|
A
curious aspect of the move toward accreditation was the change
in art school catalogs. Art school catalogs tended to be over-sized
and somewhat flamboyant with examples of student work from
all levels and programs.
There
was prominent listing of faculty with credentials and examples
of their work. Most catalogs were in color or had a color
section. When art schools began the process of obtaining accreditation,
the catalogs shrunk to bulletin size and eliminated most of
the illustrations of student and faculty work. This was because
of competition with new art programs being established at
universities. Art school catalogs were designed to look like
academic bulletins. Art school catalogs today have rightfully
moved back to pre-accreditation format illustrating student
and faculty work in color. This is what most prospective art
students want to see.
As
students using the GI bill disappeared, they were replaced
by a majority of students from middle class backgrounds, and
there were increasing numbers of female students. Aside from
student’s interest in art, low tuition and concentration
in studio courses at art schools were factors in recruitment.
In
1953, the Russians successfully launched sputnik and there
was a growing paranoia in this country that the Russians would
surpass this country in education. Congress enacted a number
of educational bills and the government began pouring millions
of dollars into higher education. One of the first government
programs was student financial aid. The program stipulated
that then only basis for awarding funds was need. Merit was
not to be considered. The federal grants required matching
funds from the institution, and the principal source for institutional
funds were those allocated to scholarship.
Until
the 1950s, students without resources relied on tuition scholarships
which were based on merit. Students knew that if they worked
hard in high school and made superior grades, it would make
them eligible for a variety of college scholarships. The government
financial aid program forcing institutions to recommit their
scholarship funds practically eliminated merit scholarships
at many art schools. It is doubtful even to this day, that
merit as a condition in obtaining financial assistance is
at the same level it was prior to federal financial aid programs.
This has had a deleterious impact on artistic or academic
merit being a condition for underwriting an art school or
university education.
Student
financial aid was quickly followed by a series of Title Programs
which provided schools with funds for purchasing equipment,
buildings and enriching existing programs or creating new
ones. There was substantial funding from the private sector
during these same years; most of it coming from foundations.
This was a period of unbelievable growth in all higher education.
The multi-campus state systems were principal recipients of
government funding during the 1950s and 1960s. Many state
teachers colleges were incorporated
as universities; small private schools, including art schools
and music conservatories, were absorbed into state systems.
In some instances, new universities were built from the ground
up at new locations.
During the late sixties, Andrew Morgan, president of the Kansas
City Art Institute, spearheaded a movement to develop a consortium
of independent schools of art. The organization was formed
as the Union of Independent Colleges of Art and was funded
by contributions of member institutions, foundations and government
funds. Dean Tollefson was the executive director throughout
most of the time that UCIA was operative. During the early
years, membership was fairly stable, but later, schools began
to drop out while new ones joined.
I
remember best the period when The Kansas City Art Institute,
The Maryland Institute of Art, The Minneapolis School of Art,
The Philadelphia School of Art and Rhode Island School of
Design were active in the organization. Students and teachers
could move from one member institution to another to either
teach or attend classes. Department heads from each discipline
would meet once or twice a year at some central location or
at one of the member schools. Each layer of administrators
such as recruitment, development, business and registrars
met together as well. Presidents met frequently to develop
common strategies and to formulate grant applications to foundations
and government.
Graphic
Design meetings would last two or three days, and educational
matters related to curriculum, goals, standards and instructional
techniques were discussed. We talked, argued and it was stimulating
as well as informational. Up until this time, many of the
teachers had no idea what other schools were doing in Graphic
Design. This interaction was beneficial for me and I am certain
it was equally so for the other participants. The UICA program
for teachers and administrators contributed more to member
institutions than perhaps has ever been realized. The sudden
growth and expansion of educational programs created a huge
demand for teachers. Many teachers were hired immediately
after graduate school, and often there were just a few years
difference in age between students and teachers. During these
years, most art programs moved away from professional criteria
and began hiring teachers on the basis of academic credentials.
An MFA in art or design or equivalent became the standard
requirement for teaching.
This
practice was more prevalent at universities than at art schools.
These were the years when Graphic Design programs were introduced
at state universities.
Art
and design programs in public universities were established
within the liberal arts context. At the early stages, there
were substantial Art History and other academic requirements
with much less studio hours than art schools. As the period
progressed, there was some modification with a reduction in
Art History requirements and additional studio involvement.
However, with the exception of universities that had absorbed
an art school, or were trade oriented schools before becoming
a state institution, state university
art departments still retain a liberal arts philosophy.
This
is reflected by a relatively small number of hours in the
major, policies on admission and retention in the major, scheduling
and student composition in classes.
It
was during these years of rapid growth that public universities
began extensive use of graduate students for instructional
purposes in place of adding new faculty lines. Although more
than forty years have passed, most state universities remain
overly dependent on graduate students for instruction. This
practice has had a decidedly negative impact on the quality
of visual education, and there is no remedy in sight.
In
this period of rapid growth and government largess, retention,
promotion and tenure were awarded freely with little scrutiny.
The process was only perfunctory in most cases. At Minneapolis
and Kansas City, retention and promotion were the unilateral
decision of the President, and they were communicated to faculty
members in the letter of appointment issued each Spring. Any
salary increases were made known in the same letter. At Kansas
City, Department Heads recommended salary increases but the
President always made the final decision. At Minneapolis as
late as 1964, there was no tenure and all salary, retention
and promotion decisions were made entirely by the President.
|
