Welcome to the Future

Please send any private comments to futureofartcenter at gmail.com. Note that comments were turned off last May. They are available now for the most recent post only.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Nate Young erased from Legacy Circle photo

Update: The Image was restored to its original state with Nate in the picture - which proves it was removed in the first place.

UPDATE2: Iris Gelt, Senior Vice President, Marketing and Communications applogized for the erasure of Nate's image.

Iris Gelt said...
We sincerely regret the removal of Nate Young's image from the Legacy Circle section of the web site. In the confusion of recent events, this was indeed an error that occurred while quick adjustments were being made to staff lists and images. As you know, the correct, original image was immediately replaced and will of course remain on the site for the usual cycle of rotation that pertains to all images.

We would never wish to diminish in any way Nate's significant contributions to Art Center. We truly honor the work of the Legacy Circle and hope that it will continue to flourish under the dedicated leadership of Stan Kong and Ramone Munoz.

If anyone has any other questions, I encourage you to contact me directly, at iris.gelt@artcenter.edu.

JUNE 4, 2008 3:29 PM

Cross posted from Nathan's site - Image at the bottom of the post

Originally posted by:

Stan Kong
Co-Chair, Legacy Circle
Alum and Faculty

Page in question: http://www.artcenter.edu/legacycircle/

To the office or persons responsible for the cropping of the Legacy Circle photograph on the Art Center homepage.

There is a photo on the Art Center Homepage under “Check it out”. It is a photo of Left to Right: Richard Holbrook, Wayne Hunt, Stan Kong, Ramone Munoz and Kristine Bowne. The picture was taken at Richard Holbrook’s Legacy Circle fundraising party for student scholarships. Nate Young was originally in the photograph next to Kristine Bowne. Nate was cropped out of the photo last week.

This was very disrespectful to Nate Young, an alum and member of Legacy Circle, myself and co-chair Ramone Munoz, the development office and all the members of our group. Nate joined our cause with a generous gift towards student scholarships, was very supportive of our efforts and encouraged many others to join and contribute.

I am very troubled by this action. It doesn’t make it any easier to fundraise, particularly in this economic climate. It sends the message that you can give to the college but we may not appreciate it. We are all volunteers and need as much support from the college community as possible.

Go to the homepage:


Click on the photograph and it will bring you to the Legacy Circle page. Whoever cropped the photo forgot to delete Nate’s name from the description of those in the original photograph located below to the right:

Top Left: Left to Right:
Richard Holbrook, Wayne Hunt,
Stan Kong, Ramone Munoz,
Nate Young, Kristine Bowne

The Legacy Circle Committee deserves an explanation from those that are responsible.

Stan Kong
Co-Chair, Legacy Circle
Alum and Faculty


Anonymous said...

Ironic that the admin's Photoshopping skills are even questionable...Nate's hand and shoulder are still visible in the doctored image.


Anonymous said...

Did they actually apologize to Stan Kong and Ramone Munoz? What about an apology to the others in the photo, especially, Nate Young.

The only reason there were apologies at all, if in fact there were, is because Stan Kong noticed it and had the presence of mind to bring it to our attention.

this is more evidence of the administration's corrupt business practices.

Tung Chow said...

O-Oh... busted!! Are they gonna Photochop Stan Kong out as well?! bad, bad, bad!!

Anonymous said...

I guess the school is more ready for a Chinese campus than I thought. Art Center's PR and media tactics firmly follow that countries attempt to control all discussion and erase evidence of history when it doesn't jive with official doctrine.

Anonymous said...

I am happy to hear that Richard Koshalek's "contract will not be renewed." (read: Pack your bags, Dick)

As a student of industrial design I am all to aware of Design Center's reputation for producing talented graduates. But instead of talking about DC's talents the world of design education (students and faculty alike) has been watching this melt down in Pasadena.

The behavior on the part of the school's administration appears incredibly unprofessional and at times down right childish. This is all very embarrassing for the school I am sure, but the students themselves have come out looking pretty good. Like their eyes were open and they were paying attention to the BS being flung about by the powers that be. Good to see that.

May this make any design school's administration think twice before trying to pull some crap like this on their students.

Errol Gerson said...

It is NOT AN ACCIDENT that Nate's image has been removed, it is a systematic attempt to push Nate and the excellent work he did at Chief Academic Officer into DISTANT MEMORY. That is why I will not sit idly by and watch this happen. PLEASE go to the petition website and sign your name proudly if you agree that the only way to save a BROKEN and FARCTURES Art Center is to being Nate Young back as PRESIDENT AND CEO. I have spent 38 years of life teaching at Art Center and I will NOT let INDIFFERENCE take over. Here is the address;
It is time for those want to STAND UP Adn be counted to ACT with courage and conviction.

Anonymous said...

Errol, if this is indeed you organizing this (I've always respected Errol Gerson), why is it that you do not support a fiscally-minded outsider for the role of President? You more than anyone else recognize the need for continued solvency, right? Art Center has a terrible business model right now. How can an insider break away from this mess effectively?

Also, don't you think that Mr. Young is a bit of a polarizing choice given the recent history? I'd hate to think that my alma mater's president won his position through a contentious coup d’├ętat.

Before we force the board to swallow an unpopular pill, why don't we focus our attentions to the board members themselves? We have some serious "purging" to do first.

Errol, you've worked in business for a long time. You understand board-level governance. Putting ANY new (competant) president into place with this current board is a waste of good human resources. Errol, please acknowledge the seriousness of our board-level troubles.

Anonymous said...

Right now, Nate Young seems to be the most viable option. Got a better suggestion, go right ahead and say so.

Anonymous said...

You in some kind of a hurry? This reminds me of the bank bailout of the Fall.

Ellsworth is not exactly destroying the morale as of this moment. Why not focus on your board problem first? Do you acknowledge (or care) that we have a board-level problem happening? Why are yo so focused on the solution. Identify the problem. If you think the problem is not having a better president, then you are being simplistic.

Anonymous said...

I think this sudden (but obviously organized) rush to install Nate Young as president stinks of the accusations that were made about him and his friends 8 months ago. I'd hoped that they were untrue.

Why is this starting to feel like a Caroline Kennedy situation?

We're not stupid, and we can smell.

Anonymous said...

Hey I have an idea. Why not Andy Ogden?

Anonymous said...


I don't know. I think this was talked about before, but Andy Ogden supposedly is in cohoots with Nate Young...so whatever.

Anonymous said...

I don't see any rush here. Errol just appears to want Mr. Young properly considered as a candidate for President by the selection committee. Maybe the rush is to make sure that this is out in the open so the board or committee can't rush in some secret sweet deal. No question the board probably needs attention as well. Probably normal course after this much disruption.
I think there is now over 250 signatures. Seems significant to me, could anyone else could do that in the same period of time? At least he should be considered by the committee. Anyone know the selection committees time schedule? And yes, Mr. Ellsworth seems to be a good guy and many seem to like him so far. Maybe he would overlap for a while to help rebuild.

Anonymous said...

Anyone have any idea if Nate would be interested in the job?

Anonymous said...

Errol - really? Have you confirmed with Nate that he actually wants to be a candidate? Is he already a named candidate and we just don't know it? Nate did great stuff as CAO, and will always be one of ACCD's most dedicated alums, but like others have mentioned, there is a lot of baggage there. And from what I understand the search group is looking globally at a huge pool of qualified candidates. Let's give them a chance.

And Errol - you may want to reconsider your tactics. Looking backwards 6 months ago regarding Nate's image being erased does not help credibility. You're a great instructor, it would be a shame to hear that you are influencing your students to sign the petition based on your opinion. ACSG is the voice of the students, please encourage them to get involved there rather than simply signing a petition that may have no influence whatsoever.

Anonymous said...

"but Andy Ogden supposedly is in cohoots with Nate Young...so whatever."

I was kidding ;-)
Obviously, there have been some political undercurrents forming after hours at Art Center.

Anonymous said...

I just think that Errol is putting his enormous influence into simply repairing the dam, when he'd be much more useful in designing a far better dam.

Anonymous said...

I love it when ACSG tries to wiggle their way in and say they "they" are the only true voice of the students. You're not. The students can speak (very effectively) for themselves, much thanks to sites just like this one.

Errol has every right to voice his opinion. ACSG: You have a low opinion of your fellow students if you think that Errol has the ability to make up their own minds for them. Give those that that you represent some intellectual credit, ok?

Ophelia Chong said...

We are all allowed our opinion and we are lucky enough to be able to express them freely online.

With the Errol/Nate petition, I believe its time to move forward with a fresh slate. The culture at ACCD is already divided and we do not need any more division. I respect both Mr. Gerson and Mr. Young, but now is not the time to build that "dam". And as one commenter has mentioned, did Errol ask Nate?

As for the comment that the ACSG "wiggled" in; I voted for Obama because I believe in his mandate for this country, however I did not give him the power of my voice. That is not what this country is about. The ACSG is there to represent the students, but they do not deign to say that they are the only voice in the college. You speak for yourself by speaking to the administration, to the faculty,to your peers and by speaking here.

Anonymous said...


7:02 AM wrote:
"it would be a shame to hear that you are influencing your students to sign the petition based on your opinion. ACSG is the voice of the students"

In my book, that person is trying to insert ACSG as some kind of "approved authority" to speak on behalf of students. "Wiggle-in" if you will.

Past ACSG's (and there have been multiple iterations) have been historically bad at stepping-up. It's no major violation in today's climate to bypass them and move to direct action. On that point, I say "Bravo Errol".

In the absence of recent student ACSG discussion (on a public level), and specifically in the absence of ANY COMMUNICATION FROM THE BOARD AT ALL, I do not think it is bad form to get this kind of petition going.

To date, I've seen no communication on:

– selection criteria
– progress reports
- candidate pools

despite assurances that updates would happen. At least Errol is putting his wish down on virtual paper. How many Art Center instructors (in the past) have been willing to put themselves on the line like that? Few. Precious few.

Ophelia Chong said...

Dear Anonymous,

It is better to move forward without that anchor from the past.

If you are a student, talk to your rep or to Jill of the ASGV.

And if you are able to log onto to Dr.Ellsworth's blog to comment, do so.


Ophelia Chong said...

Dear Anonymous

You are right, very few are ready to put their Names on the line.


Anonymous said...

got an address to Ellsworth's blog?

Ophelia Chong said...

Dear Anonymous

If you are a student or faculty or admin you have access to it.


Anonymous said...

Sorry, I'm an alumni. How about an email address for Ellsworth?

Ophelia Chong said...

Dear Anonymous Alumni,

how about picking up a phone and calling the college or go online and search for it.

I ain't your secretary.


Anonymous said...

Was there ever a time when ACCD wasn't evil?......jeesh.

Can't you find anybody that is normal, that doesn't have a sense of grandeur and just thinks about the bottom line with an emphasis of nurturing creative endeavors?

Anyway, maybe Nate ain't perfect but he is an ACCD alumni. So, in this case if he's put on the pedestal, you won't have the excuse that you had an outsider come in and mess everything up.

Might be Koshalek tainted, but he's one of your brethren, tu hermano.
It's either garbage in, garbage out....or perhaps he'll be more sympathetic to your endeavors.

He might be valuable because he knows about ACCD politics? He was a board member....maybe that's a strike against him?

Anonymous said...

I want Young to be the next President...


Anonymous said...


I'm still trying to figure out if this petition is a scam. After all it requests donations.

Anonymous said...

It actually hits you up for the donation on the "thanks for your submission" page. I thought the same thing until I read it further. If you signed it and hit submit, then your signature is registered.

Anonymous said...

The walls have ears anonymous posters.

ACSG has been aware of the new petition for quite sometime and it was discussed two weeks ago at their meeting.

Most of ACSG are very easy to talk to and seem to be the furthest thing from being 'administrative conspirators'. I think they have their meetings from 9-11 in the faculty lounge and it's open to anybody to come.

Anonymous said...

Well, I think it's pretty damn clear that ACCD students are sick of these gawd damn empire builders like Brown and Koshalek. If you want to go to a school that is great at playing monopoly then go to Academy of Art University in San Francisco. Heck, they're practically buying the real estate out from under the city.....at half the tuition might I add.

ACCD has proven to be a complete failure at empire expansion. So, whoever has been authorizing these expansion projects is obviously not very good at it.

Right now I'm just hoping that Nate Young doesn't have the same sense of grandiosity has his predecessors had and will concentrate more on the education side....which is pretty innovative of way of thinking for a 'school' president at ACCD nowadays.

Besides, the economy sucks. I don't think ACCD has a choice.

Anonymous said...

Neville Page, Mark Goerner, Errol Gerson, Joey Jones, Harald Belker.....these are the people that are signing the petition. Assuming we're working under the honor system, that carries a lot of clout with me.

I've met each one of those people. I trust their judgment.

So there are some people who got their noses bent out of shape. I haven't met a political animal yet that hasn't clawed it's way up.

In the past you guys use to admire behavior like that: Ted Youngkin, Roland Young, Burne Hogarth, Ray Engle etc etc etc.....

Anonymous said...

"Most of ACSG are very easy to talk to and seem to be the furthest thing from being 'administrative conspirators'."

It's not about conspiracy. It's about not hindering voices by suggesting the communicative energy be channeled first through ACSG.

Errol not only expressed his view and took a stand (and in a very public way), he took action.

While ACSG is most certainly a worthy and positive group, they (by their very nature and structure) operate in such a consensus manner that physical action is tough to enact. The fact that they got as involved as they did with Koshalek is evidence to the fact of just how badly things have turned. I have always considered them "A" mouthpieve, not "THE" mouthpiece. The more the merrier, I say.

Also, Errol is a faculty member and has more than ONE HUNDRED TERMS of experience in dealing with the place. If anyone deserves a spot at the front of the line to suggest a candidate, it is Errol Gerson.

Anonymous said...

And with that, I say "Holy Crap!" and wonder "Why the hell don't we nominate ERROL GERSON?"

1) He's a CPA. Just that fact will scare the crap out of the financial leaders of the school (good, they'd better be scared).

2) While not an alumni, he knows the spirit of Art Center as well as anyone (perhaps better).

3) Google Errol Gerson and have a look at HIS credentials:

- Ran a division at Creative Artists Agency (CAA)

- Founded and led one of the first successful "pure-play" interactive agencies that actually landed Fortune 1000 clients

- For 38 years, taught many of us (but not all of us listened) to NOT SPEND MORE MONEY THAN WE HAVE.

If not Nathan Young, then certainly ERROL GERSON.

Richard Koshalek might have had a great rolodex for wine tasting party guests, but Errol did their f--king TAXES. He knows who has the money, and more importantly, people that have worked with him or have been taught BY him, RESPECT him.

Anonymous said...

To second that nomination write to the following email address:


Ophelia Chong said...

To 2/5/09 8:21 AM Anonymous

Have you looked at who is on the current ASGV? They are the students that stood outside the South Campus and held a silent vigil while the board meetings were taking place last summer. They are the ones who stood up and asked Richard Koshalek questions during the town hall meetings.


Anonymous said...

Very silently.

Ophelia Chong said...

to 2/5/09 1:01 PM

Ha. You like to make trouble, don't you? Especially Anonymously.


Anonymous said...

What about the "anonymous" that reacted to Mr Gerson by saying:
"ACSG is the voice of the students, please encourage them to get involved there rather than simply signing a petition that may have no influence whatsoever."

This person is telling Gerson (and everyone else) that students should instead talk to an ACSG repo that may (or may not) pass along their feelings.

ACSG groups have always had issues with anyone who bypasses them.

But see, Gerson is speaking to more than just current students. He's speaking to alumni, faculty and staff as well. So instead of trying to stifle his effort (which you clearly oppose), why not support Gerson's right to his own opinion (and right to his own petition)? Jealous that his agenda is not your own?

Anonymous said...

"rep" not "repo"

Ophelia Chong said...

To 2/5/09 4:09 PM

To everyone their own agenda.Named or Anonymous. Mr. Gerson has his opinion and he has every right to express it. And he puts his name behind it, and he should be commended on his courage to use his name in the open forum.

As for those who have a problem with the ACSG, they should voice it at the next meeting or meet with their rep. If you are an alumni, then you should familiarize yourself with who is on the student government.



Anonymous said...

The (also anonymous) ACSG proponent attacked Gerson for being influential over students (how dare he). Then this (remember, anonymous) person told students to instead filter their voices through ACSG.

ACSG (in my view) has often proven to be an ineffective force. Instead of choosing either Gerson's approach or voicing opinion only through ACSG, why not choose both avenues? If you're a student, and you want Nate Young as your president, then do what you have to do to have your voice heard. Gerson has shown that at least 300 or so of his friends happen to agree with him. I'd like to see ACSG accomplish that.

If anonymity is your beef, then as a a co-administrator of this blog, you have every right to remove the anonymous posting option.

Ophelia Chong said...

to 2/6/09 1:44 PM

Anonymous is not my beef, its only an issue when it's used to attack people.


Anonymous said...

Maybe we need a new column here. It isn't about an erased photo anymore. It also isn't about Koshalek anymore either. He and his people are now being weeded out too.
It is about who is best to lead Art Center out of it's current messy situation. Nate Young is an option as he is an alumni, an executive, a former board member and worked at Art Center recently for 5 years. So he knows the current situation. He apparently also has a following based on the new petition and the support during the last uprising.

Maybe this new column should also discuss any other candidates with equal or better qualifications. If they are out there, lets start giving them visibility too. If students, faculty, staff, board members like other candidates, please speak up. Now its the time. If you don't know the actual name/candidate, then describe what you want. Lets get talking.

Anonymous said...


You've never been a student at ACCD, nor have you met the people being discussed. Get your rear end back over to youtube where you belong. Seriously, it's just art. Relax.

Anonymous said...

Ophelia wrote:
"Anonymous is not my beef, its only an issue when it's used to attack people."

I didn't see you coming to the rescue when the anonymous person chided Gerson for being a better (and more proactive) motivator of people than the ACSG.

Ophelia Chong said...

to 2/9/09 11:45 AM

so i am to defend everyone who posts anonymous? and am i supposed to play referee? I thought you were all adults and could play nice. If you want to use this blog as a forum to make snarky comments then go ahead, you are all adults. albeit anonymous ones.


Anonymous said...

You're a fair-weather defender. Since you're not a supporter of Nate Young for President, men like Errol Gerson are fair game when it comes to an anonymous attack.

In your book, not even an organization can be criticized by an anonymous person, that is, if it is an organization that you feel is righteous.

All Errol did was A) publish a petition and B) publicize it. He gets anonymnously attacked for doing so, and the moment someone says something about those who likely threw the first jab, you've got a problem with it.

Like I said, if anonymity bothers you, as blog admin, you can always turn it off.

Ophelia Chong said...

to 2/9/09 2:15 PM

I am not going to comment further on this thread. Its going nowhere and your assumptions are based on conjecture.


Future of Art Center said...

A few notes:

First to Errol: The image of Nate was put back as noted at the top of this post, and is still there - check the Legacy Circle page. If you are talking about revising histories, let's be accurate about this issue.


On the Presidential Search: Not all of you may be aware that there is a formal search committee and process that has been underway for some time. A professional search firm has been hired, and a search committee constituted that includes representatives from the Chairs (Anne Burdick), Faculty (Thea Pechler, and Student Councils (??). The request for applicants and nominations has been advertised in several publications, and is completely open to anyone. Here is the profile that has been published. This profile was agreed to by the members of the search committee.

As I understand it, the search committee will narrow the search to a smaller number of viable applicants, which will then be presented to the board for final selection. I think they are shooting for hiring someone by this fall, but that really depends on the availability of the candidates. Academic hires are difficult, since often people are already in high level positions at other institutions.

On Petitions: Frankly, petitions don't have a big role in a formal search process. The hiring of the leader of our institution is not a popularity contest, but a search for the best qualified person, whether currently known or not to the campus community.

Regarding Nate Young: While Nate Young is clearly a committed person who is passionate about Art Center, there are two areas where his approach and background do not line up so well with the future needs of the school. From the published profile:

* Commitment to education and a deep understanding of the structures and issues specific to educational governance and community building.

Nate Young does not have experience in the structures of education, in particular governance issues that bring faculty and students into the process of operating the school. ACCD has a terrible history in terms of getting broad community support for its direction, and significant structural changes are needed to fix this.

* A record as a transparent, collaborative, and creative leader.

Nate Young operated in a corporate, top-down fashion, and did not seem to understand the traditions of education and the need for input and buy-in from all constituents. For example, he imposed the now-defunct dean system on the Chairs without first discussing it with the majority of chairs, let alone faculty or students. He was neither transparent or collaborative in his approach.

Lastly, I would argue that most people within the school have moved on from the positions of both Nate Young and Richard Koshalek and are looking towards the future and working hard to make the school a better place -- many changes are already taking place! If these efforts continue, the school does not need a white knight president to come in a "save us". We can save ourselves, and hire a new president that sees how self-motivated a community we are, and who can support a strong move to the future of art and design education.

Anonymous said...


Art Center is not your standard school. Perhaps a little bit of inbreeding is what the school needs to get back on track with its original mission. Who better than someone who is a product of that original mission?

I think that Nate Young has probably watched what will happen to future presidents who do not embrace transparency. Has he made mistakes? Sure he has. But this is a crucial time for Art Center. We need a guy who has earned widespread trust and affection from the Art Center Community.

Perhaps a short-term contract to get things back to basics and solidified.

Anonymous said...


Looking through these other design schools, what would be the most desirable scholastic government model?

It seems to me ACCD students no longer want to be taught under a corporate model, top-down fashion, which in actually is the origins of ACCD, to be taught in a working real world fashion. The way corporations function nowadays maybe that's no longer a desirable goal?

It seems ACCD students want to be taught by means of consensus, a more democratic system? Or at the very least, a system geared more towards individual needs rather then corporate identity?

Anonymous said...

We should go away from the principles that helped build Art Center and make it unique, and move to an unproven model and take a chance on a bunch of outsiders who do not know Art Center's history, (only their own.) Only then will everyone be happy because we won't know what we are missing. What do we want Art Center to be?

Future of Art Center said...

Here's the thing. Art Center's original mission isn't going to take us into the future. Everything has changed, and we owe our students an education that is contemporary with where their chosen fields are going to be when they graduate.

I know this is going to sound blasphemous to some of you, but integrating approaches from outside the institution would actually broaden and modernize Art Center, not dilute it. Or are we so insecure with ourselves that we can't integrate new ideas without destroying what's good about Art Center?

Look, Art Center needs to reinvent itself or eventually it will die off. Our economic model is broken and our educational approach is getting out-of-date. Whoever the new president is, he or she needs foster an environment where the faculty, chairs, staff and students can make this reinvention happen. I'd argue that no president can impose this reinvention from above, and if they tried, it wouldn't work.

That means we need someone who knows how to build an institution that actually supports both a diversity of ideas (since no department or faculty member has the same needs), a common vision guiding us, and a culture of collaboration and invention in the pursuit of great art and design and great art and design education.

Anonymous said...

Art Center is a "Niche" school. It always has been. It has very little chance of adopting the characteristics of "other schools" and succeeding. I did not attend because I thought it was in the same "league" of RISD or some large university. Art Center was always in al league of its own. Truly.

I came to Art Center because it was one of the rare schools that was truly unique. I could have cared less about what some writer at Business Week thinks the "ranking" is/was. I worked very hard, and I never had my eye on the work of another school. I had my eye on my own work and that of the person next to me.

But once inside Art Center, I had my eye also on Art Center itself. I had my eye on making ot more humanistic and less cutthroat. I had my eye on equality and everyone getting a fair deal. I had my eye on ridding the place of fiscal hijinks.

Scratch that comment about "original mission". Sure Art Center needs to change with the times. Duh. Of course it does. But sometimes all it needs to be is a rather basic program of excellence and a core "basic" philosophy. You know, keep it simple. Keep it clean. Keep it utilitarian. Problem-solving (always).

But all of this recent crap about kum-bay-yah globalistic harmony, where we're going to outstretch our arms and clasp hands with Chinese and African sweatshop owners and peacefully equip Walmart with better Samsung clock radios... I'm saying that it's time for us to wake up and get our asses grounded.

I'm fine with taking an insider and getting back to the basics. All I want is:

- Fairnesss. A fair shake for those with grievances. Faculty, students, staff. Due process, etc.

- Fiscal responsibility. Knock of the "padding the bridge" with useless senior VP's of nothingness.

- Keep it small. Keep it simple.

- Make alumni feel connected to the place

- Faculty tenure for those who prove (or have found themselves) themselves worthy of such a thing.

- No asshole "ego rulers" anymore. No empire building. Keep it in Pasadena. Let the alumni take Art Center out to the world. Do it well enough and the world will want to come to Art Center to be educated.

Anonymous said...

[quote]Art Center is a "Niche" school. It always has been. It has very little chance of adopting the characteristics of "other schools" and succeeding. I did not attend because I thought it was in the same "league" of RISD or some large university. Art Center was always in al league of its own. Truly.[/quote]

Art Center was based on the GI bill, training GI's, who just got out of the military.....and hardly paid $ 100,000 in tuition.

The kids that come in nowadays are not from the military, and are not being subsidized under a GI bill.

So that would indicate ACCD has always been changing and struggling internally. So what made ACCD unique once is not still making ACCD unique now.

I think what attracted students to ACCD in the past was that military no bullshit attitude....but there's plenty of BS go'n on at ACCD nowadays.

Anonymous said...

If you really want to go back to ACCD roots, then the school should be available to the 'common' artist that shows ability above all else.

Right now ACCD seems to be only inviting elitism, and usually in its worst forms.