N|uorkshop perspective Dear Influx, Thank you for your request to comment on the recent changes to the Print and Pot Sale that has occurred in early December for the past few years. The Printmakers and Ceramists have done a great job organizing this event, through their combined efforts it has become greatly anticipated for holiday shoppers and highly successful in providing to students some revenue with which to begin the spring semester. It made sense therefore, in light of ensuring equal access to all students and of making all our activities more Institute-wide, to expand the sale and encourage students from other areas to take part. Hence the Annual Student Art Sale. The Sale, this year promises to bring in larger audiences for the increased variety and quantity of work. This Sale has been historically housed in the School of Visual Arts, with the support of Community Relations. The bulk of production takes place in the School of Visual Arts studios. This year the decision to expand the Sale’s mandate to be more inclusive was made in a spirit of generosity and, like many decisions governing the curriculum and activities of the School, was made at a School meeting. The administration of the Sale was then passed on to the Gallery Committee that has jurisdiction over the activities occurring in the Concourse Gallery. I look forward to the Student Art Sale this year and wish success to all the students who take part in this expanded event. Thank you in advance to those of you whose experience in past Sales will contribute to its continued success. Your generosity and guidance is appreciated by all. Sincerest regards, Renée Van Halm Dean, School of Visual Arts PRINT SALE FACES UNTIMELY DEATH! The Society of Student Printmakers (S.O.S.P) at ECIAD is experiencing considerable distress and frustration over the hijacking of their annual sale by the Institute’s administration. Without any consultation or communication “it has been decided that the print/pot sale shall be opened up this year to all students” (Charles H. Scott Gallery Memo, October 13, 1998). The printmaking students are not opposed to an all-institute sale— they are opposed to the theft of their sweat equity. For over 15 years, the printmakers at ECIAD have been organizing an annual show and sale of their work, and in 1991 the S.0.S.P. was formed as a non-profit, student-run society. The show is a great benefit to the students, giving them valuable experience in organizing a public event and offering a practicum in which they gain “real world” experience as working visual artists. The show has amassed a large following in the greater Vancouver community, not to mention among the staff, students, and faculty of Emily Carr. The administration should be proud to see its students representing a positive, self-motivating image in the community. Instead the administration has scrutinized the revenue grossed by the S.O.S.P. and conceived a way to tamper with and capitalize on their hard-earned success. The S.O.S.P. show is an unjuried, entirely student-run event that offers a diverse range of original prints for as low as $5 dollars each. This pricing is suitable for prints, but not other media such as paintings or sculpture. The quality, large selection and affordability of the works shown is what has ensured its overwhelming success. Imagine the S.O.S.P.’s dismay when Emily Carr’s administration imperially pronounced in “Visions” (the official Institute publication) that they would now own and run the show, that its mandate would-be changed, and that the cumulative annual student efforts to establish its reputation would be gleefully absorbed! Not to mention they think they can use the shrink-wrap machine purchased by the S.O.S.P. from its own resources! We have also learned that in spite of an “application process” for the Concourse Gallery, the gallery has quietly engineered a predetermined “no’ to the S.O.S.P’s gallery request without proper consideration. So much for ethical and professional conduct! At no time during their plans, decisions and announcements did the administration contact the one identifiable student organization that had created the show— there has been absolutely no communication. They claim to represent the interest of all the students, while they have hypocritically crushed a student initiated event in an authoritarian manner. A show that is accessible to all students is a great idea, but it should not ride on the backs of the printmaking students. There is also nothing preventing student-run shows from each independent department. As a matter of fact, the more opportunities students have to gain experiences selling their work, the more they will be prepared to graduate as emerging artists. The S.O.S.P. is appealing to the administration to allow the print show to proceed in November, while going ahead with the all-institute sale as planned with its own advertising campaign. What is now a case of crushing student initiative could be turned into a genuinely partcipative process if the administration were to proceed with a forthright and open discussion of these important issues and cease making decisions behind closed doors. S.0.S.P. drawing by Nicola Sampson How much for a scholarship ticket? This is in response to Tara DeLong’s article Questioning the Ritual which appeared in your 1998 Spring issue. One of the arguments that I got from it is that poor students have lower production capabilities than “filthy rich” students. This seems to be a harsh generalization. How many really poor students go to ECIAD anyway? I mean really poor. Most people in the school seem to fall within the middle class range. People who are filthy rich or miserably poor are probably in the extreme range of things. And do all poor students perform badly? All of them? Many so- called “poor” students that I know actually produce great work. Including you, Tara. You said you are poor, now, do you think your work sucks? It does not cost a lot to create a great piece of work. We don’t need expensive equipment. Just because a tube of paint is cheaper, for example, does not render it “unfit” for art production. It is true that the quality of supplies may make a difference, but not much of a difference. It’s all in the artist’s own creativity and resourcefulness, really. Yes, presentation is important, but again it does not cost a fortune to present a piece of work neatly. Fancy display accessories are cool if you can afford them, but they still won’t help much if the art work is crap anyway. What if an artist has to skip meals to get supplies? Well... most people do this a lot. Many people I know skip more than just meals, only they’re not as disturbed about it. And seriously, how many people have to skip meals all the time? Every meal? ECIAD is like any school. You pay to get in. School supplies are a necessary part of the expenses. This should have been taken account of in the beginning. Some people take up jobs, while others “skip things” to meet this expense. And yeah, some people have their “rich parents” but even they have a loss for they may be forced to sell their estate in Europe to come here, Tara dear. Seriously, if worse comes to worst, there are other good schools available that are cheaper. This is why not too many December 1998 e wee NOX Hy ye % brilliant people can go to Harvard, for example, it’s just too darn expensive. And just because one can’t afford ECIAD doesn’t mean every other school is shit, right? This is life, there is no one to blame. People make adjustments all the time. It would be nice, for example, if ECIAD would provide a “free meals program” or an “Opus-take-all-you-want-for-free-day” but we can just dream on. The article states that poor students have the butt of it all when competing for scholarships. Frankly speaking, are all scholarship recipients “filthy” rich? I don’t think so. Furthermore it is irrelevant as to what form the scholarship should be (i.e.. money or just an honour plaque). Just because a student is rich does not mean s/he doesn’t deserve the scholarship. This is. a reward for artistic/ academic achievement after all, given not by the school but by outside sponsors, and should not be confused with student loan programs. “Rich” and “poor” alike, if they want to work hard to get it, then they certainly deserve it. Everyone who works hard deserves it, but there is only a limited amount of money, you see. Think of scholarships as a bonus, not as a relied source of income or anything. Then one may not feel as bad if they did not receive a scholarship. Besides, I don’t think genuine lazy “bums” go for the scholarships anyway- too many formalities, paperwork galore, deadlines, in other words; too much work. And if they go for it, they’ll probably get bored by the process and give up. What if the scholarship is just an honour plaque, like you suggested, Tara? Sure. That sounds like a great idea. I’m certainly for it. But is this enough incentive for some “poor” students? Everyone loves money. Let’s just stop pretending here. No matter what your background, whether you need it or not, ‘more is better’; because we all know too well that nothing comes for free. Lawrence Teng W. (who shocked Tara by wearing Tommy Hilfiger “All- American Geekwear” to school one fateful day...) Fish as art November 3, 1998 Dear ECIAD Community, In October of 1998 I went to see the exhibits at the VAG. Coming upon a space hung with Ziplock freezer bags, each containing a rotting fish and some pretty beads and other objects, I thought of the adage “Physician, heal thyself.” I propose that it could be adapted to artists: “Artist, heal thyself.” This room full of baggies was justified by the artist and now a few critics and aestheticians, as necessary and somehow insightful, as the artist took it upon herself to confront her “complacent” audience. Her unresearched assumption is that “the audience” complacently expects tranquil landscapes or art of that ilk. Those who are not afflicted with complacency will, of course, “get it.” This particular artist’s mission therefore is to shock us out of this presumed complacency. The role of the artist is thus re- defined as self-appointed social critic and psychologist, hopefully a revolutionary of some sort, with not a small bit of a disjointed, umber proboscis, a result of hanging around carping (watch out for those fish!) and whining about the unaware state of the most backward elements of “the audience” - the same proboscis somewhere in the region of their coattails. Well, as my good friend PR. Brown once observed, “Nobody asked you (the ziplock artist, in this case) to be an artist.” In other words, there are no press gangs roaming about, forcing people into the army of slave-artists! Why would the artist who is assuming the role of leadership, which role is what we can conclude as artist such as the assembler of bags of rotting fish has taken upon herself, begin by addressing the “lowest common denominator,” or the most backward (those who really may be complacent) of her audience? How high can we reach when only the lowest among us are addressed? If art has an historic role, what is the point of uninvestigated, erroneous generalizations about the “audience” being complacent? T have a niece who is a militantly committed vegan and is working on her doctoral thesis in Wildlife Biology. Fortunately, she did not accompany me to the gallery the day I came upon this room full of unfortunate trout, for, had she come upon this unexpected desecration, I think she would have out and out fainted. Her work as a biological researcher and scientist leads her to understand only too well that “nature” is anything but a tranquil landscape, partly due to the sometimes wanton and destructive use of it by those calling themselves artists. I have to say to this bag‘ artist, “Speak for yourself.” How dare you assume that I want to see only tranquil landscapes? H. Malach Editor’s Note: H. Malach is refering to Lee Bol’s work entitled Magestic Splendor which is part of the exhibit The Natural World, showing at the Vancouver Art Gallery until January 24. submit Written submissions should be forwarded on computer disk to ECIAD Room 140 North Building, 1399 Johnston Street, Vanvouver BC,V6H 3R9, or via e-mail to poa@eciad.bc.ca. Submissions deadline for January issue is December 18, 1998. pslustishop perspective Dear Infux, “Thankyou for your request comment on the recent changes to the Print and Por Sale that has occured in early December for the past few years. The Printmakers and CCeramists have done a great job organizing this event, through their combined efforts it has become greatly anticipated for holiday shoppers and highly successful in providing to stents some rene with which to begin the spring semester, Itmade Sense therefore in light of ensuring eqal acces to all students tnd of making all our activites more Institute-wide, to expand the sale and encourage students from other areas to take par. Hence the Annual Student Art Sale. The Sale, his year promises to bring in larger audiences for the increased variety and ‘quantity of work This Sle hasbeen historically housed in the Schoo of ‘Visual Ars, withthe support of Community Relations. The bulk ‘of production takes place in the School of Visual Arts studios ‘This year the decision to expand the Sales mandate to be more inclusive was made in a sprit of gencrosiy and, like many decisions governing the curriculum and activities ofthe Schoo, ‘was made at a School mecting. The administration ofthe Sale was then passed on to the Gallery Committee that has jurisdicion over the activities cccurring in the Concourse Galery. 1 ook forward tothe Student Art Sale this year and, wish success to all the students who take part inthis expanded ‘rent. Thank you in advance to thore of you whose experience in past Sales wil contbute to is continued succes. Your senerosty and guidance is appreciate by al. Sincerest regards, Renée Van alm Dean, School of Visual Arts PRINT SALE FACES UNTIMELY DEATH! ‘The Society of Student Prinumakers (S.0S.P) at EECIAD is experiencing considerable distress and frustration over the hijacking oftheir annual saleby dhe Institate's administration, ‘Without any consultation or communication “it has been decided thatthe prinvpot sale shall be opened up this yea to all students” (Charles H. Scott Gallery Memo, October 13, 1998). The Printmaking stadens are not opposed 10 an alinstiutesale— {hey are opposed to the thet oftheir neat equity. For over 15 years the printmakers at ECIAD have been ‘organizing an annval show and sle of thei work, and in 1991 the SOSP. was formed as a non-profit, sudent-un socer. The show is a great benefit to the students, giving them valuable ‘experience in organizing a public event and offering practicum in Which they gain “real world” experience as working visual artists, “The show has amassed large following inthe greater Vancouver ‘community not to mention among the staf, student, and faculy of Emly Carr. The administration should be proud to see is stadents representing. a positive, selémotivating image in the community. Instead the administration has scrutinized the revenue grossed by the S.0S.P. and conceived « way to tamper ‘with and capitalize on thee hard-earned succes. The S.0P. show i an unjuried, entry student-run vent that oles a diverse range of orignal pins for as low as $5 dollars each. This pricing is stale for prints, but not other media such as paintings or sculpture. The quality, large selection tnd aMfordabilty of the works shown is what has ensured is ‘verhelming success. Imagine the 8.0.8 Ps dismay when Emily Care's administration imperially pronounced in “Visions” (the ‘official Insitute publication) that they would now own and run the show tha is mandate would be changed and thatthe cumulative snnual student efforts © establish its reputation would be Blecflly absorbed! Not to mention they think they can use the Shink-wrap machine purchased by the S.O.S fom its own ‘We have als learned that inspite ofan “application process" for the Concourse Gallery, the galley has quietly engineered a predetermined “no’ to the S.OSP galery equest without proper consideration. So much fr ehial and professional conduct! Atno time during their plans, decisions tnd announcements did the adminiseation contact the one ‘denifabe student organization that had created the show — there has been absolutely no communication, ‘They claim to represent the intrest of all the students, while they have hypocritcally crushed a student initiated event in an suthoritarian manner, ‘A show that is acesible to all students is great ‘dea, bu it should not ride on the backs ofthe prinumaking stadens. There is also nothing preventing student-run shows from each independent department. As a matter of fat, the ‘more opportunites students have to gain experiences sling their work, the more they will be prepared to graduate at emerging arts ‘The SOS. fe appealing tothe administration to allow the print show to proceed in November, wile going thead with the allinstute sale as planned with its own Advertsing campaign. What is now a case of crushing student iniative could be turned into a genuinely pareipaive procest if the administration were to proceed wih a forthright and ‘open discussion of these important isues and cease making ‘cisions behind closed doors SOSR by Nl Sargon How much for a scholarship ticket? ‘This is in response to Tara DeLong’s article Questioning ‘he Ritual which appeared in your 1998 Spring issue. One ofthe arguments that I got ffom it i that poor students have lower production capabilites than “filthy rich stadens. This Seems to be aarsh generalization. How many really por students go £0 ECIAD anyway? Imean relly poor. Most peopl inthe school ‘scem ofall within the mide class range. People who are filthy "ich or miserably poor are probably inthe extreme range of things, ‘And do all poor stents perform badly? All of them? Many s0- called “poor” students that I now actully prodce great work, Including you, Tara. You sid you ae poor, sows do you think your work sucks? edocs not cost alot to create a great pice of work, We don’t ned expensive equipment. Just because tube of pnt is cheaper for example, doesnot render it “unit” for art production Itis true that the quality of supplies may make adiference, but not such of a diference. Ife alli the artis own creativity and esourcefulness, realy. Yes, presentation is important, but again it does not costa fortune to present apiece of work nea. Fancy Aisplay accesories are cool if you can afford them, but they stil ‘won't help much f the art wor scrap anya: ‘What if an artist has to skip meals to get supplies? Wel. most people do this alot. Many people I know sip more than just meals only they're not as disturbed about it And seriously, how many people have to skip meas al the time? Every ECIAD is like any school, You pay to got in, School supplies are a necesary part of the expenses. This shoul have ‘ben taken account of inthe beginning. Same people ake up jobs, while others “sip thins” to meet this expense. And yeah some ‘eople hae sei “vich parens” bur even they have alos for they ‘ay be forced to ell thei estate in Europe to come here Tara ear. Seriously, if worse comes to worst, there are other good Schools avalable that are cheaper. This is why not too many December 1998 © influx 26053 HOA WY AE @ BERL 1edmes-d brant people can go to Harvard, for example, it's just too darn expensive. And just because one can't afford ECIAD doesn't ‘mean every other schoo i shi right Tiss if, there is no one toblame. People make adjustment all the time, It would be nice, for example, if ECIAD would provide a “free meals program” or an “Opustake-allyou-wantforfree-day” but we can jus dream “The article states that poor students have the butt of it all when competing for scholarships. Frankly speaking, are all Scholarship recipients “lth” rich? T don thnk so. Furthermore itis ierelevant a6 to what form the scholarship should be (ce ‘money or just an honour plague). Just because a student is ich ‘does not mean she doesn't deserve the scholarship. This is @ reward for artistic! academic achievement afterall given not bythe ‘school bu by outside sponsors and should not be confused with ‘Student loan programs. “Rich and “poor” alk, if they want £0 ‘work hard to gett then they certainly deserve it Everyone who works hard deserves iy but there is only @ imited amount of ‘money, you see. Think of scholarships a « bonus, nota a relied soureeof income or anything. Then one may not elas bad sf they id not receive a Scholarship. Besides, I don’ think genuine lazy “bums” go for the scholanhips anyway- too many formalities, paperwork galore, deadlines, in other words; too much work. And Ifthey go frit, they probably get bored by the process and give up. ‘What ifthe scholarship is jst an honour plague; like you suggested, Tara? Sure. That sounds like great ides.” Certainly for it. But is this enough incentive for some “poor” students? Everyone loves money. Lets just top pretending here NNo mater what your background, whether you need it oF not, ‘more is beter’ because we all now too well that nothing comes for fee Lawrence Teng W. (coho shocked Tara by wearing Tommy Hilfiger “All “American Geokswear” to school one fateful day.) Fish as art Dat IAD Conmniy, In October of 1998 I went to se the exhibits athe VAG. ‘Coming upon a space hung with Ziplock freezer bags, each containing a roting fish and some preuy beads and other objects, thought of the adage “Physician, heal thycl.” I propose that it could be adapted to artis: “Artist eal thyself.” "This room fal of baggies was justified by the artist and ‘ow a few cries and aestheticians, as necesary and somehow insight, as the artist took it upon herself to confront her “complacent” audience. Her unresearched assumption is that “the audience” complacenly expects trang landeapes or art ofthat ik Those who are not afcted with complacency wil ofcourse, “petit” This particular artist's mision therefore ito shock us out ofthis presumed complacency. The role ofthe arte is thus te ‘defined ssl appointed social erie and paychologst hopfully a revolutionary of some sor, with nota small bit of disjointed, lumber proboscis, a result of hanging around carping (watch out for those fish!) and whining about dhe unaware sate ofthe most backward lements of “the audience” ~ the sane proboscis somewhere inthe region of thee coats ‘Well as my good friend PR. Brown once observed, “Nobody asked you (the ziplock artis inthis ease) tobe an arte.” In other words, there are no press gangs roaming about, forcing ‘people into the army of slave-artise! Why would the artist who i assuming the role of leadership, which role i what we ean ‘conclude a att such a the assembler of bags of rotting fish has taken upen herself, begin by addresing the "lowest common denominator," or the most backward (those who really may be complacent) of her audience? How high can we reach when only the lowest among us are addressed? [fart has an historic role, what isthe point of uninvestigated, erroneous generalizations about the “audience” being complacent? havea niece who sa miitandly commited vegan and {i working on her doctoral thesis in Wildife Biology. Fortunately, she did no accompany me tothe gallery the day Tame upon thi ‘oom fall of unfortunate tout, for, had she come upon this ‘unexpected desecration, I think she would have out and out fainted. Her work as a biological researcher and scientist eae het to understand only too well ht “nature” is anything but rangi lndscape, pall ue to the sometimes wanton and destructive use oft by those calling themselves artis have 10 say to this bag artist, “Speak for yourself.” How dare you assume that I want se only tranquil landscapes? Hi. Malach aitor's Note: H. Malach i refering t9 Lee B's work