MEMORANDUM

TO:           Janice Schimmelman, Chair
                  Department of Art and Art History

FROM:     Mildred H. Merz
                  Coordinator for Collection Development,  OU Library

SUBJECT: Library’s Ability to Support Proposed Liberal Arts Major in Studio Art

DATE:        March 18, 2001

In preparing this report assessing the library’s ability to support the proposed liberal arts major in Studio Art I consulted a number of resources and reviewed my findings with Ann Pogany, the library’s liaison to the Department of Art and Art History. I reviewed the proposal describing the proposed program that I received in December, the lengthy answers to questions I had submitted concerning the program, online library catalogs listing materials owned by libraries with academic programs in Studio Art, materials indexed in the online index Art Abstracts, and even offerings of local and online bookstores.

Books

I have presumed that the library’s collections of books in the area of art history are acceptable for this program. Funding for the purchase of art books to support the existing curriculum has been fairly strong over the last 10 years or more as a result of capital development campaign funds and other gifts. Book allocations for art have been much more generous than those for books in the social sciences and sciences that have been dependent only upon general funds. In addition the library has also spent generously, out of general funds, for art books received through the approval plan (newly published books identified by our major book vendor as relevant to our curriculum) and through standing orders (books such as the Abrams titles received automatically on publication).

However, in all of this purchasing of books, the library has added few or no books specifically in the field of Studio Art. This was quite obvious when I compared our holdings to that of other area institutions with Studio Art programs. For example, checking our holdings on World Cat in the subject of "Drawing Technique" OU had 20 titles while the Center for Creative Studies had 155 books, Wayne State had 147, and Michigan State had 180. There were similar results when using the term "Art Technique"—OU had 45 titles, the Center for Creative Studies had 177, Wayne had 213, and Michigan State 223. Results for "Painting Technique" differed only in that the Center for Creative Studies holdings were very similar to OU’s, but much smaller than holdings at either Wayne or Michigan State.

I was able to identify many books that would be supportive of the proposed program. Obviously not every book on photography or drawing techniques would be appropriate. Many titles published are meant for the amateur or even the child, but many titles I found would be useful to students in our proposed program. There are relevant books on professional techniques in illustration, on photographic techniques, on digital photography, on Adobe Photoshop (OU has 7 books, WSU has 50), on drawing and anatomy, on perspective and color, on capturing movement and depth in painting, on the career of being a fine artist, etc. Over a five year period I am budgeting for the purchase of approximately 350 books—100 in the first year, 100 in second year, and 50 each in third, fourth, and fifth years. Purchase of this number of books is justified both by the liberal arts nature of the program and by the large amount of writing that the program is requiring. By spreading out the purchases over several years we can be sure we make the best selections and that we can add newly published titles. Fortunately prices for this, the more practical, "how to" side of art, is cheaper than the more expensive books devoted to particular artists and photographers (with full color plates of their works) and to the historical treatment of art. In most cases Studio Art books seem to cost, at most, $35 each with many more costing less. I am estimating the average cost of the books we would be purchasing to be $30 each in the first year with an approximate increase in cost of five percent per year after that.

Journals

Some of what I have said about our books in the field of art history can also be said about periodicals. The library does have many of the basic art history journals. However, funding has not been nearly as generous for journals. Art and Art History has undergone the same kinds of cancellations as have all the other subject areas the library supports and has been under the same restrictions for adding additional titles. As a result there are two titles I identified as relevant and needed by this program that really should already be held—History of Photography: An International Journal (from the British publisher Taylor and Francis) and Art History (from the Association of Art Historians). In addition to these titles I identified another 11 titles more specifically supportive of Studio Art. Unfortunately the two "history" titles are rather expensive, but the other 11 titles are each under $100 per year.

I identified titles listed in Appendix A by consulting Katz’s 2000 edition of Magazines for Libraries, reviewing holdings of other libraries, looking at OU’s interlibrary loan records, and reviewing relevant citations in the online Art Abstracts (formerly the print Art Index from the H. W. Wilson Company). While we may not need every title I have included, I do think students will profit by having a strong collection of journals and magazines related to their major. Such titles will not only inform them about methods and techniques, but several of the periodicals will also prepare students for potential job opportunities in the field of Studio Art. The budget I have included for the first year does not include sufficient funds for each title I have suggested, but it will allow for the addition of several useful titles. Also I am presuming that there could be modest additions of titles in the third and fifth year of the program. Inflation for journals is 10 per cent per year so I have built that into the costs. In addition I have included limited funding to purchase some backfiles of titles for which subscriptions will be placed. The most important titles need to go back at least four to five years to make them immediately useful to students when the program first begins.

Conclusion

In comparison to programs in the sciences, Studio Art will not be expensive to fund. However, unlike most other programs which have been proposed recently, this program is one for which we have very few directly relevant materials. In most cases we need to strengthen our holdings, but in this case we need to build from even the basics. The Library simply has not collected in Studio Art since the liberal arts major was suspended in the seventies. Unless the Library can receive funding for this new program, students will find the Library almost totally lacking in Studio Art resources.

cc:    Ann Pogany, Librarian Liaison to Art and Art History
        Elaine Didier, Dean of the Library
        Mary Papazian, Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences

Appendix A

Journal Titles to Consider for Studio Art

Title &  2001 Subscription Cost

American Art*     $ 70

American Artist*     $ 30

American Photo*     $ 21

Art History*     $ 406

The Artist     $ 52

Artist’s Magazine     $ 26

Camerawork*     $ 40

DPICT: the New Magazine of Camera Culture*     $ 70

Drawing *     $ 60

Exposure*     $ 35

History of Photography*     $ 282

Photo Techniques     $ 23

Photographer’s Forum     $ 15------

Total Cost         $1,130

*Indexed in Art Abstracts.

Appendix B

Budget for Library Materials for Studio Art

*Here I have presumed that in year 1 the average book price will be $30. After that I am presuming that average prices will inflate by 5% per year. This allows for the purchase of 100 books in year 1 and in year 2 and for the purchase of 50 books per year in each of years 3-5.

**I have built in journal inflation of 10% per year and have presumed that additional subscriptions at a cost of $100 will be added in both year 3 and year 5.

3.  Report from the University Committee on Undergraduate Instruction  

May 13, 2002

The University Committee on Undergraduate Instruction (UCUI) has reviewed the proposal from the Department of Art and Art History for a liberal arts major in Studio Art (proposal available on Senate website). We now submit it to the Senate Steering Committee to be forwarded to the Senate Budget Committee and Senate Planning Review Committee. We are happy to recommend this proposal to the University Senate for its discussion and approval.

 Re-instituting an undergraduate major in Studio Art is a welcome development, very much in keeping with Oakland University�s commitment to fostering student creativity through support of the fine and performing arts. There is evidence of strong student interest in this program, and it seems likely to attract students to the university whom we are otherwise not recruiting these days. Faculty currently involved are well prepared, though additional staff will be needed. The Department of Art and Art History is strongly committed to this program, which will be well integrated with its current offerings. The plan is for all Studio Art majors to study art history and all Art History majors to explore their talents in studio art. As a liberal arts major, the program allows students ample curricular space to complete university requirements and add appropriate minors and electives. Although this is not a specifically pre-professional program along the lines of a B.F.A. degree, the curriculum has been designed to prepare graduates for admission to competitive M.F.A. programs. Students with other goals can pursue a variety of careers identified in the proposal or avail themselves of opportunities available to all liberally educated persons. The curriculum has also been designed with a view to standards maintained by the College Art Association. UCUI applauds the department�s commitment to integrating writing and theory into all courses and providing exhibition experience through the capstone course. At least initially, the studio art program will be limited to specializations in drawing, painting, and photography, although there is potential for adding sculpture if staffing, space, and equipment can be provided. The department seems to have planned realistically for providing high educational quality despite limited resources.

SOME CONCERNS

This is an excellent program, which UCUI would like to see supported with better resources than seem likely. We are concerned that a small cadre of faculty may be overstretched in trying to develop and maintain the needed rotation of courses while handling the capstone course on an overload basis at least at first. Ideally, we would like to see an additional up-front faculty position and clear commitments from academic administration as to a schedule for increasing classroom space dedicated to studio art and for acquiring equipment. We would not, however, wish to see a program so needed and so promising put on hold while the university waits for ideal conditions.

SENATE ROLE

UCUI reviewed this proposal after its approval by the College Assembly and before it was transmitted to other Senate committees. We defer to the Senate Budget Review Committee for advice to the Senate regarding the program�s resource needs and to the Senate Planning Review Committee for advice on its relation to the university�s mission and goals. UCUI�s principal concerns have been those we consider it our role to determine: whether the program provides a valuable and attractive learning opportunity for our students; whether it avoids infringing on existing academic programs in any schools; whether the sponsoring unit is adequately prepared to introduce the program without putting undue stress on its other programs; whether the program adequately prepares students for their career goals; and whether the curriculum is well planned in terms of meeting university requirements as well as those of the proposed major. We are satisfied that the proposal for a liberal arts major in Studio Art meets our criteria, and so we advance this proposal to the Steering Committee and recommend that it be brought to the Senate for approval and, from there, be recommended to the President and the Board.

c:     D. Downing, College of Arts and Sciences
        J. Schimmelman, Art and Art History
        S. Wood, Art and Art History

4.  Report from the Senate Planning Review Committee

To: Senate Steering Committee

From: Senate Planning & Review Committee
Frances Jackson, Chair

Re: Proposal for a Liberal Arts Major in Studio Art

The SPRC has reviewed the proposal submitted to initiate a major in Studio Art. This major would focus on three main disciplines: painting, drawing and photography. The case is made for a B.A. degree rather than a B.F.A., as more congruent with the university�s goals. Michigan State University is the only competition for the B.A. degree in Studio Art in the state. It is anticipated that there will be 40 studio art majors, with a steady state of 90 majors who will be selected based on portfolio review.

There is general consensus by SPRC that this proposal is one of the best written documents that we have reviewed. We were notably impressed with the liberal arts foundation planned for this major. Major strengths include the interdisciplinary emphasis built into the course structure, the critical writing component to ensure aesthetic depth and conceptual understanding, and the requirement that all faculty must be active exhibiting artists and exceptional teachers. It is further noted that offering this major will likely attract a diverse group of students, an additional strength.

There were some questions about this proposal that we hope the faculty will address. While we don�t question student support for this degree, the proposal only states there were 125 student responses but does not identify the total number of questionnaires distributed. We also wondered if the listing of careers included any survey of local businesses or opportunities in the local area for people who graduate from this program. Finally, we would like to know if there are any articulation agreements with community colleges that might facilitate the movement of these students to the OU studio art major.

While there were few weaknesses identified in this proposal, two major areas of concern were identified. First, we believe that the hiring of two new faculty will be inadequate to meet the goals described in the proposal. From our review, it appears that a minimum of six new faculty will be needed to meet the goals of this program. We would not want the art history major to be compromised by trying to provide adequate resources for this new major in studio art. It is noted that an over-reliance on part-time faculty will not allow the Art Department to meet the goals so beautifully articulated in this proposal. Secondly, we believe this major will need additional studio space. While the need for space is alluded to in the proposal, SPRC believes this is a pressing concern that, if not properly addressed, will compromise the quality of this program.

SPRC supports the initiation of this degree. We acknowledge, as indeed the proposal so beautifully demonstrates, that this degree supports the strategic plan and Creating the Future goals identified by the university.
 

5.  Preliminary report on Studio Art from the Senate Budget Review Committee

We have just discussed the Studio Art Proposal, and the Committee, of course, thought very highly of it. However, the Committee would like for you to consider making some changes in the stated budget and assumptions.

1. State whether the salaries for the additional faculty include benefits, and if they don't, include those benefits in the expense budget.

2.  State whether the budgeted additional out-of-pocked expenses include items related to new offices and space, such as phone lines, and if they don't include those costs.

3. State what portion, if any, of the cost of additional space is included in the budget.

4.  Estimate how many of the Studio Arts students will actually result in an increase in the number of students and credit hours in the department. Then only include this increase in the revenue budget (e.g. if the Studio Art major results in a decline of 20 in Art History majors, include revenue for only 90-20 Studio Art majors),  This estimation might be somewhat difficulty, especially given the existence of majors, minors, and dual majors, as well as the possibility of students leaving Oakland University to get Studio Art elsewhere, so you could provide a range of estimates (which might actually be preferable).

5.  On page 39, you need to change the two 0.09 to 0.9, I think.

Austin Murphy, Chair, Senate Budget Review Committee

____________________________________________________

Final Report on Studio Art from the Senate Budget Review Committee

TO:                  University Senate

FROM:            Austin Murphy
                        Chair, University Budget Committee

RE:                   Studio Art Proposal 

DATE:             Oct. 29, 2002

 Our committee believes that most of our concerns regarding the budget for the establishment of a Studio Art major have been addressed in the newest budgeted numbers, which are attached. However, we feel it is important to point out upside and downside budgetary risks with respect to the proposal.

 In particular, the new budget�s assumption about the number of art history majors being cannibalized by the new major (only 5 in the first few years and 0 long term) may understate the true number that will occur. Although this concern might appear especially serious given the proposal�s reported survey findings indicating that 40% of existing students �would consider changing their current majors to studio art�, it should also be mentioned that the same survey indicated that 25% of existing students were �considering a transfer to another 4-year academic institution in order to graduate with a major in studio art.� Thus, the net cannibalization risk with respect to actual enrollments at Oakland University may only equal 40%-25%=15% of existing majors. In addition, over time, the reputation of the Studio Art program might increase enrollments in the existing major, with the program�s capacity constraint of 90 Studio Art majors resulting in more students remaining in Oakland University�s Art History program (i.e., those turned down by the Studio Art�s rationing system). At any rate, it should be mentioned that if there were just 5-10 cannibalizations long-term, that would imply $10,000 to $20,000 in less incremental revenue, resulting in a long-term annual cash outflow for the program of five to fifteen thousand dollars annually.

 Within this context, it should also be mentioned that the likely excess demand for the Studio Art major could justify an expansion of the program in the future, which might generate positive cash flow long-term. However, without further information, it is not possible to speculate on the size or sign of the long-term cash flow from such an expansion.

 The committee feels the proposal is a very good one that merits funding. However, the costs and cash flow risks of the program must be weighed in the context of other spending opportunities and budgetary constraints

12/05/02