Cal Poly Pomona

P&R Responses for recommendation 5

Recommendation 5
Department Art
Consensus Opinion 7 out of 17 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation The art historians do not support joining CLASS as part of a proposed Fine and Performing Arts Cluster (proposal number 5). Art history is a humanities, not a fine arts or studio-based, discipline. The Prioritization and Recovery Committee recommended that art history, as part of art, receive stable funding pending an increase in its number of majors. In response to this imperative, the art history faculty advocates that the art history program move to CLASS in alignment with one of the humanities or social science disciplines. Art history has disciplinary synergies with all of those fields within CLASS that are engaged in history and the interpretation of culture through its art and artifacts. We support the P&R proposal (pp. 107-8 of Phase II recommendations) that art history become a joint department with history, but, since the History Department is not in favor of this, we are open to other departmental configurations where there is the necessary disciplinary affinity to attract students interested in this and related fields. If art history cannot comprise its own department, then we suggest that it join an existing department that is willing to add “and art history” to its title. Art history must gain visibility in order to attract new majors. Proposal 5 simply perpetuates art history’s current isolation from students interested in this field, and our program would not be any better able than it is now to attract new majors. In addition, as part of CLASS and in association with humanities and social sciences, art history would be able to contribute to the formation of interdisciplinary studies devoted to the interpretation of culture.
Alternatively, the art history faculty also supports the current P&R proposal (pp. 107-8) that the art history faculty join the architecture history faculty under a School of Architecture and, together, fashion an “art history and architecture history” major. Although the architecture faculty has expressed reservations about this proposal recently, we still see enough merit in it to put forth the following reasons why it is a strong proposal. Such a structure would allow art history to capitalize on the strength of the architecture program while fostering currently underutilized synergies among the now separated art and architecture historians, whose disciplinary interests are strongly aligned. Also, as a unit with a distinct degree offering, this block of historians would give further range and uniqueness to the architecture program. An additional benefit to this structure is that the art history component would gain the visibility necessary to attract students from across Cal Poly. Even better for visibility, an “art history and architecture history” major would be the first of its kind among the CSUs, thus giving Cal Poly a unique selling point.
Minority Opinion 1 out of 17 faculty/staff : With modifications
Minority Explanation The Art Department has created two separate responses to #5 as the Fine Art faculty and Art Historians could not merge their very different opinions into one statement. Therefore I am submitting the art historians response to #5 (which I agree with).and Charles Frederick will submit the Fine Artists response to #5 (which I do not agree with) separately.

As Chair of the Art Department I do NOT agree with the fine artist’s assessment of number 5 (submitted separately by Charles Frederick). I strongly believe that fine arts should stay in the College of Environmental Design as a stand alone department. The fine arts presence in the College is very important as it represents the foundation of all the design disciplines and figures in significantly when addressing issues of public space and public art.The magnificent Lyle Center Mosaic Amphitheater, created by one of our Fine Art lecturers and 60 Art and Graphic Design majors, is a proven example of the incredible interaction that has taken place and that is possible in the future.
The Art Department requested to leave the College of Arts and joined the College of Environmental Design in 1994 and it has been the best group decision ever made. The Fine Artist’s request to go back would not be visionary but backwards and anti the potential future growth of their area.

Recommendation 5
Department Art Department, Fine Arts option
Consensus Opinion 2 out of 3 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation Fine Arts

The Fine Arts faculty strongly agree with the Prioritization and Recovery Committee (Proposal number 5) that it return to CLASS as part of a Fine and Performing Arts cluster. This is a visionary proposal that should foster curricular opportunities as well as a variety of efficiencies. It is critical to the program’s growth allowing it to take full advantage of the obvious and promising opportunities of joining with its companion Fine and Performing Arts. The Fine Arts’ historical mission as a liberal arts program was greatly diminished in its current college where it lost more than half of its full-time faculty. While the number of courses taught per quarter and FTE’s produced has increased significantly. The Fine Arts program has been looked upon as a service area without renewing resources to insure its “sustainability” and program quality for its majors. The recommendation of the P & R Committee will allow the program to resume its proper mission and thrive in a compatible and supportive environment.
In its present college, Fine Arts lost 4 positions in the fifteen years serving the college: none was replaced. Since 2003, its majors have increased--not decreased-- from approximately 65 to 89 students. Therefore, Stable Funding as recommended is essential.
The P & R recommendation is an exciting proposal with much potential to expand and enhance all the fine and performing arts through educational combinations not possible at this time. Some Core and Elective classes may already have commonality and new courses can be developed that lead in an interdisciplinary direction. Performance and installation art are forms that would benefit greatly because these can be addressed from any of the majors. A minor or major spanning the Fine and Performing Arts is also being considered. The faculty in Theater, Dance, and Music all agree with the P & R recommendation to combine the arts, and several meetings have taken place to start a dialog.
Creativity is stated as a significant factor in the University and College Mission Statements (as in university Mission Statements throughout the nation) and must be supported in programs where it is the centerpiece of the curriculum. For reasons that are philosophical, academic, and practical, Fine Arts concludes that moving to CLASS would allow the Fine Arts program to fulfill its historic liberal arts mission at Cal Poly, enhance its creative strength in collaboration with all the arts, provide greater educational potential for the students, and become an environment for the on-going exploration of the interdisciplinary possibilities inherent in these programs.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 5
Department College of ENV--Staff
Consensus Opinion 13 out of 13 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation The Fine Art department is moved to the College of Letters, Arts and Social Sciences (CLASS).

Fine Artists should stay within the College of Environmental Design as they represent the foundation for all the design disciplines. The Fine Arts contribution is an important interdisciplinary component of the College and figures in significantly when addressing issues of space and public art.

ENV is known for producing “solution-oriented” designers/planners. Creative solutions to environmental challenges is a global imperative. The University should be investing in ENV and its programs rather than diluting its strengths by reassigning its programs. ENV was founded on the principles of environmental sensitivity/sustainability and should be viewed as a jewel in its academic crown. To move the programs across campus would be counterproductive to the expressed goals of the President’s Climate Commitment initiative.

ENV promotes interdisciplinary learning to foster creative thinking. Each of the ENV disciplines are absolutely intentional in nature. Its cross-disciplinary configuration makes its programs strong and has led to its national recognition. ENV nurtures a creative model of thinking by promoting a “design culture” approach to complex physical, social and environmental ideals. This mirrors the practices of design and allied professions. Separating the programs would diminish the quality of education available to students and disconnect them from industry practices, and decreases the effectiveness of each department. The proposal lessens the marketability of graduates and makes it difficult to attract/retain top-notch faculty and prospective students.

Cost savings are unrealistic. The P & R Committee’s $800K savings would be offset by reconfiguration of programs into “mega-colleges”. Cost analysis: three deans reduced (3 x $170,000 = $510,000 savings), twelve new division heads/school directors (12 x $120,000 = $1,440,000 additional cost). NEW IMPACT: Increased cost of $930,000 per year. Factoring the costs required to attract/retain new faculty and department chairs, hire additional staff to run the larger programs, and other unforeseen operational costs, the savings will not outweigh the cost of implementation.

Potential loss in revenue from alumni, donors, and current/retired faculty who would feel disenfranchised by this restructuring, is evident from their comments to faculty/staff. Several contributors to the university have already expressed their concerns over these recommendations, with some even suspending their pledges until the outcome is known.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 5
Department Landscape Architecture
Consensus Opinion 16 out of 16 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation The Department of Landscape Architecture views that the separation of the Fine Art department from the other departments that make up the College of ENV has a negative impact upon the College of ENV and the University.

• Our alumni are working at the intersection of art and landscape architecture. This can be seen in the work of alumni whom have won numerous national and international awards, commissions and fellowships for both landscape and art including the American Academy in Rome Fellowship.
• A department of Fine Art under the umbrella of the College of Environmental Design sends a direct message to the professions and community at-large that Cal Poly Pomona is dedicated to a complete design curriculum. Fine art is important to the disciplines involved in designing the built environment. Fine Art addresses the human experience of environment not just the white-box gallery space. Evidence of this can be seen in educational model examples like that of the Bauhaus School and Art Center in Pasadena.
• The recommendation reinforces stereotypical relationships of the design disciplines as separate entities. Solving environmental problems takes collaborative efforts of the part of planners, landscape architects, architects and other design professionals to provide compelling visions for positive change. The professional reality is that design offices, studios and firms are multidisciplinary with employees with backgrounds in architecture, art, landscape architecture, and urban and regional planning. This is evidenced at Cal Poly by the participation of firms in the student run career day and the placement of our alumni in these multidisciplinary firms. Some of these include the most prestigious design firms nationally and internationally such as the National Park Service, EDAW, SWA, HOK, Disney Imagineering and Jones and Jones.

Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 5
Department Student Affairs Administration
Consensus Opinion 3 out of 3 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation Fine Arts Programs should be grouped together. Can we still offer a BFA is these programs are broken up and moved under CLASS and College of Business Administration?
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 5
Department Theatre
Consensus Opinion 9 out of 10 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation Cross College Proposal #5 Fine Arts returning to CLASS

The Theatre program fervently supports this recommendation and is consoled by the R & P Committee’s proposal to place the Fine and Performing Arts under one College roof. This move will undoubtedly strengthen the visibility of “The Arts” on our campus and demonstrate to the region the commitment of Cal Poly Faculty and Administration to further the University’s liberal arts mission.

However we have serious concerns on the proposed extraction of the Graphic Arts BFA from Fine Arts, which we have addressed in our response to the “Cross College Proposal #7”.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 5
Department University Development
Consensus Opinion 12 out of 12 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : With modifications
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 5
Department Urban and Regional Planning
Consensus Opinion 9 out of 9 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation First, we argue against the separation of Fine Art from the College of Environmental Design due to the nature of the design field. The field of urban planning and design is concerned with the processes of conceiving and bringing to life urban space. Kevin Lynch, who is considered one of the founding fathers of the field, defines urban design as “the imaginative creation of possible form, together with a way of achieving it, that will carry out some human purpose” (1976). If only considering this definition, it is understandable that fine art contributes to the field as an intrinsic part of the imaginative creation of urban form. Moreover, while planning undertakings use the creative imagination to foresee the future, the fine artist expresses imaginatively the messages that the design processes aim to convey. Hence, for the benefit of the outcomes of the design processes, the collaboration between the fields should not happen circumstantially, but should be built within the institutional structure.

Second, we argue against moving Fine Arts to CLASS due to the College of Environmental Design’s efforts to offer integrated courses in environmental design. The above-mentioned understanding of the field of urban planning and design generates the purpose of such integrated courses. The communication methods of planning and design ideology are an important aspect of the field, in which fine arts play an important role. Integrated courses such as ENV 101 “Foundations of Design” and ENV 115 “History of Art and Environmental Design” provide successful collaborative experiences between the departments of the ENV College including Fine Arts. Fine artists Deane Swick, Charles Fredrick, and Dr. Wendy Slatkin have shared their knowledge and talents towards the success of these courses. However, only an integrated institutional structure could ensure and support the continuation of these endeavors, which further will impact the outcomes of the design practice.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendations not submitted through the forms are available in this folder. They mainly consist of Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat documents. If none were submitted for this recommendation, the folder will be empty.