As a professor I often reflect on the people who inspired me enough to want to become a professor. Obviously, most of those people were professors. I aspire to live up to the qualities of the great professors I had, and I hope never to fall prey to the shortcomings of the professors I loathed. It should come as no surprise that I have kept in contact with most of the professors that have inspired me for the better; they have become part of that group of people that I call friends.
On Sunday, Oct. 18, I learned that one of my friends was gone. The death of a friend is never an easy thing to accept, and it becomes harder still to learn that a friend took his own life.
Terry Rossi Kirk was professor to approximately 500 students a year in Rome, lecturing on the art and architecture of Modern Italy (1600 - present, give or take). Since Rome is a living textbook, lecture classes were not restricted to slide presentations in darkened rooms, they consisted of walking tours throughout the streets of the Eternal City. What made Terry's lectures stand apart was not just the enthusiasm and interest he possessed for his subjects, it came from his ability to perform his lectures.
During the first semester I had Terry for a professor, studying painting in my final semester as an undergraduate at Iowa State University, Terry lectured on the piazza as public theater, comparing most works of Classical and Modern architecture to the stage, scenography, the proscenium arch, and the billowing curtain. The analogy even carried into sculpture of the period, most notably the operatic work of Bernini's Ecstasy of St. Theresa in the Cornaro Chapel of Santa Maria della Vittoria, where onlookers from balconies peer down to see the arrow of the angel plunged into the entrails of the meditating saint. However, instead of simply lecturing about it, Terry went a further step, performing the plunging arrow, discussing - in an enunciated whisper that could be understood by the pope, several miles away in Vatican City - the sexual connotations of the ecstasy, and the penetration of the angels "arrow" into her body. He then moaned, in accordance with the expression on her face. It was not a moan of pain, the moan a mother might make in the midst of labor. It was an orgasm. In a church. In Rome. And students were not the only people in attendance.
We then went for coffee.
Terry bought a painting from me after the completion of that semester. Had it not been for that acquisition, I might have remained one of the hundreds of students he has in a semester. It was a triptych, measuring a total 100cm x 50cm, with the middle measuring 50x50. Considering its size I was a little dumbfounded that he picked it up on his bike with a spool of twine.
Two years later I was getting ready to return to Italy, to a 2 year MFA program through American University in Washington, DC. Prior to applying for the program there was one name on the list of faculty that stood out to me: Terry Kirk. He taught my graduate art history course, and I sat in on an undergraduate architecture of Rome course, from time to time.
I left Italy after a year to finish my degree in DC, and Terry and I kept in touch, bumping into each other at College Art Association conferences. The last time I saw him was in February in Los Angeles, and he suggested I tell whoever I was interviewing with that, if hired, if they wanted to set up a semester long program, he would help me help them; I should be teaching in Rome, after all.
On the afternoon of Oct 18 I learned that Terry's body was found on Saturday in his car on the outskirts of Rome with his wrists slit. He had been missing since Wednesday. While I believed the news, I did not accept it. Terry had e-mailed less than a week earlier, proud to have been mentioned in an article by Susan Spero, writing for the LA Times about her time in Italy and the importance of Fascist architecture.
There was no news on Google searches. Eventually I looked at Terry's page on Facebook. There the reality of his death hit home. Four people I did not know had written their farewells to Terry.
It is interesting that Facebook has given me a better outlet to grieve over his death. On Terry's wall, a small community of people have gathered to say goodbye, to pay respects, to share stories, and to mourn. It is cathartic not only to contribute to that space, but to read the contributions of others, no matter how brief. I doubt Mark Zuckerberg ever thought this might be a use for his social networking creation, and I fear that, if after a certain period of inactivity, Facebook consumes his dormant site; in a way, Terry is still alive on Facebook, and it is the community of friends he made during his membership that continue to post stories and pictures. In a virtual space we gather together to celebrate a life.
Admittedly, I did not know Terry that well. To be in his presence for a semester, to be the student of his lectures, to listen to his enthusiasm and his flamboyant performances, was to know half of the truth. Privately he might be quite and demure, less likely to be on the stage, and more likely to be focused and concentrated on the conversation at hand. As e-mails have passed back and forth between friends and colleagues who knew him, I've been told he suffered from depression and was bipolar. He masked it well and I suspect only those who were closest to him personally and professionally knew of this. I was not a member of that fraternity, nor had I any reason to be.
The first step toward suicide is not simply wanting to die – though that motivation certainly helps – it is having a plan to carry out the mortal act. According to a news story in Il Tempo, wherein a young American was found dead outside Rome, he was found with keys and papers in his pocket. His final act was not impulsive. I wonder how long the plan had been ruminating in his mind. I'm told, a few days before he died, there was a party at his flat. I am wondering now if Terry intended that as his farewell party, and all the guests were oblivious. I also wonder if the final e-mail I received was another goodbye. Better to go out on high notes. Though sad, there is a certain poetry with that.
I still cannot comprehend his suicide. In truth, with grief subsiding, I'm angry about it. And, I'm left with no choice but to forgive his decision.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
To Paraphrase Wednesday Night
Over the past few months, thanks in part to the gift of a generous benefactor willing to pass down used/read back issues of recently published art magazines that she might otherwise throw out, I have been enjoying Dave Hickey's random essays in Art in America. So, it was with great surprise, Wednesday, that I learned he was speaking at the Smithsonian American Art Museum later that evening.
Sometimes news like this escapes me, and I can't help but get pissed about my own laziness, ignorance, apathy, or some combination of the three.
With my wife's permission, I attended, proceeding to SAAM immediately following my 4+ hour class at GW, book bag in tow, the contents of which were approximately 30 lbs of books, mostly on the subjects of Flash and ActionScript3. Since I teach Wednesday afternoons, dinner usually consists of whatever I threw in the crock pot that morning, so Gretchen was taken care of. And, as luck would have it, the coffee and cake a scarfed down at 4:00, just after my marathon 3.5 hour lecture on animation, held me until I got home at 9:00.
Hickey was introduced as a man with a singularly American voice. I disagree. Though his subjects are generally American, as with other critics of American culture (I'm thinking of the Australian, Robert Hughes) Hickey's strength comes from a perspective that is keenly not from America. After all, he is from the Republic of Texas, which allows him the ability to circumnavigate the apologetic bull shit and ass-kissing in his writing. Basically a Molly Ivins for the art world.
The subject of the talk was The Evils of Creationism: Art History According to Darwin. I don't recall either Creationism or Darwin being specifically mentioned.
While he began by linking today's art market to the art market developed in the Renaissance, the point of his argument – which basically ranted against having a federal Department of the Arts – was how an evil called "stupid money" upsets the whole apple cart.
"If blood money gets blood on your hands, and dirty money makes everything it touches dirty, what does stupid money do to the intellect of those who receive it?"
Hickey noted how, in the past 40 years, a lot of money has been thrown into the art with good intentions, but it has been distributed by committees who give the money to the wrong artists. They don't give it to the genius who might show up drunk - if at all. They give it to the person that is likable, sober, and makes okay work. MFA programs are no better because, as he put it, "I have never seen a bad artist go through an MFA program and come out the other side a good artist." What happens is that bad artist might come out the other side a better-educated bad artist.
The issue with stupid money is akin to an article, forward to me from a friend, regarding child sports titled, "Stop the Little League Arms Race." The economist Charles Wheelan basically argues that if everyone placed their kids in accelerated athletics programs the net result would be a waste of time, money and quality family time - not to mention a lot of surgeries to correct limbs prematurely mangled by stress fractures - and that the really talented kids would still rise above the fray because money cannot buy talent.
The same can be said for art.
Sometimes news like this escapes me, and I can't help but get pissed about my own laziness, ignorance, apathy, or some combination of the three.
With my wife's permission, I attended, proceeding to SAAM immediately following my 4+ hour class at GW, book bag in tow, the contents of which were approximately 30 lbs of books, mostly on the subjects of Flash and ActionScript3. Since I teach Wednesday afternoons, dinner usually consists of whatever I threw in the crock pot that morning, so Gretchen was taken care of. And, as luck would have it, the coffee and cake a scarfed down at 4:00, just after my marathon 3.5 hour lecture on animation, held me until I got home at 9:00.
Hickey was introduced as a man with a singularly American voice. I disagree. Though his subjects are generally American, as with other critics of American culture (I'm thinking of the Australian, Robert Hughes) Hickey's strength comes from a perspective that is keenly not from America. After all, he is from the Republic of Texas, which allows him the ability to circumnavigate the apologetic bull shit and ass-kissing in his writing. Basically a Molly Ivins for the art world.
The subject of the talk was The Evils of Creationism: Art History According to Darwin. I don't recall either Creationism or Darwin being specifically mentioned.
While he began by linking today's art market to the art market developed in the Renaissance, the point of his argument – which basically ranted against having a federal Department of the Arts – was how an evil called "stupid money" upsets the whole apple cart.
"If blood money gets blood on your hands, and dirty money makes everything it touches dirty, what does stupid money do to the intellect of those who receive it?"
Hickey noted how, in the past 40 years, a lot of money has been thrown into the art with good intentions, but it has been distributed by committees who give the money to the wrong artists. They don't give it to the genius who might show up drunk - if at all. They give it to the person that is likable, sober, and makes okay work. MFA programs are no better because, as he put it, "I have never seen a bad artist go through an MFA program and come out the other side a good artist." What happens is that bad artist might come out the other side a better-educated bad artist.
The issue with stupid money is akin to an article, forward to me from a friend, regarding child sports titled, "Stop the Little League Arms Race." The economist Charles Wheelan basically argues that if everyone placed their kids in accelerated athletics programs the net result would be a waste of time, money and quality family time - not to mention a lot of surgeries to correct limbs prematurely mangled by stress fractures - and that the really talented kids would still rise above the fray because money cannot buy talent.
The same can be said for art.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Not So Experimental Media Series
Last week I was able to attend the final screening of the WPAs Experimental Media series.
As is the nature with juried shows, the juror looks for quality work and for the work to fit together in a program. What Kelly Gordan assembled for the one-hour program flowed together quite well.
A critical assessment of the individual pieces are not necessary. It would be safe to say that there were some great works, some good works, and a few stinkers that ranged from annoying to stupid. There was also room for a couple pieces that worked in the context of this screening - or within the context of any juried screening - but might not function as stand-alone pieces.
What does remain is a critical assessment of the title of the exhibition. Nothing in that program seemed experimental, and the very nature of the call for entry limited the potential for real experimental media. I had the same opinion a few years back when I saw Paul Roth's curatorial selections.
Some might state that, "by its very nature, video and sound are experimental." And, of course, I can agree that, generally, the work of the artist, as individual, is to experiment with a medium. But that doesn't mean he is establishing a new foundation, or pushing the height of the plateau. He may simply redefine his personal aesthetic and conceptual boundaries for what passes as art.
The whole title for the Experimental Media series is off.
First, Experimentation:
The notion of experimentation evokes the mad scientist. Think Nikola Tesla. Or Doc Brown (Back to the Future). When it comes to video, I can't say for certain that it has all been done before. However, what was on display last week evoked early cinema, montage, Godard, Hollis Frampton, the telenovella, and even Triumph (from Conan O'Brien, though I was actually reminded of MTV Italy's Pets). Not all possible influences have been listed above, and from the list, not all would be direct influences. Some would wallow in the shallow depths of bad analogy. But, none of the aforementioned examples are malapropos.
As for sound, I heard hints of Cage and Paik. Anytime I hear someone play the inside of a piano, I think of Cage.
Next, Media.
The call for entry was limited to video and sound. Media, however, has a much broader boundary which typically encompasses most things electrical, digital, interactive, performative, mechanical, engineered, and otherwise weird. Granted, that broad assessment would allow a spin painting displayed vertically and placed on a rotating whirly -gig to be considered Media Art, provided it was plugged in. So much of media art today seems to rely on the computer and bits of information from the Internet. Yet, no Internet art was available for digestion.
With the call for entry limited to sound and video, the call for entries went one step further by limiting the work to a single projection. Aspiring video wall artists need not apply.
I will accept that opening the boundaries to be more inclusive creates the challenge to find a suitable venue to show all of it. So, when it comes to retitling the series, I'll be willing to meet the judge and jury half way.
Kelly Gordon's comment on this series, and her selection process, was to look for work that feels fresh. She had the daunting task to review approximately 575 works for the series, nearly doubling her annual intake of video and cinema. And some of this work did look fresh. But, that doesn't mean it was experimental.
Perhaps the better title for the series would be Fresh Media. Compilations can be wrapped in butcher's paper.
As is the nature with juried shows, the juror looks for quality work and for the work to fit together in a program. What Kelly Gordan assembled for the one-hour program flowed together quite well.
A critical assessment of the individual pieces are not necessary. It would be safe to say that there were some great works, some good works, and a few stinkers that ranged from annoying to stupid. There was also room for a couple pieces that worked in the context of this screening - or within the context of any juried screening - but might not function as stand-alone pieces.
What does remain is a critical assessment of the title of the exhibition. Nothing in that program seemed experimental, and the very nature of the call for entry limited the potential for real experimental media. I had the same opinion a few years back when I saw Paul Roth's curatorial selections.
Some might state that, "by its very nature, video and sound are experimental." And, of course, I can agree that, generally, the work of the artist, as individual, is to experiment with a medium. But that doesn't mean he is establishing a new foundation, or pushing the height of the plateau. He may simply redefine his personal aesthetic and conceptual boundaries for what passes as art.
The whole title for the Experimental Media series is off.
First, Experimentation:
The notion of experimentation evokes the mad scientist. Think Nikola Tesla. Or Doc Brown (Back to the Future). When it comes to video, I can't say for certain that it has all been done before. However, what was on display last week evoked early cinema, montage, Godard, Hollis Frampton, the telenovella, and even Triumph (from Conan O'Brien, though I was actually reminded of MTV Italy's Pets). Not all possible influences have been listed above, and from the list, not all would be direct influences. Some would wallow in the shallow depths of bad analogy. But, none of the aforementioned examples are malapropos.
As for sound, I heard hints of Cage and Paik. Anytime I hear someone play the inside of a piano, I think of Cage.
Next, Media.
The call for entry was limited to video and sound. Media, however, has a much broader boundary which typically encompasses most things electrical, digital, interactive, performative, mechanical, engineered, and otherwise weird. Granted, that broad assessment would allow a spin painting displayed vertically and placed on a rotating whirly -gig to be considered Media Art, provided it was plugged in. So much of media art today seems to rely on the computer and bits of information from the Internet. Yet, no Internet art was available for digestion.
With the call for entry limited to sound and video, the call for entries went one step further by limiting the work to a single projection. Aspiring video wall artists need not apply.
I will accept that opening the boundaries to be more inclusive creates the challenge to find a suitable venue to show all of it. So, when it comes to retitling the series, I'll be willing to meet the judge and jury half way.
Kelly Gordon's comment on this series, and her selection process, was to look for work that feels fresh. She had the daunting task to review approximately 575 works for the series, nearly doubling her annual intake of video and cinema. And some of this work did look fresh. But, that doesn't mean it was experimental.
Perhaps the better title for the series would be Fresh Media. Compilations can be wrapped in butcher's paper.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Fart on the Ave
Two weekends ago my family ambled down a street in Del Ray with friends in an effort to enjoy Alexandria, VA's Art on the Avenue. The next time I go I should chat up the vendors selling "paintings"* and start asking them "how do you do that."
Actually, I know the answer. The better question is, "why in the hell are you doing that?"
The "that" in question is the wretched process of taking a photograph, applying a filter to it in Photoshop, printing the result on canvas, and stretching the canvas. Granted, a fool and their money are soon parted, and in the case of those who would sell or buy, there are two fools involved (because my guess is the vendor goes home with a lot of unsold canvases).
The thing is, a bad vacation photo does not get better when Photoshop's "stained glass" filter is applied to it. Nor does it get better when printed with archival Epson inks on canvas paper. Nor does it get better when the canvas is stretched around a few pieces of pine.
There was a lot of "art" of this sort floating about The Ave. It impressed me no more two weeks ago than it did seven years ago when I found myself sitting in a doctor's office in New York City (whereupon after learning I was an artist the doctor responded, "I do a little art," and then pointed to the photo with inverted colors on the wall behind him). And, it reminded me of two lessons I teach beginning students in my digital art classes.
1. Stay away from the filters. It's not that the filters in Photoshop are bad. At times they are great, but if used selectively. When it comes to using the tool properly, the filters menu should simply be deactivated until later in the semester (or for a later course) so the user gains a better understanding for how to use the tools. The tools do the work. The filters act like a drug. I think anyone who has ever smoked pot knows that the pot doesn't make the problems of the world go away – war an famine still exist – it simply makes the problems of the world seem more tollerable for a very short period of time.
2. Stay away from Live Trace. This is a tool in Illustrator that will break down a photograph into a series of vector shapes, sometimes tens of thousands of vector shapes, and make the photograph look like a drawing... sort of. Again, Live Trace has its place. But, for beginners it becomes a knee-jerk stylistic choce and avoids learning how to do things like draw with the pen tool or use a gradient mesh.
Of course, this is all the vendors did to photos of beaches and mountains. And each "painting" looked as bad as the next.
In the process of chatting these people up, I would hope to gain how well these people are doing when it comes to selling a bad non-painting "painting." Sure, everyone needs a hobby, but those tents are expensive and printing on canvas isn't exactly cheap. So, how does it all shake out for this, ahem, artist? Do they break even in a given year? What is their business model?
I am also curious who the buyers are. You most likely wouldn't find the Kogods or the Cafritzes buying; you won't find the Barlows buying either; and you probably won't find any artist who is regularly showing at area commercial, non-profit, and alternative galleries buying work there. So, who is the competition? Is it Ikea and Target?
Of the great things that could be found at Art on the Avenue, all of them could be re-defined as "craft" or "artisan". I do not mean that in the pejorative, either. The last time I sat at a potters wheel, in 1995, I managed to throw a good bowl, but I wouldn't make a living from doing it, no matter how funky the glaze looked after a raku firing. There is skill to this craft, much like drawing, and it {is/can be} an art, and it is an art that I cannot confidently attempt to master. Besides, I have a feeling most of the ceramics, wood turned objects, scarves, and such were being sold for utilitarian purposes... much like the hand crafted olive oil soap. Unless, of course, the soap sellers intended for their soaps to sit on a pedestal.
*there are a few vendors selling legitimately painted paintings (notice, no quote) at art on the ave. the above critique does not apply to them.
Actually, I know the answer. The better question is, "why in the hell are you doing that?"
The "that" in question is the wretched process of taking a photograph, applying a filter to it in Photoshop, printing the result on canvas, and stretching the canvas. Granted, a fool and their money are soon parted, and in the case of those who would sell or buy, there are two fools involved (because my guess is the vendor goes home with a lot of unsold canvases).
The thing is, a bad vacation photo does not get better when Photoshop's "stained glass" filter is applied to it. Nor does it get better when printed with archival Epson inks on canvas paper. Nor does it get better when the canvas is stretched around a few pieces of pine.
There was a lot of "art" of this sort floating about The Ave. It impressed me no more two weeks ago than it did seven years ago when I found myself sitting in a doctor's office in New York City (whereupon after learning I was an artist the doctor responded, "I do a little art," and then pointed to the photo with inverted colors on the wall behind him). And, it reminded me of two lessons I teach beginning students in my digital art classes.
1. Stay away from the filters. It's not that the filters in Photoshop are bad. At times they are great, but if used selectively. When it comes to using the tool properly, the filters menu should simply be deactivated until later in the semester (or for a later course) so the user gains a better understanding for how to use the tools. The tools do the work. The filters act like a drug. I think anyone who has ever smoked pot knows that the pot doesn't make the problems of the world go away – war an famine still exist – it simply makes the problems of the world seem more tollerable for a very short period of time.
2. Stay away from Live Trace. This is a tool in Illustrator that will break down a photograph into a series of vector shapes, sometimes tens of thousands of vector shapes, and make the photograph look like a drawing... sort of. Again, Live Trace has its place. But, for beginners it becomes a knee-jerk stylistic choce and avoids learning how to do things like draw with the pen tool or use a gradient mesh.
Of course, this is all the vendors did to photos of beaches and mountains. And each "painting" looked as bad as the next.
In the process of chatting these people up, I would hope to gain how well these people are doing when it comes to selling a bad non-painting "painting." Sure, everyone needs a hobby, but those tents are expensive and printing on canvas isn't exactly cheap. So, how does it all shake out for this, ahem, artist? Do they break even in a given year? What is their business model?
I am also curious who the buyers are. You most likely wouldn't find the Kogods or the Cafritzes buying; you won't find the Barlows buying either; and you probably won't find any artist who is regularly showing at area commercial, non-profit, and alternative galleries buying work there. So, who is the competition? Is it Ikea and Target?
Of the great things that could be found at Art on the Avenue, all of them could be re-defined as "craft" or "artisan". I do not mean that in the pejorative, either. The last time I sat at a potters wheel, in 1995, I managed to throw a good bowl, but I wouldn't make a living from doing it, no matter how funky the glaze looked after a raku firing. There is skill to this craft, much like drawing, and it {is/can be} an art, and it is an art that I cannot confidently attempt to master. Besides, I have a feeling most of the ceramics, wood turned objects, scarves, and such were being sold for utilitarian purposes... much like the hand crafted olive oil soap. Unless, of course, the soap sellers intended for their soaps to sit on a pedestal.
*there are a few vendors selling legitimately painted paintings (notice, no quote) at art on the ave. the above critique does not apply to them.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
And junk
I don't think it is too much for me to ask that, whereever I teach, I get to sit in an office that has a computer compatible with my responsibilities. Let me build up to this point.
This is the start of my fifth year as an adjunct professor in the greater Washington, DC metro area. To date, I have had three grueling semesters: one teaching five classes and an independent study between three schools; one where I taught from 9am-7pm, between two campuses, twice weekly (in addition to other courses on other days); and last semester when I taught four courses between four schools.
The onus for these schedules is a shared responsibility, but the initial responsibility is mine. I chose to begin teaching, and I chose to say yes to teaching the number of courses.
The shared aspect is two-fold. The First is from schools bouncing around their schedules, but I have little comprehension for how departments, schools and registrars piece everything together. Based on my experience at Iowa State University, I could expect certain classes to meet at certain times. Their schedules functioned almost like clockwork -- at least they did in the College of Design. But, it always seemed, without fail, that there were 9 am bio, soc, or psych 101 classes M/W/F. the Second is due to the pittance all schools in greater DC pay their adjuncts.
As a student, I did not know there was a difference between the various rankings, because they all had the same in-class responsibility of instruction and grading the products of students. We did not know of or perceive the title of "Lecturer," and few if any of us knew the difference between Assistant and Associate professor, or how they differed from Full Professors. The concept of tenure was, at best, fuzzy.
When I was a junior I was in the check-out lane of a grocery store (Hy-Vee) and the clerk one aisle over was my professor from my 3D design studies course. The long story short: she was an adjunct, teaching one or two classes a semester, and Hy-Vee paid much better than the university.
What does being an adjunct professor mean? The responsibilities are simple: teach class, hold office hours, grade work, give grades. This differes from the responsibilities of full-time professors, who are required to sit on department, school andinstitution (college/university) committees and meetings. Depending on the institution, there can be many. Adjuncts are not required to become parts of committees or attend meetings, and if they do the only compensation may be a pat on the back. It also might be ire.
The compensation for teaching is a low monetary stipend; there are no other benefits (healthcare, dental, 401K)
To give an idea of the disparity, it is not uncommon for an assistant professor to work a 3/2 (three classes fall, two classes spring) or 3/3 schedule and earn between $38,000 and $55,000, + benefits, depending on the location. ($38K seems low, but recently a small school (maybe a Community College) in MD offered a one-year appointment for someone to chair the art department, run the gallery, coordinate adjunct faculty, and teach a 4/4 schedule for $35K. I'll wager the applicant pool was easy to sift through.)
I was told a few years ago that the best pay in DC, for an adjunct, was $5,000/class at Georgetown. Most schools around The District offer $900 - $1200 per credit hour. No school offers benefits.
Some schools offer offices for their adjunct faculty. At three of the schools (four departments) where I teach, the adjunct faculty get to share an office. One department has a large room with multiple computers and desks; one department provides a shared office with several faculty members, and access to one of a handful of computers, depending on what kind of course the professor is assigned the computers work in the office or don't work in the office (the offices are in different buildings; one department has a room with two desks, one computer, and ample shelving; one department has a computer that barely works in a room that can almost fit the desk, the chair, and the adjunct faculty member (if he places the chair on the desk). One school has a lounge for faculty, but they never give the code to adjuncts. One school does not offer an office, but there is a coffee shop in the student union.
Anymore, if I am asked to teach a class I am asked to teach digital art.
Students are not required to attend office hours, but I am. Depending on the institution, I may be there from one to two hours. This is a great time to get work done for the course, either via the creation of documents (assignments, tutorial notes, etc), or via the grading of completed student work. However, if the equipment is not working, or if the computer does not have the Adobe Creative Suite, then I have several options available to me: check e-mail and twiddle thumbs.
Of course, I could always blog about my troubles.
Class starts in ten minutes.
This is the start of my fifth year as an adjunct professor in the greater Washington, DC metro area. To date, I have had three grueling semesters: one teaching five classes and an independent study between three schools; one where I taught from 9am-7pm, between two campuses, twice weekly (in addition to other courses on other days); and last semester when I taught four courses between four schools.
The onus for these schedules is a shared responsibility, but the initial responsibility is mine. I chose to begin teaching, and I chose to say yes to teaching the number of courses.
The shared aspect is two-fold. The First is from schools bouncing around their schedules, but I have little comprehension for how departments, schools and registrars piece everything together. Based on my experience at Iowa State University, I could expect certain classes to meet at certain times. Their schedules functioned almost like clockwork -- at least they did in the College of Design. But, it always seemed, without fail, that there were 9 am bio, soc, or psych 101 classes M/W/F. the Second is due to the pittance all schools in greater DC pay their adjuncts.
As a student, I did not know there was a difference between the various rankings, because they all had the same in-class responsibility of instruction and grading the products of students. We did not know of or perceive the title of "Lecturer," and few if any of us knew the difference between Assistant and Associate professor, or how they differed from Full Professors. The concept of tenure was, at best, fuzzy.
When I was a junior I was in the check-out lane of a grocery store (Hy-Vee) and the clerk one aisle over was my professor from my 3D design studies course. The long story short: she was an adjunct, teaching one or two classes a semester, and Hy-Vee paid much better than the university.
What does being an adjunct professor mean? The responsibilities are simple: teach class, hold office hours, grade work, give grades. This differes from the responsibilities of full-time professors, who are required to sit on department, school andinstitution (college/university) committees and meetings. Depending on the institution, there can be many. Adjuncts are not required to become parts of committees or attend meetings, and if they do the only compensation may be a pat on the back. It also might be ire.
The compensation for teaching is a low monetary stipend; there are no other benefits (healthcare, dental, 401K)
To give an idea of the disparity, it is not uncommon for an assistant professor to work a 3/2 (three classes fall, two classes spring) or 3/3 schedule and earn between $38,000 and $55,000, + benefits, depending on the location. ($38K seems low, but recently a small school (maybe a Community College) in MD offered a one-year appointment for someone to chair the art department, run the gallery, coordinate adjunct faculty, and teach a 4/4 schedule for $35K. I'll wager the applicant pool was easy to sift through.)
I was told a few years ago that the best pay in DC, for an adjunct, was $5,000/class at Georgetown. Most schools around The District offer $900 - $1200 per credit hour. No school offers benefits.
Some schools offer offices for their adjunct faculty. At three of the schools (four departments) where I teach, the adjunct faculty get to share an office. One department has a large room with multiple computers and desks; one department provides a shared office with several faculty members, and access to one of a handful of computers, depending on what kind of course the professor is assigned the computers work in the office or don't work in the office (the offices are in different buildings; one department has a room with two desks, one computer, and ample shelving; one department has a computer that barely works in a room that can almost fit the desk, the chair, and the adjunct faculty member (if he places the chair on the desk). One school has a lounge for faculty, but they never give the code to adjuncts. One school does not offer an office, but there is a coffee shop in the student union.
Anymore, if I am asked to teach a class I am asked to teach digital art.
Students are not required to attend office hours, but I am. Depending on the institution, I may be there from one to two hours. This is a great time to get work done for the course, either via the creation of documents (assignments, tutorial notes, etc), or via the grading of completed student work. However, if the equipment is not working, or if the computer does not have the Adobe Creative Suite, then I have several options available to me: check e-mail and twiddle thumbs.
Of course, I could always blog about my troubles.
Class starts in ten minutes.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
An Open Letter to Glenn Beck
After seeing Jeffry Cudlin's reaction to Glenn Beck's commentary on how Rockefeller was a Communist Fascist, I thought I'd shoot a response to Glenn Beck. (My only wish is that I double checked the spelling of Siqueiros before sending.
-------------
-------------
Mr. Beck,
I found your commentary on the art of Rockefeller Plaza to be of interest, for multiple reasons. I wanted to respond to some of your comments.
First, kudos for noticing the stylistic similarities between the art of the US, USSR, and Italy during the 1930s. I think even a casual observer of art history could draw the stylistic parallels you drew (if paying attention) and pause for a moment to scratch his head and ponder why. And, your observations are something I might address in a class I teach on Visual Literacy. For instance, "how does the logo for Shell Motor Oil represent the sale of oil?" A wise student might respond, "because shells represent fossils, and oil is made from fossil fuel." The natural conclusion, then, is that the Shell Motor Oil company chose the logo and identity of a shell to represent their product. It is logical. Just like your argument that Rockefeller was a closeted Communist/Socialist/Fascist based on the art on Rockefeller Plaza. Here is the problem with my student's conclusion: Shell Motor Oil didn't start out selling motor oil products; the company started out selling sea shells. The problem with your visual argument is that it ignores art history just as much as a college student ignores art history when signing up for an elective.
There were two major styles in the 1930s: Art Deco and something called Social Realism. Art Deco embraced the speed of the present (aeronautics, the car) and the streamlined promise of the future. Social Realism, poorly worded as it is, is basically realism with contemporary themes of agriculture and industry. Sometimes, the streamlined look of Art Deco would find its way into Social Realism. The reason why Social Realism gained in popularity has more to do with a response to abstraction in the forms of Cubism and Expressionism, both of which were viewed as "not art" from such politically polar opposites as Adolph Hitler and Teddy Roosevelt. Both men could not comprehend the work of Duchamp, Cezanne, Degas, Gauguin, Kandinsky, or Moholy-Nagy being classified as "art."
The new politics of Europe in the 1920s and 30s (Communism in the USSR, National Socialism in Germany, and Fascism in Italy) embraced the style of Social Realism in an effort to identify with a populous that they thought was being ignored by the previous ruling parties. While all of those political philosophies were at odds with each other, they did have at least one common ground that was, for lack of a better phraseology, elevating "the common man." (The roots of Democracy also spring from this soil. As tyrannical dictators formed and managed the politics of parts of Europe, we could extend the soil analogy further - weeds also grow in fertile ground.) The art form of Social Realism was used as propaganda. For the aforementioned states in Europe, the propaganda partly illustrates the benefits of the benevolent government. The propaganda of the European states also championed some ridiculous notion of "the ideal man," which lead to jingoism, and eventual xenophobia resulting in death camps and executions.
The U.S. had something similar to Social Realism: Regionalism, as painted by John Stuart Curry, Thomas Hart Benton, and Grant Wood. There were also muralist painters in Mexico that were influencing the art of the U.S. with artists like Diego Rivera, David Siquieros. Regionalism also championed themes of agriculture and manufacturing. But, the reason was, in theory, to empower those hurt most by the burden of the Great Depression. Regionalism was also used as propaganda for the WPA. What better way to illustrate the strength of a government program than to commission artists to paint families benefiting from the food grown on lands now irrigated by a newly constructed dam?
By the 1950s, with The Cold War, nearly all citizens of the U.S. regarded Communism as an evil.
As the U.S. was fighting World War II, nearly all citizens in the U.S. regarded Fascism as an evil.
But, in 1933, when much of this art was commissioned, the U.S. opinions of either of these political philosophies was, at best, mixed, and for some cautiously optimistic.
It would seem irrational that Rockefeller, who benefitted from Capitalism, and is arguably the wealthiest man ever to live in the United States, would toss away his fortunes under Communist rule. He hired Rivera not because of his politics, but because his mother thought he was a great painter. Art history thinks much the same of Rivera (though not with as much favor as it does with those masters of The Renaissance). As for the other art commissioned for the building, it was executed under the dominating style of the time, Art Deco and Social Realism. Had Rockefeller gone with a more avant garde style, like Expressionism, people would have received it with much lass favor because of its non-objective nature. Had Rockefeller chosen Cubism, well, as the joke goes, everyone knows a person does not have three eyes.
Tyrants often choose symbols to represent their messages. These symbols can easily be seen with dread by those who do not share the ideals of the tyrants - that is the oppressive control of the tyrant over his subjects, masked under any political ideology. The tyrants of Communism chose the hammer and the sickle, pretending to champion manufacturing and agriculture (while exploiting all of their citizens). There were many in 1933 who were unaware of the tyranny under Soviet Communism. So, there is probably some anachronism in your assertion that Rockefeller is a Communist based on the images of hammers and sickles on 30 Rock. What is more plausible is that, he was obliged to put art there under whatever percent for art regulation was in place at the time. Since this coincided with the WPA, a program that supported artists amongst other public initiatives, artistic allegories to work that stimulated the economy or got people out of bread lines and into the markets were preferred.
There certainly is anachronism based on your assertion that the donation of Swords into Ploughshares (which is from The Bible in the books of Isaiah and Micah) proves Rockefeller is a Communist, especially since the donation was in 1959 -- 22 years after John D. Rockefeller II's death. But, since the quote is in The Old Testament, (Tanakh) does that mean that all Jews are Communists? (I know this was a popular belief by some in the Right Wing back in the 1950s.) Does it mean that all Christians are Communists, because they also read the Bible, which contains the Old Testament? No. Such assertions would be as anachronistic and false as suggesting that some Neolithic people are Nazis, simply because they used the swastika as a religious symbol 7000 years before Hitler appropriated it.
Sincerely,
John James Anderson
-------------
-------------
Mr. Beck,
I found your commentary on the art of Rockefeller Plaza to be of interest, for multiple reasons. I wanted to respond to some of your comments.
First, kudos for noticing the stylistic similarities between the art of the US, USSR, and Italy during the 1930s. I think even a casual observer of art history could draw the stylistic parallels you drew (if paying attention) and pause for a moment to scratch his head and ponder why. And, your observations are something I might address in a class I teach on Visual Literacy. For instance, "how does the logo for Shell Motor Oil represent the sale of oil?" A wise student might respond, "because shells represent fossils, and oil is made from fossil fuel." The natural conclusion, then, is that the Shell Motor Oil company chose the logo and identity of a shell to represent their product. It is logical. Just like your argument that Rockefeller was a closeted Communist/Socialist/Fascist based on the art on Rockefeller Plaza. Here is the problem with my student's conclusion: Shell Motor Oil didn't start out selling motor oil products; the company started out selling sea shells. The problem with your visual argument is that it ignores art history just as much as a college student ignores art history when signing up for an elective.
There were two major styles in the 1930s: Art Deco and something called Social Realism. Art Deco embraced the speed of the present (aeronautics, the car) and the streamlined promise of the future. Social Realism, poorly worded as it is, is basically realism with contemporary themes of agriculture and industry. Sometimes, the streamlined look of Art Deco would find its way into Social Realism. The reason why Social Realism gained in popularity has more to do with a response to abstraction in the forms of Cubism and Expressionism, both of which were viewed as "not art" from such politically polar opposites as Adolph Hitler and Teddy Roosevelt. Both men could not comprehend the work of Duchamp, Cezanne, Degas, Gauguin, Kandinsky, or Moholy-Nagy being classified as "art."
The new politics of Europe in the 1920s and 30s (Communism in the USSR, National Socialism in Germany, and Fascism in Italy) embraced the style of Social Realism in an effort to identify with a populous that they thought was being ignored by the previous ruling parties. While all of those political philosophies were at odds with each other, they did have at least one common ground that was, for lack of a better phraseology, elevating "the common man." (The roots of Democracy also spring from this soil. As tyrannical dictators formed and managed the politics of parts of Europe, we could extend the soil analogy further - weeds also grow in fertile ground.) The art form of Social Realism was used as propaganda. For the aforementioned states in Europe, the propaganda partly illustrates the benefits of the benevolent government. The propaganda of the European states also championed some ridiculous notion of "the ideal man," which lead to jingoism, and eventual xenophobia resulting in death camps and executions.
The U.S. had something similar to Social Realism: Regionalism, as painted by John Stuart Curry, Thomas Hart Benton, and Grant Wood. There were also muralist painters in Mexico that were influencing the art of the U.S. with artists like Diego Rivera, David Siquieros. Regionalism also championed themes of agriculture and manufacturing. But, the reason was, in theory, to empower those hurt most by the burden of the Great Depression. Regionalism was also used as propaganda for the WPA. What better way to illustrate the strength of a government program than to commission artists to paint families benefiting from the food grown on lands now irrigated by a newly constructed dam?
By the 1950s, with The Cold War, nearly all citizens of the U.S. regarded Communism as an evil.
As the U.S. was fighting World War II, nearly all citizens in the U.S. regarded Fascism as an evil.
But, in 1933, when much of this art was commissioned, the U.S. opinions of either of these political philosophies was, at best, mixed, and for some cautiously optimistic.
It would seem irrational that Rockefeller, who benefitted from Capitalism, and is arguably the wealthiest man ever to live in the United States, would toss away his fortunes under Communist rule. He hired Rivera not because of his politics, but because his mother thought he was a great painter. Art history thinks much the same of Rivera (though not with as much favor as it does with those masters of The Renaissance). As for the other art commissioned for the building, it was executed under the dominating style of the time, Art Deco and Social Realism. Had Rockefeller gone with a more avant garde style, like Expressionism, people would have received it with much lass favor because of its non-objective nature. Had Rockefeller chosen Cubism, well, as the joke goes, everyone knows a person does not have three eyes.
Tyrants often choose symbols to represent their messages. These symbols can easily be seen with dread by those who do not share the ideals of the tyrants - that is the oppressive control of the tyrant over his subjects, masked under any political ideology. The tyrants of Communism chose the hammer and the sickle, pretending to champion manufacturing and agriculture (while exploiting all of their citizens). There were many in 1933 who were unaware of the tyranny under Soviet Communism. So, there is probably some anachronism in your assertion that Rockefeller is a Communist based on the images of hammers and sickles on 30 Rock. What is more plausible is that, he was obliged to put art there under whatever percent for art regulation was in place at the time. Since this coincided with the WPA, a program that supported artists amongst other public initiatives, artistic allegories to work that stimulated the economy or got people out of bread lines and into the markets were preferred.
There certainly is anachronism based on your assertion that the donation of Swords into Ploughshares (which is from The Bible in the books of Isaiah and Micah) proves Rockefeller is a Communist, especially since the donation was in 1959 -- 22 years after John D. Rockefeller II's death. But, since the quote is in The Old Testament, (Tanakh) does that mean that all Jews are Communists? (I know this was a popular belief by some in the Right Wing back in the 1950s.) Does it mean that all Christians are Communists, because they also read the Bible, which contains the Old Testament? No. Such assertions would be as anachronistic and false as suggesting that some Neolithic people are Nazis, simply because they used the swastika as a religious symbol 7000 years before Hitler appropriated it.
Sincerely,
John James Anderson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
