This is a great article. I feel a lot of this has been said quietly, in small circles, many times over for many years, but I don't know if I've ever seen it in such a public forum. Props to Michael Darling for speaking out.

I received my Photo BFA from UW in 2007 and I cannot help but share many of the sentiments Darling mentioned. There is also a much broader and simple observation that I noticed, and still do as I monitor the darkroom every week: The UW Art building is devoid of any inspiration, art or shared creative space. That building is not conducive in the least for generation. Pale, beige, narrow and brick, it doesn't feel receptive to art. Its not a blank slate, it's a blank stare and I still feel discouraged when I'm in that building.

Aesthetics aside, my experience with the faculty was very enjoyable as you build a rapport that could feel like you are both working towards honing your craft but it always seemed like professors were so busy (especially with the grossly oversized intro photo classes) and so stretched thin that both the students and the professors fell short in their experience.

Additionally, I think a greater emphasis in medium cross pollination should have been more enforced. Only now am I having to find the qualities of paint and sculpture exciting and potential vehicles for my ideas. A drawing class, a poorly taught 2-D design class, a speedy 'contemporary art' seminar and a surprisingly therapeutic 3-D class is all we needed for our foundations. It never felt ambitious or experimental. The only time I really felt encouraged to break out of my comfort levels was with an Installation course which is now a staple. I worked with frozen dye and space, it eventually seeped through the whole building and became part of the building itself. It was a great turning point for me in regards to how my personal aesthetic translated into another medium. More classes like this would really stimulate better work and new material sensitivities.

I also cannot feel quite discouraged by students in the Photo dept as no one is in their making work. My whole quarter found me washing photograms only all quarter! Childs play! That's supposed to be a singular assignment that teaches you the inverse nature of exposure. Instead it was the whole studio experience for the intro class, a rip-off in my book.

In all, funding, adequate and contemporary space and cross pollination are the sectors that need the most improvement.

I for one am (obviously) glad to get this conversation on the surface. Thanks for writing this Jen, I hope it sparks a metric shitton of conversation and, if we're lucky, some action to follow. And thanks to Michael Darling for saying it out loud - although I wish he'd done it earlier ;)

Having gone to both the University of Washington and the School of the Art Institute of Chicago I have mixed feelings. The sense I got in Chicago is that the artistic community is more open to interaction with the surrounding schools and there are more opportunities for art students to develop their work and ideas about art into a more cohesive practice. In Seattle there are so few Art Schools (or so few good programs) that, combined with what I perceive to be a "closed off" art community it's hard to feel like you can grow in the development of your practice once you get out of school.
By closed off I mean you have to be young and hip or older and established. there feels like there is no room left if you don't fit into one of those groups...
makes me want to move back to Chicago sometimes - or start a revolution...

The schools in Southern California turning out great artists are UCLA, CalArts, Art Center, and UCSD. Maybe USC is up and coming but in my time in LA no one is talking about their program even if it includes free tuition.

The scene in Seattle has always been craft and artisan based. There are pockets of conceptualism but they're small and can't seem to make a dent in all the galleries full of pretty colored glass. The MFA program at UW is simply a reflection of these trends. A fibers concentration? Really? Despite all the social activism in Seattle, it's not at all present in most of the art being produced.

Why is this article a rarity? Why do Michael's comments stand out?

Because we rarely speak our mind here in Seattle, and that's what's holding us back - holding our art-schools back from criticism hinders growth. Visiting artists - great. Seattle artists at SAM - cool. But none of that exchange sticks unless you're open to criticism and honest enough to give it back. Does a curator have to accept a job in another city before he can really speak his mind?

To blame the problems of seattle art on the art schools of seattle is short sighted. As a graduate of the MFA program I acknowledge there are many shortcomings of the institution and what it has to offer but that is true with any institution, including Yale, UCLA and USC. The city of seattle should nurture and enrich the educational institutions in the same way these institutions enrich and nurture the city. If you want faculty who are "leading the discussion" on a national and international level then the city should lead the discussion on a national and international level as well. It is in my opinion, wishful thinking to compare Seattle to LA, New York, Chicago or San Francisco. The most well known artists (not the same as best) teach in those cities because the cities offer possibilities that Seattle cannot. This is a cyclical problem not simply a problem of art schools.

on a side note: I Thought Joey Veltkamp was the 1st artist in Residence at SU? He created a very cool Salon series, that Jeffrey Mitchell, Matthew Offenbacher, Gretchen Bennett, Sol Hashemi and Jason Hirata, Kimberly Trowbridge, myself and others led workshops in. Sadly there weren't many SU students coming to the workshops, but it was still an amazing place to mix, mingle and make art. Joey did a great job to start it, and I look forward to seeing what Browning will do.

Sadly too, the UW doesn't even have a k-12 teaching art program, to help students who want to be educators in the worlds of the pre-art scene. I also see large gaps in k-12 art, but this past year it was wonderful to have Seattle School district students show art at SAM for the first time since I have been teaching. SAM was superb in hosting our students.

I hope this conversation continues and that the lines can blur more. As an educator in k-12 art in Seattle, I do see some gaps in the art realm here, but I am also see places where those gaps are filling. As an artist...I see them too, but many of us are trying to eliminate them, and as a student about to earn an MFA in a low-res program where I have had the opportunity to work with Harrell Fletcher, Marc Dombrosky, Stokely Towles and more from the visiting faculty at my school...it's opened my eyes immensely to what is going on beyond Seattle, all the while I have been here. We can build it, but some folks might need to stretch their comfort zones a little.

The point Darling makes is very well put. I wish Graves would focus on it--that Seattle is lacking in the realm of Graduate studies in art. The undergraduate art departments in Seattle are as good as any in New York, SF, Chicago. You don't need world class instructors to educate the essentials. Actually, it is probably better to have no-names doing it. But adding Graduate departments, visiting faculty, lecturers, older students, more intelligent students, etc, can have a profound effect on undergraduate students, "regular" instructors, discourse within the community, the galleries...the stranger.

Forgive the digression but since graphic design doesn't really get discussed on SLOG or in the Stranger, I thought I would chime in and say I've been really impressed with the quality of work coming out of BFA graphic design programs in the NW. I have seen a lot of portfolios over the years in New York and now here, and IMHO Seattle is producing some designers with great potential.

While making some good points, this article leaves out a great deal of information and fails to acknowledge the excellence of the Painting program and the national reputations of most of its faculty who exhibit their work in galleries and museums in LA, New York, Europe and Asia. The sadly ill-informed reader comment above claiming that the painting program restricts materials to oil painting on linen is a complete fabrication.

Also unacknowledged here are the blows the entire school of art suffered from the sad losses of the Printmaking, Fiber and Metals MFA programs that were the source of much innovation in the 90's. Budget cuts that created these losses as well as the loss of tenure line positions have shrunk the programs and the faculty while injuring the morale of a remaining hardworking community.

If the School of Art lacks unity, perhaps a building that houses all programs under one roof would create avenues for dialog to build a stronger, more vibrant community. Also, if the state believed in the excellence of the students entering the School of Art enough to provide of tuition waivers and financial support, great things would happen, but only a fortunate receive tuition waivers. This keeps students away, creates a great struggle those who come and puts up many barriers to dialog and creativity within the programs.

Essentially, if the State of Washington supported the School of Art, it would be killer fantastic. In more prosperous times, my experiences as an MFA at UW were fabulous–largely due to its faculty. In the current lean period, my recent experience as a Visiting Lecturer have been great. It is regretful that the School of Art has become a red-headed stepchild in the eyes of the State. Thus, the art community suffers the consequences.

While making some good points, this article leaves out a great deal of information and fails to acknowledge the excellence of the Painting program and the national reputations of most of its faculty who exhibit their work in galleries and museums in LA, New York, Europe and Asia. The sadly ill-informed reader comment above claiming that the painting program restricts materials to oil painting on linen is a complete fabrication.

Also unacknowledged here are the blows the entire school of art suffered from the sad losses of the Printmaking, Fiber and Metals MFA programs that were the source of much innovation in the 90's. Budget cuts that created these losses as well as the loss of tenure line positions have shrunk the programs and the faculty while injuring the morale of a remaining hardworking community.

If the School of Art lacks unity, perhaps a building that houses all programs under one roof would create avenues for dialog to build a stronger, more vibrant community. Also, if the state believed in the excellence of the students entering the School of Art enough to provide of tuition waivers and financial support, great things would happen, but only a fortunate receive tuition waivers. This keeps students away, creates a great struggle those who come and puts up many barriers to dialog and creativity within the programs.

Essentially, if the State of Washington supported the School of Art, it would be killer fantastic. In more prosperous times, my experiences as an MFA at UW were fabulous–largely due to its faculty. In the current lean period, my recent experience as a Visiting Lecturer have been great. It is regretful that the School of Art has become a red-headed stepchild in the eyes of the State. Thus, the art community suffers the consequences.

I totally agree with @9. To criticize UW in Seattle is to paint a big target on your back - no wonder Darling waited until he was headed out of town to speak his mind. It is so good to hear the issue of mediocrity in our art departments aired, but I wish that the same scrutiny would more often be applied to our schools as a whole.

Seattleites need to loosen up and learn to take some constructive criticism. UW is a good school, but it is not an amazing school - and we have no excuse. In a city with brains, wealth and tons of creativity, we could be one of the country's great centers for education. Why do we settle for mediocrity and pretend that it is excellence? We should expect more.

Thanks for this article.

"...historically they made a huge effort of gathering faculty who would be cutting-edge..."

Is that a thing, a thing that art schools do? Holy shit. You just blew my mind. Someone should have told me this when I decided to waste 5 years of my life at a horrendous "art" school.

Great piece. We need more like this.

Great piece! I found this article quite interesting.

I just recently graduated from Seattle University with a degree in English and loved it, but as a self-professed drama major at heart, was heavily involved with the theater department for the entirely of my time there.

The challenges the department face are many, most notably lack of adequate funding and lack of visibility - both on and off campus. Incredibly, when attempting to promote our plays, I found many students didn't even know we have a theater on campus!

For theater kids who need to stay in Seattle and who can't get into UW and don't want to go to Cornish for whatever reason - many of which you've covered - there's not much else for aspiring actor.

It is important that we recognize the issues with our art schools and admit that they need improvement. For a city that prides its self on its small but energetic arts and culture scene, our schools should reflect that pride and dedication.

CAPITAL HILL is not soho, but soho is not electric or eclectic. art in seattle is bad.

Wow.
I hope this conversation about creativity and art becomes less city self-referential and less gallery/art world myopic.
I chose to leave a position at a well established Art Institute precisely to teach and practice Sculpture at the UW.
Why? The UW is similar to other Research One Universities. It is a powerfully diverse, high caliber resource from which to teach, mentor, learn and practice art. What makes the 3DForum at UW School of Art a potential leader in an academic studio art practice? It values and recognizes ambitious, experimental and disciplined methods of both teaching and making art.

Hiring "hotshots" to teach is such a common, quick-fix solution to claim status. That tact only works if the environment(the city and school) wishes to be a sustainable, inspiring, provocative "hotbed" from which "hotshots" can forward their careers. (from emerging, into mid career and maybe, even prominence)
I'd much rather be identified with the creative place that makes and maintains the cultural cutting-edge, rather than a place that only hires them in and retires them.
Do we have higher expectations for the role of an artist than to check off their gallery show card?
I work in a program that proves to be nothing less than highly motivated, curious, dedicated; the R&D of contemporary culture in our society. Step it up.

Good point. In art schools across the country there are many opportunities to work with "hotshots" 20 minute a year while they look at their watches, and then walk out to leave you floundering, but few opportunities to be mentored, pushed and sustained in a laboratory community of the conceptual and physical act of cultural practice. I would say that this work is not restricted to the 3DForum however.

Eshafkind: Just to respond to your point, SU is calling Matt Browning the first artist-in-residence and Joey Veltkamp's programs the pilot.

This is a great article and I really appreciate reading and learning from it. I love modern and contemporary art and take the opportunity to see as much as I can here and in every city I visit. Obviously everyone has their own tastes &c but it doesn't really seem that difficult to assess when something is well done within its sphere, whether you love it or not. The art I've seen here just seems so mediocre. Since I know nothing about the art schools here I found Darling's comments (as well as the various responses) quite interesting. But coming to it from outside the "art scene", that is to say I read the art press and visit as many shows as I can but didn't go to art school and am not an artist myself, I think that the local art press is equally part of the problem. They are champions of mediocrity at best and enablers at worst. So much self-indulgent, idea free, derivative, craft-less art is lauded and elevated to a truly undeserved stature. The hyperbole can be pretty glaring: nobody labeled a "genius" even remotely rates. Honest critical feedback is so valuable to an artist, even if you dismiss it out of hand. Always hearing that everything is fantastic, that you are a "genius" can stunt development (why would a "genius", need to develop, pretty hard to improve from there), see the myriad cases where people surrounded by yes men become completely myopic and detached from reality.

Which, I want to stress, isn't to say the local art press aren't good critics and writers, I think they are when they put themselves to it. But they really give a pass on the local artists (and I can sort of understand why, it'd be pretty depressing to always be down on the locals) and I think are part of the problem of the current state of Seattle art.

I'm surprised nobody mentioned The Art Institute of Seattle yet.
Or is that the point?

Shared dreary basement studios (devoid of any inspiration, art or shared creative space as DJ put it), limited funding for teaching assistants, questions regarding the future of the MFA program and the inherent value of my graduate degree defined my experience at the University of Washington.

When it was announced via email that my department would not be excepting any new graduate students (cementing its fate as a defunct program) during my second quarter I decided to pursue other options.

For the record, I feel that I made the correct decision. It is a "sad loss" to see departments crumble under budget cuts but its even more so to see how the University of Washington treats its students and faculty without the dignity or respect they deserve.

Shared dreary basement studios (devoid of any inspiration, art or shared creative space as DJ put it), limited funding for teaching assistants, questions regarding the future of the MFA program and the inherent value of my graduate degree defined my experience at the University of Washington.

When it was announced via email that my department would not be excepting any new graduate students (cementing its fate as a defunct program) during my second quarter I decided to pursue other options.

For the record, I feel that I made the correct decision. It is a "sad loss" to see departments crumble under budget cuts but its even more so to see how the University of Washington treats its students and faculty without the dignity or respect they deserve.

Listen- I am currently enrolled at Cornish College of the Arts for my junior year in the theater department. I found this article to hold some truth- as of right now Cornish is trying to find a new president and due to the new dorms and furthur endeavors, it seems like it's trying to become more of a university- but mostly, I saw this article as a statement with no real solution. The statement is that our art schools just don't have the same "rigor" as other ones? So... do we all have to go to Julliard or Yale to study art? All of my teachers have studied movement in other countries and most of them have learned The Method. I like the fact that I'm being taught world reknown methods, but that my teachers are also adding in thier own ideas and methods as well. It's nice to work with teachers who do actually work in the city. They work and they have thier successes and thier failures- and it's the process they share with us. I love the freedom to make my own choices within a structured cirrculum, which in fact, can't be dated. I know several teachers who add and take away certain things every year. I love Cornish and I love that it's in Seattle.

Being originally from and a current visitor to Seattle, as well as having attended one of the nationally prominent art programs repeatedly mentioned in the article and the comments, I found this piece personally very interesting.

I think the thesis that art in the NW suffers because there are no good regional programs is a very sound one. The Art Academy is traditionally where students congregate to create a creative atmosphere, to get lost in studio, and to form friendships and relationships that will form the basis of lifelong intellectual and artistic community. This locally grown and organic intellectual and artistic atmoshere is as important to local art as locally grown food is to regional cuisine. If a program can't develop a national or international reputation, then it will fail to both attract students as well as retain those who do attend after they finish. The institution that houses the art program needs to create an environment that enables artistic and intellectual dialogue.

But it isn't only the schools (or lack of them) that is to blame. You have to create an entire constellation of opportunities and relationships for art to thrive here. There's a whole economy and ecology of art and design that is missing in the Northwest.

A program like Yale works not only because of the talented students it attracts and its rigorous admissions process, but also because of its proximity to New York City's art, culture, and design world. Relationships and connections that are built in an institution such as Yale are activated and built upon in the environment of the City. Similarly, UCLA, CalArts, and Art Center work because of the economy of Hollywood that sustains artists. In short, there is a 'scene'. But these 'scenes' aren't just created organically, they are also helped along by public policy and funding.

I tend to agree with those commenters who cite economic and political factors the primary reason art doesn't do well in Seattle. Art scenes are as engineered as they are organic. You need funders to underwrite more critical endeavors and initiatives for the arts in Seattle. Those endeavors need to be written up in the national press. An aura around art in the city needs to be built up, and that aura needs to be somehow tied to economic vitality. One thing is to provide subsidized art space, something New York City is doing now. City officials realize that its own economy is strangling its art scene, and affecting its international reputation.

While Seattle isn't comparable in art or design terms to the art economies of New York or LA, it is comparable to Austin, Minneapolis, Providence, and Rotterdam (NL), all small to mid-level cities that have great universities, institutions, and art schools that support a vibrant artistic or design life. What I find both encouraging and discouraging about Seattle's art scene is that it always seems to be emerging -- promising, but never quite there. I've read the stranger for nearly 20 years, and this critical piece seems to say what it often says about this City, that it's never quite good enough. But the perspective always seem to be one of personal disdain. It's a good essay about one person who makes enlightening comments about the city's art scene, but unfortunately, the article doesn't seem to offer any direction in terms of proactive, policy and institutional-level change.

"Seattle needs to revolutionize its master of fine arts program at the University of Washington..." very true. MFA programs are great. People come from all over the country and world to enter a dialog and, when it works, can change the politics and identity of the their location. Last i checked, Seattlites wants nothing to do with those damn Californians! Where else would they come from?

Seattle's navelgazing and self-obsession, constant questioning "IS THIS ART YET?" in conversation and press all contribute (or rather don't).

Michael Darling might have also reminded Graves there is only one paid art critic in Seattle and we all could have gained some perspective. Such a damning statement about our schools should have been handled with more balance, and not sent out into the world with a tone of resignation (to be read by potential grads and instructors, not to mention alumni and employers).

Michael is a wonderful curator, but not the brightest cultural bulb if he thinks that art schools are the problem with art in Seattle. The problem with art in Seattle is, surprise, surprise - money - and the administrative oversight of the few resources there are. Lack of funding hurts institutions, exhibition spaces, and artists, and it squeezes art departments, slashing faculty, programs, facilities, ideas, and time. Many of the faculty at the UW School of Art and Cornish are excellent artists and teachers, but they are left high and dry without the time and funding to make the changes they propose for their programs and to create opportunities to broaden their ranks. The problem is the nickel-and-diming mentality that stifles growth, and the lack of private, corporate, and public funding that leave both schools and artists adrift. In other regions, many thriving art departments and schools have a much stronger economic base.

As for the cause and effect principle, many artists who were schooled here live elsewhere and are doing just fine, thanks, and many artists who are here now went to school elsewhere but are languishing here. Why? The economic base is lacking. Despite the creative-geniuses-rise-above-struggle stereotype, lack of money destroys more often than it creates. Therein lies the original sin.

As for Jen Graves' take on things, more research, skepticism, and balance would have been in order. Michael is not Moses. And if would be heartening if you could try to get beyond the shallow water of snarky disgruntlement, self-righteousness, and myopia now and then.

Great article. I think having strong MFA programs would be great but I think there are additional ways to make for a stronger art scene. I am temporarily living in Houston, a big town with a strong art scene. Houston does not have a big art school yet the city is home to many great artists. First off the city is wealthy and its residents value the arts. There are top notch museums and interesting arts organizations that are well funded. The galleries are strong - people buy art. The MFAH has a kick ass residency program, the core. This program brings curators and artists to Houston for 2 years. Many residents decide to stay because Houston is very affordable and an incredibly supportive community. They tell their friends, their friends come. Finally, the word gets out and people just graduating with their MFAs, looking for a supportive community, move there. This could be Seattle...

Also, I can think of a handful of really interesting artists coming out of UW's MFA and BFA programs over the past few years (i think of the crawl space crew). It is not as if everyone coming out of usc, ucla, columbia, yale, etc is making compelling work.

I turned down going to a big name school for a school that gave me a full ride. I didn't graduate with the connections some of my colleagues had but I don't know if I would have grown as much at another school. School is where you begin to find your voice. where you can fail miserably and where you can begin to say what you mean. this can happen in surprising places...even in Seattle.

Seattle may not be LA, but it beats the hell out of places like Wash. DC, for instance, and is much more accessible to recent grads and other young artists than the largest centers like NYC and LA where most of them are eaten alive.

All this bears out my belief that the health of any art scene is fundamentally driven by money and real estate and developed by critical writing. Only a very tiny group of artists across the country have much of either even when they are successful, thus it is unrealistic to expect alumni to offer much financial support. The only person I can think of who is in this elite group is Chuck Close so someone get on the horn to him.

It is an excellent point that endowed scholarships from people like the True's and corporations like Microsoft or Amazon would raise the bar tremendously. Come on folk! This area has great wealth and even Dick's Drive has a scholarship program!

How curious that Jen Graves should write an article criticizing the art school educational system in Seattle, when in fact, she is part of the problem. While a student at Cornish, I had the displeasure of taking one of her "art history" courses. What I learned was not only is she disorganized and a horrible instructor, but also homophobic and racist. When I filed a complaint with Cornish Provost Lois Harris and crew, what I got was written off, while they defended Graves. In short, I received an education in school politics, but very little about art history.

I'm a proud drop out of Cornish College of the Arts - transferred to some other mediocre art school, and I feel I'm all the better for it. Cornish was dated, and yes you could say it lacked rigor, yes you could definitely say that. That being said I miss getting high in the parking lot :), flirting with the dancers, a few of the teachers, and doing what ever the fuck I want and it being okay with everyone.

Hey, that's not the first time I've heard Lois Harris spout B.S. Cornish will never grow because their faculty is bogged down by self serving personal agenda. Their interior design department lost it's accreditation in 2007. And members of the design faculty omitted students from it's email circulations addressing Job opportunities, internships and industry functions.

Cornish college of the arts lacks integrity.

well joopybutt, if you were getting high in the parking lot then you weren't college material and it figures you got a mediocre degree, which fits your likely mediocre art.

fyi... Elizabeth Darrow is not and has never been related to Clarence Darrow! Ask her...

New Orleans? Are you kidding me? If you aspire to the New Orleans art scene you have never been there and are clearly hallucinating.

The faculty at Cornish is probably bogged down with signing up for food stamps not their personal careers. Cornish is notorious for paying obscenely low faculty salaries. They are nationally famous for consistently appearing on the bottom of the faculty pay scale in salary surveys that cover the entire country.

Cornish is looking for a new president. Can anyone give three good reasons why someone would want the job after reading this?

Sure, birdbird, comment number 62.
1. There are lots of good artists there, both students and faculty, who were done a disservice by the remarks of Mr. Darling and Ms. Graves (her presence on the faculty there notwithstanding) and also by the quotes of a few disgruntled prima donnas, who know who they are and why.
2. Cornish is already doing a great job, despite its funding limitations, but it is in a prime position to help serve the underfunded art community here even more, especially if the new president can bring in more bucks to help in that regard.
3. The faculty at Cornish have been trying to make changes they themselves have proposed, but it has been in a context of bean counters and building restrictions, so there is all that potential there for a new President to unleash.

JN

#64 - Many artists who have graduated from and taught at area art schools have lived in successful art communities and, therefore, as you put it, "can talk."
And I suppose that you think you are "in the know" with your naive and wishy washy unregistered remarks. Hahahahahaha.

don't know if you read comments on old posts. but, whoa. i just listened to your exit interview with Michael Darling. listing off SAM's acquisitions, he named ten artists whose work they bought for the collection. only one was a woman.

damn. what a downer.

This article is the first place I've heard that contemporary artists are rarely defining themselves by medium. Why then, would the Rhode Island School of Design (Ranked #1 in fine art by US News)still be offering separate MFA degrees in Ceramics, Glass, and Sculpture -the new consortium that is offered at UW?

guys i think is a good idea bery good.