Some Considerations

Some Considerations — 1978

In the beginning — around the 12th Century — was
the Camera Obscura. This was a dark room with a small
hole in the wall. Light would channel through this hole
and a picture of the brighter exterior would be projected
upon the far wall. Neat gimmick, but the development of
this led to a device, that is a proliferation of devices,
which were designed to project a scene upon an object in
order to enable the viewer to see the scene in a manner in
which it was not normally seen — that is, a two dimens-
sional representation of a three dimensional scene. The
invention of the lens helped to reduce the size of this
device to the point where it could be conveniently carted
about. Many people then used it as an aid in drafting lay-
outs for printings, or for helping them to see in a way
they had not previously seen, (for example — contrasts
in lighting are emphasised) ((in much the same way a
ruler held against a seemingly flat rock will highlight the
uneveness of the rock.))

Come the 1800’s and a method was discovered of
using this machine to measure relative intensities of
reflected light. A fairly clumsy method, it did not involve
using a guage or dial to give a reading, but recorded the
readings on a flat (reasonably) surface in the form of a
monochrome of various densities. The denser the tone,
the more intense the reflected light. It was noticed that if
a subjects light intensity was measured and recorded in
this manner, the resulting graph was recognizable as a
representation, or picture, of that subject. To this end,
the recording of light intensities to produce a form of
picture, this device, called a camera, has been used for 140
years; even though more accurate and easier methods have
been developed for reading light intensity.

Keep in mind, when reading the following, that
until then the only method of obtaining a picture of a
subject had been to have an individual, using paint,
pencil, or any other substance, and his own skill with
these and with his hand, refine his way of seeing the
subject and, within these limitations, translate his vision
of the subject onto a two dimensional form. It is import-
ant to note that the finished product was a result of the
combination of the materials used, and of the personal
way of seeing of the individual doing the work. This
personal way of seeing can be said to represent the inte-
gration by that person of his entire life experience, or of
his culture as it affected him and as he developed within
and with it.

All of a sudden there is in the world a method for
anyone, not just those who have learned to develop a
skill in seeing and drawing, to produce pictures. They
drew their inspiration from the art of the period — influ-
enced as it was by the fact that a portrait was the result of
many sittings, interpreted by the artist who would rarely
think of doing something so ridiculous as a verbatim
picture (if such a thing exists). The camera at that time
was a method by which a reasonably rapid product could
be produced. It necessitated a fairly long exposure to take
an adequate light reading and this required that a subject
remain still for that period of time, at the same time
emulating what he though was a complimentary vision of
himself, that is when the subject was human. The human
subject was suddenly responsible for a bad image of
himself for THE CAMERA NEVER LIES. The stilted
images of 19th century portraits attests to the self cons-
cious dignity assumed in response to the camera. The
use of a camera allowed the picture maker to shift the
blame for a bad picture to the tool used, (a language
habit built into many tongues).

The taking of the light reading, because of the time
involved, and because of the importance attached to
the result by both subject and picture maker, (although
it can be indicated that the picture maker is the subject —
but later) became of the same nature as ritual. In the com-
monest of western rituals, the church service, one dresses
up and assumes a proper demeanour (sp) just as in picture
making the subject is expected to assume proper dress and
suitable demeanour. The net result is a picture of a
reaction to CAMERA, and incidentally a reflection of
culture.

This changed. Light density measuring apparatus be-
came able to react to light faster and faster. The long
time element lost its terror, but there was still the neces-
sity to look ones best, this again determined by the cul-
ture. A smile now became a necessity for the person
wishing to project a good image. When picture taking
time came around one still . . . to find out what one still
let us go to the other end,

and observe someone looking at a picture of them-
selves with their friends and relatives around. ‘That’s
not you!” “Why didn’t you smile?” “That’s a good
picture of you.” “Do | look like that?” How do you
react when preparing for an exam like that? After all,
the photographic image has historically been used to
verify that the eye really saw what it thought it saw.
Muybridge was the first to get even ardent horse people
to realize that horses do lift all legs off the ground when
galloping, and that they do not gallop with the legs paral-
lel to each other. So, maybe a photograph does show
things that one wants kept hidden; by showing things that
are not already readily visible. So when facing the camera
look your best! This naturally leads to a stiffness when
people try to be the epitome of their ‘IDEAL IMAGE’.
The picture then becomes a picture, not of the subject,

but of his attempt to act as the ideal subject.

Candid photography can show the same thing, but
the photographer is the one who often picks the ‘right’
moment to show HIS particular image of IDEAL. But at
least the attempt at candidness was a step in the right
direction. That being closer to showing the person, or a
representation of the person, instead of a representa-
tion of-the person relating to the camera.

| believe that the next step should be to stop working
through the camera and work with the subject. The subject
being the total environment at the time, not meredy the
part of the world in front of the camera.

Chris Fitzgerald

Opinions

As a contributor to the X | think the X should be
a communicator. Communicator between students and
administration, among students and teachers, and even
beyond.

People grumble and take no action. How are we to
know what you'd like if you never tell us?

| would like to see more perceptions on human beings
and perceptions of human beings. | want to illuminate
small people. | want to share my perceptions .. . art is
partly the sharing of perceptions.

Do we really have any artists out there? The X is
available as a medium to share and so few perceptions
are contributed.

Do artists exist at Emily Carr? No one is bothering
to share with us their opinions on anything. Oh. . . artists
with no opinions?!!

| guess it must be a new trend ...so my...| tend
to dislike following trends.

Lorraine Chung

Ed. response: We are doggedly pursuing the goal of
developing the X as a forum for the free expression of
thoughts and ideas; either verbal or pictoral. We appreciate
your concern and hope you will continue to share your
perceptions. And yes, | do think there are artists at
Emily Carr, but | recognize that different people share in
different ways.

Michael Lawlor

issued March 6th

A Home for ‘“Unmiddle Class” Struggling Artists.
| was amused after reading in the West Ender March 6/80,
the article about the new ECCA. | just can’t wait to go to
“the biggest tin shack in North America.” I’m so glad
I’ll be turned out of a factory instead of a middle class
institution, although I’m not sure what Tom Hudson
has against the middle class. Especially since it was the
middle class who voted in the politicians (admittedly
low class) who approved the new college, who approved
the budget to build it, which, for the most part, came
from middle class taxes.

And to make light of another matter, namely the
light that has New York artists all aglow, I’m still worried;
even though the skylights over the darkrooms have been
covered. And what about the “‘non professional?” faculty
who, along with the students, get to show off their work
in the hallway instead of the “professional gallery”?

Personally | think the new school should be opened
on April Fools Day. After all, you know how easy it is
to fool the students, don’t you Tom?

Bill Rummel

In response to Bill Rennie’s letters which were
printed in the last X, I can only say | pity those who take
the Emily Carr Institution only as a physical space. The
utilization of the many potential minds working within
these walls is what I consider the purpose of my presence
in this Art School.

No individual should ever be totally dependent upon
anything outside of him or herself. Each individual should
be able to adapt to various situations according to time
and place. It’s a waste of energy grumbling otherwise.
Dependence is a weakness. | acknowledge, howeyer, our
limitations as students. | was extremely upset by the
absence of a T.A. once at Water St. and | could not
accomplish any work | had planned. By this isolated
experience | learned the importance of voicing my opinion
and also whom to voice various things to. That’s important
to me. Too many people grumble under masses of stale
air and they’ll stagnate there. :

| wish Bill Rennie would voice his opinion more
towards how the institution is run rather than criticizing
“characteristics” he tends to see in certain administrators.
Calm down, Bill, you might see things in the school
you'll like, but then again, you might not.

| was upset when the teacher evaluation sheets were
given to me yesterday. They show a certain amount of
insensitivity. How can a human being be rated? How do
| rate? Am I a number between one and five? Are my
actions rateable between one and five? The success of a
student’s learning process has to take into account the
student’s approach and attitude towards that teacher.
Certain moments can be ideal, other moments can be
traumatic, am | to average that out and say “so & so is
a 3”? Is every teacher a 3? Teachers are human beings
who have their own rules to live and abide by. They have
potentials that each student has to find and extract. If
a student does not know how to do that, then they are to
look inwards and extract the rules they abide by. That
student needs to see his or her own ptoentials in order to
find common ground with an instructor.

| know I’m rated by the institution in some way,
but | accept that as part of the package | am paying for.
| don’t take my marks seriously, they are only marks...
This, however, is my choice.

Each individual who fills an evaluation sheet should
realise the vast responsibility they are undertaking. |
don’t want to rate human beings, so | will not rate human
beings.

It’s a game of antagonism and not the art of appre-
ciation.

Lorraine Chung

In response to Lorraine Chung’s letter regarding the
Faculty Evaluation . . . The Student Society, which is
conducting the evaluation is not trying to rate ‘human
beings”. What we are trying to evaluate is how students
interpret the teaching ability of their instructors. Who
else is in a better position to comment on a teacher?
Other faculty? The administration? An outside source?

| do not feel we are being “insensitive”, merely
realistic. We are not out to damage a teacher’s career —
in fact, many very positive things have been said of the
faculty. As part of the art school ‘‘package’”’ instructors
generate certain expectations about their courses which
may not always be reflected in the actual classes.

Our intention is to publish the student opinions of
each instructor. Hopefully this will give an indication of
what to expect when you sign up for a course. We also
feel that an instructor should be a catalyst between a
student and a material or idea. If, as a result of the ques-
tionaire, an instructor can realize a better way of inter-
acting with a student, then the benefits are doubled.
This is not intended as a “faculty report card”. However,
we are very serious about the results. The main reason
for the 1 to 5 rating is practicality. Already (March 6)
there are 362 evaluations from Foundation, 136 from
second year, 53 from third year, and 56 from fourth year
and grad students, and only about one half have been
returned. Such amounts make it impossible for us to
t distribute copeis of a// the forms to each student, not to
mention the impossibility of having some on hand for
registration day. By using the number rating system we
can acurately compile the results. Written comments will
be “generalized”, i.e. where a number of similar comments
are received, they will be included in the booklet. Yes,
this is an averaging process, but we feel it is the best
possible method for everyone concerned. The booklet
format makes it easy for us to distribute and very easy to
use during registration especially for new Foundation
Students.

| must stress that we are not out to “antagonize”
or destroy. Our hope is to be of benefit to everyone,
including faculty and administration.

Bill Rummel

As my year at the E.C.C.A. unfolds, everything in
sequence is new for me, and has very much a once-only
quality.

Staff pigeon holes are ubiquitous, but this small hole
in-the-wall at the E.C.C.A. has a more significant function
than its counterpart at Chelsea. Here it is used to connect
faculty to administration, faculty to faculty, xerox to
faculty, student to faculty, phone messages to faculty,
order forms to faculty, and thus it has a fascination for
me, because | am never quite sure what is going to appear.

Last week the Faculty Evaluation came into my
hands, drafted and distributed by the Student Society.
Along with a multiplicity of separate courses, separate
budgets, separate petty cash, separate order forms, separate
tutorials, and separate gradings for our separate students.
We do not have anything like it at Chelsea.

| have been a member of staff at Chelsea for many
years, and have been formative in the development of the
sculpture department, and its inter-relationship with other
departments of the college. It has been enormously inter-
esting for me to participate in another institution which is
quite different. An institution whose requirements and
expectations, from, and of, its staff and students seem
different. | question just why this evaluation, together
with the grading system, has a particular aspect of what
would be the dynamic interaction between student and
staff. From it, | can deduce certain attitudes which are
new to me. It is a useful form, because it has given me a
clue as to why so many things are as they are at the Emily
Carr. ;

For an artist who, since 1962, has dealt in his work ©

Lorraine Chung ;

with the condition between opposites — with all the
Some Considerations
Some Considerations - 1978

Inthe beginning ~ around the 12th Century — was
the Camera Obscura, This was a dark room with a small
hole in the wall. Light would channel through this hole
and a picture of the brighter exterior would be projected
Upon the far wall. Neat gimmick, but the development of
this led to 2 device, that is a proliferation of devices,
which were designed to project a scene upon an objec in
forder to enable the viewer tose the sene in a manner in
Which it was not normally Seen ~ that i, a wo dimens-
Sional representation of tree dimensional scene. The
invention of the lens helped to reduce the size of this
device tothe point where it could be conveniently carted
about. Many people then used it a an aid in drafting ly
dus for printings, or for helping them to see in a way
they had:not previously seen, (for example — contrasts
in lighting are emphasised) ((in-much the same way a
tuler held against a seemingly flat rock will highlight the
uneveness of the rock.))

‘Come the 1800's and a method was discovered of
using this machine. to. measure. relative intensities. of
reflected light. A fairly clumsy method, it didnot involve
‘sing 2 guage or dial to give a reading, but recorded the
readings on a flat (reasonably) surface in the form of a
‘monochrome of various densities. The denser the tone,
the more intense the reflected light. It was noticed that if
2 subjects light intensity was measured and recorded in
this manner, the resulting graph was recogneable 3s 2
representation, or picture, of that subject. To this end,
the recording of light intensities to produce a form of
picture, this device, calle a camera, has been used for 140
Yeats; even though more aecurate and easier methods have
been developed for reading light intensity.

Keep in. mind, when reading. the following, that,
ntl then the only’ method of obtaining a picture of a
subject had been to have an individual, Using. paint,
pencil, or any other substance, and his own skil with
these and with his hand, refine his way of seing the
subject and, within these limitations, translate his vision
Of the subject onto a two dimensional form. Itis import:
fant to note thatthe finished product was a result of the
Combination of the materials used, and of the personal
way of seeing of the individual doing the work, This
personal way of seeing can be said to represent the ints:
fration by that person of his entire life experience, or of
his culture as itaffected him and as he developed within
and with it

All of a sudden there isin the world a method for
anyone, not just those who have learned to develop a
Skil in’ seeing and drawing, to produce pictures. They
drew their inspiration from the art ofthe period ~ influ-
fenced as it was by the fact that a portrait was the result of
many sittings, interpreted by the artist who would rarely
think of doing something. so ridiculous as a verbatim
picture (if such a thing exists). The camera at that time
tas a method by which a reasonably rapid product could
be produced. Itnecesitated a fairly long exposure to take
an adequate light reading and this required that a subject
remain sill for that period of time, at the same time
emulating what he though was a complimentary vision of
himself, that is when the subject was human, The human
Subject’ was suddenly responsible for a. bad image of
himself for THE CAMERA NEVER LIES. The stilted
images of 19th century portraits attests to the self cons
cious dignity assumed in response to the camera. The
Use of a camera allowed the picture maker to shift the
blame for a bad picture to the tool used, (a language
habit ui into many tongues).

“The taking of the light reading, because ofthe time
involved, and. because of the importance attached 10
the result by both subject and picture maker, (although
it can be indicated thatthe picture maker isthe subject —
but later) became ofthe same nature 3 ritual, Inthe com
‘monest of western rituals the chufch service, one dresses
‘up and assumes a proper demeanour (sp) just as in picture
making the subject is expected to assume proper dress and
Suitable demeanour, The net result is a picture of a
reaction 10 CAMERA, and incidentally a reflection of
culture.

‘This changed. Light density measuring apparatus be-
came able to react to light faster and faster. The long
time element lost it terror, but there was sill the neces-
Sity t0 look ones bes, this again determined by the cu-
ture. A smile mow became a necesiy for the person
Wishing 10 project a good image. When picture taking
time came around one sill... to find out what one stil
let us goto the other end,

and observe someone looking at a picture of them-
selves with their frends and relatives around, “That's
not you!" “Why didn't you smile?” “That's 2 good
Pictute of you.” “Do | look like that?” How do you
react witen preparing for an exam like that? After al,
the photographic image has historically been used 10
verify that the eye really saw what it thought it saw.
Muybridge was the fist to get even ardent horse people
to realize that horses do lift all legs off the ground when
talloping, and that they do not gallop withthe legs para-
Iel to each other. So, maybe a photograph does show
things that one wants kept hidden; by showing things that
are not already readily visible. So when facing the eamcra
Took your best! This naturally leads to a stiffness when
people try to be the epitome of their IDEAL IMAGE".
“The picture then becomes a picture, not of the subject,

bbut of his attempt to act as the ideal subject.

Candid photography can show the same thing, but
the photographer is the one who often picks the ‘ight’
‘moment to show HIS particular image of IDEAL. But at
Teast the attempt at candidness was a step in the right
direction. That being closer to showing the person, or a
representation of the person, instead of a representa-
tion of the person relating to the camera.

believe that the next step should be to stop working
through the camera and work with the subject. The subject
being the total environment at the time, not merely the
part of the world in front of the camera.

Chris Fitzgerald

Opinions

‘As a contributor to the X I think the X should be
communicator. Communicator between students and
administration, among students and teachers, and even
beyond.

People grumble and take no action. How are we to
know what you'd like if you never tell us?

| would like to see more perceptions on human beings
and perceptions of human beings. | want to illuminate
small people. 1 want to share my perceptions... art is
partly the sharing of perceptions

Do we really have any artists out there? The X is
available as a medium to share and so few perceptions
are contributed

Do artists exist at Emily Carr? No one is bothi
to share with us their opinions on anything. Oh
with no opinions?!!

1 guess it must be a new trend
to dislike following trends.

ing
antsts

so my... tend

Lorraine Chung

Ed. response: We are doggedly pursuing the goal of
developing the X as a forum for the free expression of
thoughts and ideas; either verbal or pictoral. We appreciate
your concern and hope you will continue to share your
perceptions. And yes, | do think there are artists at
Emily Carr, but | recognize that different people share in
different ways

Michael Lawlor

issued March 6th

A Home for “Unmiddle Class” Struggling Artists.
I was amused after reading in the West Ender March 6/80,
the article about the new ECCA. | just can’t wait to go to
“the biggest tin shack in North America.” I'm so glad
Vil-be tured out of a factory instead of a middle class
institution, although I’m not sure what Tom Hudson
hhas against the middle class. Especially since it was the
‘middle class who voted in the politicians (admittedly
low class) who approved the new college, who approved
the budget to build it, which, for the most part, came
from middle class taxes.

‘And to make light of another matter, namely the
light that has New York artists all aglow, I'm still worried;
even though the skylights over the darkrooms have been
‘covered, And what about the “non professional?” faculty
‘who, along with the students, get to show off their work

the hallway instead of the “professional gallery”?
Personally 1 think the new school should be opened
‘on April Fools Day. After all, you know how easy itis
10 fool the students, don’t you Tom?

Bill Rummel

In response to Bill Rennie’s letters which were
printed in the last X, | can only say I pity those who take
the Emily Carr Institution only as a physical space. The
utilization of the many potential minds working within
these walls is what I consider the purpose of my presence
in tis Art School.

No individual should ever be totally dependent upon
anything outside of him or herself. Each individual should
be able to adapt to various situations according to time
and place. It’s a waste of energy grumbling otherwise.
Dependence is a weakness. | acknowledge, howeyer, our
limitations as students. 1 was extremely upset by the
absence of a T.A. once at Water St. and I could not
accomplish any work 1 had planned. By this isolated
‘experience I learned the importance of voicing my opinion,
and also whom to voice various things to, That'simportant.
{to me. Too many people grumble under masses of stale
air and they'll stagnate there.

| wish Bill Rennie would voice his opinion. more
towards how the institution is run rather than criticizing
“characteristics” he tends to see in certain administrators
[Calm down, Bill, you might see things in the school
you'll ike, but then again, you might not

Lorraine Chung,

| was upset when the teacher evaluation sheets were
given to me yesterday. They show a certain amount of
insensitivity. How can a human being be rated? How do
I rate? Am I a number between one and five? Are my
actions rateable between one and five? The success of a
student’s learning process has to take into account the
student’s approach and attitude towards that teacher.
Certain moments can be ideal, other moments can be
traumatic, am 1 to average that out and say "so & so is
a 3"? Is every teacher a 3? Teachers are human beings
who have their own rules to live and abide by. They have
potentials that each student has to find and extract. If
a student does not know how to do that, then they are to
look inwards and extract the rules they abide by. That
student needs to see his or her own ptoentials in order to
find common ground with an instructor.

I know 1'm rated by the institution in some way,
but I accept that as part of the package | am paying for.
don’t take my marks seriously, they are only marks
This, however, is my choice.

Each individual who fills an evaluation sheet should
realise the vast responsiblity they are undertaking. 1
don’t want to rate human beings, so | will not rate human
beings.

It’s a game of antagonism and not the art of appre-
éiation,

Lorraine Chung

In response to Lorraine Chung's letter regarding the
Faculty Evaluation . . . The Student Society, which is
‘conducting, the evaluation is not trying to rate “human
beings”. What we are trying to evaluate is how students
interpret the teaching ability of their instructors. Who
‘alse is in a better position to comment on a teacher?
Other faculty? The administration? An outside source?
I do not feel we are being “insensitive”, merely
realistic. We are not out to damage a teacher's career —
in fact, many very positive things have been said of the
faculty. As part of the art school “package” instructors
generate certain expectations about their courses which
‘may not always be reflected in the actual classes,

ur intention is to publish the student opinions of
each instructor. Hopefully this will give an indication of
‘what to expect when you sign up for a course. We also
feel that an instructor should be a catalyst between a
student and a material or idea. If, a a result of the ques-
tionaire, an instructor can realize a better way of inter-
acting with a student, then the benefits are doubled
This is not intended as'a “faculty report card”, However,
we are very serious about the results. The main reason
for the 1 to 5 rating is practicality. Already (March 6)
there ate 362 evaluations from Foundation, 136 from
second year, 53 from third year, and 56 from fourth year
‘and grad students, and only about one half have been
Feturned. Such amounts make it impossible for us to
distribute copeis of athe forms to each student, not to
mention the impossibility of having some on hand for
registration day. By using the number rating system we
‘can acurately compile the results. Written comments will
be “‘generalized”, i.e. where a number of similar comments
[are received, they will be included in the booklet. Yes,
this is an averaging process, but we feel it is the best
possible method for everyone concerned. The booklet
format makes it easy for us to distribute and very easy to
‘use during registration especially for new Foundation
Students.

| must stress that we are not out to “antagonize”
‘or destroy. Our hope is to be of benefit to everyone,
including faculty and administration,

Bill Rummel

‘As my year at the EC.CA. unfolds, everything in
sequence is new for me, and has very much a once-only
quality.

‘Staff pigeon holes are ubiquitous, but this small hole
in-the-wall at the E.C.C.A. has a more significant function
than its counterpart at Chelsea, Here itis used to connect.
faculty to administration, faculty to faculty, xerox to
faculty, student to faculty, phone messages to faculty,
corder forms to faculty, and thus it has a fascination for
‘me, because | am never quite sure what is going to appear.

Last week the Faculty Evaluation came into my
hands, drafted and distributed by the Student Society
Along with a multiplicity of separate courses, separate
budgets, separate petty cash, separate order forms, separate
tutorials, and separate gradings for our separate students,
‘We do not have anything like it at Chelsea,

have been a member of staff at Chelsea for many
years, and have been formative in the development of the
sculpture department, and its interrelationship with other
‘departments of the college. It has been enormously inte:
‘esting for me to participate in another institution which is
‘quite different. An institution whose requirements and
expectations, from, and of, its staff and students seem
different. I question just why this evaluation, together
with the grading system, has a particular aspect of what
would be the dynamic interaction between student and
staff. From it, 1 can deduce certain attitudes which are
new to me. Itis a useful form, because it has given me a
clue as to why so many things ae as they are at the Emily
(Carr.

For an artist who, since 1962, has dealt in his work
with the condition between opposites — with all the