SH GM SH GM SH CF SH CF SH CF GM CF SH GM century. Is this what we are left with? In a sense what | am advocating is small scale 19th century British liberalism. We are working within a system that is contradictory — it only pays lip service to people having control over their own lives, re- sources, culture, etc. | think people are overwhelmed by their inability to break through the system in any sort of way, even just to have a public forum for theoretical discussions. . . But every now and then it seems to me that graphic designers are going to be like dinosaurs in about 5 years — unable to adjust to changing economic and political developments. No, | wouldn't say that. There is still going to be a need for information. | see them developing as communicators — in fact we'll need them more. They would die out on the basis of not being able to have any contact with the involved issues or political activities. In other words they will become decorators. They won't be able to combine the esthetic and politcal mode. My classic argument with Graphic Design is that many of them are only concerned with how the letters are spaced, not what the words say. In every area of fine arts there are certain skills which have to be taught. In Graphic Design it’s typography; A Graphic Designer has to be able to indicate type. Every student has his own point of view. | prefer the instructor to keep his opinions and views in the back room because | have my own. Ah, but do you care what the words say? | have my own interpretation about how | make words communicate. Fred Peter teaches typography, which happens to be his specialty, he’s a fantastic letterer. That’s what he teaches; he doesn’t teach sociology. But do you know that the type face you choose in- fluences what the words say emotionally. Of course the type face is so subtle. He’s (Fred Peter) not saying what the subtleties are, he is trying to teach the students to be sensitive. But isn’t the true skill of a Graphic Designer to combine an intuitive and also a sort of literal under- standing of what one is dealing with when choosing letters... He (Fred Peter) tries to help people see through — by doing it themselves — what it will mean. He doesn't try and indicate the Christian ramification of the type. Are the skills — the traditional skills — involved in Industrial Design being taught as they would in say, a very old-fashiond traditional school? How well are the students who leave this course versed in these basic skills? They have good skills but different skills. Would their portfolios be comparable to other schools? They would be different portfolios. What you are saying is that your students are coming out highly specialized. Are you not concerned that their specialization will limit them in a changing society? No. As | have already explained. My students get a basic first and second year programme. Their special- ization has a certain risk factor but | believe it’s prefer- able to being a generalist sitting in the same boat as 60 or 70 other community college students. I'm going to have to go in a few minutes. Thanks a lot for talking to us. reprinted trom Saturday Review, April 29, 1978 ey ioussaid 5 ee & bY i~ a eee vj | et s en 35 f : QW, 0, a x & ) ‘ o ir .) A ss S epee as te ee ae detr L.BAo oe - Sadia] dem rec c wal | eronylar at ille peéllit sei ne “a expeting ea in motuon sit et pa estnian doler, non solud in induti the post-op The interview with Steve Harrison, Instructor of Design Research, was necessary and illuminating about things general and specific. A synthesis of these is left up to the reader. There is no doubt that the device of ‘“‘questions and answers’”’ is a very limited one; it is used primarily where the subject and the interviewers are little acquainted with each other and where there is little desire to stick to particular questions, explore immediate circumstances. Some may feel the questions too vague, too loose, or insufficiently directed to locate precisely where Mr. Harrison stands in relation to what provocative issues: his own program, and, himself in it. I, for one, find the role of the provocateur can easily lead to sleights of hand, attitudinal fakery, which makes of the subject a scapegoat. Often this becomes a possibility because the interviewers have not understood too well what is going on around them; they search for discursive solutions; they do not usually feel inclined to ponder how they can affect their environment, their fellow workers and scarcely ever do they wonder if their reason itself is a form of repression, of use to no one. So the majority of questions asked Mr. Harrison are rather open-ended, on the basis that the interviewers as well have as much responsibility to make clear what previously resisted clarity. For anyone who has followed the series of observations, objections and responses concerning Design Research, such an approach can only be welcome. My intention has not been to cleverly appear on the ‘‘winning side’’, not to skirt around necessary questions and objections. The things to be learned in general and in specific have been worth the risk of appearing foolish, the risk of taking a stand in external affairs which from many perspectives at first does not seem to concern students too deeply. So what has been learned from this short interview, at least from the perspective of this observer? What in- trigues me most is how readily, how naturally, came the admission that the Design Programme is liberal in its origins and activity. In a time of increasing complex social and political repressions here in our own province, one must ask what is the college really doing by supporting this programme? In other words, if it is wholly involved in making students ‘fit’ into existing situation, who is fooling who; of what use is such a programme other than as a vehicle through which to turn out those with the proper social manners? ‘Getting a job?” “Want to know how to make it, join the upper leagues?” Are any of the other programmes in the school any different? I am here talking of the necessity for something in our ‘‘education”’ which recognizes how terribly inadequate and glib most of the activities at the college are. This does nat at all necessarily mean that alternatives to present methods and attitudes would be self-devouring. At the same time that Mr. Harrison recognizes the liberalism of the school, and one might say its decadence, he certainly emanates an exasperation about the prevailing social and political situations. One could even say that his programme is one of the intelligently advanced at the college, having grasped the necessity of being connected with the “external world,” not just moving around in lofty fine arts spirals. Also, we can see rural connections with the Alternative Studies pro- gramme, at least in principle. Now will faculty members work out some common ground — again out of necessity — about “interpretations of information’? Do they want to be effective in mining the relationship between the internal and external conditions? At this time, it would be fine to hear of what the faculty is working on, what aspects of ‘“‘education” they would deem to bring to our attention about the use and direction of the school as a whole or in parts. This does not require the publication of golden manifestos. Mr. Harrison’s exasperation is a concern to students. What is seemingly said is that presently there are insur- mountable obstacles politically? Organizationally. No workable organization has been developed to deal with what are distinctly strange and grinding qualities. How to deal with the provincial government affecting how this institute relates to people in the short and long term. My question is how can any faculty member resist the respon- sibility to make clear to students that fitting in as a graduate, an approved member of the arts milieu, is a covert invitation to repression of all sorts — as an artist, as a parent, as a communicator of ‘‘truths’ to other human beings. This is not a moral question. It is pri- marily a social one, at the same time applying to the part of reason which says it is our responsibility to make better choices for ourselves. Are our faculty members opting out of the need to be better organized? (Are the students doing the same thing?) What does the Dean mean when he speaks of maintaining “standards of education’’? Is everyone in motion for larger and larger carrots? Or should we just say that the exasperations, the paranoias are so severe that our “‘educators’’ are catatonic — and just accept that. . . because ‘‘what’s the use of speculating in public?”’ There is a need to speak of these concerns, and yet not feel compelled for general solutions, nor to accusingly ask questions of those paid to teach and administrate. There are no general solutions when one sits down and thinks of the different contexts involved, thinks of the false demands made on all of us. And I, for one, do not wish to participate in a dialogue which begins with the introduction of eternal conflicts and without joie de vivre. It would help tremendously to recognize our ig- norance of so many relations of potential (student and teacher, the worker and his work), and to examine our priorities. The dialogue among students is at times very confused, then very cautious. Have students taken any risks yet? Are our private solutions a matter of taking risks? What of our relations with others — probably highly self- conscious, probably not quite capable of working things through collectively. The old analogy about ECCA participants being like the inmates at Woodlands is quite apt. We seem to have ended up here too by mythologizing about our relations with the ‘‘(art)world”, with what we can get away with. However, this is (only) 1979 and how could one have serious expectations so soon. Students who feel they can’t stand certain instructors at the school should take a long look at why they feel that way — and what expecta- tions they have of themselves. Vice versa for faculty. Now about those faculty evaluations: will the director of Student Services document for us all what has been (or will be) achieved by filling them out? They were poten- tially useful: for a discussion of what has been learned by faculty and students in the past few years. Gordon Moore/April 1979 a little clarification Some Little Clarification of the Faculty Evaluations I sat on the Committee and I have a better perspec- tive on the whole shebang than the rest of you. The big fact that no one can get through their heads is that that questionnaire was done to decide the faculty contracts not for the students to spy on what their fellows think of their mentors. Get it! Accept it — you aren’t going to see the questionnaires. Likewise I cannot open my infamously big mouth about what those evaluations were about — about those 6 sordid days of closed door meetings that decided the contracts. I was essentially sworn to secrecy and if I open the aforementioned organ the whole evaluation could be officially nullified and the faculty would be able to fall back into that bliss of a sort of non-questioned tenure they have floated in lo these many years. But there are things I can say and I’ve thought long and hard about what they are. And I hope I’m not going over my bounds. The contract options: 1) No contract — no one’s that bad or they probably would have been canned long ago. 2) One year (probationary) contract — this does not mean the person is going to be fired next year. It means there are questions (big ones) about their performance. So next year they will be reviewed again and who knows what could happen — no contract — teaching cut to part time — another one year contract — a three year contract. 3) Three year contract — this essentially means they are doing an OK to good job. It’s not tenure (life) — it’s three years, and any contract can be called at any time. So any teacher on the low side of just OK can be re-evaluated at any time if they ain’t doin’ their job. Here’s how it was done — each faculty type had a file folder for perusal by the cuiamittee, and in it was: 1) A personal vitae and statement 2) An evaluation letter from the administration (Dean) dealing with their teaching & administering duties 3) Two to four evaluation letters from other faculty members 4) The student questionnaires (ranging from 3 to 80 of them). These were tabulated on other sheets according to how many ones, twos, threes, fours, and fives the person and his course got and all the comments were typed out verbatim on another sheet. So there was actually a four-part evaluation. The self-evaluations were next to non-existent. The adminis- tration’s evaluations were very sharp and realistic — I’d say fair. The peer evaluations were generally a joke. I think a general distrust of the evaluations pervaded the faculty and they were not about to squeal on their com- rades — be the administration’s hatchet men so to speak. It got really tiring reading between the lines — looking to see what wasn’t said. Sorry faculty but you screwed yourselves because the student evaluations on the whole were honest and candid and therefore were given a lot sH ow sH om sH cr SH F SH oF om cr SH cm cantury. this wat wo are laf with? Ina sense what I am advocating is small sale 19th cantury Brith liberalism. We are working within 3 syste that is contradictory ~ it only pays lip service {0 people having control over their ‘own lives, re [think people are overelmed by their inability to break through the system in any sort of way, even ust {0 have a public forum for theoretical dacussons But every now and then it soem to me that graphic ‘esigners are going to be like dinosaurs in about 5 ‘years — unable 1 adjust to changing economic and Political developments No, I wouldn't say t 3. There ie stl going to be 1 see: them developing 2 Tn fact wl eed thom more ‘ut on the bers of not being able ct with the involved issues or political {ctvities. In other words they wil become decorator ‘They won't be able to combine the esthetic and paliteal mode. My ‘classic erqumant with Graphic Design is that ‘many of them are only concerned with how the Tettors are spaced, not whet the wordy In every aes of fine arte there ae certain skills which have tobe taught In Graphic Design its typography [A Graphie Designer has to be able to Indicate type. Every student has his own point of view refer the instructor to keep his opinions end views in the back oom because | have my own. [An but do you care what the words say? fon about how I make words teaches typography, which happens to be his specialty, he's fantastic lettre. ‘That's what he teches; he doesn't twach sociology jut do you know thatthe type face you choose in luenees what the words soy emotionally. ‘Of course the type face is vo subtle. He's (Fred Pater) not saying what the subtleties ate, he is tying to {ach the students tobe sensitive. But isn't the true skill of @ Graphic Designer to combine an intuitive and aio 2 sort of literal under. standing of what one is dealing with when choosing letters He (Fred Peter) tries t0 help people see through — by doing i themselves — what twill mean. He doesn’t ‘ty and indicate the Christan amit type. Are the skill ~ the traditional In Industrial Design being taught as they would in say, 8 very oldfshiond traditional school? How well are the students who leave this course versed in these bese sls? “They have good skls but ifferent sil. ‘Would ther portfolios be comparable to other schools? ‘Thay would be different portitios ‘What you are saying is that your students are coming (ut highly specialized. Are you not concerned that their specialization will limit them in’ changing society? No. As | have already explained. My students get 2 basi fst and second veer programme. Thee spec ization hat a certain risk factor but | balive i's proer {able to being a goneals siting in the sme Bost a8 60 70 ether community eolage students ‘m going to have to goin few minutes, Thanks lot for talking tov. {heed for information, cron oie Wl Bee peel ple “expetig cain motu the post-op ‘The interview with Steve Harrison, Instructor of iluminating about ‘of these i left up, Design Research, was necessary and things general and specific. A synthes to the reader. ‘There is no doubt that the device of “questions and answers” is a very limited one; it is used primarily where the subject and the interviewers are litle acquainted with ‘each other and where there is little desire to stick to particular questions, explore immediate circumstances Some may feel the questions too vague, t00 loose, oF insufficiently directed to locate precisely where Mr. Harrison stands in relation to what provocative issues: his ‘own program, and, himself in it. 1, for one, find the role of the provocateur can easily lead to sleights of hand, attitudinal fakery, which makes of the subject a Scapegoat. Often this becomes a possibility because the interviewers have not understood too well what is going fon around them; they search for discursive solutions; they do not usually feel inclined to ponder how they can affect their environment, their fellow workers and scarcely ever do they wonder if their reason itself is a form of repression, of use to no one. So the majority of questions asked Mr. Harrison are rather open-ended, on the basis that the interviewers as well have as much responsibility to make clear what previously resisted clarity. Foranyone who has followed the series of observations, objections and responses concerning Design Research, sich an approach can only be welcome. My intention has not been to cleverly appear on the “winning side”, not to skirt around necessary questions and objections. The things to bbe learned in general and in specific have been worth the risk of appearing foolish, the risk of taking a stand in ‘external affairs which from many perspectives at first does ‘ot seem to concern students too deeply. ‘So what has been learned from this short interview, at least from the perspective of this observer? What in trigues me most is how readily, how naturally, came the admission that the Design Programme is liberal in its ity. Ina time of increasing complex al Fepressions here in our own province, ‘one must atk what isthe college really doing by supporting this programme? In other words, if itis wholly involved in making students “fit” into existing situation, who is fooling who; of what use is such a programme other than as a vehicle through which to tum out those with the proper social manners? “Want to know hhow to make it, join the upper leagues?” Are any of the other programmes in the school any different? Tam here talking of the necessity for something in our ‘education’ which recognizes how terribly inadequate and glib most of the activities at the college are. This does nat at all necessarily mean that alternatives to present methods and attitudes would be self-devouring. At the same time that Mr. Harrison recognizes the liberalism of the school, and one might say its decadence, he certainly emanates an exasperation about the prevailing social and political situations. ‘One could even say that his programme is one of the intelligently advanced at the college, having grasped th necessity of being connected with the “external world,’ not just moving around in lofty fine art spirals. Also, we can see ural connections with the Alternative Studies pro: gramme, at least in principle. Now will faculty members work out some common ground — again out of necessity ~ about “interpretations of information”? Do they want to be effective in mining the relationship between the internal and external conditions? At this time, it would be fine to hear of what the faculty is working on, what aspects of “education” they would deem to bring to our attention about the use and direction of the school ar a whole or in parts. This does not require the publication of golden manifestos.. ‘Mr. Harrison's exasperation is a concern to students. What is seemingly said is that presently there are insur- ‘mountable obstacles politically? Organizationally. No ‘workable organization has been developed to deal with ‘what are distinctly strange and grinding qualities. How to deal with the provincial government affecting how this Institute relates to people in the short and long term. My question is how can any faculty member resist the respon sibility to make clear to students that fitting in as a sraduate, an approved member of the arts milieu, is a Covert invitation to repression of all sorts — as an artist, as a parent, as a communicator of “truths” to other hhuman beings. This is not a moral question, marily a social one, at the same time applying to the part of reason which says itis our responsibility to make better choices for ourselves. Are our faculty members ‘opting out of the need to be better organized? (Ate the students doing the same thing?) What does the Dean mean when he speaks of maintaining “standards of education”? Is everyone in motion for larger and larger carrots? Or should we just say that the exasperations, the Paranoias are so severe that our “educators” are catatonic = and just accept that. . . because “what's the use of speculaiing in public?” ‘There is a need to speak of these concerns, and yet not feel compelled for general solutions, nor to accusingly ask questions of those paid to teach and administrate. ‘There are no general solutions when one sits down and thinks of the different contexts involved, thinks of the false demands made on all of us. And 1, for one, do not wish to participate in a dialogue which’ begins with the introduction of eternal conflicts and without joie de vivre. It would help tremendously to recognize our ig- norance of so many relations of potential (atudent and teacher, the worker and his work), and to examine our priorities. ‘The dialogue among students isat times very confused, then very cautious. Have students taken any risks yet? Are our private solutions a matter of taking risks? What ‘of our relations with others — probably highly self. conscious, probably not quite capable of working things through collectively. The old analogy about ECCA participants being like the inmates at Woodlands is quite apt. We seem to have ended up here too by mythologizing about our relations with the “(art)world”, with what we can get away with, However, this is (only) 1979 and how could one have serious expectations s0 soon. Students who feel they ‘can't stand certain instructors at the school should take a long look at why they feel that way — and what expecta tions they have of themselves. Vice versa for faculty. Now about those faculty evaluations: will the director of Student Services document for us all what has been (or will be) achieved by filling them out? "They were poten: tially useful-for a discussion of what has been learned by faculty and students in the past few years Gordon Moore/April 1979 a little clarification Some Little Clarification of the Faculty Evaluations 1 sat on the Committee and I have a better perspec: tive on the whole shebang than the rest of you. The big fact that no one can get Usrough their heads is that that ‘questionnaire was done to decide the faculty contracts rnot for the students to spy on what their fellows think of their mentors. Get it! Accept it — you aren't going to see the questionnaires. cewise I cannot open my infamously big mouth about what those evaluations were about — about those 6 sordid days of closed door mectings that decided the contracts. I was essentially sworn to secrecy and if 1 ‘open the aforementioned organ the whole evaluation could be officially nullified and the faculty would be able to fall back into that bliss of a sort of non-questioned tenure they have floated in lo these many years. But there are things I can say and I've thought long and hard about what they are. And I hope I'm not going ‘over my bounds. ‘The contract options: 1) No contract — no one's that bad or they probably ‘would have been canned long ago. 2) One year (probationary) contract — this does not ‘mean the person is going to be fired next year. It means there are questions (big ones) about their performance. So next year they will be reviewed again and who knows ‘what could happen — no contract — teaching cut to part time ~ another one year contract — a three year contract, 3). Three year contract ~ this essentially means they are doing an OK to good job. Its not tenure (life) — it’s three years, and any contract can be ealled at any time. So any teacher on the low side of just OK can be re-evaluated at any time if they ain't doin’ theie job. Here's how it was don= — each faculty type had a file folder for perusal by the eciamittee, and in it was: 1) A personal vitae and statement 2) An evaluation letter from the administration (Dean) ‘dealing with their teaching & administering duties 3) Two to four evaluation letters from other faculty members 4) The student questionnaires (ranging from 3 to 80 of them). ‘These were tabulated on other sheets according to hhow many ones, twos, threes, fours, and fives the perton and his course got and all the comments were typed out verbatim on another sheet. So there was actually a fourpart evaluation. The selfevaluations were next to non-existent. The adminis- tration’s evaluations were very sharp and realistic — I'd say fair. ‘The peer evaluations were generally a joke. 1 think a general distrust of the evaluations pervaded the faculty and they were not about to squeal on their com- rades ~ be the administration's hatchet men s0 to speak. It got really tring reading between the lines — looking to see what wasn’t said. Sorry faculty but you screwed ‘yourselves because the student evaluations on the whole were honest and candid and therefore were given a lot