Dear Chancellor Scaturro:

We have read your memorandum on Printmaking with great interest. This is indeed a matter which affects the entire University Community and not just the Print Shop. As you are well aware, there has been a considerable difference of opinion here between what the Administration has said in its recent memoranda on this subject, what it really meant to say, and how these memoranda were interpreted by the University Community and interested parties outside it.

It would seem that in order for the upcoming debate be a productive one, the reports of the Commission must have credibility. For such credibility to be achieved, it would be most helpful if the Administration were to post its views as to the actual size of the Commission, how many members would be in each membership category, and most important of all how these members would be selected. While no one will dispute that the Administration together with the Trustees have the ultimate decision, a Commission which appears to be one where the controlling majority is appointed by the administration, would not meet the generally accepted standards of credibility.

Thus a prompt and open discussion of this central issue would be most desirable.

Very truly yours

Omri and Marion Behr

REPLY: (NOTE DATE)

From: Printcom@newschool.edu (printcom

To: omrib@aol.com

August 14, 2000

Dear Mr. Behr:

Thank you for your July 19th e-mail, which I only just received having been away from the office for a few weeks. Please let me apologize for not responding to the May letter you refer to in your most recent communication. A thorough check of the files reveals that for some unfortunate reason it was not received by my office, although I have received, and answered, a number of letters and e-mails from the community on this matter.

The University is now in the process of establishing the Commission, on which will sit individuals representative of different parts and constituencies of the University community. The community will be notified about the Commission's membership in early fall and the Commission will then advertise and hold open meetings during the fall semester at which members of the community will have every opportunity to voice their views. The Commission will issue its final report only at the conclusion of this process. I would respectfully request that you not prejudge the bias of the Commission nor its credibility in advance of its formation and work, otherwise I fear that the Commission may not be able to successfully carry out its mandate on behalf of the entire community.

As for your concern that meetings ha\te been taking place between the administration and certain members of the Print Shop staff, I can assure you that this is not the case. The Commission is being formed to review the mission, status and future of printmaking at the University to help guide the consultative process and to develop new information. No decision about the future of printmaking at the New School has been nor will be made until the Commission's work is completed.

Thank you again for your sharing your thoughts and concerns with me.

Cordially,

Philip Scaturro

Chancellor

Dear Mr. Murtha

I am a continuing ed student current enrolled in Mohammed Khalil’s printmaking workshop. Although I am new to this, I had enrolled in this program with the intention of continuing on after this class. It would be detrimental to this school to eliminate printmaking from its curriculum, as it is just as important a part of fine art as painting or sculpture. It is my hope that come spring semester, I will be able to continue to attend printmaking classes.

Sincerely,

Pamela Marshall

………………………………..

10-18-00

Dear Mr. Murtha:

I am a senior in the New School BA Program and have just started printmaking here. I am enjoying it very much and hope to be able to continue even after I graduate. In this print shop there is so much enthusiasm for this art form and there is a lot of interaction between all the students, new and old, which is a wonderful learning environment. Learning and growing should be what this school is about and printmaking can contribute to so many people’s education and lives.

Sincerely,

Heather Salen

……………………………………

Dear Mr. Murtha:

I am writing to let you know that it is not for lack of interest that I have not attended any of the meetings regarding protection of and criticism of the Continuing Education Printmaking workshops. I am aghast that a school of this caliber would even consider such an action. I grew up in the south and your reputation there was one of the very top in the field. All my life I have hoped that someday, some way, I could participate in one of your programs at the age of thirty-five I returned to college to complete two degrees in architecture which I earned in 1986 and 1987 at RISD. In spite of raising four children and commuting daily, three hours in the car, my desire to learn and grow was so strong that I stayed with a very intensive program to completion.

The younger students there expressed many times that the example I set in continuing to grow and learn (at an age approaching that of some of their parents) was an important lesson in life for them. That one does not "complete" the process of growing at an age of 21 or 22 and go on to simply coast through life on the lessons already learned. At the age of fifty-two I find myself free to explore other options, beyond by career in architecture. In spite of lucrative offers of senior positions at internationally recognized firms, I chose instead to take a sabbatical in order to return to a more immediate relationship with the process of creating art. The choice I made comes at great financial risk, but I consider the past nine months to have been the most fulfilling of my life. Meeting others who were in this class, finding a teacher/instructor as talented as Mohammed Omar Khalil and having the opportunity to at last be affected at your school has been one of the highest points in that time.

The message you send, intended or not, when you even consider or discuss eliminating a vital program such as this to replace it with (so far as I can observe) a large space for a very underutilized facility, i.e. the cafeteria – is an affront to the very principles on which higher institutions of learning are based. That a school of art, which one would consider to march to a different drummer, would even think about eliminating a vital program is a sad commentary on the values that institution holds.

I had the opportunity to meet with and talk to Philip Johnson not long ago. He is in his nineties now, but is revered by many who think he still has much to offer to the world in terms of creative and intellectual leadership. I fully expect to follow his examples to the best of my ability. I hope that you will reconsider your options for the sake of the many who don’t think that they have maximized their ability to grown and create.

Respectfully,

S.T

The above statement was made by one of the students in one of the Continuing Education classes. In one way or another it covers what so many of us feel.

You have already received letters from all of us, but we are writing as a way to make everyone on the commission aware that we are still all very concerned.

Marion Behr

…………………………………….

10/18/00

Dear Mr. Murtha

The Printmaking Dept. here at Parson/New School enjoys a fine reputation in the New York art community. When I decided to study etching. A great number of people recommended this school and especially Mohammed Khalil’s class.

I was appalled to find out that you were thinking of closing such a vital and important part of the art community. As a working artist the opportunities to learn and age old technique is priceless. Knowledge such as this, can never be replaced by computers or machines, yet it can be enhanced by combination with technology.

The Printmaking Dept. needs expansion not elimination. I hope you will consider expanding this department thus, creating more of an asset to the arts rather than a very sad and shameful loss.

Sincerely,

Marie Pobre

……………………………..

I am a student of the printmaking class at the New School. I have returned to college after a 7 year absence with the intention of eventually obtaining my masters in printmaking.

Printmaking is a historically significant area of the fine arts and it is important for programs like this to continue to educate artists on these beautiful and timeless techniques. Please, keep this artistic avenue open.

Sincerely,

Fran Burgers

…………………………………….

10/18/00

Dear Mr. Murtha:

I am a continuing education student enrolled in etching. This is my fifth year and I plan to continue as long as the program continues. I am also a full-time painter with an MFA from Brooklyn College.

Last year I was appalled to discover that the University was planning the demise of the print shop. I’ve sent several letters in protest, but am directing this one to your review committee.

The print shop is a vital ongoing community. It benefits artists who use the facilities and who share expertise and support with one another, but it also benefits the University. It draws from a diverse community and in so doing, enriches and gives substance to the University.

I urge you to continue support for the print shop and its continuing education students.

Thank you,

Dear Mr. Murtha:

I am a continuing Ed Student and have been in Mohammed Khalil’s class for a number of years. Last year when it was presented to us that the Print Studio was to close to enlarge the cafeteria, I wrote many letters opposing that idea. I maintain even more vehemently that position today. Unfortunately, the commission that has been set up to review the fate of the Print Department does not represent the continuing education students How is that possible? I am not sure how many we number, but we all feel that you must continue to have a print suede, preferably with more space than the present studio. We hoe you will listen and acknowledge our thoughts and needs.

Thank you for your attention.

Mary Grossman

………………………………..

Dear Mr. Murtha:

I am also a member of the Continuing Ed. Printshop Community having taken monotype and etching workshops for many years. As a working artist and a public school Art Teacher, I can attest to the importance of the Print Shop and specifically, the continuing education classes. I was flabbergasted at the near closing of the Print Shop last spring. I wrote, attended meetings, and marched in protest. I was amazed at the apparent decision making process.

I urge you to put sound educational and administrable practices to work by using democratic and wiser decision making processes and by ensuring the expansion and continuation of the Print Shop and the Continuing Education Program with it.

Sincerely,

Margaret Weber

WE ARE a group of BFA students from CD, Illustration, Fine Arts, Photography, Product Design and AAS Degree programs. We are Asian, Black, White, Hispanic,- Female and Male. We pay $22,000 in tuition- the most expensive of any Art School in this country!

Last year the administration of Chancellor Scaturro, Vice President James Murtha, and Dean Randolph Swearer attempted to do away with Printmaking classes and facilities in order to expand the cafeteria. They attempted to do this without consulting us, our Chairmans and without discussing it even with the Curriculum Committee. Over 450 BFA students came together to protest and were able to stop the administration from denying us an education in Printmaking.

This year this same administration has hand picked a Commission to decide for us whether or not there will continue to be printmaking next year and thereafter. There are no printmaking faculty on this commission and no BFA students in fact no representation from Illustration, CD, AAS, Photo, Product Design on this Commission. This Commission is as committed to printmaking being there for us as is the fox who is watching the hen house.

subj: Miriam at the Commission

Date: 11/22/2000 1:53:08 AM !!!First Boot!!!

From: W201PHIPPS

To: OmriB

¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Ÿ To the University Commission on Printmaking:

The tradition of printmaking continues at New School University. Why is there still such deep concern and dissatisfaction over this issue? Why are so many BFA and AAS students wary of participating in today's meeting? It is not immediately obvious why this is, when it appears that we now have what we wanted. But a great deal of mistrust still exists between the New School community and the Parsons Deans office over the issue of printmaking. This problem must be explained before we can all begin to cooperate in a positive and productive way.

-Last February, Parsons Deans office privately convened a Task Force to discuss the relevance of printmaking, and to determine curricular changes within the program. With the mission statement for this Task Force was given that Lithography will no longer be offered as of Fall 2000.

-Then, just before this past Spring Break, our faculty was fired without notice or explanation.

-After the Break, students were told that the Printshop would close for three semesters.

Taken on the heels of the phase-out of textiles, ceramics, glass, and metals, these actions on the part of the Deans office clearly indicated to us a desire to end the tradition of printmaking at New School. Although it was announced numerous times then, and up until this day that there was never an intent to end printmaking at Parsons, for many members of the community, actions speak louder than words. Our right to participate in and be apprised of decisions has been violated repeatedly over these past months.

In the Spring we were told that a commission would be formed which was to involve student and faculty participation. Naturally, we were anxious to begin the process of forming this commission, and using it to play an active role in the planning process. Many of us expressed interest in the formation of this commission, but were given no clear answers up until very recently, when the commission was already formed.

*This commission was formed covertly, and met first in secret with no public disclosure of the materials reviewed at that meeting.

*There is not a single educator on this commission.

*The one printmaking student on this commission is not enrolled in a BFA, AAS, or Continuing Education program, but in the MFA program.

*There has been no explanation of what criteria were used to form this commission.

Now we are told that that it is up to us to help this commission find facts; that student and faculty participation can in this way impact the traditional academic decision making process. We would be very grateful were that opportunity ours. However, we do not yet have reason to trust that it is.

Today we are submitting petitions to you, with signatures in protest of the ongoing lack of meaningful student and faculty representation. We want positive leadership, and an honest, fruitful discussion on Printmaking. We don't believe that can be achieved in 3 minutes. We want to send a definite message that we, the students, as well as our faculty deserve to be involved much more centrally, with a clear and meaningful role in this planning process in order to have any faith in its eventual conclusion.

Thank you.

Miriam Kessler

Subj: Speech

Date: 11/22/2000 2:00:15 AM !!!First Boot!!!

From: W201PHIPPS

To: OmriB

November 8, 2000

MEMORANDUM

To: University Commission on Printmaking

From: Bill Phipps

Re: Printmaking

Good afternoon. My name is Bill Phipps and I am the Director of Printmaking. I started work for the Parsons/New School University Printmaking Department in 1979, 21 years ago.

I thank the Commission for taking the time for these proceedings. I am especially honored to see Ivan Chermayeff whose lecture I attended during the Henry Wolfe lecture series at Parsons last year. I hope we can proceed with the principles of good design, that Henry Wolfe stressed during that lecture series: Beauty, elegance and a sense of humor. Legible, understandable and not too complicated.

Stanley William Hayter founded Atelier 17 in Paris in 1927. By 1930, many of the most prominent artists of the day: Miro, Giacometti, and Calder were making prints in his studio. In 1940 with the outset of World War II, Hayter left occupied France for the U.S. and arrived in NYC. He met with the Dean of The New School to arrange the reopening of Atelier 17, here at the University. It was an instant success.

John Ross studied at the New School in 1952 with Frasconi and Junkers. He began teaching in 1957, and etching and relief were housed here in the 66 West 12th street building, in one large classroom.

In 1973, the New School Print Program moved to the fourth floor of Parsons School of Design in the 2 West 13th street building. The Parsons classes, at the time consisted of etching, which was offered on the fourth floor through the Department of Illustration, and Silkscreen, which was offered on the tenth floor through the Communication Design Department. Michael Kirk ran the studio on the fourth floor, and lithography was housed where silkscreen is today.

In 1975 under Parsons Chairman Irwin Touster, Fine Arts became host to all of the Parsons/New School print classes. For the last 25 years the consolidation under Fine Arts in one contiguous space, has made great sense, and has functioned very well, both from a personnel and budget point of view. It took 60 years to develop a program with a good breadth of curriculum, with concentration and focus. Please, if you have to move us, do not split up silkscreen, etching and lithography. Furthermore we need to be in control of our own digital output.

Last spring we had to bear the ordeal of being shut down and having the faculty contracts terminated. I would like to thank the President’s Office and the Board of Trustees for forming this fact finding Commission.

The original Halpern plan was to consolidate Fine Arts and move Printmaking to the third floor, of the 26 East 14th Street building, into 9,000 square feet. This was, and is, a good idea.

In talking with someone involved in the Halpern plan I was told, "English as a second language, functions as a service and should be the model for proving worth and economic viability to the University." My figures show that Printmaking brings in $565,000 a year. After expenses this is a profit of $281,042.

New School faculty and students have been and continue to be welcome, helpful and respected elder family members in the Printmaking Studio. Their presence in our studio enriches our lives and our experience of Printmaking. It would be wrong of the Commission to destroy this source of inspiration to the students, staff and faculty, in the degree programs.

I hope that the BFA and AAS Printmaking Programs can continue to service the Departments of Communication Design, Illustration, Fine Arts and Photography with electives. Offering students a hands on experience of computer to print and/or inspiration to multiple. We offer an educational experience where students from many departments meet, work together and share ideas.

In the BFA, Marie Dormuth first offered the class: Silkscreen and the Computer in 1995, and was the one to convert our silkscreen department to water base.

With our operating budget frozen for the last 8 years, it took 2 years worth of our equipment budget to buy our 1 production level shop computer. This handles all of our digital to film output. With the default in Photoshop being to offset and the world wide web, Michael Kirk and I worked together to close the loop between the computer and print, forming the class:

From Light to Ink.

I thank you all for your time, attention and continuing support. It has been my pleasure to offer the students and faculty a clean, well organized, functional studio. And it would be impossible to manage without the efforts and talents of our world class faculty and competent technical staff.

ubj: Edgar Soberon to the Commission

Date: 11/25/2000 6:22:07 AM !!!First Boot!!!

From: W201PHIPPS

To: OmriB

Edgar E. Soberon

108 West 15th Street 4J

New York, N.Y., 10011

esoberon@mindspring.com

My name is Edgar Soberon, I am a member of the Printmaking faculty and have taught with the program for the last eight years. I would like to address the Commission to underline the importance of printmaking within the context of an art and design education.

In the past, Printmaking at Parsons has been defined as a "service", this is due in part to the fact that we are not a major at the University and also given the nature and function of what we do for all the departments. In my opinion, this is a rather narrow definition which seriously distorts what we really do, and what printmaking provides to the University as a whole. Instead of a ‘service", "output", or imaging center" I would define Printmaking as a learning center for the fundamentals of all the Graphic Arts, and this is something few if any departments can lay claim to.

Printmaking as a discipline, incorporates all of the methods and techniques used by designers and fine artists, from painting, drawing and incision to typography and photography. More recently, it has also accommodated the latest advances in digital technology. One could make the case here that the new technology does this as well, but printmaking does it more in depth, that is hands on. The line or image is etched, drawn or embossed, the typeface or photographic plate is handled and manipulated. The color is chosen mixed and hand printed (usually on paper that is also made by hand).

This emphasis on the handmade, on the process of "making," makes each choice, each layer of line, surface, color of paper an aesthetic decision that is more tangible, more tactile, therefore more meaningful. It is an activity which promotes visual thinking through a specific process and unlike any other I know, heightens and develops an individual’s sensibilities and awareness of materials, ways and means. Through printmaking, the student develops not only an increased awareness of materials and techniques at an experiential level, but also a crucial link is made with the history of those particular materials and printing methods. Whether its Gutenberg’ movable type, a Rembrandt etching or a Warhol silkscreen, the world of the graphic arts is opened for the student to explore and thoroughly understand.

This capacity of printmaking to encompass so many aspects and facets of the graphic arts under one roof, makes it a rare and indispensable asset to any art and design curriculum. Curriculums which today, given the rapid advance of technology run the risk of making specialists out of its graduates rather than well rounded students of the visual arts. I do not wish to make a case here against the new technology, only to highlight the dangers which are implicit in tilting the scales too much in one direction. What we can not afford as a center for higher learning, is to lose an entire discipline for the sake of another, and if economically we are unable to find a place for both to co-exist, then the level of education and its values will have been greatly diminished.

We are all aware that the new technology can achieve fabulous results and we have been doing this now for several years, thanks to the hard work of our director William Phipps, who has devoted many hours of his spare time to bring the digital technology into play at our department. When used in conjunction with traditional methods however, the results I have seen are very one dimensional to say the least.

My recommendation to this Commission and to the University as a whole, is to consider a more expansive printmaking facility, one which services all the departments and divisions and which builds on what is already here, the equipment , knowledge and expertise of all its faculty which are its greatest resource. To diminish printmaking in any shape or form is equivalent to an amputation, with it we run the risk of dismantling art and design education as we know it. Such a decision would seriously jeopardize the future and the education of a whole generation of artists and designers.

Respectfully,

Edgar Soberon

Subj: Paul Marcus to the Commission

Date: 11/25/2000 6:22:24 AM !!!First Boot!!!

From: W201PHIPPS

To: OmriB

It is unfortunate that this commission had to confirm that printmaking will still be offered and that it meets in this atmosphere of polarization. My hope is that we can move forward. As a Master Printer, Professional Artist, Illustrator, and Teacher, my whole adult life has been intertwined with Printmaking.

A Task Force was formed by Dean Swearer. Their conclusions and recommendations were made and my colleagues and I greeted them warmly.

So why are we here? Surely not to justify one of the most democratic, inclusive art forms. One with a rich history. From the Babylonian clay tablets and the Chinese woodblocks, to the printed picture and the printed word. This art form was and still is, responsible for ushering in an era of literacy throughout the world.

Maybe it’s to say; What would it cost? What is the profit? I am not an expert on this. However, I would hope this would never be a criteria of any education. I am confident that a University that would set aside 6 million dollars for the expansion of a cafeteria and a few offices would do the right thing.

An education in an art school has to include Printmaking. After all, does not the science student need to know math, english, history? If you have ever seen a Printshop, you would know to be impressed with ours. To my amazement, it has functioned very well despite a frozen supply budget for the last eight years.

Maybe it’s the usage of Technology?-Printmaking has never been separated from Technology. Printmaking’s whole being is linked to it. Clay, wood, stone, metal, machinery, processed ink, photography, offset, digital-Printmaking reflect all of Humankind’s developments.

Maybe it’s the question of Adult-Ed? Long before my association with this University I admired it. I knew from my parents that this was an institution founded so that people could exchange ideas freely with scholars and artists. THey could be different culturally, ethnically, and politically, and it was there for all to participate; young and old. It epitomized all that is good in America. I believe that my students need this as young adults. It prepares them in ways bigger than art.

The Commission asked, "What is it one desires?" I want this Commission to understand that the art of Printmaking lay in its unique possibilities arising from the interaction between ink and paper-- for it produces an aesthetic quality unrealized in any other way. That Printmaking be recognized and appreciated in this institution as it is by universities, museums, and communities throughout this country, and be granted department status with this University’s full support.

--Paul (soon to be looking for a new job) Marcus

// This unfortunate situation reminds me of a joke: Once there was this man who spoke to God. He said to him, "God, what are a million years to you?" And God replied, "A minute." He then asked God: "What is a million dollars to you?" And God replied, "A penny.""God," the man said, "Can I have ten?" God looked at him and said, "In a minute."

Presentation to University Commission on Printmaking

By Marion R. Behr November 9^th 2000

The notice for this meeting clearly states we can't ask questions However the administration has never let us know the real reasons For wanting to move or remove any part of the print department

If it's because they need more space Why in the printmaking area, which now serves 39 classes a year ? And , contrary to the administration's figures, does not run in the red!

The director of printmaking at Rutgers extends an invitation to everyone on this Commission to visit her facility

It is certainly much larger than ours She also suggests visiting other print departments, to make some real comparisons Of course that would take more than two 2 1/2 hour fact finding meetings to decide our fate

If indeed there are financial problems, we have the names and addresses of the University's major donors and will gladly ask them for earmarked donations

Letters of support for the department have come from as far as Japan to South Africa and Canada to Texas

filled with constructive ideas

The New York Society of Etchers writes:

"For us it seems incredulous that any institution offering a world class fine arts education could consider scaling back a print program that has been as large, successful and historically significant as yours"

If the administration wishes to add computer technology, we have no problem with additions Only subtractions

advice from Australia reads;

"Digital imaging does not displace traditional methods of working. It merely complements a range of existing approaches

Sixty years has gone into building this department it has a strong interplay between students learning all forms of printmaking Exceptional teachers and a Continuing Education/New School group which has a total of over 300 years printmaking experience. In this studio, experience and techniques are shared

Since many of us feel both New School and Continuing Education are very vulnerable And your commission represents our chance to survive

We have compiled a joint resume!

You will be amazed at the combination of art degrees, exhibitions and awards that are listed.

We are an extremely valuable resource for this University

The New School charter states It's a school for adults and does not set subject matter limits. If the Commission recommends removal of continuing education in printmaking It will be going against the University's spirit and obligation

By now, all of you must be aware of the Don’t strike out printmaking website It contains all of the memoranda issued by the Administration (including critical analysis) Also letters from curators, art department heads, and students. This site is a PERMANENT RESOURCE for Printmakers everywhere And is highly visible.

We have downloaded the entire content of the site to date, printed it, and assembled it into a book for each of you. It might take you an hour to read through.