The meeting is to discuss a new censorship policy and try to renew Terry's contract. Hopefully, unlike the last meeting last semester, something will get done. Looking back on that last meeting, all I ever saw was people expressing their opinions instead of actually doing something, but then again, I did come in late.
I also was given a copy of the current policy. I didn't understand most of it, seeing how it sounded like it was written by a lawyer. There was only line that struck me as odd, however.
"In all cases, inclusion does not constitute an endorsement of the work by the College nor does exclusion constitute an act of censorship."
I know I read this wrong, but this line seems to cancel out pretty much the entire policy. Because a piece is not including doesn't mean that it is censored, but it also doesn't mean that it is not endorsed. Does that mean excluded pieces are endorsed by the college? I doubt that. But on the other side of the coin is the part about how works that are displayed are not endorsed by the college. Does this mean that pieces that are not endorsed are subject to censorship? If that is the case, then why show a piece that the college did not endorse or support to begin with? Why show a piece that has no backing from the school? If you are not going to support the piece, why show it at all? I mean, that is what it means to have an endorsement, right? To be sponsored and supported by someone outside of yourself. That's why you see athletes doing commercials for cars and foot wear.
Before I make an ass of myself again, I'd just like to say that I'm not surprised that this is still going on. I'm just disappointed in the fact that we as an art school have come to this point when here I am drawing a nude female every other day of the week.
If worst comes to worst and no one can agree on anything, Watkins could always go back to being a film school. I mean, hell, they take up a quarter of the building anyway, as well as 70% of all new students last I checked.
No comments:
Post a Comment