Talk:School of the Museum of Fine Arts at Tufts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I removed this statement:

The review boards and faculty strongly discourage students with lengthy art processes and lyrical evocations of antiquity, to the point of outright harassment. (see talk page)

It's a bit too POV and need a reference if true. --Etacar11 22:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fine, but no reference can be furnished since it is the actual experience of not only myself but another student. your version creates the false impression that the school is egalitarian, and this is because it must come from advertising, and not from anyone who has actually been involved with this institution. Not only are the above statements completely demonstratible, if you don't believe me, try and prove it, i guarantee the results of your experiment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.210.31 (talk • contribs)

  • I'm sorry for your bad personal experiences with the school. I'm not calling you a liar by any means. But the fact remains that a wiki article is not the place to air personal grievances. See WP:NPOV. If you feel the article is biased in favor of the school, you are free to try to correct that, provided that the result is balanced. --Etacar11 22:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Balanced" is not necessarily the objective as long as the material is properly sourced. Verifiability is what insures neutrality. Find a source for this (like an article criticizing the school and/or its review methodology) and it would be appropriate for the article. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 22:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

misleading/second hand info[edit]

the statement that a review board is about a student's work is actually incorrect. the student's work is only a means by which the SMFA student communicates to the faculty their artistic personality. their artistic personality is really what the discussion is about, whether or not anyone who hasn't been there understands this. that information is probably from material originating from the school administration and is in contradiction with the actual practices of faculty there.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.210.31 (talk • contribs)

The statement The Mission Hill building, located about a mile from the main building, recently has been renovated and includes studio spaces for Graduate and Post-Baccalaureate students as well as classrooms, workshops, the Writing Center, and the Registrar's office. has been edited to change the inaccurate mile to the accurate quarter mile.

ps[edit]

furthermore, in cases such as this, you are no doubt using information that has a point of view. are you only going to allow information from written sources, because, in fact reviewing your work is supposed to be what the faculty does, but, it doesn't do what it's supposed to do. are you going to construct an encyclopedia in cases like these which make what they say they do a factual report? what is the means by which you determine point of view opinions and when is it valid to be on the encyclopedia page? is it valid just because the school prints material describing itself one way? is it valid, in a similar way, to repeat president george w. bush's claim that we invaded Iraq for what he calls "peace"? in your article about the invasion. or, more exactly, how do you know how to divorce intent from information? In the case of SMFA, there is information that is lacking and the information presented is from a source likely to have a self-descriptive and even promotional intent. I contend the article is also a point of view that's been taken out of its original context, the one you've chosen to accept, and is not in fact a representative of reality.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.210.31 (talk • contribs)

i'm not sure if there could be verifiability as you put it on this subject. woul I have to write a book about my experiences to have it verifiable. If so, that doesn't seem like it's adequate to me. why would you think that my own word is different from a book i write? just because that means its public to attack etc. How about my roommate writes a report about me, and I about him. this world can be a sad sad place. where there should be joy, I see confusion and self-generated demons.

It's always important to tell the wikitruth. —Malber (talk • contribs) 19:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, if the information from what are literally self published sources or self-provided sources is used in the article, how is this not also a case of pov?

smfa in general[edit]

the museum school somehow boasts a "knit" community of artists, yet it is based on the mutual praise of ideas that have become enshrined as what is the art of the educated in modern art and the art of the formulaic ideas that have replaced questioning and searching. when i was there and searching for an innocence or a freedom that i couldn't find in the modern art school the faculty called my work everything from mistakes to hurting myself, that i had rigid execution and drawing, and all of this was intended to inform me that my work wasn't wanted. continually i was malinformed that i was avoiding the curriculum of the school, that i was using the school inappropriately until finally i left. i've decided that it was only important for me to be there until i realized that i really didn't have a reason to be there. but i really feel resentment about how pesonal and how aggressively they seemed to dislike the fact that i wasn't there and making something that they were just in love with, and i usually had very little feeling for what they embraced which seemed like everything except for what i was searching for. i feel like they tried to distract me from my chosen search. it is true i continued to be a student largely for other reasons for a few semesters. they also tried to make me accept their philosophy and interpretation of my artwork, and this also i've got a lot of resentment for. in fact i think i probably think that the aggression of their interpretation makes me more angry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.177.180.28 (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Added to the History section the recent decision to remove alternative photographic processes classes from the curriculum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.40.93 (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not have the same experience at this school as did some of the dissatisfied ex-students and/or alumn(ae). I truly enjoyed the freedom to take it upon myself to become educated in the arts. It has served me well as I have moved through various disciplines and maturity phases in my life. There were surely classes that I could or should have taken, that I didn't. I probably spent too much time in formal figure drawing and painting and not enough time in the computer lab - but it was very crowded and hard to get time on the computers, and it was in the basement, so I avoided those classes because I'm slightly claustrophobic. But that was my choice. I think the real learning of the school was in the process of creation itself, and not necessarily which classes you chose. I thought the faculty were there for you if you showed up and put in time. I understand that this is a POV as well. There are just so many negative opinions here, I felt I had to voice a positive alternate, which is that in an open learning environment, it is what you make it. Thanks for the ability to perhaps balance out the discussion I see on the page. Goldberg133 (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)goldberg133[reply]

Thanks for your addition to the article. Per WP:TALK, discussion pages are for talking about the article's content, and are not forums for opinion or personal experience. Unfortunately, much of this page has been used inappropriately. That said, one is glad that your experience was positive. Happy editing and cheers, JNW (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV language[edit]

The statement about the "tight knit" community is misleading and a POV. This discussion proves it. Such a statement is a POV isn't it? Removing now.

I went back in and edited out the following as POV statements that appear to have been cribbed from SMFA advertising materials.

The School of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (SMFA), is dedicated to educating artists and focused on fostering creative investigation, risk-taking, and individual vision. Everyone at the SMFA recognizes that disciplines converge and influence each other and that contemporary art is truly interdisciplinary.

This is definately a POV statement.

Also removed

This freedom comes with strong support and guidance from faculty advisers.

As seen in this discussion that is a POV that is contentious. I myself do not agree with it.

Edited Instead, all students are encouraged to build solid foundations and acquire skill sets in numerous disciplines in order to create new possibilities and forms of artmaking. Students are given the freedom to design a program of study that best suits their needs and goals. to the less contentious Instead students are ecouraged to build foundations and acquire skill sets in numerous disciplines. Students are allowed to design a program of study to suit their own goals and needs.

noted artists section?[edit]

Seems to me etacar rules over this section with an iron fist. I understand removing "vanity" edits, but how on earth does Shane Lavalette deserve to be on this list more so than any of the many people who actually have a substantial exhibition record whose names have been added and instantly removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.98.198 (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Calling oneself "greatest artist in the world," as this Matthew Meta person does, strikes me as pretty insufferable vanity, plain and simple. (I'm assuming you're talking about my recent revert--and by the way, my last previous edit on this article was almost a month ago and it wasn't to remove anyone's name, I hardly call it my ruling it with "an iron fist") But hey, if that's this artist's schtick and there's evidence of notability and not just egotism...I have no problem with this artist being added back. Is Shane Lavalette notable enough to be listed? Another matter entirely and shouldn't be used to justify inclusion/exclusion of Matthew Meta. --Etacar11 05:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, this is Matthew Meta's "shtick," he's one of the graduate students whose thesis show is currently running at the Tufts Gallery (http://ase.tufts.edu/gallery/shows/thesis_Dec07.html), but I'm not talking specifically about Meta. From your user page it doesn't appear that you attended the school and don't really appear to know much about the internal dynamics/drama/issues that the school is facing now and has been facing for some time. This article does not address any of these issues accurately. I haven't gone through the edits that have been made to see if people have tried to accurately portray the situation(s) without much personal bias, perhaps it simply hasn't been done. I know that wikipedia isn't the place for personal grudges or reporting on daily activities, but there are real historical issues that aren't present in the article and should be. Just for the record, I am not Matthew Meta, but I do know the person that added him to the list of notable artists, and that person is also not Matthew Meta, I'm not even sure if they know each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.116.123.91 (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etacar is correct on this, and need not have attended the institution to assess the need for notability (tangentially, internal institutional turmoil is probably not encyclopedic, unless it has become newsworthy, and can be sourced and presented in neutral fashion). In fact, the article is misused, as are those of many schools, by listing a number of non-notable alumni. In general, if those listed are not blue-linked to their own valid wikipedia articles, they are ripe for deletion. JNW (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read some of the above grievances with interest, for they describe experiences which are not uncommon to art colleges. If there are particular passages which are problematic, they may be cited with the appropriate requests for references, with templates calling for better references and WP:NPOV. However, such tags are not to be applied lightly, or in order to advance a personal agenda. JNW (talk) 06:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some cleanup on the "notable" list. Removed were -

  • Henry Samelson, Master of Fine Arts, 2003
  • Lalla Assia Essaydi, Master of Fine Arts 2003
  • Neeta Madahar, Master of Fine Arts 2003

None qualify, and are supicious since 3 notables from one class of 25 would be odd in any insitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.40.93 (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful external links?[edit]

From the "Overview" section, here are some dubious external links:

Unless somebody objects, I will remove the links. Reify-tech (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:School_of_the_Museum_of_Fine_Arts_at_Tufts&oldid=1207085007"