goldsmiths) and has great tutors who I find inspiring. The rest are in Uni cities and places cos I want that experience.
    I think you make very good points here, thanks for the reply. Regarding the goldsmiths vs. slade battleship, IMO, I think what appears to make the difference is not the respect or disrespect for a certain technique/medium, past/present or even the validation for being linked to other subjects labeled as "non-artsy".
    What I saw in slade is a better understanding of depth and authenticity regarding the individuals practice and exploration (regardless of medium) and a bigger reflection on it in opposed to Goldsmiths that - at least in 2009 time of that bbc doc - had tutors that encouraged practices with very little complexity but a lot of shock value. Nonetheless, I don't believe you can teach someone to be an artist, you are interesting and complex or just a "maker of what pleases" regardless of where you study. But of course interesting professors, good workshops and acquiring new technical skills will only improve an artist's practice and that's what I think Slade appears to deliver.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't know why the conversation on art always goes down to: if it respects painting, it's kinda o.k. ,if not, it neglects the past. That's precisely what art history has teach us: there are painters who are not artists, painters that are artists, photographers who are not artists, photographers that are artists filmmakers.... and everything in between. Your mind, your complexity, sensibility, rebellion and authenticity and the way you work with what you got - even if you're not the greatest technically - is what makes a real artist.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ksader)
    I think you make very good points here, thanks for the reply. Regarding the goldsmiths vs. slade battleship, IMO, I think what appears to make the difference is not the respect or disrespect for a certain technique/medium, past/present or even the validation for being linked to other subjects labeled as "non-artsy".
    What I saw in slade is a better understanding of depth and authenticity regarding the individuals practice and exploration (regardless of medium) and a bigger reflection on it in opposed to Goldsmiths that - at least in 2009 time of that bbc doc - had tutors that encouraged practices with very little complexity but a lot of shock value. Nonetheless, I don't believe you can teach someone to be an artist, you are interesting and complex or just a "maker of what pleases" regardless of where you study. But of course interesting professors, good workshops and acquiring new technical skills will only improve an artist's practice and that's what I think Slade appears to deliver.
    You make an excellent point. Slade really are after authenticity rather than superficiality. And in this climate that 'honest' approach suffers for it.

    All I can see from Goldsmiths is how to become a buisnessman/PR man, which imo is no bad thing. The art market is ripe for the picking and if you've got the tactical nous that Saathi and his pals have to manipulate that market then you can make a fortune as a dealer/contemporary artist.
    In the art world 'no news is bad news' and artists sell on notoriety be it good or bad.

    Slade


    You can't teach someone to be an artist just as much as you can't teach someone to be a premier league footballer. It is for the most part innate. Teaching artists are there, I think at least, to help you onto the art ladder, to inform your work and to open your eyes to new understandings.

    I think there was some quote from a dealer that I heard recently (perhaps on the Goldsmitsh documentary) that divided up what you needed to be a living contemporary artist (one who can support themselves solely through their art). He/She defined it as being:

    20% talent
    30% good understanding of society and art market
    50% work ethic

    As you'd expect the talent part of those percentages was in the opinion of successful artists a lot higher, like 80%. But thats because they've been told by admireres I suppose, noone says to Gormley or someone 'you've worked hard haven't you! and you've done so much work!'

    This is where the old adage 'find the right job and you'll never work a day in your life' come into its own.


    Can I ask if you've applied to the Slade?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ksader)
    I don't know why the conversation on art always goes down to: if it respects painting, it's kinda o.k. ,if not, it neglects the past. That's precisely what art history has teach us: there are painters who are not artists, painters that are artists, photographers who are not artists, photographers that are artists filmmakers.... and everything in between. Your mind, your complexity, sensibility, rebellion and authenticity and the way you work with what you got - even if you're not the greatest technically - is what makes a real artist.
    You're right about what art history has taught us, we are in a position now to forget painting. I certainly don't paint anymore. BUT painting and sculpture have been the medium of choice for artists for at least 2000 years and all discoveries, movements till 1900 have been in that context of painting. So there are huge points of reference to be made.

    Another thing I suppose is that there is something frightening about an art school that doesn't value drawing/painting or know anything about the history of those mediums. Despite contemporary work it's still how society view artists, if you are an artist you are expected to be able to draw to a reasonable standard, having the ability to draw well is unique. If you look at cont. art from a laymans perspective it is quite disheartening, artists can just take a photograph and call it art, they can film a white plastic bag and call it art, It looks lazy/arrogant for those working 9-5 five days a week And in our work orientated world to get away with work that looks like no effort or time has been put in, (which is then sold for millions) is blue murder (is that a saying ?????)

    There are many more arguments (some more obvious) that I;ve missed but will point out later if want.

    Also is your work more towards the 'Fine Art Media' area of the Slade's undergrad course. ???
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bertiewallace123)
    You're right about what art history has taught us, we are in a position now to forget painting. I certainly don't paint anymore. BUT painting and sculpture have been the medium of choice for artists for at least 2000 years and all discoveries, movements till 1900 have been in that context of painting. So there are huge points of reference to be made.

    Another thing I suppose is that there is something frightening about an art school that doesn't value drawing/painting or know anything about the history of those mediums. Despite contemporary work it's still how society view artists, if you are an artist you are expected to be able to draw to a reasonable standard, having the ability to draw well is unique. If you look at cont. art from a laymans perspective it is quite disheartening, artists can just take a photograph and call it art, they can film a white plastic bag and call it art, It looks lazy/arrogant for those working 9-5 five days a week And in our work orientated world to get away with work that looks like no effort or time has been put in, (which is then sold for millions) is blue murder (is that a saying ?????)

    There are many more arguments (some more obvious) that I;ve missed but will point out later if want.

    Also is your work more towards the 'Fine Art Media' area of the Slade's undergrad course. ???
    Yes, i went to an interview for slade (painting) although i was told the separation barely exist in practice and free exploration is encouraged.

    Well, actually, anyone can learn to draw if they dedicate, it's not a super power, like reading isn't a super power. My mother is a drawing teacher, so I know it for a fact. Although I understand that this is very hurtful to some egos of many pseudo-artist that can only rely on that "talent".

    There are so many people that draw really good and aren't artists. This is merely a technique that can be learned and says NOTHING about someone's creative potential and sensibility... I mean... the classes i've had in the past of painting / drawing are the most frustrating intellectually because it is full of people that think that they are some kind of genius because they have a trained hand.

    And to be honest, i don't care if someone spent 20 years doing something or 1 day, or even the medium they chose. Anyone with a slight sense of relativity theory understands the fallacy in such judgment...

    That type of thinking seems distant to the work Slade seems to encourage (even the tutor's work is so multimedia based, some of which extremely conceptual - very, very lazy naughty, arrogant tutors...) and more close to oxford uni perhaps.

    I though that art's role was precisely to challenge what is expected, but well, conventions and safety always look good on top of someone's couch.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This felt like hearing that being gay isn't natural or what is expected of a women is to carry a child and to cook and a man to work and repair pipes and instead of being encouraged to deliver your uniqueness what is encouraged is what is "expected".
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    First of all I'd like to distance myself from the arrogant and lazy opinion of conceptual art, this is only what I hear from people in the street, parents and friends outside of art college. AND might I add that these are the opinions of people outside of London, in a forgotten country called England..... Out here people still like to look at and make pretty pictures (ie 'The Big Painting Challenge' on the BBC) and anything challenging is frowned upon, purely because it is, a 'challenge' and people like to keep their safe views on art. I myself confess to have come to the conceptual table rather late in life (bout 6 months ago) and prior to that was an angry abstract painter cursing my luck that I was born into this messy art world, it was only after the initial phase of my art foundation course was I cracked open into the world of conceptual art. While I am thankful now to have undergone that process I can still sympathise with those who haven't undergone that ordeal and still carry the cross of representational/realism.


    'I though that art's role was precisely to challenge what is expected, but well, conventions and safety always look good on top of someone's couch.' (cba quot)

    This is really what it art boils down to, how we perceive and value art, what filters we need apply when viewing art with what Grayson Perry calls our 'art goggles'

    Personally I take Francis Bacon's stance that artists are 'psychologists of the human condition' and that their art 'unlocks valves of feeling' or something to that effect. Although I can appreciate it I don't buy into the whole essay-per-installation culture, imo good art either hits you or it doesn't. After that we can start the whole background reading etc, but in my eyes a good piece doesn't need it. Each unto their own though...
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...ighlight=slade

    Looked at last years thread.

    I'll summarise it for you to save some time, essentially the majority of those accepted heard first around the 28th of March, the rest (rejections and last few acceptances) occurred around the 31st Match, 2nd/3rd of April. In almost all instances they seem to hand out first then reject after.

    I think we'll have that pattern this year too unfortunately, their interviews occurred around the same time (9th till the 12th) and then were notified around the very end of March. In previous years their interviews were slightly earlier (3rd till 8th) and then they heard around now.


    I tell you its like waiting for ****ing Godot.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bertiewallace123)
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...ighlight=slade

    Looked at last years thread.

    I'll summarise it for you to save some time, essentially the majority of those accepted heard first around the 28th of March, the rest (rejections and last few acceptances) occurred around the 31st Match, 2nd/3rd of April. In almost all instances they seem to hand out first then reject after.

    I think we'll have that pattern this year too unfortunately, their interviews occurred around the same time (9th till the 12th) and then were notified around the very end of March. In previous years their interviews were slightly earlier (3rd till 8th) and then they heard around now.


    I tell you its like waiting for ****ing Godot.
    That sounds so fun haha
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The closer it gets the more anxious I'm becoming, every time I get a new email my stomach flips.

    this year the 28th falls on a Saturday, so the question is Friday or Monday to hear?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ieestok)
    The closer it gets the more anxious I'm becoming, every time I get a new email my stomach flips.

    this year the 28th falls on a Saturday, so the question is Friday or Monday to hear?
    Im putting my money on the Monday/Tuesday slot, they like to drag it out.

    Bizarrely I'm the opposite, I feel I've become less anxious around this point while earlier in the wait like last weekend I was so worried, just being irrational.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bertiewallace123)
    Im putting my money on the Monday/Tuesday slot, they like to drag it out.

    Bizarrely I'm the opposite, I feel I've become less anxious around this point while earlier in the wait like last weekend I was so worried, just being irrational.
    I guess though it's like, the decision for most people is made now I would expect, that's what's making me anxious. I just want to know.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ieestok)
    I guess though it's like, the decision for most people is made now I would expect, that's what's making me anxious. I just want to know.
    u say that but observing the patterns from last year the fisrt 20 people are roughly decided first (as seen by the initial invites around the 28th) then another batch are rejected then finally they invite the last 20 and reject the rest right at the end. Obviously theyre debating between 40 people up until the death.

    Ikr the wait is just so exhausting,it seems like nothing else has happened except 'waiting for the slade'
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bertiewallace123)
    u say that but observing the patterns from last year the fisrt 20 people are roughly decided first (as seen by the initial invites around the 28th) then another batch are rejected then finally they invite the last 20 and reject the rest right at the end. Obviously theyre debating between 40 people up until the death.

    Ikr the wait is just so exhausting,it seems like nothing else has happened except 'waiting for the slade'
    I expect the definite "yes"s and the definite "no"s are known, and I expect they would be the majority. And they'll have a general idea of the "maybe"s who are sent out after. I wouldn't expect a place like the Slade to be making snap decisions hours/minutes before they send it out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We'll just have to wait and see...

    Ahh then I'll actually have to decide where I want to go!
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 20, 2016
Poll
Could you cope without Wifi?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.