Things I wish I knew before I studied for the MA Fine Art at CSM
My experience was shaped by the pandemic, so of course, anyone going now will have a different experience.
It is a course specifically for people who want to put their practice in a larger context, both theoretical and practical. You are basically treated as a fully formed artist, who needs to learn how to contextualise their practice. As a consequence people who are still working out who they are as artists, might not get the space or might feel lost in the process.
So you will focus on having group practice events (like group crits, but with people curating their work somewhat together).
You will also write a research paper, that is supposed to work in tandem with your practice.
It is not really great for people who want to develop their practice as such, or take it into a new direction, because what will happen will be questions about why you are doing something a certain way, before you managed to work out what you want to do and how you want to do it in the first place.
Secondly - everyone is really nice to each other and that can be a hinderance. Nobody will ever tell you when you did something crap. In crits people talk around in circles and generally try not to offend anyone and each other, which just creates an atmosphere that personally felt not rigorous enough for me. I am sure it is because they learned from previous generations of oversensitive art students... so it works for the course, because the retention seems high.
Thirdly: traditional methods are subtly not encouraged by tutors. If you are a painter and want to experiment with installation- great! But if you are someone who is not primarily a painter, but you want to develop it- you will be questioned. I was asked "Why painting?" so many times, that eventually I did give up trying to get deeper into it.
The painting workshop is one of the smallest workshops in the whole CSM, and it is not even listed in the main directory board at the entrance, at least I could not find it. There is a certain aesthetic and look at that permeates the whole creative output of CSM. Despite the curse blurb that seemed to encourage a diversity of practice.. I cannot imagine being a contemporary realist painter on the course.
Not that I wanted to do that- but surely if we went by what the course promised, there should be a place for everyone, as long as they have good quality practice (whatever that means).
A lot of CSM art tends to look DIY/unfinished/ wilfully leaning into kitsch aesthetic, bad art, the abject etc. Which is fine, but I got the impression that there is no room for high art, or art that is just different from the main current.
Tagging. We were from day one encouraged to put our work into a broader "theme". The available tags felt dated. "Identity", "feminism" "language" etc.
The lack of agency in tutor choice was surprising. In Europe we choose a "class" taught by a specific artist. Students choose that class because they want to learn from that particular person. Hence we often see that European students "graduated from class of professor xx at the so-and so academy".
Here we were given a tutor arbitrarily. There often did not seem to be any link between the tutor's practice and the student's. We could not really change our tutor either. It felt weird, and as if I had signed up for a philosophy MA, but my advisor was a specialist in French literature. It would be difficult to imagine that something like this would happen in another discipline. That is not to say the tutors were bad, or unqualified.. but the whole matching process felt very arbitrary and not optimal.
Personally, the course was not for me.
I came with a clearly defined learning plan, with the skills I wanted to learn- and I came out without acquiring them. Each thing I wanted to do was questioned, and I was put off from doing things my way. I felt I was very little engaged with, contrary to my previous academic education, but instead talked at. I lost the direction of what I wanted to do, but was too alienated to come up with a new, clear direction.
I feel it is a deliberate strategy of the institution.
The assumption is that students come with a predefined way of doing things, and they need to break out of their mould and have their creativity stimulated. I did not have a predefined way of doing things- I had a drive and direction of who I wanted my practice to develop. The practice was still quite underdeveloped when I entered. I thought such a "open" course will have space for my way of learning.
The first module is the "stimulation module" - we were put into a series of intense theoretical seminars and lectures where a lot of ideas and themes were thrown at us randomly, and where w worked through some essays rather slowly. After that we were left on our own, to develop our practice and research, with occasional feedback from crits, and contact with tutors.
The process did not stimulate my creativity but instead disturbed it, because I was not a "fully formed artist" when I entered the course. I had too many ideas already, that I needed to work through, but no-one to talk about them with.
It somewhat took me into a new direction that felt out of control to me, left me on my own with it. The tutors did not check in that it was actually the direction I wanted to go in- and encouraged me to further dissociate myself from my own direction, and further questioned my intentions, encouraging me to lean into the results that I did not like.
I basically, I lost direction, motivation and drive.
I felt that throughout the course there was not one person who actually engaged with me about my ideas, or wanted to hear out what I had to say, because in a way that did not matter - there was no need for intellectual exchange between tutors and students because the aim was for students to be fully independent, and able to make all decisions themselves. It made for an alienating experience - because there was no one I could engage with about my ideas.
It was a very difficult experience and had I known the very specific way of approaching studies, I would not have chosen the course.
There were people in my year who needed exactly what the course had to offer, and they were really happy with the outcome, so I am sure it works for some, but for me, it did not, and I wish I understood better the nature of the course before I started it.
I wanted a space to unfold my practice naturally -what the course offered was an accelerated hothouse experience, that forced growth into directions that were contrary to my own.
It is a course specifically for people who want to put their practice in a larger context, both theoretical and practical. You are basically treated as a fully formed artist, who needs to learn how to contextualise their practice. As a consequence people who are still working out who they are as artists, might not get the space or might feel lost in the process.
So you will focus on having group practice events (like group crits, but with people curating their work somewhat together).
You will also write a research paper, that is supposed to work in tandem with your practice.
It is not really great for people who want to develop their practice as such, or take it into a new direction, because what will happen will be questions about why you are doing something a certain way, before you managed to work out what you want to do and how you want to do it in the first place.
Secondly - everyone is really nice to each other and that can be a hinderance. Nobody will ever tell you when you did something crap. In crits people talk around in circles and generally try not to offend anyone and each other, which just creates an atmosphere that personally felt not rigorous enough for me. I am sure it is because they learned from previous generations of oversensitive art students... so it works for the course, because the retention seems high.
Thirdly: traditional methods are subtly not encouraged by tutors. If you are a painter and want to experiment with installation- great! But if you are someone who is not primarily a painter, but you want to develop it- you will be questioned. I was asked "Why painting?" so many times, that eventually I did give up trying to get deeper into it.
The painting workshop is one of the smallest workshops in the whole CSM, and it is not even listed in the main directory board at the entrance, at least I could not find it. There is a certain aesthetic and look at that permeates the whole creative output of CSM. Despite the curse blurb that seemed to encourage a diversity of practice.. I cannot imagine being a contemporary realist painter on the course.
Not that I wanted to do that- but surely if we went by what the course promised, there should be a place for everyone, as long as they have good quality practice (whatever that means).
A lot of CSM art tends to look DIY/unfinished/ wilfully leaning into kitsch aesthetic, bad art, the abject etc. Which is fine, but I got the impression that there is no room for high art, or art that is just different from the main current.
Tagging. We were from day one encouraged to put our work into a broader "theme". The available tags felt dated. "Identity", "feminism" "language" etc.
The lack of agency in tutor choice was surprising. In Europe we choose a "class" taught by a specific artist. Students choose that class because they want to learn from that particular person. Hence we often see that European students "graduated from class of professor xx at the so-and so academy".
Here we were given a tutor arbitrarily. There often did not seem to be any link between the tutor's practice and the student's. We could not really change our tutor either. It felt weird, and as if I had signed up for a philosophy MA, but my advisor was a specialist in French literature. It would be difficult to imagine that something like this would happen in another discipline. That is not to say the tutors were bad, or unqualified.. but the whole matching process felt very arbitrary and not optimal.
Personally, the course was not for me.
I came with a clearly defined learning plan, with the skills I wanted to learn- and I came out without acquiring them. Each thing I wanted to do was questioned, and I was put off from doing things my way. I felt I was very little engaged with, contrary to my previous academic education, but instead talked at. I lost the direction of what I wanted to do, but was too alienated to come up with a new, clear direction.
I feel it is a deliberate strategy of the institution.
The assumption is that students come with a predefined way of doing things, and they need to break out of their mould and have their creativity stimulated. I did not have a predefined way of doing things- I had a drive and direction of who I wanted my practice to develop. The practice was still quite underdeveloped when I entered. I thought such a "open" course will have space for my way of learning.
The first module is the "stimulation module" - we were put into a series of intense theoretical seminars and lectures where a lot of ideas and themes were thrown at us randomly, and where w worked through some essays rather slowly. After that we were left on our own, to develop our practice and research, with occasional feedback from crits, and contact with tutors.
The process did not stimulate my creativity but instead disturbed it, because I was not a "fully formed artist" when I entered the course. I had too many ideas already, that I needed to work through, but no-one to talk about them with.
It somewhat took me into a new direction that felt out of control to me, left me on my own with it. The tutors did not check in that it was actually the direction I wanted to go in- and encouraged me to further dissociate myself from my own direction, and further questioned my intentions, encouraging me to lean into the results that I did not like.
I basically, I lost direction, motivation and drive.
I felt that throughout the course there was not one person who actually engaged with me about my ideas, or wanted to hear out what I had to say, because in a way that did not matter - there was no need for intellectual exchange between tutors and students because the aim was for students to be fully independent, and able to make all decisions themselves. It made for an alienating experience - because there was no one I could engage with about my ideas.
It was a very difficult experience and had I known the very specific way of approaching studies, I would not have chosen the course.
There were people in my year who needed exactly what the course had to offer, and they were really happy with the outcome, so I am sure it works for some, but for me, it did not, and I wish I understood better the nature of the course before I started it.
I wanted a space to unfold my practice naturally -what the course offered was an accelerated hothouse experience, that forced growth into directions that were contrary to my own.
Reply 1
Very interested to read your post about CSM fine art. I am doing Foundation and am considering applications to CSM and Chelsea for Fine Art to start in 2023. My impressions of CSM when I visited was that it was exciting, stimulating, and full of character, because of the vast number of creative courses there. It was described to me like a supportive framework, within which you could do just what you wanted. Chelsea I liked, too, and this felt more peaceful, serene, with bigger and calmer studios. I wonder what you would do now, if you had the choice to do it all again?
I get the impression that this leaning towards 'tags' at college and in the art world beyond is the way things are done now, but I can see this is frustrating. I do have a clear sense of what I am doing and want to do in my art, which is principally 2D, but large and textural, but I am also up for experimenting.
I get the impression that this leaning towards 'tags' at college and in the art world beyond is the way things are done now, but I can see this is frustrating. I do have a clear sense of what I am doing and want to do in my art, which is principally 2D, but large and textural, but I am also up for experimenting.
Reply 2
My impression was that the BA courses are better run at CSM and have better facilities. I think they are the "showcase" courses and hence have more resources poured into them.
They study on the main campus, whilst MA students were located in the Archway campus, which although was fine for some, for me always felt stuffy and difficult to work in.
I was impressed by the BA end-of-year show, and I would not advise against CSM as a whole, but if I were in your shoes, I would base my decision on speaking to actual students, looking their websites/insta/final show results, and weigh it up in relation to your needs/expectations. If you are sure exactly what you want to do (eg drawing, or installation, or painting) look for an institution that has representation in that discipline- eg staff that practice it, or students. If you are a painter, and want to stay being a painter- seek an institution that will support it. If you are a painter, but what to develop into an artist with other practice - then a more general and open art institution might be also suitable.
But - please don't trust the tutors and ask very specific questions of them as well. For example if you were into figurative painting (a very rare interest in art schools these days), I would not ask " can I do figurative painting at CSM" (because yes, of course you can! you can do anything you want!), but ask specific questions: "how would I be supported in developing into the direction I want to go in".
When it comes to the MA, I personally would not choose it again. I would have done more research on this particular course and had a look if there were other options for me somewhere else. That doesn't mean that CSM is not right for you at BA level - but I would strongly advise to research the differences and practicalities in the actual courses.
Good luck!
They study on the main campus, whilst MA students were located in the Archway campus, which although was fine for some, for me always felt stuffy and difficult to work in.
I was impressed by the BA end-of-year show, and I would not advise against CSM as a whole, but if I were in your shoes, I would base my decision on speaking to actual students, looking their websites/insta/final show results, and weigh it up in relation to your needs/expectations. If you are sure exactly what you want to do (eg drawing, or installation, or painting) look for an institution that has representation in that discipline- eg staff that practice it, or students. If you are a painter, and want to stay being a painter- seek an institution that will support it. If you are a painter, but what to develop into an artist with other practice - then a more general and open art institution might be also suitable.
But - please don't trust the tutors and ask very specific questions of them as well. For example if you were into figurative painting (a very rare interest in art schools these days), I would not ask " can I do figurative painting at CSM" (because yes, of course you can! you can do anything you want!), but ask specific questions: "how would I be supported in developing into the direction I want to go in".
When it comes to the MA, I personally would not choose it again. I would have done more research on this particular course and had a look if there were other options for me somewhere else. That doesn't mean that CSM is not right for you at BA level - but I would strongly advise to research the differences and practicalities in the actual courses.
Good luck!
Reply 3
Original post by Anonymous
My impression was that the BA courses are better run at CSM and have better facilities. I think they are the "showcase" courses and hence have more resources poured into them.
They study on the main campus, whilst MA students were located in the Archway campus, which although was fine for some, for me always felt stuffy and difficult to work in.
I was impressed by the BA end-of-year show, and I would not advise against CSM as a whole, but if I were in your shoes, I would base my decision on speaking to actual students, looking their websites/insta/final show results, and weigh it up in relation to your needs/expectations. If you are sure exactly what you want to do (eg drawing, or installation, or painting) look for an institution that has representation in that discipline- eg staff that practice it, or students. If you are a painter, and want to stay being a painter- seek an institution that will support it. If you are a painter, but what to develop into an artist with other practice - then a more general and open art institution might be also suitable.
But - please don't trust the tutors and ask very specific questions of them as well. For example if you were into figurative painting (a very rare interest in art schools these days), I would not ask " can I do figurative painting at CSM" (because yes, of course you can! you can do anything you want!), but ask specific questions: "how would I be supported in developing into the direction I want to go in".
When it comes to the MA, I personally would not choose it again. I would have done more research on this particular course and had a look if there were other options for me somewhere else. That doesn't mean that CSM is not right for you at BA level - but I would strongly advise to research the differences and practicalities in the actual courses.
Good luck!
They study on the main campus, whilst MA students were located in the Archway campus, which although was fine for some, for me always felt stuffy and difficult to work in.
I was impressed by the BA end-of-year show, and I would not advise against CSM as a whole, but if I were in your shoes, I would base my decision on speaking to actual students, looking their websites/insta/final show results, and weigh it up in relation to your needs/expectations. If you are sure exactly what you want to do (eg drawing, or installation, or painting) look for an institution that has representation in that discipline- eg staff that practice it, or students. If you are a painter, and want to stay being a painter- seek an institution that will support it. If you are a painter, but what to develop into an artist with other practice - then a more general and open art institution might be also suitable.
But - please don't trust the tutors and ask very specific questions of them as well. For example if you were into figurative painting (a very rare interest in art schools these days), I would not ask " can I do figurative painting at CSM" (because yes, of course you can! you can do anything you want!), but ask specific questions: "how would I be supported in developing into the direction I want to go in".
When it comes to the MA, I personally would not choose it again. I would have done more research on this particular course and had a look if there were other options for me somewhere else. That doesn't mean that CSM is not right for you at BA level - but I would strongly advise to research the differences and practicalities in the actual courses.
Good luck!
This is very useful, thanks! Great idea to try and contact recent graduates/current students from CSM Fine Art.
Reply 4
I had a similar experience, did you start in 2019? There were definitely some big staffing issues when I was there and a few things happened which were definitely red flags. I also felt really rushed by everything there and the way everything was structured was so “off” the archway building is also horrible. I’d actually been warned by another tutor (i did my BA at ual) not to go to CSM for the MA but I was really scared abt what I was gonna do once I graduated ahaha
Reply 6
Original post by Mking91
Could I ask, how many students are on the MA at CSM?
I went to the open day this spring and was told there are about 50 MA Fine Art and Art+Science students per year. I found the Archway building's studios particularly small for MA level (I've been in London for a decade and did my BA at Goldsmiths at the beginning of that time). The rest of the building and facilities are shared with Foundation students (500 fashion + 500 art every year). There seemed to be no scope to request visiting tutors. Group crits are of 5 or 6 people. I've also noticed that the scholarships situation seems particularly dire: apart from the UAL scholarships, which I see as glorified/competitive discounts rather than scholarships per se, there is nothing else available. These are a 50% tuition fee discount, so the course still costs 7k for home students even with that discount. There is the Cecil Lewis scholarship, which I was hoping to apply to when I was offered a place, however when I emailed about it I was told that it hadn't been confirmed for the year. Then I saw that there was also the Jane Rapley and the Mona Hatoum bursaries, but the application procedures for them online were of previous years - like with the Cecil Lewis - which suggests that they haven't been confirmed for this year either. Very misleading - they should have all been taken down from the website. I'm presuming that the lack of meaningful funding will inevitably attract more people who are happy to self-fund / get into debt.
Reply 7
I have been to their end of years shows (BA) and was disappointed with the quality of work in fine art specifically at CSM. compared with other end of year shows where people actually have proper space to showcase their work (like at the slade, goldsmiths and even Chelsea), at csm the work felt unfinished and it gave me the vibe of a very last minute work/was done in a hurry/lazyness if you know what I mean.
I felt sorry to know that a lot of people are paying so much money and not getting enough from the university. csm is known for being good at their design/fashion courses. if you are looking for a proper fine art course (BA or MA) I would recommend looking somewhere else.
I felt sorry to know that a lot of people are paying so much money and not getting enough from the university. csm is known for being good at their design/fashion courses. if you are looking for a proper fine art course (BA or MA) I would recommend looking somewhere else.
Original post by Anonymous
I have been to their end of years shows (BA) and was disappointed with the quality of work in fine art specifically at CSM. compared with other end of year shows where people actually have proper space to showcase their work (like at the slade, goldsmiths and even Chelsea), at csm the work felt unfinished and it gave me the vibe of a very last minute work/was done in a hurry/lazyness if you know what I mean.
I felt sorry to know that a lot of people are paying so much money and not getting enough from the university. csm is known for being good at their design/fashion courses. if you are looking for a proper fine art course (BA or MA) I would recommend looking somewhere else.
I felt sorry to know that a lot of people are paying so much money and not getting enough from the university. csm is known for being good at their design/fashion courses. if you are looking for a proper fine art course (BA or MA) I would recommend looking somewhere else.
I am hear the same from some students so I am in trouble ! I really need a supportive staff as I think that s what Uni should offer everyone , support and a fluent English course , attendances and work in class / team ! What d u think about the CSM ? Is it worthy or goldsmith ?
Reply 9
Original post by Freeyou
I am hear the same from some students so I am in trouble ! I really need a supportive staff as I think that s what Uni should offer everyone , support and a fluent English course , attendances and work in class / team ! What d u think about the CSM ? Is it worthy or goldsmith ?
If you want to be a serious artist don't go to BA at CSM. better, goldsmiths, slade or ruskin.
im doing a ba at goldsmiths, English is not my first language and they have extra support classes in academic writing for example to help you out with essays (be ready cause they are very academic there). if you dislike the academia side then try camberwell or Chelsea. about supportive staff: I don't think there is a lot of support on fine art courses in London to be honest. most of the good schools leave you by yourself and its up to you to show up to the studios everyday and do the work as they treat you as an artist (not a student) since day 1.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- MA Fine Art CSM vs RCA 2025 (Advice Please!!!)
- Central Saint Martins
- Official University of the Arts London Applicant Thread for 2024
- UAL- CSM
- Seeking Advice on City/Urban Design MA: CSM - UAL vs. RCA.
- 2023/24 Ask a UAL Student
- Ask a UAL Student Ambassador
- MA Fine Art 2025 - CSM / Camberwell / RCA or Goldsmiths
- Chelsea or CSM fine art
- New student 2025! Looking for friends! CSM + Chelasea
- RCA CSM which MA is better for a fine art student?
- UAL International Students 2024/25
- LCF or CSM for journalism?
- Head vs heart for degree choice
- CSM fine art MA
- MA Fine Art CSM vs RCA 2025 (Advice Please!!!)
- Deciding between MA programs, need experience/advice! (RCA, UCL, Goldsmiths, C&G)
- csm MA fine art 2024
- UAL CSM without foundation diploma URGENT
- Foundation Art Falmouth or Bath Spa or Edinburgh College or UAL.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
Official University of the Arts London 2025 Applicant ThreadLast reply 1 week ago
University of the Arts London 2025 Applicants - Ask a UAL StudentLast reply 4 weeks ago
UAL applications 2025/26, foundation & undergrads?Last reply 2 months ago
I'm looking for a university to study film and screenwriting in the UK
