Student disgusted with istration
Dear Editors,
Re: “Students jam-pack ceilidh to talk tuition,” (Journal, Jan 20, 2006).
I would like to express my disgust with the istration’s style of engagement in regard to last week’s forum on tuition and accessibility. When asked why the University’s budget is presented at a broad level in the annual report, Vice-Principal Andrew Simpson said the circulation of funds, a third of which come from students’ tuition, is too complicated and complex to present at a more local level. I find this rhetoric to be very insulting to the intelligence of the student body. We can decide for ourselves if such a budget is too “complicated and complex.”
Secondly, one student argued that under the current Queen’s general bursary application process, student loans such as OSAP are considered assets because they are considered to be “sufficient funds” for getting through the school year. Teresa Alm of Student Awards responded that Queen’s is a national leader when it comes to student financial assistance. If students who are already thousands of dollars in debt are getting turned down for bursaries, such a proclamation is false advertising and needs to be seriously re-evaluated.
Thirdly, when pressured by students to increase the student presence on the Board of Trustees, the highest decision-making body at this university, Principal Hitchcock argued that a presence of 10 per cent is “pretty high” compared to her previous experience at other universities. Those in the istration need to understand that there is a big difference between student participation and actual decision-making power, something the student body is clearly lacking. One student at the forum said it is the students who will decide the fate of this school, not the Board of Trustees. If the Board of Trustees decides to pursue deregulation for all faculties without the consent of the students, you can bet your lucky stars he’ll be proven right.
Aaron Lemkow
ArtSci ’07
Review lacks insight, depth, accuracy
Dear Editors,
Re: “Cultural Identity on Display in Conditions” (Journal, Jan.
24, 2006). I want to address a few points in Lauren Spencer’s review of my exhibition Critical Conditions: Contemporary Art from Wayne, Michigan.
Contrary to what was explained in this review, John Murnaghan and I made all the work in the exhibition, and then attributed it to “fictional” artists from Wayne, Michigan. Jeez, Lauren Spencer, if you weren’t sure about this, you could’ve just called us and asked!
Broadly speaking, most of our work in the studio tends to revolve around the development and deployment of fictions, and as such, this exhibition had two interrelated components: first, the production of artwork, and second, the construction of a curatorial apparatus to attribute, interpret and frame this work (as evidenced in statements, wall texts and a colour catalogue). I know we never came out and said “Hey! Just kidding, we made all of this up!” but I think the fictional element was fairly evident from the beginning. I respect the intelligence of viewers enough to let them fill in the gaps and figure things out for themselves, but maybe in the case of Journal reviews, additional concessions need to be made.
The tone in this review often falls somewhere between classism and cultural elitism, which I find a little bit offensive. Early on, the reader is informed that the work in Critical Conditions emerges from “small-town eccentricities which are usually better left in the garages and basements they came from”—yipes! Later, we learn that “anyone could and should” be proud of Motown Records, but “sports like football and baseball” are apparently off-limits. “Craft” is employed as a pejorative signifier. The list goes on and on. Should the Journal, a media representative of this supposedly inclusive and diverse campus, really be ing such rampant snootiness?
I recognize the fact that there are space limitations for reviews, but Lena Ha’s videos in the project room, entitled Adapting, weren’t even mentioned. I think they are great, and everyone should go see them. I don’t mean to nit-pick. The fact that our show received a negative review is insignificant (except when you wrote that it had no “redeeming qualities.” That made me sad!). I think I’m more bothered about the lackluster levels of comprehension, consideration, research and writing exhibited in this review. Further questions and comments can be addressed to me at [email protected], and in the meantime, I would urge anyone interested to take a look at the exhibition and figure things out for yourselves.
Darryl Bank
BFA ’06
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].