Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Arts administration miffed by move

tobin.61@osu.edu

Published: Sunday, February 7, 2010

Updated: Monday, February 8, 2010 02:02

John Roberts

John Roberts

Paul Nini

Paul Nini

After spending four years and more than $125 million, the university will have a new state-of-the-art science building in 2014. To get there, several academic departments will go through a series of moves that some say will harm their departments.

The new Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering and Chemistry building will be built between 19th and Woodruff avenues on the current site of four buildings: the Aviation building, Johnston Labs, Boyd Hall and Haskett Hall. They will be demolished by June 2011.
OSU alumnus William G. Lowrie has pledged $17 million to the university, most of which is for construction. Also, the state is providing $96.5 million for construction. Provisions in both the pledge and state contribution require that demolition begin soon.

University officials say it is urgent the project begin soon.

"The thing that seems a little funny about all this … is that what is driving it all is money, and expediency, because there has been a real quick schedule that has been necessitated by all this," said Paul Nini, interim chair of the Department of Design. "I am not sure that the ultimate impact on students has been fully considered as it ought to be."

The arts departments are scrambling to find new space. The moving plans keep the sciences in a central location. The arts, however, will be scattered throughout campus.

Second-year visual design student Lindsey Glover is distressed.

"I feel like the university doesn't care about art students as much as science students," said Glover. "I'm also paying 10 grand a year. There needs to be some fairness here."

The three arts departments in Haskett Hall — Photography, Print-making and Art and Technology — will move to Hopkins Hall, on the North Oval Mall. These programs have space and equipment needs best served by a more "industrial building" like Hopkins, Nini said.

"It can more easily accommodate ventilation systems and mechanical systems that have to come along with the areas of art," Nini said.


Some art programs in Hayes Hall and Hopkins are being forced to move. The new accommodations may not meet the needs of the other art departments, some department chairs say.

"It's a blow to the morale of the students and the faculty that we're unnecessary, that our needs are not being prioritized," said Andrew Shelton, chair of the History of Art department, one of several departments that are moving.

The department is moving out of Hayes Hall in June and into Pomerene Hall as a temporary location.

"Pomerene is a beautiful building," said Shelton. "But it is a bit dilapidated."

John Roberts, interim dean of the Colleges of Art and Humanities said the quality of the temporary space is important only if a department has to spend several years there.

"Right now we have not been able to find the permanent part, and so what makes sense as the swing space can't be determined," Roberts said.

Although Shelton said he understands the complications involved in the moving process, he is still concerned about its effects.

"We're sad," said Shelton. "We're devastated to lose Hayes Hall. The thing that I worry most about is recruiting faculty and grad students."

Roberts has assured department heads that the university is trying its best to accommodate all their needs.

"History of Art and Art Education are in the same situation," Roberts said. "Our ultimate goal is to find a final place for them, a permanent home for them that would be a space that used better design for their uses than the space they are actually leaving. Right now we don't know where that would be."

The likely swing spaces are Smith Lab, which was built as a physics lab, and space inside Ohio Stadium. There is also a chance that the swing space would be in Sullivant Hall, which is being renovated.

The best scenario, as Shelton said, would be to stay in Hayes Hall. But he knows that isn't an option.

"I am confident that John Roberts and the people at [Facilities Operations and Development] are working to accommodate our needs as much as possible," said Shelton.

Shelton's story is one felt throughout the fine arts. The departments now in Haskett are moving to the newly renovated Hopkins Hall.

Those in Hopkins, such as the design department, are displacing
those in Hayes.

"We will basically be taking the space vacated by Andy Shelton's department, History of Art, not through our choice, but because it is what we are being told to do," said Nini. "We feel bad about that, of course."

Nini added that their department at least knows where they are going, unlike many of the other art departments.  

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

21 comments

Anonymous
Sun Mar 14 2010 14:33
The best way for the Arts to ensure that they have up to date facilities is to do what mechanical engineering did 10 years ago. Robinson Lab did not have adequate classroom space and also heeded refurbished. So the departments looked for donations to build what was needed. The Scott Family donated the money for the new mechanical engineering buildings.

Rearranging space to relocate the facilities in Robinson caused major inconveniences to the other engineering departments (and I think some of the Arts departments in Boyd) while the new buildings were under construction. Once the new buildings were done all the ME facilities move to Scott and the crowded or displaced departments went home.

So I would suggest that you start a major drive to raise money to refurbish the existing buildings like Hayes and and ask for a site to build a replacement for Haskett for the Arts. I donate to the Engineering School every year, but I'll allocate one years donation (and my company's match) to a new Arts building if you start the campaign

Anonymous
Fri Feb 26 2010 14:11
I think the arts is just as important as other programs at OSU, BUT for those of you trying to say that they all should be given equal priority b/c everyone's tuition is the same, there is a fundamental flaw in your logic.

You are correct in that the resources go where the money goes, but not once has anyone mentioned research money/grants. Both STEM sciences and some social sciences bring in hundreds of millions of dollars a year in grant money to do research. This is why they oftentimes have better resources - they bring in all this money to fund their research at OSU. OSU is a research institution! Of course they are going to have better resources for programs that bring in that kind of money. Tuition is small compared to the research grants.

I'm a journalism major, and yes, they just renovated part of the building, but the program isn't good since they integrated in within the school of communication years ago. We get stuck taking a bunch of comm classes that have nothing to do with us, and whereas they used to have broadcast and other types of journalism to major in, now it is just public affairs journalism. Guess what? If it really bothered me that much, I would've gone to Ohio University, where they have an excellent program. It was more important to me however, that I go to OSU and be a Buckeye, so I don't complain about it. I think I've gotten enough experience and am talented enough to find a good job when I graduate.

I guess what I am saying is, yes it does suck what is happening, but if it bothers you that much, go to a liberal arts school such as Dennison, where priority is given to the arts. Every school is known for different things, and OSU is known for research, not arts or journalism. If you want tons of money poured into your major, go to a school where your major is the priority. I feel like OSU has given me valuable experiences and opportunities that I couldn't have gotten elsewhere.

Just realize every school has specializations, and when you go to a school that isn't known for having a great program in your field as study, should it really come as a surprise to you when they don't pour money into it (whether it is right or wrong)? Stop complaining and focus on your hard work and talent to get you through.

Anonymous
Mon Feb 22 2010 14:01
In response to how money is funneled, a comment made by Tyler...

Unfortunately, the distribution of money in the university doesn't take into account which departments were allowed to charge lab fees. The Department of Art was established on a system that didn't allow the inclusion of lab fees to help make ends meet the way other departments did. Until recently, that was not changed so the Art Department has been falling behind the rest of the university on its ability to upkeep and maintain.

Anonymous
Wed Feb 10 2010 08:58
Faculty counts in the post below are off and misleading. The majority of what is moving from Haskett is lab/studio equipment, classrooms, Grad studio spaces, and offices. In total, the move from Haskett impacts over 500 UnderGrads (per quarter), about 15 Grads (2 year program), about 15 lecturers, 6 faculty (7 for the Chair's studio space, 8 for the 3rd missing Art & Tech faculty member), and staff. Those moving from Haskett are actually being forced to give up working, gallery, studio, and office spaces.

As for the inadequate ventilation... In 1991, the proper ventilation needed to be added to Haskett, it wasn't all there to begin with. The ventilation they added, while functional, was not done properly and is now not up to par. Before Printmaking and Photography move into Hopkins, proper ventilation will be added to the building.

Many of the working spaces in the Department of Art can serve more than one area. Having such spaces separated throughout 4 buildings is impractical and forces unneeded redundancies. Pulling it all together will help alleviate unnecessary spending. One problem that may arise is the matter of expediency being forced upon all the Arts may cause poor planning and development. It's still unclear if the renovations needed for Hayes and Hopkins will finish before the wrecking ball begins leveling Haskett. This may force scheduled classes to not occur due to stored equipment and no classroom/lab space.

tyler durden
Wed Feb 10 2010 07:13
money comes and goes. Tuition money is funneled directly into the department that that student declares as his major either way. That is not the money or recognition that big time science facilities bring to the university.
Do art if you love to do art. If you want money or mainstream recognition, do something else.
Anonymous
Wed Feb 10 2010 06:40
Yes, the economy is bad, but students are still being charged the same amount of money, so I do not see how the university is prioritizing based on the economy. If this was the case, OSU wouldn't charge me for an athletic facility i don't use, food courts i don't use, etc. etc.
Anonymous
Tue Feb 9 2010 14:03
The article is very misleading: it is NOT three Departments that are moving out of Haskett, it is FIVE FACULTY who are already members of the Art Department. Those five people are displacing FORTY OR FIFTY faculty in three Departments (Art Education, Design, History of Art). Why is this displacement necessary? Not to accommodate the people from Haskett. If it was a matter of finding room, THEY could move directly to one of the "swing spaces" now being imposed on the displaced departments. Is it about Departmental unity? Not really. If that was a concern, the faculty from Haskett should have been incorporated in Hopkins back in 1991 when the Photography Department was closed because they never tenured anybody! Or when they moved the Printing people out of Hopkins because that building did not have adequate ventilation (it still doesn't!)

What this IS about is "The Arts Corridor!" You never heard about the Arts Corridor, the plan to have all the arts departments along the road alongside the Wexner and Weigel? What makes you think ANYBODY below Associate VP level was consulted?? What is the academic rationale for all this upheaval? It is to have the public face of the arts (exhibitions and dance and theater performances) really be an extension of the Short North. it is about PR and fundraising. In other words, there is no ACADEMIC purpose to all this.

Anonymous
Tue Feb 9 2010 13:27
If the Arts are not worth funding at OSU, then why are other Universities that compete with OSU putting money into their Art programs? Cincinnati, for example, recently built an all new Art facility for it's entire Arts program and is pulling tuition money away from OSU that could have gone here. It happens at universities with an abundance of money, such as Yale, and those with lower funding, such as Kent State. OSU is falling behind, and as a result, losing tuition money.

So for those of you speaking about where money comes and goes, keep in mind that the tuition of an Art student is the same as the tuition of a Business major, or an Engineer, or Pre-Med.

Jeffrey Haase, Design
Tue Feb 9 2010 13:23
what seems to be barely touched on but still remains a mystery is the this.
How can one department cause such disruption and despair to another department with out a more thorough process of decision making. If we create a course or curriculum that overlaps or causes "harm" to another department that curriculum is not approved. Why or better yet how can Chemical, Biomolecular Engineering and Chemistry create such despair to the College of the Arts without a clearer and more intelligent process of decision making. This process has been forced on us with out a realistic budget and with an impossible deadline. Most faculty and very few students have only recently been aware of all this disruption and have had no say whats soever in the process of decision making. I can not believe what the big hurry is in all of this considering the magnitude of the damage being done to our nationally ranked programs.
Anonymous
Tue Feb 9 2010 08:03
Having graduated from the Art Education department and taught for 7 years, I can tell you first hand that even top notch Columbus area schools are handicapping their art programs for better test scores. What is happening at OSU isn't anything that isn't happening every day in public school systems...where art programs once taught in large rooms with decent budgets are being thrown into closets and onto carts with meager funding because the schools priorities have changed. And anyone who has ever had a class in Hayes, Hopkins or Hughes Hall can tell you that clearly the arts have never BEEN a priority, given those facilities.

The fact of the matter is that at public institutions, be it public schools or universities, only so much funding is given for all programs from the government and tuition. And donors make up the rest. Indiana University has a beautiful school of music that has had many new facilities in the works, but people have donated the money to do it. The sad thing is, people who go on to be professional musicians, artists and teachers in those fields can't compete with engineers, scientists and medical professionals when it comes to making hefty donations to build new buildings. It's not just OSU...it's public schools...it's the wages the arts get. It's all related.

Anonymous
Tue Feb 9 2010 07:09
The article isnt about priortity in life, rather priority for the university. It is sad but true that from whomever the money comes, goes the priority. Buckeye football brings in more than academics put together, and down from there. Art is really not about money, as anyone who has been through the school can tell you. I went through it and still dont make any money with art. I just make art. Art is about dealing with adversity, anyone who loves what they do will deal with this as an opportunity to grow a pair and keep doing what they love. Its not about institutional approval any way. Its about your own priorities in life, noone elses. Let them have there big flashy science buildings and new unions, all we need is our little corner. If you are in art thinking you are gonna get paid, I have a quote (paraphrased) from the late Mr. Vonnegut "If you want to piss off your parents, but havent the nerve to become gay, go to art school, because its not a way to make a living" He went on to say that it is a Way of Becoming"
Anonymous
Mon Feb 8 2010 23:45
Anybody want to go on a guided tour of the dungeon that is Hayes Hall? I have a torch we can share. Only one, that's all the University will provide for me.
Anonymous
Mon Feb 8 2010 23:44
Anybody want to go on a guided tour of the dungeon that is Hayes Hall? I have a torch we can share. Only one, that's all the University will provide for me.
Anonymous
Mon Feb 8 2010 23:43
Agreed. Anyone who assumes that the Arts are not a priority in life doesn't fully understand the true purpose, meaning, and affect that the Arts have on an individual, a group, a culture, a society, and the world. The Arts are why we have museums and galleries. The Arts are why the iPhone looks sleek and trendy. The Arts are why music plays on the radio. The Arts are why the paparazzi feels the need to plaster images of ordinary people in tabloids. The Arts are why websites look the way they do. The Arts are why we all admire Mona Lisa. The Arts are why our kids crave the next Disney princess doll. The Arts are in everything, involve everyone, and continue to mold with and for humankind.
Anonymous
Mon Feb 8 2010 22:08
In all my experience, I have yet to see a proposed move, of any sort, where none of the stakeholders are happy. There are a myriad of negative consequences to this proposal but perhaps of most concern is with respect to health and safety. We speculate that Hayes Hall may have asbestos, and if not properly abated, poses a serious risk to the health of our students and faculty. In light of recent concerns expressed by occupants of Hitchcock Hall (who claim they contracted a serious lung disease last spring), this is not a matter to be taken lightly. Fast-tracking the relocation timetable does not provide adequate assurances that these facilities are free of contaminants and are tested to be safe. Our health must take precedence over deadlines, donations, or relocation, as ill conceived as they may be.
Anonymous
Mon Feb 8 2010 19:40
The university needs to put more resources into the Arts because, simply put, the Arts are important; equally important to the Sciences and vital to the proper education of all students. The university is not, therefore, prioritizing properly at all. Those that disagree clearly do not understand the importance of the Arts in training the type of citizen this country desires and needs.
Anonymous
Mon Feb 8 2010 18:06
The economy isn't exactly going as planned, and money is tight. Ask yourself why OSU needs to put more resources into the arts. The university is clearly prioritizing properly, it is unfortunate that it has to do so at all. Suggestions?
Anonymous
Mon Feb 8 2010 17:57
It centralizes the Arts in that they will all be located in buildings at the North-East corner of the oval, anchored by the Wex. The use of Pomerene or even the stadium is a swing place, meaning a temporary location. They are grouping together like "areas". Photography, Printmaking, and Art & Technology are not "departments" as mentioned in the article, but rather "areas" within the Department of Art. They are moving all of the Department of Art areas into the same building, excluding Glass and some Sculpture, which are located on west campus due to the use of a foundry. So basically they are trying to get most of each department's areas under the same roof. All of the Department of Design under the same roof. All of the History of Art Department under the same roof. The Art Education Department is being moved in with other Education Departments. It's all a matter of grouping together similar functions, and then organizing those groups into locations near each other.

That being said...

Haskett Hall is old, unsafe, out-of-date, and falling apart. The building either needed to be renovated (over-hauled) or torn down regardless of who goes where. And in order to do that, The Department of Art was going to have to relocate Photography, Printmaking, and Art & Technology anyways. Gordon Gee is trying to gather together similar functions, as mentioned above, so why not move those areas closer to the Wexner Center, an iconic building for the Arts?

However, the Arts do seem to be one of the last considered options for any serious upgrades or improvements. Many of the areas are using equipment that is dated over 40 years old as their primary pieces of equipment. The university does a good job at hiding the real condition of the Arts at OSU behind a facade called Wexner. None of the money funded for the Arts at OSU goes through the Wex, nor comes from the Wex. It is it's own entity, similar to how the sports programs operate within the university. The Wex makes the Arts appear to be in good shape, but the truth is they are struggling to stay afloat. The motto in the Arts is "Make do."

If you want to see the true condition of the Arts at OSU, walk around Sullivant, Hopkins, Haskett, Hayes, Stillman, and Sherman Halls. Watch out for the asbestos on the walls and floors. Have fun ducking beneath the mold growing on the ceilings. Nevermind the non-handicapped access points. Beware of the floods and leaks that frequently occur at random times for random reasons. Forget about having adequate climate control. Don't worry about faulty doors with knobs falling off because that's not a fire hazard worth caring about. And when you have to go to the bathroom, better hope you're on the right floor and not on crutches.

The problem isn't that the Arts are being moved. The problem is that the Arts aren't being taken care of period.

Anonymous
Mon Feb 8 2010 13:36
If one department goes to the stadium or Smith Labs and another goes to Pomerene, then how does that centralize the arts? No, the move does not centralize the arts.
Anonymous
Mon Feb 8 2010 12:34
There needs to be a change to this story - the move actually centralizes the arts. Right now, Haskett Hall houses Art and Tech, Photography, and Printmaking, and is located on Woodruff. Most of the other Arts, Design, Art Ed, Art History, Music, etc., are all located in Hayes, Hopkins, Hughes, and Sullivant, all right near the Oval. Theater is across campus in the Drake, but that's another story. Aside from Theater, this move will put all of the Arts in the same area. That is the aspect of this move that makes sense.

The thing that sucks about it is that the University is not giving Arts money to make the move. They are tearing down the program space and not replacing it properly. The Arts have had outdated equipment and underfunded programs for years, and the University seems content to keep it that way. This should be an opportunity for the University to show some interest in the academic experience of Arts students.

Move us, sure - but give us some money to make it work and update the facilities we have to use.







log out