NEW YORK—Gregory Amenoff is chair of the Division of Visual Arts in the School of the Arts at Columbia University, which offers one of the most respected MFA programs in the United States. The current program, in existence since 1994, takes in around 25 students each fall. It is often seen as a direct route to professional success for young artists, and as a consequence, competition for places is intense, even with tuition and other fees reaching almost $42,000 for each of the MFA’s two years. Last week, as things were gearing up for the new semester, ARTINFO asked Amenoff a few questions about Columbia’s reputation and character, its place in the New York art scene, and how he and his colleagues select their new students.  

Gregory, you’re responsible for what is often described as one of the top MFA art programs. I don’t suppose you’d disagree with that assessment?

We’re certainly one of them. Along with maybe two or three other programs in the country, we really get the best and the brightest young artists around. Or rather, they apply to us, and we get them if they make it through the admissions process, which is pretty rigorous.

Do you think that students today think more about the commercial side of their career, about the market, than they might have in the past?

It would be naive to say that things are the same as they were in the ’70s. We live in the real world, we’re in New York, and lots of our graduates have galleries and are doing very well. Obviously the current students are aware of that, but I don’t think that they think commercially when they’re in their studios. We certainly don’t encourage them to. There’s an expectation among students that they’ll exhibit, but I wouldn’t say they all expect to sell out their work.

How does being in New York influence the program?

Columbia in general and the School of Arts in particular used to be more of an island, but over the last 10 or 12 years we’ve taken full advantage of the fact that we are in New York. We’re fully integrated in the art world—there’s no question about it—but at the same time we want to retain a little bit of the ivory-tower feel about what we do.

But surely you want your graduates to be prepared for the practicalities of working as artists?

Exactly. We want them to have opportunities and to have a practical understanding of the art world. We offer an optional class in being smart about how you do things, whether it’s signing a lease, getting a studio or insurance, or doing your taxes. We also encourage interaction between current students and recent graduates.

When considering applicants to the program, what do you look for besides the quality of their work?

Apart from the artwork, and what applicants say about their artwork, we’re looking for people who are adventurous, buoyant, and generous, and who have an overall sense of possibility, however one measures those things. Over the last six or seven years we’ve really fine-tuned the admission process and we’ve been very lucky to find people like that.

Is it true that you’re currently getting 1,100 applicants for about 25 places?

Yes. Applications are going steadily up. They went from 500 to 600 to 700, and now to 1,100. Painting attracts an enormous number, about 500—or 40 percent of our total applicants—but we accept only 9 painters, because we also need representation for new genres, sculpture, printmaking, and photography.

How do you decide whom to accept?

Our admissions committees are divided into genres, although when the students enter the program, the genres vanish. They’re all thrown together. That’s a hallmark of our program. But the admissions process does segregate people so that we can compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. In the painting committee, which I nominally head, we’re mindful of the fact that at the end of the process we want to select nine painters who represent a fairly broad swath of what’s going on in the medium. We try to remain open. We want to get a variety.