Page 21 - Studio International - November 1971

II dangerous. The question would seem Miss Lynn Lemaster and Mr Paul Tate, who
Comments on the letter headed ' Some concerns in essentially to be 'what is art ?'—such a question had applied for transfer to the second year of
fine-art education' signed by students at the can only be met by further questions and until the Dip AD fine art course at Trent
Lanchester Polytechnic and published in the the dialogue is extended into areas beyond Polytechnic, were apparently the subject of
October 1971 issue of Studio International normative linguistic analysis frustration would some communication between Sir Alan
seem inevitable. Richmond and the Director of Trent
i) We agree with both Mr Harrison and the 4) A further major question concerns the proper Polytechnic, Mr Ron Hedley.
signatories of the letter that certain important place of part-time staff, their security of tenure, Since Nottingham College of Art and Design
matters of principle are raised by the actions of etc. Attitudes on this question tend to be became a faculty within Trent Polytechnic, its
the Lanchester Polytechnic Authorities, the similar in their ambiguities to those held by fine art course has not been entirely free from
NCDAD and the students themselves. As a people with regard to the NCDAD. It is alright criticism by the Polytechnic administration.
union it would be our attitude that our first to sack people you do not like but profoundly The particular nature of the fine art course
duty is to protect the interests of our members. unjust to sack people you do. Our own view within this faculty (where diplomas are issued
Thus if students had worked satisfactorily would tend towards the need to improve the in 'Fine Art' rather than in 'Painting' or
according to accepted course criteria only to be contractual rights of all part-time staff. `Sculpture') appears to have given cause for a
told that, due to changes of personnel, the course 5) A point of general principle drawn by Mr concern within the administration not wholly
criteria were to be changed, with the consequence Harrison is with regard to the relationship accounted for by the emphasis placed by the
that what had been acceptable was no longer so, between art colleges and polytechnics. This Quinquennial Review body (which did not
then there would seem to be a prima facie cause point raises many serious questions but does not question the scope or nature of the course)
for complaint. It should be added that we have in our view spring direct from this case. Our upon the need for appropriate staffing and
sought, and been given verbally, assurances that own experience would lead us to conclude that assessment.
the students concerned will not be prevented similar if not worse cases have arisen in non- The two students in question had been
from continuing their course by virtue of their polytechnic contexts and we should prefer to following at Lanchester the now curtailed
maintaining their current work attitude. It is have more evidence before ascribing the course to which Messrs Pilkington, Rushton
very often the case that what is simple in terms responsibility for these particular problems and Lole referred in the October issue of this
of general principles becomes complex when exclusively to changes consequent on polytechnic journal, and presumably felt that they were now
considered in its actuality. This case appears to reorganization. However, the general points more likely to be able to pursue at Trent the
be no exception. Given this complexity we feel made by Mr Harrison are in our view valid and work in which they had previously been
unable to comment further on the concrete need to be made. encouraged—at least by those most directly
situation but will refer to the matters of general a) We are emphatically opposed to a merger concerned with teaching them—at Lanchester.1
principles. between the CNAA and NCDAD—in our Both students had been strongly recommended
2) The first exception raised within the letter view, it would be a sell-out for benefit of by the acting Head of the Fine Art Department
would seem to be that of the 'contractual' rights polytechnics. at Lanchester, Mr Harry Weinberger, and had
of students in relation to courses and b) We are also opposed to the taking on by been positively considered acceptable by Trent
curriculum. The view of the courts seems to be polytechnics of university status, by virtue of Fine Art Department.
that the relationship between the college and its degree-awarding autonomy. It appears that following the communication
students is contractual to the extent that the 6) We shall continue to consult with the students between Richmond and Hedley which took
course must conform to that outlined in the union on Lanchester Polytechnic and have place towards the end of September, some
prospectus. Allegations of 'breach of contract' every intention of ensuring that the interests of directive was issued to the Fine Art
have to be viewed in the context of the our members should not be trampled on. q Department at Trent to the effect that these
particular case; the information to hand on this DIGBY JACKS two students were of ill repute, were known to
case does not allow us to offer an opinion. So far President-Elect be unco-operative, were interested in 'conceptual
as we are concerned the moral principles are National Union of Students art' 2 (whatever that is), and were positively not
that the students must be allowed to continue London to be accepted for transfer. Various other
their work and be provided with reasonable allegations appear to have been made about the
facilities to allow them to do so. III conduct of these students; certain now
3) The next general question would appear to be Copies of the material published in the October disemployed part-time lecturers from
concerned with the proper relationship, so far as issue of Studio International concerning events Lanchester (un-named, but easily enough
curriculum is concerned, between the college at Lanchester Polytechnic and their conjectured identified) were held partly responsible. Once
authorities and the NCDAD. It is our implications in a wider context were sent in again the 'authority' of the NCDAD, 'speaking'
experience as a union that this relationship is mid-September to, among others, Mr E. E. presumably through its chief officer, and the
deeply ambiguous and the ambiguity of attitude Pullée, Chief Officer of the National Council ineffability of the `Council's' intentions'3
would seem to be shared by the signatories of for Diplomas in Art and Design, and to Sir appear to have been quoted as measures of the
the letter. Thus they argue for college autonomy Alan Richmond, Director, and Mr Robin extent of students' departure from what is to be
whilst also arguing that certain actions taken by Plummer, Dean of the Faculty of Art and considered 'acceptable' either as conduct
the college are wrong because they did not Design, at Lanchester Polytechnic. Since they becoming a Dip AD student or as 'work'
involve consultation/approval by the NCDAD. were all three directly concerned in the events leading to the obtaining of a diploma.
In short there is a tendency to approve the described in the students' letter it was felt that I understand that these two students have
actions of the NCDAD when 'interfering' in they should be given every opportunity to since been invited to apply for reinterview at
curriculum affairs if their action is agreeable but comment in the same columns. It was hoped Trent Polytechnic. It seems likely that this is in
to assert they have no such right when one that some dialogue might be established part the result of attention paid to this case by
disagrees with the attitude taken up by the concerning the points raised. All three have the National Union of Students.
NCDAD. In this particular case NUS is replied declining to comment. Meanwhile, under cover of confidential
disturbed by the sentiments expressed by the Shortly after galleys of this material were correspondence between administrators
Chief Officer of the Council in that his sent out to those named above (no causal concerned with art education, these students
justification of his arguments is apparently connection is implied) two students from the have been censured for behaviour and work
inadequate whilst the conclusions are potentially Fine Art Department of Lanchester Polytechnic, which they have not been given relevant
169