Complexities and Collaborations at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago

This paper will discuss the impact of collaborations on the School of the Art Institute of Chicago’s (SAIC) community[*]. Specifically, we are looking at what is unique to SAIC’s courses that are collaborative in nature: their power dynamics, their resources and support, the responsibilities of professors to students, and a model for practice. To explore this framework, we have identified courses at SAIC that involve collaborations between the school and organizations within Chicago. We further broke down the courses into two categories: project-based and process-based. In honoring the collaborative process, we have written the paper collaboratively.

Before we provide an analysis of the collaborations at the School of the Art Institute, we feel it is important to identify it both as a Chicago institution, located in the heart of the city, and as museum and school with prestige in the “art world.” In 2003, art critics ranked SAIC as the “most influential art school” in a survey by the National Arts Journalism Program at Columbia University (Simon 50). According to “Brief History” on the SAIC Web site:

The School's long excellence in arts production has propelled it from its Chicago origins to world-class status. Founded as the Chicago Academy of Design in 1866 by a collective of studio artists, the institution went through many changes before the turn of the century, some necessitated by the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. The collecting arm of the School was founded in 1872, and The Art Institute of Chicago was born in 1882 to accommodate a distinct museum and school. The Art Institute moved to its current iconic location on Michigan Avenue after the World's Columbian Exposition in 1893, and it remains the largest museum-school partnership in the country (“Our History” para. 1).

The mission and the vision of the school are as follows.

SAIC Mission Statement:

To provide excellence in the delivery of a global education in visual, design, media and related arts, with attendant studies in the history and theory of those disciplines set within a broad-based humanistic curriculum in the liberal arts and sciences. To provide instruction for this education in a range of formats: written, spoken, media and exhibition-based (“Our Mission”).

SAIC Vision Statement:

To assemble a diverse body of intelligent and creative students and faculty in an innovative, transdisciplinary environment designed to facilitate and encourage the creation and discovery of significant ideas, objects and images; and to provide for the development of individual excellence in the visual, design, media and related arts and in the relevant professional and academic disciplines (“Our Objective”).

A few key words can be drawn from these two statements: “humanistic curriculum” and “development of individual excellence.” SAIC is essentially a traditional art school, a school that places a primary emphasis on providing “for the development of individual excellence in the visual, design, media and related arts and in the relevant professional and academic disciplines.” The implications of the mission and vision statements, although they can be considered arbitrary, are vast. The pursuit of individual success and the provision of a “global” and “transdisciplinary” education are concepts that create a definitive stance for SAIC.

However, other departments within SAIC carry a vision that is very different from the overall school’s mission and vision. Listed below are a few of the department’s mission statements or overviews, found on the SAIC Web site.

Art Education Mission Statement:

The goal of the Department of Art Education is the preparation of art educators as critical citizens who value visual culture, cultural difference, democracy, and social justice through a philosophy that emphasizes context and community, knowledge and experience, critical thought and reflection, and practice and evaluation (“Overview: Department of Art Education” para. 1).

Sculpture Overview:

The tradition of sculpture has expanded to encompass every material and context for the expression of ideas in space — from wood and stone to light and sound, from the microscopic to the monumental, private to public, real to virtual. This development is an outgrowth of twentieth century art practice, and evolving history that questioned the conventions of art exhibition and opened up the spaces and materials of the "real" world as legitimate grounds for extended practice. This breadth of vision and experience is embraced by the sculpture department and reflected in the development of its curriculum and resources (“Overview: Sculpture Department”).

Although only two out of many mission statements or overviews are cited here, this serves as a starting ground for the observance of the varying nature of SAIC. The overall mission statement of the school might focus on the pursuit of “individual excellence,” but there are a few departments that branch off from the “traditional art school” mentality and jump into a more socially conscious and globally aware field of study.

Power Dynamics in Collaborations

In the introduction to “Art/Vision/Voice: Cultural Conversations in Community,” Arlene Goldbard states,

Universities can serve vital field-strengthening roles by convening practitioners for conferences and seminars, compiling and publishing important documentation and analysis, stimulating discussion and debate...by advocating for the field's needs, potentials, and importance, they can help bring new resources not only into their own programs, but into the community programs on which their work is premised (11).

Goldbard is speaking of universities’ unique role in providing resources for community programs. She also says:

It often takes a while for ideas to permeate institutions, so it is perhaps no more than normally ironic that community cultural development work has gained currency in the academy — that it has begun to attract the trappings of legitimacy — just when the shallow pools of funding that have been available for this work threaten to dry up. The hope is that new resources for grassroots practitioners will follow new attention and legitimation by academic institutions. The fear is that scarce funds will go to academic institutions because funders will perceive them as safer and more impressive repositories for their grants than struggling and sometimes precarious community arts groups (7).

Goldbard brings up numerous issues here. Issues of utmost concern include 1) universities’ ability to provide resources for the field of community arts, 2) the “legitimation” of the field via academic institutions, and 3) funding for universities and the “precarious community arts groups” they might be serving. John Ploof, an associate professor and the chair of the Department of Art Education at SAIC, expands on this idea by beginning to look at the term “in-reach” in which smaller organizations come to larger institutions for resources:

More recently, the term “in-reach” has been selected to look at organizations or groups being able to reach into the resources of larger cultural institutions and form partnerships that are mutually beneficial. But I often ask: Is that in-reach actually working to make change on both sides? Does it actually impact the work that is shown at the Art Institute or the classes that are taught at the school and how do those partnerships work on the other end to help you know what’s happening out in the neighborhoods?

If collaboration is defined as a relationship in which something is produced or created, addressing reciprocal exchange and the power dynamics between the parties is important. In an interview with SAIC and Columbia College of Chicago professor Craig Harshaw, he speaks of the power dynamics involved in reciprocity between higher education institutions and community organizations. Harshaw suggests that candidly defining a collaboration is important in the success of a reciprocal relationship. Asked specifically “Can you give us your definition of collaborative work? Or practice?” he answered:

That it be very well defined ... because I think every collaboration is different, there isn’t one magical process that you can go in, but it needs to be honestly and genuinely defined. I think that means that the power dynamics inside the collaboration need to be honestly defined and I think that, I’d say, 90% of collaborations that fail are because the power dynamics have been obscured and then, during the collaboration, they come out in an ugly way.

Power inequality in a relationship is inevitable, said Harshaw. One group will dominate the other in some way and vice versa. “Those power dynamics can be anything ... from the amount of money the two institutions have, or the amount of power the two institutions have — they can be race, they can be class, they can be gender, they can be age — to the level of experience at collaborating on things both groups have.” The size and reputation of each organization are aspects of the power dynamic; this leads to “visibility” or the idea that an institution or organization carries prominence or distinction. As Arlene Goldbard states above, funders will be more nervous about giving money to a “precarious community arts group” than to a large, well-known institution. However, SAIC has the unique characteristic of being visible and invisible at the same time. Andres Hernandez, assistant professor and director of the Masters of Art in Art Education program at SAIC, raises the issue of invisibility:

I was just going to flip it a different way and talk about the invisibility of an institution like SAIC. ... [For] a lot of people I encounter ... this holds no weight to them whatsoever. … [T]hey didn’t even know there was an Art Institute – in fact, they thought it was the Illinois Institute of Art. If I say the Art Institute, they’re like, “What is that? What do you do? What do you teach?” … So, in some ways, it’s like a non-factor in some of the work that I do. … For a lot of the communities I work with, art institutions are invisible. It’s like, “Why would I go to school for that?”

While Hernandez raises the idea of invisibility for community members outside of SAIC, he also points out that professors can help make art institutions and other universities visible:

I think in terms of being able to expose and bring people here to see that it is viable for you to be here as a student, it is viable for you to be here as a practitioner or teacher … you have to find the right environment for you. And I try to help them understand how you can ... really make a personal practice for life, a life practice out of the arts.

Support

Some community workers and professors have divergent opinions about the resources available to larger organizations. Andres Hernandez said smaller organization might believe that the Art Education program has more resources than it has. The resources it does have, he said, are “people, human-power.” He believes that professors carry the responsibility to community members to allow access to the institution:

We do have access to a library, we have access to film collections ... and so it’s making connections to people and saying, “Hey, you’re writing this South-side home film project, do you know about the Video Data Bank?”

In response to Hernandez’s statement, Giselle Mercier, administrative director of the Arts Administration and Policy, Art Education and Art Therapy Administrative Unit, cultural worker and professor at Columbia College of Chicago and SAIC, said that SAIC does have the monetary resources available:

But, even if you think of those resources as not being monetary, we have to admit that there was money put behind it to have these resources [the Video Data Bank, etc.] be available. Period. And that this institution when compared to community, to small community-based organizations like Insight Arts or Street Level Youth Media, you know, it’s seen as the big one, the 800-pound gorilla with all the resources. We might not see it, you know, individuals working here [at SAIC] day to day, we know how hard it is to get a space, we know how hard it is to negotiate resources when it comes to instruments and cameras and all that kind of stuff. But, at the same time, we do have more than any of these community-based organizations.

The unequal distribution of resources leads to the unequal distribution of power in collaborations. The assumption that SAIC has many assets can be confusing for community or cultural workers when a project fails because of lack of resources from the institution. John Ploof expanded on this:

Another part of that challenge is sometimes what the neighborhoods expect out of [SAIC]. Or with a program that SAIC was involved with where they anticipated more funds, but [it] was only partially funded from SAIC, and a whole group of students, a roomful of kids, waited for the class to start, but the materials didn’t arrive. The instructor walked into the room and basically said, “No materials from the school, go home.” Meanwhile, upstairs they are launching a brand new technology center, outfitted with scanners and amazing things. …[W]hy don’t you gather those kids up and put these two pieces together? The folks running the program couldn’t see this because the Art Institute has failed them, right? Failed to deliver the resources, when in fact there are so many resources right there. The kids are the losers; it’s just the unfortunate part of who lost in that situation.

Ploof suggests that perhaps larger institutions do have the resources available, but they are not consistently used in a socially conscious way because the system doesn't foster a sense of responsibility or accountability. Whether the School of the Art Institute of Chicago is able to provide adequate resources for community collaborations is questionable. However, the responsibility in using the resources available — whether they be people, the library, the museum, money or art supplies — is vital to successful collaborative projects.

Classifying Courses at SAIC

Between the fall 2007 and spring 2008 semesters, SAIC offered 15 courses that involved a collaboration outside of the school. These classes analyzed the problematic nature of collaborative projects, an exercise that can be instrumental in working toward a better sense of praxis for both students and faculty. These courses allow students and professors to work outside the confines of the school. The courses can be divided into two types: 1) Project-based Collaborations, i.e., projects and locations that have already been predetermined by faculty, and 2) Process-based Collaborations, i.e., courses where students are supposed to develop the project. These two styles of courses can lead to different issues for collaborators involved, such as problems caused by going into a project without a predetermined goal; the potential for a project not to be executed because of an unforeseen change of interest amongst collaborators; and the inability for every person’s voice to be heard.

Process-based Collaborations

Courses that leave the collaboration open to students (Course descriptions).

Project-based Collaborations

Courses that identify their specific location of collaboration (Course descriptions).

Multiple Identities and Models for Practice

SAIC, particularly its faculty, has multiple responsibilities throughout the collaborative process. In addition, faculty and students are faced with multiple identities and purposes — working as artists, working as educators or students, and as collaborators. Reflecting on how faculty and student identities, purposes and responsibilities impact a collaboration at SAIC leads to a better understanding of the ways in which SAIC collaborations are unique.

In the case of SAIC, the stakeholders are its students, the partnering collaborators and the institution itself. Students and faculty are both working to be flexible while learning to improvise. SAIC faculty member Rebecca Keller has expressed what she hopes her students are able to take away from collaborations:

I hope SAIC students learn that they need to be flexible, creative and even improvisatory; that there is a difference between plans on paper and how things happen in the real world. That difference can be very frustrating, but also lead in rich directions, and that they learn to collaborate with one another as much as they learn about interorganizational collaborations.

The dual responsibility of a faculty member is to provide a satisfactory educational experience for the student while also ensuring the community partner’s needs are being met; that can be problematic. Within the Art Education department, a heavy emphasis is put on education being critical, meaningful and transformative. How does the faculty member ensure success for all stakeholders?

A clear definition of “best practices” can also be problematic. In a discussion amongst Art Education professors regarding the implication of “best-practice,” Department Chair John Ploof pointed out:

I think we have to be really critically vigilant about terms like that “best practice.” So much of that ideology that we grapple with is based on not trying to contextualize our work in people’s everyday life experience, [not] to ground it relevant to our context and then look also globally. [We expect] that there’s going to be one model or best practice, that we can take from one situation and apply to others. [But] we can do better than that if we try to understand how we’re different and why that is, to develop a more complex understanding of that based in our neighborhoods, or in our cultures or in our belief systems. … My critique of “best practice” [is] that it deters best practice; “best practice” sometimes means “completely decontexualize.”

Collaborations are variable, not uniform: Each one has its own characteristics and requires some level of adaptability, so we are left to consider the values that guide the practice of any given faculty member or school. Professor Andres Hernandez pointed out that these “core values” are most likely seen in the mission of the school, the mission of different departments, and the courses offered at SAIC. Courses at SAIC, other than basic curricula, often address social issues that concern the artist working in society. How do we measure our ability to follow through with these values when embarking on these complex collaborations? Rebecca Keller mentioned two aspects she considers in hopes of ensuring success for collaborative projects: 1) that collaborations are project-based with a definitive goal and are in a reasonable time frame and 2) the potential of a collaboration to develop into more sustainable projects. Regarding the importance of a definitive goal, she said:

1) It gives our students a clearer and more meaningful and satisfactory experience, and 2) I think it gives any organization we work with a clearer idea of what to expect and allows them to have more confidence that a project won't be started and then abandoned, and 3) if it proves to not be a good fit, there is a limitation to their involvement.

The varying goals of departments also contribute to SAIC collaborations. Giselle Mercier stressed how collaborations at SAIC differ from department to department. She asserts that some departments may value community, while others may be more concerned with preparing artists. She explained how SAIC serves students: “The ability of an institution like SAIC to impact community practices depends on the department. I think that we find that kind of schism around the school.”

Conclusion

We hope this paper elicits a sustainable dialogue on the nature of collaborations. We have attempted to reflect on the current practices in order to come to a better understanding of the unique nature of SAIC collaborations. In addition, we hope dialogue can ignite on how collaborations can be meaningful, transformative and critical not only during the collaborative process, but also long after.

This essay is part of the Community Arts Convening & Research Project, 2008, funded by a Nathan Cummings Foundation grant to the Maryland Institute College of Art. The essay was reviewed and selected by the project's Editorial Board: Ron Bechet, Xavier University of Louisiana; Lori Hager, University of Oregon; Marina Gutierrez, Cooper Union; Ken Krafchek, Maryland Institute College of Art; Sonia Mañjon, California College of the Arts; Amalia Mesa-Bains, California State University Monterey Bay; Paul Teruel, Columbia College Chicago; and Stephani Woodson, Arizona State University.

Celina Aguilar was born in El Paso, Texas; received her Bachelor of Science in Communication Studies from the University of Texas at Austin in 2004; is currently working towards her Master of Arts in Art Education at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. Aguilar has worked in violence-prevention and awareness programs using the arts — particularly Theatre of the Oppressed methods. Her research interests include collaborative practices, socially engaged art and community-based practices.

Kate McLeod, originally from Montgomery, Alabama, graduated with a BFA in Art Education from the University of Georgia in 2005. After graduating, she spent time teaching art to pre-kindergarten through 8th grade students in public school settings. She then worked in the education department at the Morris Museum of Art in Augusta, Georgia, and the Smithsonian American Art Museum in Washington, D.C. She is currently finishing her master's thesis on collaborative practices at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and will graduate in August of 2008.

Works Cited and Referenced

Course descriptions for SAIC classes posted for the Fall 07/Winter 08/Spring 08 Semesters. Saic.edu. School of the Art Institute of Chicago. 18 Feb. 2008 http://www.saic.edu/courses/.

Goldbard, A. “Looking Before You Leap: Community Arts in Context.” Mesa-Bains, Bechet, Krafchek and Teruel 11.

-----. New Creative Community: The Art of Cultural Development. Oakland, Calif.: New Village Press, 2006.

Group interview: J. Ploof, A. Hernandez, G. Mercier. Chicago, Ill. 18 Feb. 2008.

Harshaw, C. Personal interview. Chicago, Ill. 15 Jan. 2008.

Keller, R. Personal interview. Chicago, Ill. 22 Jan. 2008.

Korza, P., ed. Art, Dialogue, Action, Activism. Washington D.C.: Americans for the Arts, 2005.

Mesa-Bains, A. “La Resolana: CAP Directors Share Stories of Partnership.” Mesa-Bains, Bechet, Krafchek and Teruel 103.

Mesa-Bains, A., R. Bechet, K. Krafchek and P. Teruel, eds. Art/Vision/Voice: Cultural Conversations in Community. Chicago & Baltimore: Columbia College Chicago & Maryland Institute College of Art, 2005.

“Our History: The School of the Art Institute of Chicago.” Saic.edu. 2007. School of the Art Institute of Chicago. 18 Feb. 2008 http://www.saic.edu/about/history/index.html#brief_history.

“Our Mission: The School of the Art Institute of Chicago.” Saic.edu. 2007. School of the Art Institute of Chicago. 18 Feb. 2008 http://www.saic.edu/about/mission/index.html.

“Our Objective: The School of the Art Institute of Chicago.” Saic.edu. 2007. School of the Art Institute of Chicago. 18 Feb. 2008 http://www.saic.edu/about/mission/index.html#objective.

“Overview: Department of Art Education.” Saic.edu. School of the Art Institute of Chicago. 18 Feb. 2008 http://www.saic.edu/degrees_resources/departments/arted/index.html#overview.

“Overview: Sculpture Department.” Saic.edu. School of the Art Institute of Chicago. 18 Feb. 2008 http://www.saic.edu/degrees_resources/departments/sculpt/index.html#overview.

Paley, J., ed. Questions of You and the Struggle of Collaborative Life. New York: Cultural Center of the Arts, 2000.

Simon, J., ed. The Visual Art Critic: A Survey of Art Critics at General-interest News Publications in America. New York: Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, 2002.

Walker, C. Participation in Arts and Culture: The Importance of Community Venues. New York: Urban Institute, 2003.

NOTES