Serious Play was the latest in a series of bi-annual conferences hosted by Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, around the theme ‘Stories from the Source.’ It is part of an initiative from the top brass to position Art Center as a forward thinking school in competition with schools like Carnegie Mellon, Stanford D and others, equipping students with cross-disciplinary tool kits for the world of tomorrow.
As stated by Richard Koshalek, President of Art Center, Serious Play is an important event that strategically places Art Center within the global community of design and education. And as he quoted Erica Clark (the other person responsible for the ‘Stories from the Source’ Series), “isolation breeds irrelevance.”
Well, as a student of Art Center, and as a participant in the conference, I have a story, from the source. Art Center is in danger of becoming highly irrelevant to the very world it is trying to influence. This conference, along with Art Center’s ‘Sustainability Summit,’ is an example of Art Center continuing to present two separate faces to the world. While touting its desire to be a leader that prepares students for the world tomorrow, Art Center lacks any understanding of what that world will be. Or at least, lacks the legs to walk the path it loves to talk about.
Anyone who attended the Sustainability Summit was lucky enough to drink from glass cups and eat off ceramic plates for the dinners and snacks provided throughout. They also had the option of some recycling bins to place recyclable trash accumulated over the few days. Unfortunately, the people attending the three-day summit had more options to recycle and be responsible than the students who attend Art Center on a daily basis. The Art Center Cafeteria still uses Styrofoam plates, in spite of numerous efforts by select faculty and students for two years to change this. We know how to change this. We also know how to reduce the amount of waste we generate. And we know how to substantially improve our recycling rate beyond the standard 50%. Money has been cited as the limiting factor to this, but I can respect that only so much.
Student tuition has been raised 5% consistently over these past two years so that Art Center can “remain competitive,” or so the little letter I receive in the mail states. Well, I’m glad someone in Art Center was able to find the $385,068 in 2005 to pay Gehry Partners to design our new “advanced technical center.” A facility that has yet to break ground, and will not be finished before any attending student graduates. With a net loss of $128,955 reported in 2005, it’s not surprising that the 2008 Car Classic got cancelled. For that much money, we could hire an entry level Senior Officer who advises solely on Sustainability, and one-day work their way up to our President’s $439,950 2005 compensation. I haven’t seen the latest Form 990 from Art Center I’ll be naively optimistic and hope that these prices have been adjusted to remain “competitive.”
I’m not saying that it is as simple as cutting our president’s salary in half. I respect that he was worked hard to get where he is, and this is his earned compensation. I could simply not pay my tuition, as the popular thing to do now is “vote with my wallet.” That would take me out of their conversation completely (though one in which I feel I am already ignored to a serious degree). That option is comparable to walking away from the negotiation table before everyone has been invited. We have to affect change in our immediate spheres of influence. We have to be willing to make an effort. And I would very much like a return on my investment so far.
I want a degree, I want it to come from a place I respect, and will continue to respect in the future. I fell in love with Art Center before knowing its problems. The face that I fell in love with still exists, there’s just a bit more to her than I first realized. True to that love, I want to help out, if only my partner would admit to the problem and make an effort her self. Art Center is infamous for being demanding and destroying the relationships of its student body, but I think this is one relationship I can do something about. I just need a little help myself figuring out how to do so. And then maybe together walk the talk, hand in hand.
Information from:
Art Center Waste Stream Analysis 2007
Art Center 2005 Tax Form 990
Art Center Tuition Raise Information Letter
1,352 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 1352 Newer› Newest»Hi Shoji,
You make good points about the value of petitions - the Board of Trustees needs to be convinced that real people are standing up to make a statement.
But the issue of job security is a real one for the people whose salary is paid by the college. The history (both real and imagined) makes people fear for their jobs. Even if no one have ever been forced out, the fact that only one faculty member and no staff that I'm aware of (even those who support Koshalek) have signed their name on this blog should tell you something about the climate of fear.
Despite what was said at the ACSG meeting, there are many cases over the years at Art Center where people have been either directly fired, made to resign, or "had their positions eliminated" (HR legal-speak and cover for laying someone off without cause "because the position does not exist anymore") when in fact the reason was that they had a run-in with one or more of the senior administration. In several cases, long-time employees were notified and immediately walked out of the building by security guards.
So the fear seems well justified. And even if it isn't, it is an indictment of this administration for the atmosphere of fear that's been created.
what's the hang up on the report of the friday meeting with k?
To the Alumni
What's On The Table? : In Support of Faculty and Students of ACCD
As an alumni of ACCD you either never came back to the college or you participate in a few events. Really, there wasn't any form of school unity at ACCD while you there; you went for the best education available in the States, not for the social scene. Now the
only reason ACCD exists is in jeopardy.
The college in the last 3 weeks has undergone a major shakeup and is on the verge of a student revolt. All they want is the education they came to ACCD for. However due to Administration's plan to expand, most of the resources and their focus have been on building rather than education. Because of the unrest, the working environment for students, faculty and staff that don't align themselves with the administration is completely stressed.
To show our support to the faculty and students of ACCD there will be a Potluck dinner at the hillside campus on Tuesday June 3rd @ 6pm. We the alumni will be there to show the Administration that we do care and that our voices will be heard alongside the students. It's your legacy to the students of ACCD. BRING YOUR FAVORITE POTLUCK DISH.
PLEASE PASS THIS ONTO YOUR CONTACTS AS WELL. :O)) because you know I can only make so much lasagna....:O)
To The Students
"What's on the table?"
Come join ACCD alumni for a potluck dinner on Tuesday June 3 @ 6pm in the student cafeteria. We will feed you, listen to you, and support the students and the faculty in your cause for an environment that fosters great education, mutual respect, and a workplace free of fear from retaliation.
All you need to bring is a fork, we will provide the real plates and real food.
Here's a far-reaching, workable, "vision" for you: Kick most of the 200 administrative staff members OFF THE HILL. Give the students BACK the Ellwood building, as God and Kubly intended.
Put the staff in offices and a cube farm at the South Campus. The place is ill-designed and virtually useless for classrooms anyway.
I've gone ahead and upload Nathan's video from the May 30, 2008 round table discussion with ACSG and Koshalek (et al). I've done my best to point out the main issues talked about in each video on the myspace description (youtube doesn't allow videos over 10 mins). I recommend that people watch these (although lengthy at about 3 hours total). A lot of information is covered.
Some things to note:
Part 2 is corrupt and is not here. Any information from that 15 minutes should be retrieved from the ACSG secretary, who, as I understand, was taking written notes. (If you know of anyone willing to take a look at the .mov file and attempt to fix it then speak up).
The only editing (aside from making the clips relatively the same length) I did was to take out a 3 second clip where Koshalek mentions something that he deems as classified (by the source that told him) in one of his stories. It's completely unrelated to the issues being discussed and it wasn't necessary to keep in there. Everything else is there (jokes included) in an attempt to present the meeting as it took place.
Feel free to mirror this information where it seems fit, and let me know if you run into any technical A/V problems while viewing.
http://tinyurl.com/6hgwdg
This video was recorded with permission by everyone in attendance. I've gone forward and emailed the admnistrative atendees then link and double checking if I have permission to post these. If they decide that it should be kept as a private meeting (and I can't see why since this helps explain the current agenda for ACCD), then I'll respectfully remove the videos.
Shoji: are there going to be any transcripts of the video?
I'd like to clarify that Audrey wrote the petition up at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/educationfirst (go sign! go sign!). She had input from me as well as others and I support it for its professionalism. Those of you who want to specifically make a vote of no confidence in Koshalek, the place to do it is in the comments section when you sign.
Thank you to Shoji for clarifying the anon status and for posting the video, it's a first step towards the transparency we're fighting for. And cheers to Ophelia for organizing the potluck! Who says Art Center doesn't have community when the alumni are doing this much for the students. Thank you!
again, anyone who wants to get involved and do something real: astods@gmail.com
Just like you, I had fallen in love with Art Center at first sight, and it wasn't even the real thing. All the way across the world, I saw that catalog and I was sweeped off my feet... After many obstacles, I finally found my way into its arms.
Coming to Art Center from across the world, just for the best of education my family saw fit for me -and have been able to financially support me, is the best thing that happened to me in my 23 years of life experience.
I fell in love with the level of skills from students, alumni and the amazing instructors. I grabbed hold of the edge of the cliff to reach the top, and I can not let it crumble in my hands, not after all that I have overcome.. And same goes for every student in this school, I believe.
I have been proud to be a part of the Art Center family and I want to stay that way too.
In response to Sherif,
I understand and agree with the thinking behind your post, however you must remember that the source of this flare up is the circumstances behind Nate Young's resignation, someone who was familiar with the inner workings of ACCD. His Assistant Rachel testified on the reasons he left at the meeting highlighting his ethical conflict with the current leadership. Nate was much more in touch with Art Center than the president and has earned an enormous amount of respect from the students and faculty. Now we have 3 hours of video of the meeting between ACSG and Koshalek, the facts are in the open (at the very least their intentions, motives, and philosophies). While I sure some here are just "jumping on the band wagon", no one has to be because there is good information available. The most remarkable part is that this information would still be hidden if it weren't for the students uprising. Students and Faculty are banding together and taking action to ensue and improve the quality of life and education at the school they love. In America it is never wrong to question authority!
-Jeremy A
We're staring to put up a brief summary of the ACSG meeting videos. No commentary, just what was said for now. It is a work in progress, and please let us know if there are any inaccuracies.
futureofartcenter.blogspot.com
To the office or persons responsible for the cropping of the Legacy Circle photograph on the Art Center homepage.
There is a photo on the Art Center Homepage under “Check it out”. It is a photo of Left to Right: Richard Holbrook, Wayne Hunt, Stan Kong, Ramone Munoz and Kristine Bowne. The picture was taken at Richard Holbrook’s Legacy Circle fundraising party for student scholarships. Nate Young was originally in the photograph next to Kristine Bowne. Nate was cropped out of the photo last week.
This was very disrespectful to Nate Young, an alum and member of Legacy Circle, myself and co-chair Ramone Munoz, the development office and all the members of our group. Nate joined our cause with a generous gift towards student scholarships, was very supportive of our efforts and encouraged many others to join and contribute.
I am very troubled by this action. It doesn’t make it any easier to fundraise, particularly in this economic climate. It sends the message that you can give to the college but we may not appreciate it. We are all volunteers and need as much support from the college community as possible.
Go to the homepage:
http://www.artcenter.edu/
Click on the photograph and it will bring you to the Legacy Circle page. Whoever cropped the photo forgot to delete Nate’s name from the description of those in the original photograph located below to the right:
Top Left: Left to Right:
Richard Holbrook, Wayne Hunt,
Stan Kong, Ramone Munoz,
Nate Young, Kristine Bowne
The Legacy Circle Committee deserves an explanation from those that are responsible.
Stan Kong
Co-Chair, Legacy Circle
Alum and Faculty
Quick note for those who are watching the videos and trying to parse meaning (I just finished the first segment myself)
In the spirit of radical transparency RK states that the endowment was $16.9 M when he started and its $43 M now, a $26 million dollar change.
By Art Center’s own official 990 federal records available online, from 2000-2006 $66 million came in as contributions to the school.
So while endowment got $26M there’s another $40M from donations somewhere. I’m definitely NOT implying anyone took this money and I presume it went to a priority building fund, but it would be nice to know - in the spirit of transparency.
Also, according to these 990 records it cost the college $27.8 M to raise this money over this same period.
My quick math: The school spent more money ($27.8) to raise money than the positive change to the scholarship fund ($26M).
These are public records available online
990 records
http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?partner=grantexplorer&npoId=227435
stan,
re: your post at June 1, 2008 7:44 pm
i looked at the photo. it actually looks patched. not like someone just clipped nate off the edge but they went into photoshop and enlarged and pasted the woman (christine?) over a spot where someone else was. can you clarify this?
as someone who is a photoshop jockey but is confused by all this discussion about finance and buildings i get the deliberateness of erasing someone important from a pic in photoshop. looks like a small, petty gesture but a picture = 1000 words
Ok. I've suffered through the entire set of videos with RK & co. delivering the message to the ACSG. Can someone point me to the part where they explain why Nate resigned?
That, my friends, is the heart of the matter. They are quite dazzling and reasonable sounding, giving their reasons why they want to build the Gehry building, the benefits to the college of the conferences, etc., but:
Nate left for a reason.
Remember the magician at the conference, showing how he would distract your attention with one hand while the real business was done with the other?
That's what's happening.
The problem with the meeting was that there were no dissenting voices at the table (who wants to get fired?) and the students present didn't know which questions to ask to rebut what was being presented.
It is abundantly clear that the problems facing Art Center can be traced back to Richard Koshalek. His penchant for spending is something that has dogged his entire career. There is a very clear feeling that he places his international lifestyle above the real and urgent needs of the college. His constant trips all over the world (these "international initiatives" that never really seem to materialize) spend huge amounts of money, and net precious little for Art Center. He and Erica Clarke (and perhaps others) should be relieved of their duties. Several highly regarded executive staff have "resigned" of late - some with large payouts. What does this tell you? They have been paid off to keep it all a secret. They throw money they don't really have it good people who simply see the mess that is this administration, want to make constructive changes, and are shown the door. His tenure has LONG past whatever usefullness it had to Art Center. Art Center needs leadership that treasures the unique history and contributions of this great school, not someone who simply uses the school as a financial vehicle for his own highly rarefied lifestyle. Sack them all. Start over, and get back to the original mission. I hope the board gets the message. The emperor has no clothes.
We've cross-posted the post by Stan Kong regarding the photoshop-ed removal of Nate Young on our site, along with an archived version of the offending (offensive!) page in case they delete it.
futureofartcenter.blogspot.com
Regarding the videos and discussion on travel expenses, I don't mean to imply anything here but am stating the fact: the Getty also had clean audits throughout the entire time that its leadership was spending lavishly. It took investigations by the LA Times and national media to finally force the head of the Getty, Barry Munitz, to resign. Here is what he said (from the LA Times) right before he resigned:
"Every trip I took was fully documented, completely disclosed, reviewed, approved and subject to internal and external audits at multiple levels," Munitz said, adding that he "carefully allocated between personal and institutional expenses."
For those looking for the petition link:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/educationfirst
Thanks so much to ACSG for the video of the summit with Koshalek! There will no doubt be plenty of dissection in the days to come. Here's some early observations:
A lot of it seemed to be nuts and bolts, admins talking and giving the standard rap, with ACSG listening politely and mostly silently. Nathan (I think it was Nathan?) asked a few good tough questions, but they went mostly unanswered, e.g., the debt service (read "tuition for architecture") was never revealed, the actual cost and losses of the conferences was avoided. Nobody asked how much Frank Gehry had been paid to date (reportedly $2 million).
Koshalek "truly believes" a lot of stuff (just plain-old believing is not good enough, I guess -- TRULY believing is better). For example, he truly believes Art Center "can NO LONGER build a wall around the school." Not sure who he was trying to imply was behind-the-times on this one -- after all, he's been the one at the helm for the last nine years. Of course, it's a straw-man argument anyway, because there never has been a wall around the school. First pres Tink Adams opened up Japan, second pres Don Kubly pushed Switzerland, third pres David Brown opened the Swiss campus and stayed there for ten years, then took on Asia... It's just more spin, inane slogan-ism.
Koshalek likes to slip a lot of claims in to bolster his points. For example, he claims to know that there is a direct correlation between the avant-gardness of a buiding's architecture, and the quality of work being done by its inhabitants. This, actually, is the the heart of his entire vision: celebrity avant-garde architecture is necessary because students will turn out banal work in anything less than that. (By the way, he knows this because he's read "many articles" that say it's the case. Nathan, to his absolute credit, asked Koshalek for the names of the articles. They'll get back to him on that...).
Oh, AND you need a celebrity architect in order to raise money.
So, let's see -- well, take the most creative film school on the planet, USC School of Cinematic Arts, as just one example. Broke ground on a new facility last October -- for which they raised $175 million from Lucasfilm. Anyone know the name of the architect? Didn't think so. Anyone care? No -- see, it's not about architecture over there, it's about education. Want to see a picture of it?
http://www.urbandesigngroup.com/board_info.cfm?projectID=97
According to the Koshalek philosophy, they're doomed -- no more good work coming out of THAT mediterranean monster. USC just doesn't get it -- they just don't know that tomorrow's movies are gonna be box-office flops, dull unoriginal bombs because those students only had the best facilities and instructors in the world, but not a fancy shell to inspire them.
The point being to all this sarcasm, that this claim of Koshalek's is just hype, a smokescreen. Art Center students could do great work in a bomb shelter! Don't be fooled by The Scam.
All that said, we SHOULD have a good strong architectural statement as our goal -- we're a design school. But let's just get the right highly creative person, and then take the few million we'll save by not having to pay a celebrity architect and put it towards our true mission -- education.
dear stan and others,
why are the powers at art center erasing evidence of Nate's contribution to the school? isn't he part of our history?
to 11:17 pm --
I agree that we need a good strong architectural statement. Forgive me if I'm out of it on this point, but isn't Frank Gehry more than a "celebrity architect"? He's done a lot more than be famous for being famous, it seems.
What architect(s) would you recommend instead?
Someone at some point suggested Richard Meier as a white-building counterpoint to the black box. Is he less of a "celebrity architect" for you?
Hi Future of Art Center,
Any way you can key your bullet points of the ACSG meeting with the adminstration to the actual tape numbers?
RE -- Nate photoshoped out on the website.
Isn't the website Iris Gelt's domain? Wasn't she there in segment 9 of the ACSG meeting, chirping in about how Koshalek and Co. were so above anything as petty as retribution for criticism?
And, weren't they going on about how poor performance can't be tolerated? I doubt that her website designer took it upon himself to decide to perform the rubout...
Re: Richard Koshalek's proud insistence on the $75 million raised since 1999. Why then did he "resign" the fundraiser who led this campaign? More "underperformance"? Why did the next head of fundraising resign within six months?
Art Center's fundraising has never recovered. Students deserve better than the $1 million or so raised in scholarships a year (the number they quoted for last year). Pathetic.
To 11:32pm June 2/08
To answer your question, I am going to quote from Christopher Hawthorne's review of the renovation of
the Huntington Art Gallery.
http://tinyurl.com/5y3ozh
"The fact that the Huntington Gallery's renovation was overseen by two firms you've never heard of also makes it an anomaly in our era of hyper-marketed partnerships between museums and architects. (By giving top-line credit on the renovation to Earl Corp., a design-build firm, rather than a noted architect, the Huntington saved a good deal of money.) It also says something about how the institution's priorities and view of its place in the larger culture have changed over time.
The more significant news is that by standing deliberately apart from recent trends in museum architecture, the Huntington has asserted its value as a cultural resource more unmistakably than ever."
To read the full article go here http://tinyurl.com/5y3ozh
I am posting this again because the previous invitation will be too far up to see.
TO ALUMNI! An invitation to help support the students and faculty.
All we need is you to be at the campus and bring food (anything will do, it's the gesture that counts)
What's On The Table? : In Support of Faculty and Students of ACCD
As an alumni of ACCD you either never came back to the college or you participate in a few events. Really, there wasn't any form of school unity at ACCD while you there; you went for the best education available in the States, not for the social scene. Now the
only reason ACCD exists is in jeopardy.
The college in the last 3 weeks has undergone a major shakeup and is on the verge of a student revolt. All they want is the education they came to ACCD for. However due to Administration's plan to expand, most of the resources and their focus have been on building rather than education. Because of the unrest, the working environment for students, faculty and staff that don't align themselves with the administration is completely stressed.
To show our support to the faculty and students of ACCD there will be a Potluck dinner at the hillside campus on Tuesday June 3rd @ 6pm. We the alumni will be there to show the Administration that we do care and that our voices will be heard alongside the students. It's your legacy to the students of ACCD. BRING YOUR FAVORITE POTLUCK DISH.
PLEASE PASS THIS ONTO YOUR CONTACTS AS WELL.
to June 1 10:30pm
On the last (#9) clip of the ACSG meeting with R.K., a little more than halfway through that section, R.K tells us his spin on why Nate was let go. Don't believe it!
RK & Co.'s definition of a discussion:
Spin, spin, spin, until -- fainting with exhaustion -- you agree with them.
why hasnt anyone mentioned all of the jetsetting and world trips nate and his staff (chairs) did while he was here. you are all focused on RK's trips but if u look at last years budget hey guess why educations budget was over...oh thats right nates traveling ....but hes now a god so we dont want to seriously discuss why he did not do his job. his job was to make sure the things under his command were on budget and he couldnt do it. oh i know the next thing u are going to say is that his budget was cut...well all budgets were set and approved by the board...so the board told nate he had to do his job within a certian amount and he couldnt do it....but lets ignore that and get the statue of him up before we all forget what he looks like.
For the poster who asked the Future of Art Center to make the numbers we posted in our summary of the ACSG be keyed to the "tape", can you explain more what you are asking for. We don't get it.
For those of you who haven't seen it, please go to futureofartcenter.blogspot.com to see a partial summary of the video's main points.
http://futureofartcenter.blogspot.com
To June 2, 2008 8:49 AM,
I am not on either Team Nate or Team Richard. I am on the side of Faculty and the Students. A true accounting of what was spent, who went where, who did what, just might never appear.
However, the issue at hand right now is the Education of the Students.
Ophelia
education first...what does that mean. the education of the students right now first, the education of the alumni first, the education of future students first.
in short isnt every job in the school in direct support of education first. think about it.
education for current students. teachers are the front line for the current students. HR makes sure that there are teachers and staff to support them and staff to support that staff. maintence makes sure the facilities are up and running for classes to happen. Planning makes sure that renovations to building are done to meet the needs of classes and uses. education makes sure the school meets national standards. the presidents office makes sure that their are people in the top positions that can get the job done within the constraints that are presented to them.
education for future students.
once again teachers are the front line here because they choose projects to highlight in the gallery and in work samples that are sent as recruiting tools. HR makes sure there are staff in place to go and recruit new students. maintenance makes sure that the building needs are known and prolongs the life of the building. planning makes sure there is a place for growth and a place for new students to come to. Education maske sure that there are teachers on track to full time positions and that there are teachers. The presidents office role is community outreach and fundraising.
So at what point is any of the parts not supporting education. and how do you propose that the budget be split up to make sure all of these parts can function.
I just dont get this whole education first branding that is being thrown around.
My wife has been reading the blog, and she mentioned how PROUD she is of the Art Center community.
I think she's right! This unprecedented coming-together of students, alumni, faculty, and staff who all care deeply about Art Center and who are all sophisticated enough to see through the smokescreen and hype of the present administration, makes me proud.
My fellow Art Center colleagues -- no matter the outcome, this is one of our finest moments!
I also think an expression of thanks to ACSG is in order. It's a difficult position for them to be in, and they've done a great job. Now that the information-gathering phase is over, however, I think it's time for ACSG to take a position. Like a union, they represent the students, they are on the inside, and they should make a position-statement/endorsement to guide their constituency.
The petition is getting a great response from the entire community. Please forward the link to your Art Center network so that we can get as many signatures this week as possible.
It would be great if some current students could post the URL around school and write it on classroom boards.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/educationfirst
I'd have to disagree, the meeting was not about spin. They were telling the things we've all suspected with a straight face and making it the only way to do things. So all they've achieved in that meeting is the sound of inevitability.
I'm just very surprised how much flattery was thrown around in the meeting without anyone blinking.
I also thought that they managed to justify their own plans without the ACSG even realizing it.
The petition is getting a great response from the entire community. Please forward the link to your Art Center network so that we can get as many signatures this week as possible.
It would be great if some current students could post the URL around school and write it on classroom boards.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/educationfirst
Ophelia told me to relay that Richard Koshalek will be attending the alumni potluck tuesday evening to answer questions. It will be held in the student cafeteria.
John Henry Baliton
Having taken the time to read all the posts (some helpful and informative, others just blatently irresponsible), I am confused about why there's this call to arms about Koshalek not caring enough about Art Center and the quality of education. Wasn't Nate Young the Chief Academic Officer FOR 5 YEARS!?!? If we're going to place responsibility and blame on someone, shouldn't that also include the person that was the HEAD OF EDUCATION? Maybe we should ask ourselves why he "resigned" (voluntarily or involuntarily) cause maybe he just wasn't the right man for the job. Just because he can draw or design a car doesn't mean he knows how to balance budgets and run a school. If i were president of the school and things are as bad as some of you make it sound, I'd probably find someone else to oversee the education side of the school.
It is possible people that the president and administration are actually doing their jobs.
If all the problems were Nate's fault (not saying he was perfect), then what new direction is Koshalek proposing? In the ACSG meeting with him, the discussion was all about how good the current plans are. Moreover, the buck always stops at the President's office - he has to take responsibility. Blaming Nate for the problems is a cop-out.
In any case, the discussion now is what should the direction of the college be going forward? What do you think should change?
futureofartcenter.blogspot.com
i do think they're planning to take the school in a new direction. i think that's exactly what they've been talking about. and i think everyone is so mad that they refuse to really listen to the new ideas and to see how it's all gonna work.
nothing should change. i think the plans for the school are going in a good directiona and they should just find a replacement for nate.
In section 9 of the videotaped meeting between admin and ACSG, there is a point when Richard and Erica label defenders of Nate as "old school" who are dead-set against change and want to go back to the good old days. Certainly that is a portion of the activist voice here, but it doesn't describe everyone. In fact the interesting thing is how many different camps have come together in concern over current admin. policies. This is not just about Nate. It's about Education and how to support it.
I believe a school should develop, move forward with the times, and I believe there is enough room for multiple views of education at Art Center--and I am not against avante-garde architecture, if we can afford it. But I have no doubt that as we have lowered standards for admittance (and we have, that is a fact), we are eroding our ability to move forward and keep (much less grow) our reputation. And when our new students are taking classes in the current crumbling classrooms, it is hard to support our assertion of being a top level institution.
Everyone who questions the current administration is not "old school"--but we all care deeply about education, now and for the future.
Richard Koshalek will be at the alumni potluck to answer questions. Great - let's ask him a central question to this debate: Why does he constantly hammer everyone with his opinion that museums (where he spent most of his career) and Art Center College of Design have so much in common???
One is a place where art is displayed. The other is where it's created. A museum might well need a stunning architectural statement as a backdrop to great art. But a design school is different. A school needs dedicated teachers, efficient tools, and functional facilities to encourage students to learn their craft and create great design. When the Ellwood building opened, it was exactly that. That it was also cool-looking was a bonus.
Seems to me, Koshalek - with all his years promoting museums - understands running the operations of the design equivalent of a morgue. And now he thinks he's competent to run a hospital - with real, live patients needing care and attention - in the same manner. Don't blame him, he simply doesn't know any better.
Let the Board of Trustees know you've had enough - sign the petition, show him the door.
- an Alum
how can you expect people to trust a design school without a good design. i mean, i totally understand that it's possible to learn and study anywhere. and we all agree that it would be nice to pay less. but, honestly, would you really have come here if it were in a shack? i mean, if i'd come to visit the school and it look liked that, i don't think i would have been so convinced. if you're going to be convincing as a design school, the design of the school needs to be considered.
to alum 12:07,
what? i don't understand your hotel analogy. please explain. and morgue? art center doesn't seem like a morgue to me. my understanding is that art center did not have a "chief academic officer" or provost until after richard arrived. everyone recognized that richard would run the overall institution and someone else would be in charge of education. i think richard will agree with you that he is not an eductor per se. but go ahead and ask him if need to.
No one is arguing that we should have bad architecture. It is a matter of priorities. And what PRIMARILY sells the school is not the architecture. It is the school's output and reputation -- i.e. the outcome of education. What so many of us are arguing is that the school has lost its focus, and that education is falling behind. Many feel that is caused in part by the focus on buildings/expansion to the detriment of education (not that expansion itself is bad). But there are other education problems that have nothing to do with buildings (leadership, lack of budget, failing equipment, pedagogy, ignoring of new design trends, faculty security, etc.).
The important thing is that the entire ACCD community have a wide ranging discussion about where we should go next. It seems some don't want to have an open discussion about the future and want Koshalek to go ahead with the existing plan. But clearly there is a LOT of discontent. That needs to be addressed.
to alum 12:07,
sorry, make that HOSPITAL analogy. please clarify. i doubt anyone would think running art center is like managing a hospital. but it is interesting that a lot of the past fundraisers at art center are now working in healthcare. (that's where the money is these days, not the arts.) but seriously, i think art center is better known since richard's arrival. it's still pretty crazy when people, even in pasadena, haven't heard of art center. one way of raising the profile of art center, and thereby the worth of your degree, is to be a major advocate for design. and richard does a good job of that, in my opinion.
A small but important point: Art Center does not teach architecture! Yet look at Sci-Arc. Their building embodies the teaching, thinking & making of architecture, not the glorification of it. How can Art Center embody the teaching, thinking & making of art and design in its education, public profile, publications (!), spending, management, and yes, its buildings?
futureofartcenter.blogspot.com
ahh...sci-arc...im glad you all brought that up...cause heres the skinny on how well their approach has gotten them.....they run by committee and did you know they have to move again.....yes as soon as downtown was showing signs of revitilization the owner, that right sciarc-didnt buy the building thier in, the owner of the building told them they would not renew thier lease.
so how could this have happened. well the committee working professionals that run the school decided that owning a building was not that important at the time the relocated. now they are paying the price.
the point is a system run with one person in charge can give an organization clear cut goals and direction which we have here. where in an organization like a school a committee based organization runs more the like the gonvernment, slower and no accountibilty.
so yes is richard ultimatly accoutable for the direction the school is going yes and that means the people under him are accountable to him for getting their work down with in the constraints of the system. That is what nate signed up for and thats what he couldnt do.
I dont think the school is going in a bad direction i think it is in the middle of a transition. and in any organization during transtition you have to find the right people to make it work. and appearantly the school had the wrong person for education in order to make the transition work.
i agree. it's true that the school sells itself, not the architecture. but why does it have to be this or that? the fundraising plan (as far as I understand it) is to increase funds for education (endowment and scholarships) AND a building. ask anyone in development or fundriasing: philanthropists give to a campaign or building. they want to know that they are contributing to something larger than general operating. the building, by the way, is for education. studios and shops and library.
also, isn't this place about design? isn't our environment, in this case the space we live in, worth the investment, just as long as it doesn't come from tuition?
re Sci-Arc: The analogy was for Sci-Arc's building, not their management structure. But since you defend the "clear cut goals and direction which we have here", what are they? And are you saying that there should be no input from the stakeholders - students, faculty, staff, alumni? Do you disagree that there is widespread discontent in the ACCD community? Should the college simply ignore that?
Anon 1:37 said "also, isn't this place about design? isn't our environment, in this case the space we live in, worth the investment, just as long as it doesn't come from tuition?"
How are we to know that it doesn't come from tuition when there is no transparency or accountability?
All I know for sure is that admission standards have been relaxed to let in more students because money is short. Students who are not ready for Art Center. And that problem must be attended to, regardless of whether or not there is a new building.
art center has an annual audit, and many foundations require real financial statements and such as part of their reporting. it seems that there is an official accountability. that should pertain to all the fundraising too.
as for an "environment of fear" and why no one signs their name, it's because we want to keep the discussion to the matters at hand, not an argument ad hominem.
Actually, one would argue that philanthropists give to people, not institutions or buildings. That was part of the reason why Koshalek was hired, so that he could bring his high-profile donors along with him to Art Center.
Also, this IS a place of design and no one is saying that we erect a cardboard box in place of the Gehry Library so to imply that it's all or nothing is misleading. What we are asking is for the current administration to look around them -- at the packed classrooms, the crumbling facilities and take a whiff of the stench of discontent that surrounds them and DEAL WITH IT! Stop ignoring the present in favor of this idealistic future which will mean nothing if Art Center continues to lower its value in the industry. Those of you who disagree that there is anything wrong need to do the same. WAKE UP!
to anonymous 2:21:
i think everyone agrees that there has been a lack of communication. and that is a huge part of the problem with the issue of transperancy. but the administration did actually address some of those questions during the meeting with the student council - check out the videos.
the money for the building is all coming from outside sources that are specifically giving money to the school. just because you're angry and have decided that you don't want to believe that, doesn't mean that it's not true.
i mean, everyone that actually knows is telling you that that's the way it's done. if you refuse to believe them just on the principal that you don't want to believe them, then where does that get anyone?
there are issues here, but you have to be willing to listen to both sides and have a real dialog in order to fix things. if you are unwilling to hear anything other then your own opinion, how can we work on anything?
Re: 2:14's statement about "widespread discontent", it's wider than just the accd community if you ask me. look at the economy, the current US governments environmental standards, etc. everyone's worried that were in a recession and a lot of the fear nationwide. things are uncertain and people feel more afraid when there's a period of change and transition (will i still have my job tomorrow; will i be able to find a job?!). I think what we're experiencing here is reflective of a more widespread sense of worry.
i agree with anonymous 2:51. a lot of these issues are not specific to art center, and we really do need to keep that in mind.
To 2:40--
FYI, it's Gehry studios/workspace/library, not just library. It's meant in part to address the "crumbling" facilities. It's all addressed in the ACSG tapes. The Ellwood building is on the schedule too.
There's always discontent, right? When was anyone here completely happy? In the golden past? LOL.
Regardless, NOW the message does seem to be getting through.
I've tracked this blog since its inception and I think it has, for the most part, served as a useful discussion of Art Center's priorities and objectives. It's very important to stage this kind of critique of what we're doing and how we're spending our resources--we're a crit culture after all. I applaud Nathan for launching it.
But too often this blog has become a forum for advancing personal agendas based on one-sided analysis, impressionistic rather than factual information, and irresponsible personal attacks. In painting a distorted and often negative view of Art Center, these bloggers show no regard for the public perception and reputation of the College. This hurts all of us. I've received calls and emails from friends and alums of the college around the world and I'll tell you here what I've been telling them.
Education at Art Center is thriving. The quality of our student work is more thoughtful, better researched, and every bit as good technically as it has ever been. I hear this from recruiters, sponsoring companies, and visitors all the time, and I see it demonstrated in our senior shows. New programs like Designmatters, CMTEL, the exchanges with Tama and Insead, new and better internships, the Entertainment Design department have all added significantly to the quality of education. Several departments in my opinion have really raised the bar in the last few years--Film, Photography and Environmental Design, for example. Product Design has been ranked #1 in the U.S. the last 3 years, and the Media Design Department has established an international reputation in just the last 5. I could go on, and would be happy to talk to anyone interested about what the Chairs, their faculty and students have accomplished in our recent history. You can email me at mark.breitenberg@artcenter.edu or stop by my office in the DCO.
Let's continue to debate our priorities and objectives. But in the course of this debate let's not lose sight of the fact that the quality of education at Art Center is still among the very best in the world.
To anonymous 2:45,
I watched much of the video. I also listen to the educational administration who are also very concerned for their jobs, and get the back-story on what is stated in the meeting. Numbers and budgets can be presented in many ways, and I would like to hear about our budget from an impartial source.
RE only listening/believing what I agree with-- I have an open mind about what is the best thing for Art Center as we move forward, but I do think we have some serious problems that are bubbling out like a volcano right now, and while the economy or Bush can be blamed for just about anything, Art Center's leadership does have at least some level of responsibility for the current climate of distrust leveled at it by students, staff/administration and faculty.
to anonymous 3:12
i am all for gettting real information! we 100% agree on that.
i am pretty sure that the auditors are independent sources. and, actually, i don't know that the "educational administration" would be the best source to get that sort of info from.
i'm not saying i'm for or against anyone. i'm just saying that you have to be willing to accept information. if you are not willing to believe anything taht doesn't prove the point you want to make, you are not a fair source either.
quite frankly, i didn't get the feeling that they were trying to hide stuff from us and lie about things. and yes, i do think for critically for myself - i wouldn't just accept any response they gave. and i did have some disagreements. but i really don't think we should just discount everything they had to say.
what was the point in demanding answers if you aren't willing to accept them when their given? that doesn't mean that you need to agree with the all the answers. i'm just saying that it doesn't work if you are so positive that everything is misinformation.
To Anonymous 3:12,
There's an annual audit by Pricewaterhousecoopers every year. What could be more impartial than that? Do you want to hire yet other consultant? Should Art Center spend more tuition money for that?
To the Art Center Trustees,
I hear that you are paying attention, which is great. I just hope you can see that some of us (who actually know who Richard is) appreciate him and what he had done for Art Center.
Richard has brought his fundraising skills to the table and helped to MORE THAN DOUBLE Art Center's Endowment. He helped to raise the funds and friends to make the South Campus possible. (It is still a work in process, but so was the Ellwood building when it opened more than 30 years ago.) And Art Center has gained new audiences and recognition in the past nine years. We know that Richard values design and designers and the importance of education and creative thinking, above all.
Clearly, we are an educational institution in transition. And it is crucial that we find the right person to head Education SOON to lead us into the next decade.
Hi
I agree with poster at 4:34. Richard has been good for the school and their are plenty of us that believe that he is good for its future.
We all believe in AC and its excellent education. We believe that his plan will take art center into a new era. He is giving people outside of the AC community something to believe in with his plans for new buildings. These are assets that will help build the endowment even larger and will put the spot light back on the great things that are going on at AC.
I hope those that feel the same way will start to speak up and show people following this blog that there is a strong voice out there that believes.
Hey anon June 2, 2008 4:34 PM
I can respect your vote for Richard. If you are so confident, how about if you start your own non anonymous petition to support RK and the master plan. We would all benefit from knowing how that vote will turn out.
Regarding this idea that donors will totally pay for the Gehry building :
That hasn’t happened yet. It was supposed to have happened by now.
The money’s not there and there aren’t enough donors biting. RK wants his legacy (as he’s now admitted on video) So he’s amping up marketing and fundraising and other projects that cost real money now in order to try to attract building donors. Because that is HIS first priority. Not “Education First”. People cost money and there are a LOT of people working to make RKs projects happen.
If we build the master plan are donors going to pay for the carrying costs? The heat, elec, maintenance? No. We apparently can’t afford maintenance on the nice building we already have.
So, no thanks I’m not biting on the idea that we get a free Gehry building without sacrificing more important priorities.
to anonymous 5:00 pm,
as was explained at the community coalition meeting two weeks ago, the master plan is a 25-year plan. it won't be built all at once, and much of it may not be built at all. it gives the next leadership the option to build, if needed.
why file a 25-year plan when we don't need that much right now? to save $ and effort. it costs money every time an institution filse a master plan.
the projected enrollment in the master plan also gives the option for growth, but does not guarantee growth. it just gives the future leadership more options.
his legacy. did you watch the first two minutes of the ACSG meeting. he freaking built up moca. he doesnt have to prove anything else to anyone.
besides look at the job he took on shen coming to art center. I mean he i going to go down in the AC history books for what he has already accomplished. OS if he wants to take on the gehry building good for him. If he has the connections and the resources gained from all the years in the museum world let him do it. it will be a great addition to art center and when its done let him have the credit because he would have certianly deserved it.
when you take on a job dont you take on all the resources and knowledge you have collected over the years in order to give your clients the piece of work you are capible of creating. well he is capible of fulfulling this master plan and we believe he can do it.
To the poster at 5:00
How much has he raised since taking on the role of president......what’s that millions...that’s right that’s million with an s at the end of it. Do you think that raising that kind of money happens over night?
The thing about it is that you nor anyone else writing here could raise a single million in the same amount of time. And if you could then you wouldn’t be here arguing about the direction of this school or the competence of its leader.
The answer to this is probably somewhere in this blog, but how big is the Gehry building going to be exactly? Does it offer enough studio space to accommodate over a thousand students?
We already have a library and a model shop (both of which aren't open as much as we'd like them to be) so wouldn't it be easier/cheaper just to let students work in the classrooms by having the campus open 24/7?
Hey June 2, 2008 5:00 PM,
When the trustees initially hired Richard Koshalek, they tasked him with the building program. Art Center under David Brown commissioned an outside study which found that, for its changing needs, Art Center needed to double its facilities. Richard was hired because he was known for spearheading the fundraising and building for MOCA. He got the museum up and running and made it into an international institution. Museums, by the way, are not morgues, at least contemporary museums aren't. Richard believes in putting creative people first and has worked with living artists, who at MOCA worked on their own installations. That has translated to giving Nate, Education, the department chairs, etc., pretty much free reign to make their own decisions and hiring, etc. Things had to change, though, when there were serious economic problems on that side of Art Center, and Nate, ultimately, was responsive as the head of that branch of Art Center.
Has Anyone Thought to Contact Susan Mossman At Pasadena Heritage Society About What They Think of the Art Center Master Plan?
Please read the following article in the Star Newspaper:
A house divided
All Saints expansion runs afoul of planners
By Janette Williams, Staff Writer
Star News Article Launched: 06/01/2008 10:37:05 PM PDT
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/ci_9450253
All Saints Church in Pasadena, above, propose an ambitious 15-year expansion plan. The 3,600- member Episcopalian church s plan to put ultra-modern glass buildings beside the 1923 Gothic-style church across from City Hall is drawing opposition. (Walt Mancini/Staff)
PASADENA - Now that All Saints' $45 million expansion plan has been rejected by a second city commission, signs are that the wealthy and influential church is girding itself for a fight.
At issue is the 3,600-member Episcopal church's plan to put ultra-modern glass buildings beside the 1923 Gothic-style church across from City Hall. The church and cloister, on a 2.8-acre site, is part of the Civic Center's National Register of Historic Places designation.
All Saints' rector, the Rev. Ed Bacon, sees the ambitious 15-year expansion plan as crucial to the church's growing mission as it celebrates its 125th anniversary in the city.
He called the plan's rejection a "slap in the face" to a church that's been deeply involved in city social programs, incubating such agencies as the AIDS Service Center, Union Station and Young & Healthy.
"We're obviously very disappointed. We followed all the rules," Bacon said after Wednesday night's Planning Commission meeting, which was packed with All Saints supporters and dozens of children from a church recreation program.
City staff had recommended approval.
Bacon called the plans, which include three new buildings and a 500-seat circular open-air forum, "an amazing architectural contribution to
Advertisement
the beautiful center of Pasadena," with a world-class design driven by the church's growing needs and programs.
But some preservationists, including a few in the All Saints congregation, say it's not the expansion that's the problem; it's that the Richard Meier Partners-designed buildings simply don't belong in the city's historic core.
There's been no official public comment yet on the architecture. The design and planning commissions rejected the master plan on the grounds it was incomplete and that a basketball court didn't belong on the corner of Euclid Avenue and Walnut Street.
But several letters urging the commission to turn the plan down, including one from Claire Bogaard, suggest the edgy architecture could prompt a classic wrestling match between powerful forces in the city.
Bogaard, Mayor Bill Bogaard's wife and one of the founders of Pasadena Heritage 30 years ago, usually keeps a low profile in contentious preservation issues.
This time she took to the lectern in the City Council chambers and spoke of the "jarring" feeling the proposed buildings would give to anyone walking out of City Hall.
In her letter to the planning commission she referred to the All Saints project as "interesting."
But the new buildings "do not relate in a meaningful way to the historic church" in the city's symbolic center, she said, and don't follow design guidelines hashed out by a Civic Center Task Force a decade ago.
Bacon, obviously frustrated that some significant changes in the plans had not stilled critics, said church leaders would "huddle" and decide on their next move and whether to take the plan straight to the City Council.
"How much conversation is enough?" Bacon said. "This clearly retards our opportunity to move forward."
The church's plans include underground parking, restoration of the rectory and Regas House and demolition of three buildings, to be replaced by a three-story Children, Youth & Families center, a two-story, multiuse building and the Forum/Alternate Worship Center.
The project is all organized around a central courtyard and incorporates the historic Maryland Hotel wall on Euclid.
Sue Mossman, executive director of Pasadena Heritage, said the complex project was difficult to evaluate in the context of historic preservation and planning and design issues.
There's no question that the project is important to All Saints, and everyone involved understands the church's "good works, fine programs and commitment to the community," Mossman said.
"But that's not the issue for anyone reviewing the project," she said. "It's very difficult sometimes to separate the planning issues from the design issues and that's something we all have to work on."
Mossman said that even within Pasadena Heritage - many of whose members also belong to All Saints - there's "a whole range of opinions" on the concept of juxtaposing good modern architecture with historic buildings.
"That debate's still to come," she said.
"I think that the preservation view may be the most site-sensitive," said Mossman. "But we also appreciate that innovative new architecture has been part of Pasadena history since day one and is one reason that we have such an architectural legacy from the past."
janette.williams@sgvn.com
(626) 578-6300, Ext. 4482
why does everyone just want to fight?
Anon June 2 4:53 PM, it's difficult to believe that anyone reading the heartfelt posts on this blog - and now, the comments on the http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/educationfirst could rationally state that Richard Koshalek "is good for Art Center's future".
While opposing opinions should be heard, at this point they should be statements accompanied by FACTS - facts that hundreds in the Art Center Community have requested of this administration. Facts that have not been forthcoming.
Here's a fact I find surprising: the Gehry-driven expansion plan has been on Richard Koshalek's agenda as far back as early 2001, just 18 months into his tenure here. Please see http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E2DD1739F93AA15757C0A9679C8B63
This NY Times article states the buildings would be completed by 2005. This means Koshalek's ill-considered "master plan" has diverted his attention for over seven years now, and is at least three years behind schedule. It has been stated on this site that perhaps as much as $2 million in opportunity costs has been spent raising money for a project that has yet to turn a shovelful of dirt, is opposed by the neighborhood, will have far-reaching environmental impact, and is now fueling a virtual student revolt.
The Board should demand the financial statements of this administration be subjected to a detailed, thorough, forensic examination by an independent third-party auditing firm unaligned with the school, and compare Art Center's numbers to peer institutions in every aspect of its operations.
The blog is spiraling out of control with emotion and not facts.
Looks to me like Koshalek has unleashed the dogs on this blog. Or could it be that suddenly there has been an over whelming change of heart in the Art Center community this afternoon?
Give it up Richard everyone sees through your lies, your house of cards is finally falling....
Check out the AC website -- Nate has magically reappeared in the Legacy Circle photo!!
That website is an official document of the school -- and the photoshop job eliminating Nate's face didn't happen by accident. This deliberate attempt to erase the presence of someone considered to be an enemy is typical of the slash-and-burn overreaction Koshalek and his lieutenants have to anyone deemed to be anti-K.
We, the Art Center community, deserve an explanation. It wasn't a student who rubbed Nate out, it wasn't a faculty and it wasn't an alum. It was an administrator who recieved instructions to do what was done.
Mr. K, it's a simple question -- who did it, and what is your explanation for this shameful act?
to JUNE 2, 2008 5:58 PM,
after the rampant misinformation spread through these comments and gossip around school, who could blame students, faculty, and alums for blaming administration for every wrong at art center?
there's lots of frustration everywhere. but you know what? richard koshalek is not george w. bush. he's simply not. it's so intriguing and exciting to suggest that he had a plan to attack iraq, woops, I mean, commission frank gehry before 9/11. but actually, why is that a big discovered fact? it's not news for anyone paying attention to anything. facts, however, are good.
btw, it turns out that a major fund-raising campaing takes time and organization to get off the ground. lots of other projects have happened in seven years, including the south campus, which was done in part to make peace with the neighborhood and allow for growth that needs to happen before the hillside campus can grow. that effort required a campaign too, which also raised funds for endowment and scholarships.
finally, what do you know to suggest that art center needs yet another accountant? why do you want to spend art center tuition/funds for yet another accountant for a CSI forensic review? what is that? why do you think art center is another enron? do you want to challenge pricewaterhouse?
what is your plan for art center? how do you want to go about advancing the mission of the college? or is status quo better for you? can you say anything positive or do you just have an axe to grind?
HELLO TO ALL!!
This is Ezekiel C. Wheeler Director of Communications with ACSG
Friday, as you all may know, Student Government met with Richard Koshalek and other members of the administration and after a 4 hour meeting a lot of your questions were answered. Keep an eye out on your INSIDE.ARTCENTER EMAIL accounts for the initiatives being taken as a result of the meeting.
Also Keep an eye out this week for information on an OPEN FORUM TOWN HALL MEETING WITH RICHARD KOSHALEK to get answers from the source. We will be having this meeting NEXT WEEK sometime.
Highest regards,
Ezekiel C. Wheeler
Director of Communications
ACSG
who let the dogz out?
Is it really about facts? We can interpret and argue facts 'till the cows come home. But the core issues here relate to the priorities of this educational institution as expressed in the actual experience of the people involved, especially students. As Nathan originally posted, the priorities of the school seem out of whack with what many of us think they should be. And this is based on many, many people's everyday experience of learning, teaching, administering, visiting, and hiring at Art Center.
Whether it is the school not walking the walk regarding sustainability, or continually raising tuition as facilities deteriorate, or cutting departmental budgets, or faculty salaries falling behind inflation, or department accounting reports being indecipherable, or the classroom experience not always living up to teacher or student expectations, many things are not going well at the school. This is not to say that there aren't some great things going on here. There are. But the situation has gotten to the point where a large number people who are directly affected believe a major change is necessary.
Those of you defending the status quo, do you deny the experiences of so many people - the very people the college exists to serve? The facts are that many, many people are raising their voices in dissatisfaction, and the school and the Board of Trustees need to listen, understand and act.
Ezekiel said:
Student Government met with Richard Koshalek and other members of the administration and after a 4 hour meeting a lot of your questions were answered.
Ezekiel -- I watched the video and I heard a lot of talking, but very few answers and almost no questions. I think you guys on ACSG are doing your best in a difficult situation, but I have to ask -- where were the tough questions on Friday?
Koshalek told a story about a Nobel Laureate scientist leaving one of the conferences, bound for Africa. Mr. K told, with affection, how this great man was going to fly coach class, sleep in inexpensive hotels, and eat in average restaurants. Where was ACSG with the obvious question:
"Mr. Koshalek, do YOU fly coach?"
Again, I think ACSG is doing their best, and I applaud your continuing efforts -- but if there's going to be a Townhall meeting, there better be some tough questions. It had better not be so damned polite -- or I guarantee you, we'll just sit there for a couple of hours and listen to him spin yarns, tell bad jokes, and spit out the same standard boilerplate Erica wrote for him nine years ago.
June 2, 2008 5:40 PM-
You said: “Nate, ultimately, was responsive as the head of that branch of Art Center.”
Yes he was responsive. We can agree on that.
There are a number of posts today that declare this blog site has no facts, or that it has rampant misinformation.
These posts are either misinformation themselves or show a lack of sensitivity to the collected work and a lack of rigor for the debate, they don’t specifically ask about fact verification nor do they attempt to challenge in a direct way the growing body of fact and evidence that IS recorded on this site. The facts aren’t going away because they are called misinformation.
This blog is rich with facts. There are links and references to public documents, Art Center tax records, mainstream press articles, interviews with Richard in his own words, evidence of doctored photographs, direct observation of RK removing student posters, videos that reveal true nature. There are direct and observable assessments about the state of the school including a culture of fear. There are eye witness accounts like the blog’s originator reporting about his being confronted by Iris and Erica. On and on.
This blog is rich with facts.
We welcome the debate but please try to be precise about the facts you challenge rather than condemn this whole piece of work.
Here’s a meaningful direct observation that I find revealing from a prominent, and informed alum on the petition site. Is this misinformation?:
# 344: 4:55 pm PDT, Jun 2, Clement Mok, California
I am an alumni and a former board member. I quite the board almost 8 years ago because of this very issue I had with Richard. Board meetings were always used by Richard to impress the trustees with elaborate presentation on the new and shinny. When I pushed on what these buildings will house, the discussions were often deflected to the-yet-to-be-hired Provost or the problematic Provost. The recent turn of events at Art Center is a sign of trouble the Board should take heed. This petition is unprecedented in Art Center history.
Thank you for that! By the way, for those who don't know who Clement Mok is:
Clement Mok is a designer, digital pioneer, software publisher/developer, author, and design patent holder. Mok, a former creative director at Apple, founded multiple successful design-related businesses — Studio Archetype, CMCD and NetObjects. He was the Chief Creative Officer of Sapient, and the president of AIGA. Currently, he consults for Sapient and other Fortune 500 companies on a variety of design planning and user experience projects . Mok has been published internationally and has received hundreds of awards from professional organizations and publications including I.D. 40 most influential designers, and Chief Executive Magazine, which named him 1998’s Tech 100 CEOs. He also serves on the advisory boards of numerous technology companies, colleges and non-profit organizations.
Dear All — Bloggers, Readers, anonymous or onymous,
this is my first post on this blog — and will also be my last one.
I do applaud the new dialogue that Nathan’s initiative has provoked. We are already seeing positive signs of a new and valuable exchange between the passionate stakeholders of our school.
Although a blog allows for everyone to raise a voice, the conversation in this particular medium will always be a skewed one — especially when the most negative voices remain anonymous. Not having to sign your own voiced opinion is — as we have seen — an invitation for inflammatory rants, speculations and worst of all, to manipulation. A game of rhetorical hide-and-seek hardly amounts to the transparency that so many of us rightfully demand.
As some of you might know, I was asked to lead a new task force to “ensure that the educational agenda continues to move forward, providing Art Center students with the highest quality experiences and opportunities” (quote). In the current climate this is hardly a dream job — but the passion that I share with all of you about this unique school motivates me to try my very best — in a spirit of transparency, inclusiveness, and with a very pragmatic designer’s approach.
To stand any chance of reuniting education and administration, I need to be impartial — both Richard Koshalek and Nate Young have hired and promoted me to this school. However, my very own style of making a contribution will not emulate either person. I firmly believe in teamwork, empowerment, and accountability among a group of outstanding people — I do not believe in micromanagement. My work in the Graphic Design department and more recently in the Communication Design group is testament to this.
I invite everyone to engage with me in an open dialogue, and I will be happy to share the plans and thoughts on our shared educational agenda as they will evolve between students and faculty, chairs, alumns and administrators.
Please feel free to drop me a line at nik.hafermaas@artcenter.edu — and let me know who you are.
Dankeschoen,
Nik
Numerous posts by the administration (Nik Hafermaas' being the latest) lament the anonymous nature of much of the criticism leveled at it on this blog. It's already been stated here - quite eloquently - why any given anonymous post is simply further evidence of the culture of fear propagated by the RK regime.
Far too many of those who have come out in the open up to this point have been targeted for elimination -- one even via Photoshop! -- most with the loss of their jobs or worse.
You can be sure that when the time is right, ALL of those who demand accountability and responsibility of this administration will make their not-insubstantial identities known in defense of the students who have asked for, and need, their help.
What's On The Table?
Potluck at 6pm / Hillside Campus
Student Cafeteria
I am bringing Indian Food and paper plates (that I will recycle)
Richard Koshalek will be there to answer any questions.
Everyone take a deep breath.
We will all enter this with one thing in mind. What is the best for ACCD, the students, the faculty and administration. To move forward we need to keep our minds open and ALLOW everyone to speak what is on their minds without fear of retribution, allow that there will be differences of opinion and that there is no right or wrong.
We all have one common bond, the Art Center College of Design.
See you all there.
:O)
ophelia chong
two cents about my being anonymous:
the climate of fear has nothing to do with the school but with the nature of the blog's comment section itself. If you speak in favor of richard, you are blasted as a drone or worse.
hooray to ophelia for organizing the potluck and to nik for contributing sane words.
June 2, 2008 5:40 PM-
You said: “Nate, ultimately, was responsive as the head of that branch of Art Center.”
Yes he was responsive. We can agree on that.
Sorry! I meant RESPONSIBLE! He could be responsive, too, but ultimately, he was and was held responsible.
Agreed?
Nik said:
...the conversation in this particular medium will always be a skewed one — especially when the most negative voices remain anonymous.
Nik, you are a smart guy and cannot be so naive as to have bought into Koshalek's claim he would never retaliate against his critics. We all know how it works -- he doesn't fire you outright, he finds other ways, walks close the the line of harrassment, takes away autonomy and responsibilities, undermines your ability to perform. We've seen it happen -- it's happening to at least two high-level staff as we speak.
To stand any chance of reuniting education and administration, I need to be impartial.
You do indeed have a real challenge then, reuniting education and THIS administration. Don't forget your #1 constituency, the students -- a rapidly growing number of them have already declared their LACK of impartiality by signing the petition.
Quite a conundrum you have. Remain impartial, and you fail to embrace the real needs of one half of the body you want to reunite -- become partial and the other half will eventually give you the boot.
Sounds vaguely familiar...
The potluck meeting with Koshalek present will be interesting. Remember to focus on key questions and not let him divert the issues. Demand clear answers and pin him on real $ figures and timelines.
1. How is your current tuition money being spent? (Ask for specific numbers and allocations to)
2. Why isn't more money being allocated to educational needs? (class availability, facilities, equipment, accessability, et al)
3. Why aren't students and faculty represented at the Board meetings?
4. add to this list...
The biggest thing is the board meeting coming up. You have to get a voice at that meeting. RK and team will do everything in their power to placate you for the time being until his contract is renewed and then he could care less what you have to say after that.
It would be great to have Nate Young present at the Potluck as well. What a discussion that would be! Since all alum are invited to this meeting...
June 2, 2008 11:05 PM
No one is blasting you personally, we don’t know who you are. It’s not about you it’s about the ideas and the quality of the debate. Step it up a bit please. We are trying to get past the name calling.
To say “the climate of fear has nothing to do with the school “ is misinformation. Even if you do not fear for your job, many have clearly posted that they do.
I did a quick global search of all the posts on the page and yours is the only instance of “drone”.
Please reduce the hyperbole regardless of the positions being taken.
Future of Art Center -- please check your email.
Anonymous is one; Anonymous is many.
Anonymous is a choice.
The use of Anonymous cannot be ignored on this blog. To tackle the issues at ACCD, one must look at why the usage of Anonymous is at 98%. To ignore it would be purposely putting blinders on, you would then only go in one direction and not see the issues on your left and right.
Whatever your agenda is, take a step back and listen. It's the only way you will be able to proceed.
I was recently accepted for the fall term. I read this entire blog and know that every school has its problems and politics. The biggest standout is how much the students, faculty and alumni care deeply about this school. My aim is to start my own firm someday and want the school I go to turn out high quality graduates to hire in the future.
The direction of the upper management is very concerning. I certainly would not want the school to be vulnerable to being bought out buy one of those for-profit places you see on day time TV. If I am going to invest $100K plus in this education, the school better be worth it. We need to see the value in the direction of this school because I certainly do not want an expensive piece of paper from a school that no longer exisits or whose reputation has eroded. That makes the value of my degree decrease.
I hope the board makes the right decision on June 19th. The students and faculty should have more say in on the direction of Art Center.
BTW, Frank Gehry designs some of the biggest eyesores. They will be very dated in about 20 years. Please don't waste the money. The magic happens inside the buildings, not on the outside.
See you all this fall.
dear June 3, 2008 7:09 AM
if you are around please join us tonight. :O) your words sum it up.
:O)
ophelia
Even if Koshalek is asked tough questions tonight he will either dance around the answers or lie. This man is a master of interpersonal manipulation- last weeks video shows it. His feet must be held to the fire, do not let him get friendly with you or off topic in any way. The only reason he is showing up tonight is because his job is on the line and he knows it. Mark my words - If he is voted back in for another term he will isolate himself again from the faculty and students.
On another note - Rachel Tiede did not leave on her own accord, I have spoke directly with her concerning this matter. Koshalek and his administration would have you believe otherwise. She was told specifically by Human Resources that staying at Art Center was not an option, even though numerous departments around the school would have been more than happy to have her join their team. And yes there was space and jobs for her; Art center does currently fill some positions with temps.
Rachel was a great asset to Art Center, she worked in 3 different departments over a period of 10 years, there are few people who had such an intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the school. After speaking out at the student rally she was "let go" the next day. This is no coincidence; she was used to send a message to other faculty and staff that if you step out of line or get in the way you will be eliminated. Frankly the problem was not that she knew too little, but rather that she knew too much.
I truly hope the Board of Trustees are taking their positions seriously and are hearing this call for change. Please stand up and do the right thing, not that which is easy.
One of the ongoing themes of this blog is the need for facilities, new technology, equipment and accessibility. I would go so far as to say we _deserve_ it, if in fact we're going to be competitive in the marketplace in years to come.
Putting aside Frank Gehry for the moment, isn't the new building going to give us just that? Aside from Gehry-as-architect, who isn't excited about new shops to work in, and a technologically advanced library to do research in, and new classrooms and spaces to collaborate together?
Yes, the "magic" happens inside the building. And I for one cannot wait for it.
And before you "correct" me, I know this new building probably won't be completed before I graduate. But I'm selfless enough to want this for new students, just as I'm sure alumni paved the way for the facilities and classes I'm taking now, which are of no "benefit" to them.
As for Gehry, say what you want about Koshalek, he's not going to let Gehry build "another Disney Hall" at Art Center. Where's the design challenge in that? Plus, administrators at Art Center are smart enough to know not to piss of the neighbors. (I have enough speeding tickets to prove it.) And from what I read the neighbors are being very vocal about what can and can't be built at Art Center.
We should find a way to work with administration on the new building to make sure we get what we need no matter who is designing it. Like students did before on the pavilion. Think about having that on your resume. That would be cool.
If the person who spoke with Rachel Tiede could have her get in touch directly with the Future of Art Center, we can independently verify her story, and will then publish it on our site. Email us at futureofartcenter@gmail.com
http://futureofartcenter.blogspot.com/
to poster June 3, 2008 2:13 AM
why cant you ask these questions yourself. you want us to raise all these issues dont you think its time you stand up and take a stand with us. I am starting to feel like we are being used or manipulated by people on our own side.
hi dont agree with your issues, i actually support RK and the way the school is going. so can i come to your potluck because i still want to be part of the discussion.
What this potluck is about:
Alumni supporting the faculty and the students. It is not an arena for politics or agendas. It is Alumni being there for you the student and for members of the faculty.
What is a potluck:
A potluck is a gathering of people where each person is expected to bring a dish of food to be shared among the group. I am bringing Indian food and Alka-seltzer.
June 3, 2008 11:58 AM
Think for yourself. You are as powerful as anyone else on this blog.
:O) ophelia
to JUNE 3, 2008 1:37 PM,
why don't you stand away for a day yourself? or better yet get out there yourself and have a personal revolution? some people are too busy and have work to do.
nobody is a robber baron here. but it's academia, so the pie is small and the knives are long.
But 428 people (and counting) aren't too busy to sign the petition. So what's that say to you?
to anonymous 1:37 -
i am EXTREMELY offended that you would even CONSIDER using terms like "gestapo." to describe art center and the situation here. that is totally and completely out of line.
koshalek is not hitler. at all. that is a ridiculous and DISGUSTING comparison to make. and i think that it is severely inappropriate.
what you are calling for right now is not any sort of positive change. you are not trying to get people together to work on making art center a better place for all of us. you are using a lot of political phrases and PROPOGANDA yourself, but you should somehow be more trustworthy than anything that the administration might say?
it's comments like this that make me think that some people don't really have what's best for art center in mind.
that's really disgusting.
anon 1:37
this is not nazi germany. use some discretion.
June 3, 2008 1:37 PM
I hate the fact that I agree with you. That it has to come to this is in some ways disturbing and disheartening. Its time to break out the torches and pitchforks (in a metaphorical sense).
RK will not leave with dignity; instead he will go crashing down in flames and take the schools good name with him. This can not happen.
I am sad and angry.
who wouldn't sign a petition stating Education First? this is a school, that's what we do here. it's all the slander that no one should support. unless you want to sign your name to it.
to June 3, 2008 1:37 PM:
your comment is exactly what we don't need here.
if anyone is going to take the concerns expressed here seriously we need to move past the hyperbole and personal attacks.
2:55, i totally agree.
1:37, that WAS a really offensive thing to say.
June 3, 2008 1:37 PM
who is bringing art center down? who has said that quality of the students is in decline? who is arguing that this school is in shambles? who wants to bring down the good name of the school? what happens when all the students leave? and no new students begin here? will you have accomplished your mission?
1:37: um... i'm jewish. that is not ok to say. how do think you're helping anyone with that?!
in response to June 2, 2008 5:58 PM
you stated "Here's a fact I find surprising: the Gehry-driven expansion plan has been on Richard Koshalek's agenda as far back as early 2001, just 18 months into his tenure here."
The plans for the master plan have been in progress since then so where have all of you been? It seems like no one cared until Nate left, I say left cause that is what he did and he left his assistant here to fend for her self.
Another interesting point about this is in the dates. your quote is from 2001. Nate was at AC for 5 years that means he started in 2003. So that means he knew what he was walking into and he knew the direction RK was taking the school. And as an adult he signed up for a job that had constraints that were clearly outlined up front. So what this means is he couldnt do his job. So instead of reinstate nate lets REPLACE NATE.
hey anon. 1:37,
sounds a little personal. what did richard do to you that makes you think we should see if the hague is available to deal with his case?
really???!?!?!?!?!!!
in response to poster 2:03
their not helping. none of this jiberish is helping. until we have a real discussion and get away from this anonomous attacking from both sides nothing is going to get resolved. I mean look at the post from NIK. as soon as he posted he was blasted for taking sides and if you read his post he was clearing taking the stance that it was time to move on and have real discussions in person.
im sorry the last post i did was response to the 3:03pm post not at 2:30. just want to be clear
i'm glad to see that someone else sees these comments pretty much as jibberish.....it's hard to know what/who to believve anymore......i want to support the school that I gave my life and time to and like nathan, I want to believe that my degree will be worth something....alums, where can we find the real answers?
O.K. Let's go back in blog to Mr. Stan Kong's original question about the Photo-Shopping of Mr. Nate Young's picture.
Mr. Kong requested an explanation. Has anyone given one yet to him? To Mr. Ramone Munoz or the committee? Please tell everyone if you have been told.
Many are speaking of accountability. This problem is very simple the way I see. Who has authorization of the website? If a hacker did this, isn't everybody worried? Or was it software glitch and the original picture reappear?
The VP of Communications is Ms. Iris Gelt i think. Could you please tell how this happened with explanation? You have the power to give some accountability. Don't worry, you won't be fired. Mr. Stan Kong and Mr. Ramone Munoz deserves an explanation with the rest of the school.
We are waiting for the explanation and the accountability. Maybe Mr. Koshalek will answer.
Have your parents, who are paying or helping to pay, our educations express their deep concerns about this on the blog. If they are worried about their hard earned money or the amount of debt we are incurring in student loans, have them sign the petition.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/educationfirst
my folks will soon.
tell your parents to check out how much other private schools cost too. this happens at all private schools.
yes, you know, how admissions standards are being lowered. that couldn't mean me could it? all the high schoolers here? isn't that a bit insulting???
An Internet troll,
or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
Don't veer from the issues. Ignore the comments that are just there to bait.
Ophelia
thanks, ophelia!
What I don't get is why go through all the trouble to photoshop Nate out of the legacy circle photo on the website. He is still respected and he did not leave in disgrace supposedly. SO, really would love to know why did that incident happen, it is not something that occurs if people have a clean conscience.
Additionally, the surge of anons is getting ridiculous and the credibility of a lot of them is going into the negative digits. Nice to see that people are resorting to attacking those who post, such a wonderful way to go at it.
maybe some of us are posting anonymously because we get attacked anytime we offer some sort of differing opinion...
Yeah, okay. Please, everyone just take a chill pill, go for a walk, do some jumping jacks, have a martini... Then let's stay on point - i.e. talking about education. Please?
Some people will be trolls, other will spread FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, and others are just not thinking. But all of these, on all sides, just divert attention and tend to destroy the conversation, and are not constructive.
So cool off, don't leave or react to baiting comments. If something really offensive is said, let the community know, Nathan has been pretty good about deleting inappropriate comments.
FUD. isnt this the essence of the whole discussion. one side says the school is falling apart and the other says its fine. one side is so scared of the other that there is no positive dialog between them. how do we translate the FUD that started this all so we can have some serious discussions where people actually listen and talk to each other rather then just accuse the other as being a FUD'ist.
the Art Center Community Digital Forum might be the answer.
check your email. the school is going to be setting up a site for this. maybe by then we can start a positive dialog and end this ranting and raving and FUDing
in case it hasn't reached your inbox yet:
Dear Art Center Students, Faculty, and Staff:
Open exchanges are essential for maintaining a healthy academic environment, and recent events have shown that Art Center has begun to engage in a new level of dialogue. As you may know, I have recently had productive meetings with Art Center Student Government and the Faculty Council co-chairs. In order to continue this discussion in a truly open environment, we are planning an Art Center Community Forum in conjunction with ACSG. Details of this campus-wide meeting will be announced soon and we encourage everyone to attend.
Recognizing the importance of greater access to Art Center’s leadership as well as reliable information about the College’s activities, policies, commitments, and future direction, we are also creating a new online resource, the Art Center Community Digital Forum. This new site will supplement our ongoing personal dialogues and provide accurate, up-to-date information. Your questions will be answered by the people directly involved with the issues, including faculty, students, staff and others. This digital resource will be launched in a few days and I hope you will participate and provide feedback.
Discussions such as these emerge at most schools and have also come up at Art Center before. Colleges are complex systems with competing functions and priorities, all of which must coordinate smoothly, in an atmosphere of mutual trust, with the entire campus community represented and working together.
Art Center embodies extraordinary creative talent, ability, and expression. Ongoing accomplishments by our faculty, students and alumni demonstrate that this level of achievement is alive and well. I appreciate your dedication and commitment to the College and encourage everyone to participate in continuing this dialogue. I look forward to seeing you at our upcoming forum and future meetings.
Sincerely,
Richard Koshalek
President
Art Center College of Design
Thank you Ophelia and Future of Art Center for retaining reason and respect. I think the Future of Art Center blog is well set-up and hope more people will start using it for a more constructive conversation about what we can do to fix this situation.
I still stand behind the petition and will bring it to the potluck tonight if some people haven't signed the online one yet. I believe it's important to have one message that everyone can get behind and support, and Audrey wrote an excellent petition.
I also think it's important that people stand up for what they believe in. It's difficult to have a respectful conversation with someone who won't even put a name on their argument. Attacking people with differing opinions from under the shelter of anonymous is useless if you want anyone to actually listen to you.
RE: JUNE 3, 2008 4:36 PM
No, FUD is NOT the essence of this discussion. FUD detracts from the discussion. If you really believe that the majority of the posters are just trying to screw up the college, you haven't been on the ground, talking with students, faculty and staff. From what we've seen, the passions are high because most people really care a lot for Art Center, and want it to succeed. So we speak up when we see things that are not working. Open criticism is a good thing; it helps the institution.
Positive change does not come from people keeping their mouths shut. The college needs to work out its values, and this discussion got that started. Enjoy it!
Ashley
Please understand that some people can not put their name on their post for a myriad of complex reasons.... This does not change the fact that they would still like to contribute to the discussion, nor does it make what they have to say irrelevant. Some of the most damning evidence has been posted by those who remain anonymous. You are lucky to be in a position that allows you to reveal who you are with little fear of retaliation. With that said I deeply respect what you have contributed to the Art Center community.
"This new site will supplement our ongoing personal dialogues and provide accurate, up-to-date information."
Wont it also give you an opportunity to know exactly where the post came from by tracking the IP of the poster?
Beware everyone who decides to post there.
That was a classic FUDist post! Thanks, anon!
As a matter of fact we could track IPs on this blog and see who is behind the fearmongering nonsense.
And for those that say that quality is at an all time high. I've seen 4th term trans students do drawings of cars that have no understanding of perspective whatsoever. Illustration people even in my term that can't draw figures or refuse to do figure drawing. Anatomy classes are being cut and avoided. Even people in the supposedly "wunderkind" entertainment design are disappointing in terms of quality.
I'm not saying there aren't talented people anymore but the proportion of those who don't belong is staggering. I think that if we take statistics from a decade ago the overall average age of art center students has dropped considerably. All of this caused by a dramatic influx of "straight of high-school" which used to be a rarity before. Now it seems to be the norm.
So the people saying that quality has not been impacted are not students nor teachers. Not sure what sort of delusion they are creating around themselves but it sure does not look as it pretty as it used to be.
I applied to ACCD based on the fact the bar to entry was high, the average age of the students was older and the maturity level was serious. I read all these posts and see that admissions are up, the quality of student work is down and reputation of this school isn't what it once was.
I passed on a well known school in the midwest because of all the above reasons to choose ACCD. I bought in to the reputation, only to find this blog and now have serious doubts.
Now, I am wondering if I should spend 3 years and $100K+ to go here... The administration problems are a huge red flag.
To JUNE 3, 2008 7:36 PM-
The person who was Chief Academic Officer at Art Center for the past 5 years recently resigned. There's a transition on the way, and we are looking forward to a fresh beginning. Lots of great faculty and students ARE here. You should see the student work and the campus for yourself and visit and talk to the people in your area of focus. Just as with any college, you'll get as much as you put into it.
To 7:36 PM -
Please don't let this blog taint your decision to come to Art Center. This is a period of transition, change, problems to discuss. The one thing that you can count on is that things will change - this too shall pass and will be replaced with something else over time. It is, like the art that is created, a "work in progress" at this time and you shouldn't allow it to shatter your image of Art Center, just so happens that your timing coincides with this very moment in time, which is unusual for ACCD. There is still very much to be proud of as part of the community. Look for the positive and you WILL find it!
Don't forget to sign the petition if you support it and to pass it on to your friends and colleagues.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/educationfirst
thank you all for coming to the Potluck. thank you all for voicing your concerns. thank you all for being students i am proud of and have the honor of knowing. thank you alumni for being there in spirit and in person. ;O)
thank you stan and ramon for being there for the students and representing the alumni.
thank you richard for wading into the uncertain waters.
now that we have started the process of talking to each other, we can now own our words.
:O) ophelia
i want to start a petition to show the board how many of us support richard and the great plans he has for the shcool! come on lets show the world that we aren’t afraid of the future!!!
Dear Anon June 3, 2008 4:43 PM
Thanks for posting internal Art Center mail. As an Alumni, I stopped recieving mail like this long ago, and it's good to be informed of internal developments during this critical time.
I think it's ridiculous that people still think and comment that kids straight out of high school are ALL terrible. I am straight out high school and I work my ass off, sometimes more than you old people! Granted, there are some kids who are the same age as me who don't work as hard, and party more than I ever will, but it doesn't mean they're not talented, they just haven't had a chance to experience the real world and realize that hard work pays off and laziness does not. So they don't take their education very seriously, but then again not all of us 18 & 19 year olds are like that. I think stereotyping straight out of high school kids as untalented artists is extremely offensive (not to mention untrue) and making comments like that is only detrimental to the already weak student community and needs to be stopped immediately. Last time I checked, we did get into the same school as you, and had to go through the same entering process?
Instead of pointing fingers at "straight-out-of high-school" students for the poor quality of work, I think the blame should simply go to all lazy students in general.
In my experiences as an art center student, I've seen poor quality of work outputted from all age levels. Yes, there are 18 year olds who produce low-standard work, but there are also 22 year olds, 28 year olds who also do crappy work. Heck, one of the worst students that I've come across is at least 50 years old.
I'm sure there is a difference in my own maturity level compared to other students, but I don't see the reason for blaming people like me for all your problems.
The average age of entering freshmen is still 23 the last time I checked.
Not only is putting all the blame to the younger students shameless scapegoating, it's also immature, which is ironic given the situation. It's not too far off from working class people blaming immigrants for their economic situations. While some claims, may have validity, the rash generalization is often a poor excuse to account for their own doubts and fears.
Don't let someone younger than you determine your own ability. Just do good work yourself.
Some of the best alumni in the industry entered this institution under the age of 20.
My name is Eric Hu, and I have never let my age stand in the way of my own education and that of my peers.
Do we have a report on Richard's meeting with the Faculty Council co-chairs?
Art Center, clearly, is in an unprecedented state of crisis.
The divisions in the community are deeper than Richard Koshalek can reconcile, and that alone is reason for the trustees to allow him to leave at the end of his current contract. We need a leader who can restore unity and common purpose.
Sometimes, no matter on what side of a controversy you fall, the issues troubling an institution are simply irreconcilable, and a change in leadership with a new vision for the future is the only means of moving beyond the impasse.
Now is the time to own your words. As of last night, the walls have come down and if we demand transparency then we must also practice it ourselves on this blog.
Last night was the beginning of an open dialogue between the students, faculty, alumni, administration and Richard Koshalek. We can now proceed with the future of ACCD in an open manner.
Your words define who you are. Stand behind them and be a part of this collective movement to bring ACCD into the future.
Ophelia Chong
And when I say "transparency" I mean it for Everyone.
Administration, faculty, students, and alumni. If you have something to say, stand behind it.
Ophelia,
I am glad that you feel confident that faculty and staff don't need the protection of anonymous. Can you share a little of what went on last night so we can choose whether or not to share in your confidence?
I think it is wonderful thing that you created such an event, but unfortunately could not be there do to scheduling....I'm sure that there are others out there who wish they could have attended too.
So thanks for being such a community-maker, and tell us more about the dinner and information shared please!
Ophelia --
Thank you so very much for all your efforts. Your leadership in this difficult process of change has been fantastic.
As a staff member, I have fresh in mind the attmept by Erica Clark and Iris Gelt to retaliate against Nathan for starting this blog; I am aware of HR's frosty treatment of Rachael Tiede, and have heard the spin attempt to claim her dismissal had nothing to do with her speaking out for Nate; I have witnessed the petty and vindictive attempt by the administration to erase all presence of Nate on the college website.
I have watched the Koshalek team operate for years in isolation from the real concerns and educational mission of Art Center, while they pursued their separate agenda.
Nearly 500 Art Center patriots have signed the petition demanding an end to the extravagant construction plans that Koshalek has made HIS mission and priority. Will he also sign the petition? Did he give any indication last night of relinquishing his empire-building, his extravagant travel, and his $1,000 dinners, and re-prioritizing education?
It's easy for him to be socially affable, charming, and to act concerned, to give the appearance of finally moving forward on the dozens of college needs that have languished under his tenure. But I can gaurantee you, he will not give up on his empire. He will adjust his public face to appease realities he can't avoid, but he will privately continue to pursue the same path that has brought us to this unhappy situation in the first place.
Despite your appeal, I cannot sign this posting, because I know all to well from the experience cited above (and more I haven't cited) exactly what will happen if I do. None of this uprising would have been possible without the availability of anonymity -- I hope along with you that that will change when the trustees act to bring Art Center new leadership.
I am so proud of the ACCD students. At 7pm, a group of alums, faculty, admin, students sat down with Richard. The group grew to over 30+ people. All were asking questions, hard questions, open and very honest questions to Richard. The dialogue opened up as we went along. As we continued, EVERYONE got a clearer picture of what was the problem(s) and not every question could be answered. However, it was the start of open communication.
The problems that have hovered over this blog is the input of information that needs to be verified. Last night Richard addressed some of those concerns. There wasn't enough time to go through everything, but it's a start.
The dialogue continued past 9pm. I hope others who were there post here their thoughts as well. That includes Administration.
Last night we also asked about the fear of retribution, and stated the high percentage of Anonymous on this blog. Richard emphasized that there should be no fear of retribution from the administration for anyone posting with their real names on this blog. And I will hold him to that. He also said that he has no say on who is let go from the faculty, that is the job description of the Deans and Chairs' (excuse my choice of words here, I am a bit tired). He does though in Adminstration.
I hope others who were there add to this.
Ophelia
to Iris and Erica
We would like to hear from you as well on the treatment of Nathan. If we are to move forward, it would be a good time to talk about that. Nathan is a student, and a very highly respected one at that (amongst students and alumni).
Ophelia
Let's also hear someone explain, and hopefully apologize for the photoshop-ing out of Nate from the Legacy Circle photo on the Art Center website. It was restored and Nate is back in the image, but I think it would help give confidence to everyone in this discussion if the college officially and publicly stated why it happened, and admitted that it was a mistake.
For before and after pictures, see the bottom of this page:
http://futureofartcenter.blogspot.com/
Ophelia saie:
Richard emphasized that there should be no fear of retribution from the administration for anyone posting with their real names on this blog. And I will hold him to that.
Well thank you, Ophelia, for your sincerity.
But here's how it will happen: at some point this uprising will calm down, and it will be resolved one way or another. You will be gone, the hoopla will be gone, and the spotlight on Richard's behavior will be gone. Then those of us who remain will suffer the consequences of any open criticism we've expressed. It won't be open retribution, it will be for some other cooked-up reason -- but that's how it's done.
Can you give us an example of a hard question and a clear answer from Richard at last night's meeting? I don't mean to be coy, I'm genuinely interested in knowing.
Did anyone ask him if he will sign the petition? And, isn't that the most important question?
Not that I am anyone, but I just pounded through the last two days' posts. These are some things that stuck, and my impressions.
Arguments over fundraising and where the money went - Something like 27M spent to raise 66M of which 24 was put in the endowment. Where is the rest? Why so much to fundraise? If education is King then why didn't it all go to endowment?
Argument over pedigree of architecture. I gotta say, who cares who designed the building. Actually, why is more room needed? Why increase enrollment? Is it just to bigger to make cash flow to make buildings?
Who's to blame if education quality is lacking? Is it Nate? After all he was the head of education? Clearly, this was scrub by the Admin. Saying Nate didn't meet budgets is a set-up-for failure situation.
And finally, I am most disappointed by comments by Mr. Breitenberger (sorry if I butchered your name and spelling) Yes the school needs Admin to make things run. Yes the school continues to produce the highest quality of grads, and yes it is healthy to argue. But your post seems to purposely disclude recognition of the reason people are upset.
The subject here is education. Does the current leadership understand what ACCD is to do, and what they are actually doing? The perception, and most probably the reality is that ACCD is on a path to increasing enrollment beyond what is sustainable. Maybe that should be the topic of the next sustainablitiy conference?
The campus can't handle it. The design business can't hire the increased number of grads, There are not enough possible students with the talent to learn the skills required to get the jobs. Yet the school is pushing to increase enrollment in order to raise cash to build a bigger campus to train more students without the skills to get the limited number of jobs!
The school has the responsibility of controlling it's output of high quality students to meet the real hiring opportunity in the market. And then improving the support to those limited number of students. Clearly, ACCD produces the best students... and I have seen that the education side of the school's admin - the teachers and department heads - do a fantastic job. And I have seen this area improve in the past five years. I see this in the quality of graduates we hire. I have seen that even the skills of the "second stringers" (as the not-top grads are referred to in this industry are called) have become very good. Hireable compared to five years ago. But I have seen in the last couple of years an explosion of enrollment that is going to result in way too many grads that will not be hireable. I get so many portfolios of pretty good students that have been out for a term, a year... And then the portfolios of the product of bloating the enrollment. Painfully sad the promises and cash spent all encouraged by the ACCD future expansion plan!
I have seen in the last ten years a continuation of a large disconnect between the graduating students and the school's support of the students to find them jobs. The teachers teach, the students learn, and the school Admin spends it's time thinking about how to increase enrollment to bigger the school without thinking about what will happen to the extra students.
Worse yet - the Admin has not shown effort to even understand how to support the original head count of students. They talk on this blog about the education experience. It's like watching that old movie Hoosiers where everyone is living the glory days of high school. Where is Art Center's Admin - Koshalek et al - after the grad parties - when the students are trying to get work. Waiting in the halls for interviews. Does he understand that these students deserve to have a bit of help from the school not just in finding jobs, but limiting the size of the starting grid in the race to get a limited number of jobs? I suppose he doesn't even understand. He comes from a world of privilege... and a world of fine arts.
I have said it before on this site. I have humbly had the privilege of working with two other ACCD grads to hire many students in the last seven years. I have the right to comment. And I can factually say that in those years Mr. Koshalek has never once come to see how we hire, what we look for, what we need from ACCD. And I have never met Mr. Breitehnberger (SP...) I have talked deeply with Nate, and Andy Ogden, Stan Kong, Stewart Reed, the first term instructors, the instructors in other disciplines from where we sometimes hire... Marty.. all ask intensely what we need in a grad. We have never said we need more second stringers, or worse, students. We have never said we need more parking lots full of said second stringers. We have never said we need a Ghery building. We are deeply concerned about the debt our new grads carry into the professional world, and we go to great extremes to help them while they are in school and when we hire them. Koshalek has no clue what we do to support the school beyond big money donations and I have to admit a bit of rage at hearing about the money spent on junkets and stupid ACCD culture-building seminars when we have to donate raw materials that the school can't provide to the students. Do you think I am happy about hearing that the money this company works very hard to earn is spent on crap? Enjoy your first- -class-seat chicken or fish while the students in the shop can only have one rubber glove! Do you have any idea what they might even need that one rubber glove for, Mr. Koshalek? Why it's pretty much essential to have two? Do you realize that the reason so many people teach up there is to help identify and nurture students in early terms because your support to them when they graduate is so pathetic? That we cannot count on ACCD admin, HR, whatever to understand who their students are and who might be a good fit for what company? That, by the way is one of the things CCS does very well.
Anyone that suffered through that rant please understand. ACCD needs to recruit the highest talent students, train them well, and connect them with companies that need them. That can be done in any building. From that outcome will reputation be built. The rest is ego building.
$27 million to earn $24 million for the endowment and you are proud? "We loose money on each one we sell but we make it up on volume..." I hope to meet you someday Mr. B. In the mean time stop the nonsense and focus on the students. Student please understand that your goal is to do good work and learn from the practicing professionals at ACCD. The rest won't help you in twenty years. There, I needed to say that.
Just saw the comments by two students that entered ACCD straight out of high school. You are correct! It is talent and hard work that get you through... and the inability to drink legally.
Seriously, I was one of two students in my starting class in '82 that came directly from high school. The other dropped out. I went straight through including taking academics at night. Graduated with distinction and had three offers before graduation. Not bragging about that, it's just what happened. I was a bit too intense quite frankly, but had to be in order to get it done.
So I completely agree with you. Starting ACCD young can be a bit of a hurdle, but it is not an indication of possible skills outcome and should not be a consideration for allowing students in. It's all about the entry portfolio quality.
Get it done!
to June 4, 2008 10:10 AM
I will not be gone. If you knew me, you would not of said that. I have been involved with ACCD since 1999. Beginning with Bridge, then the Alumni council. From there I have produced 3 events for the Alumnae with the Alumni office. I have been through the tenure of three Alumni directors. I have devoted my free time and money to helping alumnae. I have also headed Habit Forming, a group devoted to alumnae. Now if you think I will just disappear or fade away, then you don't know me.
I am here to stay and I am here to help the students, the faculty and the alumni. Now I have stepped up and put myself out there for ACCD.
If you want to challenge me on my dedication to ACCD, then step and email me at opheliac@mac.com
Ophelia
Only ONE question really matters -- answers to all the other ones will fall into place after this one is answered:
Mr. Koshalek -- will you join us and sign the petition to halt construction in the Master Plan?
10:50 am:
Who are you? It would help to understand your perspective on the master plan.
And I agree about an apology about the initial demand by two SVPs that this blog post come down and about the photo of Nate being photoshopped. Bad moves all and apologies are due to the Art Center community.
To anon. 10:10 am
There is no excuse for your rudeness directed at a dedicated Alum who has nothing but the school and the student’s best interests at heart. Ophelia should be commended for taking the time out of her life to be so engaged in whats going on and has been so proactive in trying to move the conversation forward in terms of all the questions and issues that have been discussed and debated at length.
10:10 a.m., I certainly don’t get the feeling that there is anything sincere or genuine about your remarks. In terms of describing your interest in last night’s potluck as being “coy,” it only makes it evident to me that this is a game to you and perhaps there’s a certain amount of delight you take in perpetuating conspiracy theories and the myth that we should all live in fear.
I want to thank Ophelia for raising the level of the dialogue on this blog and her efforts to encourage an open dialogue of facts.
I also want to apologize for posting anonymously. My reasons for doing it have nothing to do with fear of retribution from administration. It's because of anonymous creepy FUDs like 10:10 a.m. who freak me out and who don't take kindly to people who disagree with them.
I am not the poster from 10:10 AM and do not wish to unnecessarily spread FUD. But it is a fact that under Richard Koshalek’s watch, many high-level staff and some faculty members have been fired, pressured to resign, or have felt on very tenuous ground in their jobs when not 100% supporting his vision. The reason he has offered for the most recent one is “underperformance.” Although there may be truth to this in some of these cases, and less so in others, the numbers of people who have been fired over the last two years, from high places and low places, signals that no one who questions or challenges decisions, ideas, or plans, is safe. It has created an atmosphere of paranoia and divisiveness. It would be nice if someone could step forward to non-anonymously confirm what many know to be true. Unfortunately I cannot.
I am not posting because of a personal agenda or hatred. I think that students should know the facts and they should know how much this turmoil has cost the school, not just financially (although that has been a lot) but how much it has cost in productivity. No wonder this has all exploded on an anonymous blog, because there are no channels for honest debate or disagreement. You are in, or you are out, has been the message.
As a comment to 2;04, a lot of people work at Art Center if you count all the faculty and staff. It's normal in a work place for there to be some level of turnover unless you're suggesting that everyone who starts working has to keep working here despite their job performance or desire to move on. Without the actual numbers, I think we need to be careful about speculating in this conversation the reasons and circumstances for why these people have left which could be completely normal in the hiring and firings of any work environment.
Was anyone at the Potluck Meeting last night? I am curious to hear reports of the proceedings.
We sincerely regret the removal of Nate Young's image from the Legacy Circle section of the web site. In the confusion of recent events, this was indeed an error that occurred while quick adjustments were being made to staff lists and images. As you know, the correct, original image was immediately replaced and will of course remain on the site for the usual cycle of rotation that pertains to all images.
We would never wish to diminish in any way Nate's significant contributions to Art Center. We truly honor the work of the Legacy Circle and hope that it will continue to flourish under the dedicated leadership of Stan Kong and Ramone Munoz.
If anyone has any other questions, I encourage you to contact me directly, at iris.gelt@artcenter.edu.
Thank you Iris.
Now we can move forward.
Ophelia
Iris said:
In the confusion of recent events, this was indeed an error that occurred while quick adjustments were being made to staff lists and images.
Iris, thank you -- by posting directly to the blog, you are being very helpful.
May I ask you to please explain this a little further? What recent events have been confusing, and how would "quick adjustments to staff lists and images" result in one of six people in a photograph being proactively photoshoped out?
Your response implies there was some sort of routine that went awry. Is there a routine procedure to remove every past reference to an employee who resigns?
Thank you, again, for helping us to understand this.
Richard Koshalek says the new buildings will be funded by private donors... Well how will they be maintained after our master fundraiser is gone? Our tuition thats how! To make it worse we will need a much larger student body to afford maintenance and occupy the excessive space. The South campus is an empty building you can fly a plane in and as for the toxic waste building...WTF? An elite learning institution is one that has a low acceptance rate providing the most competent students. Art Center is easier to get into than Cal State LA and Richard Koshalek has said he would let everyone in this fall.
Fund raising costs money! Richard Koshalek's salary alone over the past 9 years is over 4 million dollars. How much do you think it costs to fly around the world and wine and dine the extremely wealthy for 9 years. Not to mention the millions paid to Frank Ghery already. I really wonder what the net worth of Richard Koshalek's fundraising efforts are. You want to build the library (not really a bad idea)? sell South campus and the Toxic waste building.
Richard Koshalek if you want to expand why don't you start a Performing arts program or something and not water down the programs we already have. And perhaps expand in space after the student body grows, not the other way around.
Richard Koshalek says great architecture inspires great work. You gotta be fucking kidding me, were not 8 year olds. How about coming with something a little more objective than that-- isn't your job to persuade people
We do not need to talk to Richard Koshalek, he has made his position clear on video.
We need direct action
Dissent should be felt the moment someone (mainly the board of trustees) steps on campus! make stickers, fliers, stir shit up!
Richard Koshalek is dangerous to Art Center! Talk to your teachers about this, many of them would speak up if they didn't know the students need them in the classroom. It's not like they need their petty salary and diminutive retirement plan so much their afraid of losing their jobs.
We students, faculty and alumni should be angry. We have a cause, we have a voice and most importantly we have a stake in what's going on in our school. Don't let them tell us to calm down and talk, the only people we need to address are the ever elusive board of trustees!
Fear -for Art Center's future.
Uncertainty -of wether our best interests are being protected.
Doubt -anything will change without swift and direct action!
FUD what a dumb-ass acronym sounds like something Richard Koshalek and company tossed into this blog to make us doubt our cause. Don't get spun!
Ditch Rich!
Reinstate Nate!
Thank you Ophelia for offering an olive branch for Iris Gelt's apology in the name of moving forward, but not good enough!
Iris, you have got to be kidding. We regret "... an error that occurred while quick adjustments were being made to staff lists and images".
You imply that it was simply an accident; a mistake made in haste while dealing with the recent rapid changes in staffing? While adjusting the org chart or something on the school web site? So ACCD takes the time to hunt down pictures of Nate, finds one in a very peripheral context of fundraising, and feels it necessary to take more time to photoshop him out? This was a blatant malicious maneuver that smacks of authoritarianism, or just plain egocentric child tantrum! And I wonder why I have been getting calls from staff people up there afraid to pop their heads up for fear of unemployment.
You guys torture the kid that started this blog, pretty much bounce Nate's assistant, and you offer a thin rerget for inadvertently photoshopping Nate's picture from history during a state of confused reshuffling and box moving. I am ashamed for the school. I truly am.
Go back and read what you wrote, Iris, and tell me what you would think if you were a student, staff member, alumnus, or donor! I suppose one could say at least she wrote it. But it looks only written to control damage or to salve some burns. And if written heartfelt, clearly you have no understanding of why so many are so concerned. "...this was indeed an error that occurred while quick adjustments were being made to staff lists and images." Woops!
My God! You all were so infuriated by the inconvenience caused by Nate's resignation that you had to hunt down every speck of his residue on the school and expunge it.
News flash. This isn't about Nate. And it's not about you, your career, legacy building or legacy buildings... it's about concern by many of misdirecting precious resources away from the students. Mr. Koshalek's recent press release says he understands and welcomes the dialogue. Did he know about the de-Nating? Who requested it? I believe a more complete explanation should be given as to why this "... error that occurred while quick adjustments were being made to staff lists and images." happened.
I suppose I'm kissing my one night a week teaching privilege goodbye with this post... I will truly miss it. You students are the best. Even you, Lili.
Right on! Meanwhile, there are names of staff and faculty on that website that haven't been associated with Art Center in like, years. But excising Nate from that photo was one of those ASAP 'errors.'
yo 4:40 pm:
dude, hilarious! bill o'reilly gets a run for the money.
also, if the glove don't fit, acquit.
see you later, alligator.
get back to the studio, sususudio
wake up, administration!!!!
erica and iris,
it is time for a SIMPLE apology. that is all. an apology to nathan.
it's a new era. youtube speed. think: political campaign tactics! swiftboating. a swift response. don't let this fester any longer.
you are making all of us -- and richard -- look bad. please. please. please. SOON!
dear eric
it would've been nice if more alumni were there last night participating with the students, faculty, admin and richard. we talked and the dialogue has begun in a positive light.
iris's intention is to move everything forward. and we need to move forward. this is all new ground for ACCD, and we are learning as go.
what else is there to say? ACCD is sorry, get over it. Move on.
Ophelia
hey guys, take a deep breath. and stayed tune for nathan.
ophelia
Please, my fellow Art Center Patriots, keep a civil tone! FUD is as bad as PIS (Protecting Institutional Status-quo) and we should reach higher.
But, you must admit, Iris -- they have good points.
When, in the new spirit of transparency, you respond further about the Nate Rubout, perhaps you could also explain in equal detail your attempt at retaliation against Nathan for starting this blog. Are the reports we're hearing from ear/eyewitnesses to you and Erica's behavior correct?
You people are awful. You demand an apology from the administration for playing hide-and-go-seek with the Legacy Circle photo and as soon as a member of Koshalek's inner circle makes themselves known and admits to the mistake you attack some more.
Should they have messed with the photo in the first place? No. But this particular issue was fixed, an apology was made and when Iris Gelt, one of Koshalek's dedicated followers, acknowledges Nate Young's contributions to Art Center you tear her apart.
Nate Young is no longer here. It was her job to remove him from the website. She got a little over zealous and turned to Photoshop to appease her boss. Let's chill out.
The Legacy photo is a minor issue but indicative of the bigger problem here. You people demand communication and apologies and explanations and as soon as you get it it isn't good enough.
Give the few brave administrators who have posted under their own names a break. Let Koshalek's appearance at the alumni event last night, and the ACSG event coming up, be the start of real dialogue.
Am I ashamed that my school is going to be eaten up by a Frank Gehry building? You bet. But more ashamed of those people who keep pulling this whole topic of conversation into the mud.
yo 4:54
My comment was "fair and balanced"
I am not perfect. I make mistakes. I say sorry when I do. Do I want someone to keep on me after I apologize?I haven't apologized exactly the way they want, should I do it over and over until they are happy with it?
Errors in judgement and miscommunication happened. Apologies have been made.
Now can we move forward?
Ophelia
dear June 4, 2008 4:40 PM
ditch everyone. fine. what next then?
what's your plan?
And were you there last night? if you were, you could've asked your questions and voiced your opinion.
You can't change the world from your chair. Get up and talk to people in person. Get your answers face to face.
Ophelia
wallowing in the mud and slinging it as fast and furiously as they can at Koshalek and his administration is how some people like 4:40 pm prefer to continue the conversation. It's the kind of dirty politics that desperate, angry people like to practice cause they know that if they sling enough of it, some of it will stick. Once there's enough doubt out there, their opponents are so tarnished and roughed up they think they've proved their point.
DON"T LET THE THE CONVERSATION GET DRAGGED DOWN TO THE LEVEL OF SWIFT BOAT TACTICS!!!
If members of the Art Center community are interested in knowing more about the Nate picture rubout it is only fair to allow for reasonable questions. Stan Kong very bravely spoke out and in a reasonable manner requested an explanation three days ago on June 1. It has been until now we receive Iris’ response.
Another post continued: “May I ask you to please explain this a little further? What recent events have been confusing, and how would "quick adjustments to staff lists and images" result in one of six people in a photograph being proactively photoshoped out? In my mind a reasonable question.
We all--students, faculty, alumni--want this to go away as much as Iris and RK’s administration would like it. But be fair Ophelia, it is a denial of this web forum, and the community’s concerns to tell someone to , “… get over it. Move on.” Don’t we all wish we could get over this and move on.
Members of this community are asking for transparency and accountability. Critical mass is with Nathan’s blog here, this is a fact the administration might try to match with their own “Digital Community Forum” and we may all participate there as well.
We are not asking to “ditch everyone”. The writing is on the wall. There is overwhelming and building support from critical alumni, faculty, and students. The board meeting is June 19. We are asking for the removal of Richard Koshalek and his administration, plain and simple. Keep the faculty, students, and focus on educational staff and needs. Consider reinstating Nate…
Some notes on last night:
At least RK waded into the masses last night without a microphone, or desk between him and the kids. He did it because he wanted to listen, and he did.
Lee Bolton hit him with question after question. Stan Kong and Ramon as well. Kids in first term, second and so on asked. Grad students corrected him on some facts. Everyone listened, and I mean everyone.
Dear June 4, 2008 5:22 PM
RE:dear June 4, 2008 4:40 PM
I'm not trying to discredit your efforts, just trying to counter all the comments on here that suggest Koshalek's plan might be okay. I firmly believe that it's not. If the petition doesn't work then we will have to physically protest, or concede. I'm encouraging the spreading of propaganda under some ends justify the means mentality. That is if you have a big problem with propaganda... Al Gore won the nobel prize with his propaganda video "An Inconvenient Truth". Without propaganda and catchy speeches filled with platitudes of empowerment the Holocaust wouldn't have happened but neither would have the civil rights movement. I've talked to many students who still don't know what the fuss is all about so I laid out the situation in blunt terms in the way I believe it to be. Not everyone is going to do hours of research. Do you really think you can negotiate someone out of their past 9 years work when their job, ego and reputation relies on success.
Sorry, I don't trust the tactics of a group that will deliberately do the things this one has done to deal with inconveniences. Iris did apologize. Commendable. But why would she have done it in the first place? These are not little indiscretions, nor were the apologies straightforward.
Some face time and a bit of nodding at a pot luck is a start, but has anyone from the administration said we hear you, we truly hear you? No. They say they welcome the dialogue...
This is not mudslinging. This is serious discussion. Mudslinging is attacking peripheral unimportants.
Someone in the admin thought it the right thing to do to attack the student that started this dialogue, and later photoshop Nate from history. This is not an I'm sorry, I forgot to send you a birthday card, I'm sorry I gave you a door ding... It is an indication of serious, pernicious, arrogance and hubris in the administration. The staff is afraid to speak their minds for fear of dismissal! At a college! Fear of dismissal for having an opinion about how to educate at a college! Understand this!
Is a bit of glad handing at a pot luck enough to reverse the need to keep up one's guard? To make clear that the Administration needs to seriously consider it's activity?
Sorry I wasn't able to attend the potluck. No, really I truly am sorry. There is no way to get home from work, guarantee the kid's homework is done and then get from Pedro to Pasadena. I truly regret not being there.
T
I had the unique opportunity to engage in a discussion last night with students and Richard Koshalek, President of Art Center. As an alum who left Art Center in 1975, I saw the architectural model of the Hillside campus in 1975 and it was exciting and long overdue to finally see it in person. Last night was my first visit to the Hillside campus so, needless to say, I am as far removed from the present day policies and politics as anyone can be. Hopefully I brought an impartial perspective to the discussion.
First let me say that I was impressed with the passionate interest that students had for a voice in their education at Art Center. In 1975 we simply accepted whatever we were provided and we had little or no input as participants in our educational planning. It was also encouraging to hear Richard Koshalek recognize the need for increased student involvement.
My perception was that many students who attended were concerned about several issues; 1. applicants' qualifications accepted to ACCD and 2. how their tuition was spent in terms of direct benefits.
Richard Koshalek responded to many such questions explaining a complex and long-range approach to fundraising efforts, budget overruns and how such budgets are implemented. Nik Hafermaas mentioned a structuring his programs with a ‘corporation’ approach as well as a concerted effort used to screen student applications and portfolios.
A disconnect between the perceptions of students and the administration quickly became apparent. Administrators discussed task forces that were established in each department but I was surprised to learn that students had not been included in the task forces. Students were intent on having a place at the table insofar as decisions that directly effect their education and their tuition. I got the impression that students felt invisible and generally ignored in that regard.
There was extensive discussion provided by administrators about how budgets played a role in long term infrastructure and goals for Art Center but students seemed more focused on the having a better understanding and a voice about school budgets and the immediate and direct impact it has on their education now.
Considering the 'corporation' approach to an education plan that was discussed, I viewed the students as the 'stockholders' in that corporate view and it obviates a need for accountability to them and participation by them. I had the perception that no one had been listening to students until last night. Overall, students seemed to prefer an educational program that was planned with them rather than directed at them. Regardless of their opinions or disagreements, students expressed a universal desire to be visible and to be heard.
The meeting seemed very productive and plans were made for an ongoing dialogue about making changes that are inclusive of students' concerns.
Danny Resnic
Ophelia said of Koshalek's cafeteria meeting:
He did it because he wanted to listen, and he did.
I have great respect for your efforts, Ophelia. Thank you for your commitment to Art Center.
Just remember, RK has been at Art Center for nine years. Many of our current students were 10 years old when he started here! For nine years he has been aloof and invisible, and for one week he has been present and involved. Don't be sucked in by his charm. He may act like your best friend now, but I can gaurantee you his new persona is focused on maintaining damage-control until June 19 when he hopes the trustees will confirm his contract extension. He is working overtime on the trustees behind the scenes, and the last thing he needs is a growing uprising to influence them. Once the extension is approved, he'll be off on another working vacation, and we'll be left with the raw end of our "dialogues" hanging out...
Talking and listening are important, but that's not only what this is about. It's about change from the status quo, about a new vision.
If Koshalek is truly willing to humble himself to real dialogue and admit past mistakes, to start anew with a new attitude, challenge him to SIGN THE PETITION -- "to put an immediate halt to the current Art Center Master Development Plan which includes the Gehry designed DRC."
If he won't sign, he's NOT on the side of the students, faculty, and alumni.
To FugitiveColors
You can challenge him yourself at the forum on June 10th.
You don't need me to do that. All I can do is try to keep the dialogue going.
Ophelia
What are the details for the June 10th forum?
Did anyone record what was discussed on Tuesday?
shoji
read June 4, 2008 6:33 PM / danny resnic's notes on Tuesday.
I had to settle down and stop laughing in order to write this. You mean to tell us that the removal, photoshop job, and replacement with an altered photo without Mr. Young and Legacy Circle was an accident, a slight error? Wow, we must have incredible systems within marketing that can allow this to happen and or you think that the people that read this are quite stupid and naive. Those same systems must also be contributing to our lowering public reputation and fewer high quality candidates applying to Art Center. Wonderful. It was nice that Mrs. Gelt attempted to do the right thing and apologize. But next time, please do the right thing and just say no to questionable directives from your boss right from the beginning.
Fugitive Colors,
I don't follow your reasoning.
You say, "If he won't sign, he's NOT on the side of the students, faculty, and alumni." There is no way to please you because you know that he cannot sign the petition, which states that education has been "compromised" because of one man. If he signs it, he is condemning himself. LOL!
BTW, this "one man" theory is a pile of unsustainable b.s.
Richard has been working with a lot of other people -- including the Trustees -- to put together the vision and the master plan. This is not a "one man" operation!
But if you want to go there, the man who was at the top you need to address is Nate Young. He was the person in charge of Education for five years. Richard gave him full reins and it was Nate who hired and fired Faculty and Department Chairs and Deans and ran Admissions, etc.
If you are unhappy with the quality of incoming students, look to Nate. Richard's job was to raise money and strategize the College's future growth. He has done that. You can see the results. You may not agree, but it's an ambitious, but achievable vision that promises to ENHANCE the so-called "crumbling" facilities and shops and equipment.
Richard is a CHANGE agent, not the status quo. The status quo are the people who have resisted moving the college one inch beyond the present building. Imagine that, a change agent even at his age!
With the staff, he has raised more funds for the college than ever in its history. With Richard, Art Center has begun to move beyond its tuition-based budgets that ruled the college for most of its existence.
BTW, all these decisions about the master plan AND the DRC have been vetted and approved by the Board. So it's not a singular ego-driven "wet dream." That is really not fair, nor correct.
What we need NOW is a new Chief Academic Officer. Let us hope that we can find a good one soon.
thank you, iris, for finally responding. but more speed and forthrightness next time, please. speaking of which -- WHEN are you and erica clark going to apologize to nathan for suggesting that he remove his blog post?
we all favor academic freedom and freedom of speech at art center, and everyone at art center would appreciate hearing from you and erica SOON.
thank you.
June 4, 2008 7:30 PM is correct about how RK was hands off on the faculty. Last night he told us that he was the champion of Nate Young before the board of trustees. And he gave Nate free rein on the re-organization of the faculty.
Also it was Nate Young who requested the Non-Disclosure on the circumstances of his leaving ACCD.
Again this topic will be brought up at the forum on June 10th, so you will hear it from RK directly.
And to reiterate my position on this, I am not on Nate Young or Richard Koshalek's side. I am of an open mind and I am letting my fair judgement guide me in the events at ACCD.
Post a Comment