[Alumni-chat] Recent Visit to YS

[toyboy (andy at svcable.net)]

Bob,

Fine, I apologize. I didn't know when you were or weren't on campus. That's fine. I have no problem with that "correction". Like I believe I clearly said in my post, I was not completely certain of the timing of this transition. And ok, yes, I haven't remembered Chris Hill (altho' that says more to me than it probably does to you). I'm glad you can claim that you are the one that hired him. If that's true, terrific. It might show how little stamp he made at Antioch, or just show how out of touch I was then. Whatever. So be it. Because I dare not get into a questioning of where all the film artists are that came out of the 80's or 90's.

If you'll allow those lapses of memory and knowledge, I'll allow your lapse of memory of both my visit, and yours and Guskin's letters, and a subsequent visit on my part not long thereafter where I recall we just kind of shrugged sadly about that particular situation. I'm sure I can dig up at least Guskin's lettersomewhere if you really want to get down to it.  Getting a letter from a president of Antioch was a keeper.

But excuse me, please. President of Antioch and outraged about the Film Department and yet unable to do anything corrective? Your claim of helplessness rings just a little hollow to me against the feelings you claim to have had about the matter. If you found the state of affairs so deplorable, what did you do about it? Leaving it for the students to "bridge" just seems more like an unnecessary burden for the students to carry. (But what was there to bridge if there was nothing on the other side?) We felt no need to bridge anything with Communications when I was there. They had their thing, we had ours, and life was good. Like I said, the split has been built-in from the 70's you know that as well as I do. And I really find it difficult to understand why you would NOT personally want the film as part of Communications, Bob, given your own background.  

But hold your fire. Let me just take you at your word, because as I said, (and it bears repeating as you seem to assume that I don't even have my facts straight on this either) I don't hold an animus against you. My concluding remarks were about the spirit of the change expresses, not about any individual. Maybe, just maybe, by the time you became president the politics of the situation had changed and you were powerless to effect any change. Certainly, I can imagine where a strong, bold Communications Department would be a stronger, bolder lobbier than Karen, as good as she was. And of course if your choice, Chris Hill, was still at Antioch then, I doubt you'd want to disrupt his efforts simply on behalf of the Art Department.

Here's another anecdote for you to correct. And I hope by airing this one, I don't embarrass this person, whom I will not name, or even classify by gender. Not too long ago, during one of my visits to YSO, I met a young artist, a graduate of Antioch. This person had quite a background in the arts long before coming to Antioch. He/She knew her/his stuff, having started to paint at the age of six. Ok, like we all did, but she/he was encouraged by his/her parents, and though they weren't particularly wealthy, they always gave him/her the best materials to work with. She/he came to Antioch as a rather accomplished artist in his/her own right. He/she was telling me how castigated he/she felt among the other art students for the sort of work she/he was doing. She/he was using painting as a tool, to further his/her skills at draftsmanship. Yet, she/he was shunned by other art students. Why? Because it didn't have a "message" was the way she/he described it. When he/she wanted to paint with
oils, she/he was forbidden to BY THE ART PROFESSOR. Why? Because they are too toxic. After some struggle, it was finally allowed for him/her to paint in the sculpture building (exiled!). Why? Because it has a safe wash station there. When she/he expressed interest in learning to use his/her new airbrush, yet another art professor discouraged it. Why? "Why do you want to do that?" he/she paraphrased him saying. "Photoshop can do that."

Of course the last little anecdote is just plain dumb and perhaps slightly aside from my point. But certainly not the first two. The picture that she/he painted for me, with some dismay on his/her part, was a politicized environment in even the art department. It is a credit to her/him that he/she stuck it out to graduate.

So you see, that is my animus. The "it" of it, if you will, not you Bob. If you claim, as you do, not to be personally involved in the political correctness that has been rampant, I really don't care. Correct me with the facts to kingdom come, that doesn't change what the direction of Antioch has been, and you continue fail to address that by simply giving me "the facts". This isn't about the freedom to show and view "odd little films" it's about not allowing for a safe space for the spirit to free itself on campus, and I'm failing to see evidence of it otherwise. Perhaps, I'm just too dated and jaded. When I went to see student graduate films back in April 2006, I could barely stand it. The stuff I saw struck me as just politics wrapped up in pretty pictures and nothing I would dare call works of visual art. I will never be able to remove from memory the scene of a young man, dressed up in a burkha, kneeling in prayer as he yearned for forgiveness for being a white, male,
heterosexual. From whom he was asking for it, I was never quite sure. Probably black, female, lesbians, and this old fart has never met one before. Yes, I guess that's it. I'm just too out of touch with today's young people, their world, let alone their Antioch. I bow in forgiveness for being just another out of touch white, male, heterosexual who thinks that polemics can ever manage to change anything. Call it The Antioch Curse.