DOCSLIB.ORG

Grad Survey Fall 2012 Keith Lea

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Grad Survey Fall 2012 Keith Lea On Reflection & Interactive Video Art Grad Survey Fall 2012 Keith Lea Ever since the Sony Portapak became available in the mid-1960’s, artists have been using video to explore these new technological apparatuses, specifically their effect on our relationship with our selves. Through experimentation with cameras and video monitors, artists of the 1960’s and 1970’s such as Vito Acconci, Bruce Nauman, Pipilotti Rist, Peter Campus, and many others explored themselves, their bodies, and ways of representing themselves in the medium of video. While many, many issues have been addressed by video artists, since the 1970’s some artists have been using this medium to challenge the boundaries between artist and viewer. By using closed- circuit video, cameras, televisions, and projectors in installations themselves, Peter Campus includes the viewer in this exploration of self-image. My own artwork continues in this tradition, attempting to use modern image processing technology to further engage and challenge the viewer. In 1971, Peter Campus made his foray into interactive video art with Kiva, a sculptural closed-circuit video installation. The piece contains a video camera resting atop a television, pointing at two small mirrors which dangle from the ceiling and Kiva, Peter Campus, 1971 twist around gently, only inches from the camera itself. A hole has been drilled into the mirror closer to the camera, and as a result, the resulting image on the television screen is composed of the reflections of the two mirrors, one within the other. The piece is interactive, but not necessarily with the viewer herself – visitors to the gallery can show up on the television if one of the two mirrors happen to be reflecting their image to the camera. The piece is effective in addressing the growing omniscience of video and CCTV surveillance systems. This piece is drastically different than some of Campus’s later works in several respects. Firstly, random chance is involved in who gets to “interact” with the piece – that is, who shows up on the screen. Of course, one can walk around the room and hope to catch a glimpse of themselves – but this is clearly not the intended course of action. Campus’s later installations direct the viewer much more clearly, and address him more directly. Secondly, Kiva does not create an environment for his piece – there is no lighting element particular to the piece, and it is visible from anywhere in the gallery. Later works depend on specific lighting and must be viewed from certain locations and angles. Campus recently attempted to categorize his interactive works of the 1970’s.1 He chose four dimensions on which each piece could be measured – (1) Apparatus: the types of lighting and equipment involved; (2) Relations: the distances and angles between apparatuses and the viewer; (3) Visitor: the degrees of freedom, level of immersion, and presence/absence of a planned course of events; and (4) Video image: the background, the size of the image, and the relation to the camera. The intricacy of 1 Herzogenrath, Peter Campus (Bremen, 2003) p.93 each of these four spectra, along with the breadth across which Campus experimented with each one, speaks to Campus’s dedication to exploring this particular viewer interaction. Following Kiva, Campus developed two pieces which were similar to one another on all four fronts. Interface (1972) and Shadow Projection (1974) are both situated in a darkened room, and encourage the viewer to explore their own image. Visitors’ images are projected in real time, allowing one to move Interface, Peter Campus, along with the projection. In Interface, the viewer’s recorded image is projected onto a sheet of glass, literally on top of the her actual reflection. In Shadow Projection, one’s recorded image is projected directly onto a shadow cast by the viewer, thus illuminating one’s shadow with one’s glowing electronic image. These works attempt to bring together various methods of projection. In our everyday lives, light is “projected” all around us. Shadows and mirrors are two easily recognizable and accessible instances of this phenomenon, and Campus is clearly attempting to bridge the familiar and what was at the time new and possibly threatening. The works also deal with psychological issues of the self, the inner and outer world. “These mirroring systems may relate to Campus’s long fascination with self-loss, an experience he interprets as a psycho-physical dislocation manifested as the sense that one is one’s own double, inhabiting the sensate world but experience it without affect.”2 Artist Dan Graham, who also works with video feedback and mirrors, sees it differently: “The video feedback of ‘self’-image, by adding temporality to self-perception, connects ‘self’-perception to physiological brain processes; this removes self-perception from the viewing of a detached, static image; video feedback contradicts the mirror model of the perceived ‘self.’ Through the use of video-tape feedback, the performer and the audience, the perceiver and his process of perception, are linked, or co- identified.”3 In the late 1970’s, Campus continued developing these ideas. His next installation, mem (1974), used video not simply as a mirror but as what one might call an interactive painting. He also began experimenting with coercing the viewer. Projected at a sharp angle, the viewer finds her recorded image is distorted and blurred, yet she can see that it is clearly reacting to her movement. As she tries to position herself in the room, she finds there is a narrow range of ideal positions where she is affecting the projected image, but can also see it. This situation also turns other visitors in the space into voyeurs – they can see everything. His next project pursues this voyeuristic type of interaction. dor (1975) is unique in Campus’s canon; it stands alone as a piece whose viewer never sees himself. Rather simple in its construction, the installation consists of a dark room, one projector, and one camera outside the room. Upon entering the dark space, the viewer sees a live 2 Walker Art Center, Projected Images (1974) p.13 3 Moure, Dan Graham Works and Collected Writings (Barcelona, 2009), p.224 projection of the gallery itself. As she looks longer, she realizes she is looking at the entryway to the room in which she is standing. Next she realizes that whomever was in the room previously could see her – and that she will never see herself, only the next visitor to walk into the room. dor, Peter Campus, 1975 My interactive artwork is heavily informed by several of these works from Campus’s canon. In Mirror (2012), which was on display at Mount Royal: First Month, a television rests vertically on the wall, reminiscent of a mirror. A camera rests next to it, recording the viewer. It displays the viewer’s image, but interspersed somewhat randomly with images of previous viewers. Using computer vision software, the piece attempts to show you images of people who are a similar height and a similar distance from the television itself. As you walk closer to the piece, the people you see are also closer. As you walk further away, you see people who are more hesitant and are standing back. Campus’s installation dor, mentioned earlier, served as the starting point for my most recent work, After Peter Campus After Bruce Nauman (2012) on display at Mount Royal: Fall Show. In this work, an iPod is situated in the upstairs part of the gallery, enticing viewers to look at live video of themselves, but becoming invisible the closer they get to the piece. Downstairs, the viewer discovers that by interacting with the iPod, they were making their image a permanent part of the piece. A television, powered by an exposed homemade computer, displays images of visitors taken from the iPod, with facial tracking information overlaid on the image. A grid of eyes, compiled in real time using facial tracking software, flickers as the computer continues processing new imagery. In 2012, one’s image is being captured constantly, by friends posting to After Peter Campus After Bruce Facebook as well as by surveillance Nauman, Keith Lea, 2012 cameras. Interactive video art can challenge us to consider this particular relation with apparatus that we are coerced into on a daily basis..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Artist's Voice Since 1981 Bombsite
    THE ARTIST’S VOICE SINCE 1981 BOMBSITE Peter Campus by John Hanhardt BOMB 68/Summer 1999, ART Peter Campus. Shadow Projection, 1974, video installation. Courtesy Paula Cooper Gallery. My visit with Peter Campus was partially motivated by my desire to see his new work, a set of videotapes entitled Video Ergo Sum that includes Dreams, Steps and Karneval und Jude. These new works proved to be an extraordinary extension of Peter’s earlier engagement with video and marked his renewed commitment to the medium. Along with Vito Acconci, Dara Birnbaum, Gary Hill, Joan Jonas, Bruce Nauman, Nam June Paik, Steina and Woody Vasulka, and Bill Viola, Peter is one of the central artists in the history of the transformation of video into an art form. He holds a distinctive place in contemporary American art through a body of work distinguished by its articulation of a sophisticated poetics of image making dialectically linked to an incisive and subtle exploration of the properties of different media—videotape, video installations, photography, photographic slide installations and digital photography. The video installations and videotapes he created between 1971 and 1978 considered the fashioning of the self through the artist’s and spectator’s relationship to image making. Campus’s investigations into the apparatus of the video system and the relationship of the 1 of 16 camera to the space it occupied were elaborated in a series of installations. In mem [1975], the artist turned the camera onto the body of the specator and then projected the resulting image at an angle onto the gallery wall.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Art in Enterprise
    Report from the EU H2020 Research and Innovation Project Artsformation: Mobilising the Arts for an Inclusive Digital Transformation The Role of Art in Enterprise Tom O’Dea, Ana Alacovska, and Christian Fieseler This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 870726. Report of the EU H2020 Research Project Artsformation: Mobilising the Arts for an Inclusive Digital Transformation State-of-the-art literature review on the role of Art in enterprise Tom O’Dea1, Ana Alacovska2, and Christian Fieseler3 1 Trinity College, Dublin 2 Copenhagen Business School 3 BI Norwegian Business School This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 870726 Suggested citation: O’Dea, T., Alacovska, A., and Fieseler, C. (2020). The Role of Art in Enterprise. Artsformation Report Series, available at: (SSRN) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3716274 About Artsformation: Artsformation is a Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation project that explores the intersection between arts, society and technology Arts- formation aims to understand, analyse, and promote the ways in which the arts can reinforce the social, cultural, economic, and political benefits of the digital transformation. Artsformation strives to support and be part of the process of making our communities resilient and adaptive in the 4th Industrial Revolution through research, innovation and applied artistic practice. To this end, the project organizes arts exhibitions, host artist assemblies, creates new artistic methods to impact the digital transformation positively and reviews the scholarly and practi- cal state of the arts.
    [Show full text]
  • Paul Robeson Galleries
    Paul Robeson Galleries Exhibitions 1979 Green Magic April 9 – June 29, 1979 An exhibition consisting of two parts: Green Magic I and Green Magic II. Green Magic I displayed useful plants of northern New Jersey, including history, properties, and myths. Green Magic II displayed plant forms in art of the ‘70’s. Includes the work of Carolyn Brady, Brad Davis, Jim Dine, Tina Girouard, George Green, Hanna Kay, Bob Kushner, Ree Morton, Joseph Raffael, Ned Smyth, Pat Steir, George Sugarman, Fumio Yoshimura, and Barbara Zucker. Senior Thesis Exhibition May 7 – June 1, 1979 An annual exhibition of work by graduating Fine Arts seniors from Rutgers – Newark. Includes the work of Hugo Bastidas, Connie Bower, K. Stacey Clarke, Joseph Clarke, Stephen Delceg, Rose Mary Gonnella, Jean Hom, John Johnstone, Mathilda Munier, Susan Rothauser, Michael Rizzo, Ulana Salewycz, Carol Somers Kathryn M. Walsh. Jazz Images June 19 – September 14, 1979 An exhibition displaying the work of black photographers photographing jazz. The show focused on the Institute of Jazz Studies of Rutgers University and contemporary black photographers who use jazz musicians and their environment as subject matter. The aim of the exhibition was to emphasize the importance of jazz as a serious art form and to familiarize the general public with the Jazz Institute. The black photographers whose work was exhibited were chosen because their compositions specifically reflect personal interpretations of the jazz idiom. Includes the work of Anthony Barboza, Rahman Batin, Leroy Henderson, Milt Hinton, and Chuck Stewart. Paul Robeson Campus Center Rutgers – The State University of New Jersey 350 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • A One Day Exhibition
    New Video at EAI: A One Day Exhibition New Video at EAI: A One Day Exhibition Saturday, September 8, 2001 12 - 6 pm, 535 West 22 Street, 5th floor New Video at EAI is presented in conjunction with the Downtown Arts Festival's Chelsea Art Walk day and with the cooperation of Dia Center for the Arts. Monitor 1 Joan Jonas Mirage 2, 2000, 30 min, b&w Mirage 2 is a reconsideration of the past, a new work edited by Jonas from footage recorded in the 1970s as part of her Mirage project. Eder Santos Projeto Apollo, 2000, 4 min, color Combining artfully designed sets and digital processing, Santos recreates the historic Apollo lunar landing, using simulation to interrogate representation. Ursula Hodel Cinderella 2001, 2001, 12 min, color Cinderella 2001 is a vibrant performance tape with an unnerving, compulsive narrative concerned with image and obsession. Phyllis Baldino 16 Minutes Lost, 2000, 16:54 min, color Baldino's 16 Minutes Lost is the perfect portrayal of scatterbrainedness, testament to the clutter of modern living and the inevitable failings of manmade systems. Monitor 2 Cheryl Donegan The Janice tapes: Lieder, 2000, 4 min, color; Whoa Whoa Studio (for Courbet), 2000, 4:30 min, color; Cellardoor, 2000, 2 min, silent In her new performance trilogy, Donegan sets up a series of charged relationships -- between artist and model, art object and artistic "gesture," performer and viewer. Mike Kelley Superman Recites Selections from 'The Bell Jar' and Other Works, 1999, 7:19 min, color, sound "In a dark no-place evocative of Superman?s own psychic ?Fortress of Solitude? the alienated Man of Steel recites those sections of Plath?s writings that utilize the image of the bell jar." Mike Kelley Kristin Lucas Involuntary Reception, 2000, 16:45 min, color Involuntary Reception is a double-imaged, double-edged report from a young woman lost in the telecommunications ether.
    [Show full text]
  • National Endowment for the Arts Annual Report 1989
    National Endowment for the Arts Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. President: I have the honor to submit to you the Annual Report of the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Council on the Arts for the Fiscal Year ended September 30, 1989. Respectfully, John E. Frohnmayer Chairman The President The White House Washington, D.C. July 1990 Contents CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT ............................iv THE AGENCY AND ITS FUNCTIONS ..............xxvii THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE ARTS .......xxviii PROGRAMS ............................................... 1 Dance ........................................................2 Design Arts ................................................20 . Expansion Arts .............................................30 . Folk Arts ....................................................48 Inter-Arts ...................................................58 Literature ...................................................74 Media Arts: Film/Radio/Television ......................86 .... Museum.................................................... 100 Music ......................................................124 Opera-Musical Theater .....................................160 Theater ..................................................... 172 Visual Arts .................................................186 OFFICE FOR PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP ...............203 . Arts in Education ..........................................204 Local Programs ............................................212 States Program .............................................216
    [Show full text]
  • Campus' Closed-Circuit Slavko Kacunko Slavko Kacunko
    Campus' Closed-Ci rcu it Campus' Closed-Circuit Slavko Kacunko Slavko Kacunko Lr) oo oo f_E Die Uberwindung der empha- rischen Praktiken zwischen dem ln order to arrive at an impartial As we all know, the writing ai his- ==OC) Closet l- l- tischen 0pposition zwischen dem hermeneutischen Kontextuber- view of media art that derives its tory like 'directness' * is a C)(J - schen 13Etl (I)(l) ,spezifisch Medialen' und dem druss und semiotischer Kontext- pertinence from the spheres of construct. A discourse abou; the <t) a gerat oo ,historisch Gewordenen' ist eine euphorie. both media theory and art history, 'directness' of media from an (J (J br/Pr Voraussetzung fiir den unbefange- Das Historieschreiben ist ebenso it is essential to overcome the art-historical perspective mev -(n -u) auditit nen Blick auf die Medienkunst, wie die,Unmittelbarkeit' bekannt- emphatic opposition between what illuminate the conflux of technical (f_== o_ lung, t (\,EE (g der seine Kompetenzen sowohl lich eine Konstruktion. Ein Diskurs is 'specific to media' and what and human viewpoints and rrreigh (JO ftir die Bereich Medien- 'has aus dem der [iber die mediale,Unmittelbarkeit' become historical'. up the opportunities and the bildet. theorie wie auch der Kunstge- aus kunsthistorischer Perspektive A future history of media art will dangers brought about by their sowol schichte beziehen will. Eine krlnfti- kann das Ndherbringen von have to counter 'post-historical' convergence, even their mul,.:al deren ge Medienkunstgeschichte wird technischen und menschlichen apocalyptic paranoia and fantasies penetration, schen der,posthistorischen' End zeitpar a- Sichtweisen durchleuchten und die of abolition with a thesis of conti- The attempts made during trie So ist noia und den Aufhebungsfantasien Chancen und Gefahren ihrer An- nuity which does not construct early period of 'video art'to differ- des e eine Kontinuititsthese entgegen niherung und lnterpenetration 'pre-established harmonies' in entiate it from other media r;f des b setzen mtlssen, welche nicht abwagen.
    [Show full text]
  • Before Projection: Video Sculpture 1974–1995 Contents
    Henriette Huldisch Before Projection: Video Sculpture 1974–1995 Contents 5 Director’s Foreword 9 Acknowledgments 13 Before and Besides Projection: Notes on Video Sculpture, 1974–1995 Henriette Huldisch Artist Entries Emily Watlington 57 Dara Birnbaum 81 Tony Oursler 61 Ernst Caramelle 85 Nam June Paik 65 Takahiko Iimura 89 Friederike Pezold 69 Shigeko Kubota 93 Adrian Piper 73 Mary Lucier 97 Diana Thater 77 Muntadas 101 Maria Vedder 121 Time Turned into Space: Some Aspects of Video Sculpture Edith Decker-Phillips 135 List of Works 138 Contributors 140 Lenders to the Exhibition 141 MIT List Visual Arts Center 5 Director’s Foreword It is not news that today screens occupy a vast amount of our time. Nor is it news that screens have not always been so pervasive. Some readers will remember a time when screens did not accompany our every move, while others were literally greeted with the flash of a digital cam- era at the moment they were born. Before Projection: Video Sculpture 1974–1995 showcases a generation of artists who engaged with monitors as sculptural objects before they were replaced by video projectors in the gallery and long before we carried them in our pockets. Curator Henriette Huldisch has brought together works by Dara Birnbaum, Ernst Caramelle, Takahiko Iimura, Shigeko Kubota, Mary Lucier, Muntadas, Tony Oursler, Nam June Paik, Friederike Pezold, Adrian Piper, Diana Thater, and Maria Vedder to consider the ways in which artists have used the monitor conceptually and aesthetically. Despite their innovative experimentation and per- sistent relevance, many of the sculptures in this exhibition have not been seen for some time—take, for example, Shigeko Kubota’s River (1979–81), which was part of the 1983 Whitney Biennial but has been in storage for decades.
    [Show full text]
  • Press Release
    Positions I Bruce and Norman Yonemoto (in collaboration with Mike Kelley) Kappa (1986) 7 – 11 July 2015 Evening Screening and & Drinks Reception, Thursday 9 July, 6-8pm For the first week of Positions—a series of five week-long, single channel video installations running through July and August 2015—Hales Gallery is delighted to present Bruce and Norman Yonemoto’s 1986 film Kappa, made in collaboration with artist Mike Kelley. Bruce and Norman Yonemoto are known for their pioneering body of work deconstructing and exploring mythologies created within mass media culture, as well as for their independent video and installation work produced in more recent years. Beginning in 1976, the artists would appropriate the styles of popular media forms (soap operas, Hollywood melodramas and television advertising) to create ironic, stylised fictions exposing the media’s manipulation of reality, fantasy and identity. Underlying their critique of culture is the brothers’ Japanese-American heritage and their upbringing in California’s Silicon Valley, as well as their proximity to Hollywood and the entertainment industry. The film Kappa combines the Greek myth of Oedipus with the figure of the ‘Kappa’ from Japanese folklore to explore the presence and relative positions of Eastern and Western mythologies in everyday life. The Kappa (a freshwater deity or sprite known for its sexual and violent behaviours, played by Mike Kelley) encounters an Oedipal scene reframed in a contemporary south-Californian setting, watching and commenting as Jocasta (Oedipus’s mother, played by famous Warhol Factory member and B-movie actress Mary Woronov) and Eddie (a pun on ‘Oedipus’, played by Eddie Ruscha, son of artist Ed Ruscha) consummate their dangerous desire.
    [Show full text]
  • 5 Old-School NYC Video Artists You Should Know (And Follow)
    https://hyperallergic.com/121286/5-old-school-nyc-video-artists-you-should-know-and-follow/[9/27/18, 2:47:40 PM] � � � � ARTICLES 5 Old-School NYC Video Artists You Should Know (and Follow) Jason Varone April 18, 2014 Peter Campus, still from “Kiva” (1971) (photo by the author for Hyperallergic) Most written accounts of the origins of video art trace the medium back to the Sony Portapak, the first affordable, battery-powered, portable video-recording device that could be operated by a single individual. The resulting democratization of video was quickly seen as having radical potential. Artists could challenge the rising influence of broadcast media. All of a sudden, the barriers to working in this time-based medium were removed. Looking at the work of a few pioneers, specifically those on the scene in New York City, it’s obvious that technology was a catalyst for a new type of electronic art; these artists were trailblazers in both fields. And this remains true of their current work, 37 years after the first Portapak hit the market. Here, then, are five old-school NYC video artists whose work you should know about and (still) be following. Mary Lucier Mary Lucier (b. 1944, Bucyrus, OH) burned vidicon tubes with lasers and pointed the video camera directly at the sun, testing the limits of technology in her pieces from the 1970s, such as “Dawn Burn” and “Fire Writing.” She’s also known for telling subtle but powerful human stories in multichannel video installations, and the natural landscape is featured prominently in her current work.
    [Show full text]
  • Moving Image Artists
    Time Based Artists Drawing Animation William Kentridge - Stereoscope Blu - Muto Len Lye (NZ) - Tusalava Kseniya Simonova - Sand Animation Hector Projector – Its Art Amy Kravitz – River Letthe Michel Gagne – Twisted Shadow Puppets Alexander Alexeieff and Claire Parker- La Nez Leopold Survage - Coloured Rhythms Oskar Fischinger – Mephisto Waltz Norman McLaren - Boogie Doodle Joanna Priestley – Voices Gary Bardin – Adagio Stan Brakhage – Garden of Earthly Delights Ed Emshwiller – Sunstone Steven Subotnick - West The Quay Brothers – The Calligrapher Paul Glabicki – Object Conversation Performance Alan Kaprow – Happening Joan Jonas – Glass Puzzle Carolee Schneemann -Eye Body: 36 Transformative Joseph Beuys – Action Piece Actions Yves Klein – Anthropométries de l'époque bleue, Chris Burden – Trans-fixed Ana Mendieta – Blood Sign #1 Marina Abramovic – Artist in The Present Gorilla Girls – March for Women’s Lives Jim Allen (NZ) – Contact Bill Viola – The Crossing Ene Liis Semper – Oaas Edward and Johann (NZ) – Paddies Attic Zhang Huan – Family Tree György Galántai –Foot Wear Vanessa Beecroft – VB35 Monali Meher – In Determination Eleanor Antin - Plaisir d'Amour (after Couture) Nick Cave – Sound Suits Le Wei – Ahead 1 Video Digital Carolee Schneemann - Cycladic Imprints Nam June Paik – Ommah Peter Campus – Interface Tracey Moffatt - Night Cries: A Rural Tragedy Luke Duncalfe (NZ) Jacuard Loom Panels Pipilotti Rist – Ever is Over All Harriet Stockman (NZ) – Final Gag Chris Braddock (NZ) The Artist Will Be Present Diana Thater – Butterflies Feng
    [Show full text]
  • SIGNAL CHANNEL by Michael Joe Krainak
    Omaha City Weekly 10/15/2006 07:59 PM Cover Story Q&A Culture Nightlife Dining Movies Columns This Week Music Tech Theatre/Art Sports - Archive Search COVER STORY SIGNAL CHANNEL By Michael Joe Krainak A marble statue of a nude woman sits atop two side-by-side TV monitors which project another nude reclining across the screens. This parody of Titian’s “Venus of Urbino” is the creation of video art pioneer Nam June Paik. In his miniature installation “Lonesome Bird,” David Zimmer places an LCD screen depicting a close-up of a finch complete with chirping sounds inside a Victorian-era apothecary jar. New media and video artist called Sterz, just Sterz, projects from above snow that appears to float from below on an aluminum plate which lies on the floor. Called “Cure,” it offers the viewer another of this artist’s spontaneous aesthetic responses to the natural world. Though the above artists and works aren’t exactly household names to lovers of postmodern art, especially in this region, a new comprehensive show of video art, which opens this Friday, June 9, from 7–10 p.m. at the Bemis Center for Contemporary Arts, will alter that perception. “Signal Channel,” curated by Jeremy Stern, assistant director of the Bemis Center, is the most significant show based upon this form of new media ever to be seen in this area. Before you remind yourself that it’s the only show of this type, credit Stern and Bemis Director Mark Masuoka to have the vision and take the lead in this direction.
    [Show full text]
  • School of Art 2015–2016
    BULLETIN OF YALE UNIVERSITY BULLETIN OF YALE BULLETIN OF YALE UNIVERSITY Periodicals postage paid New Haven ct 06520-8227 New Haven, Connecticut School of Art 2015–2016 School of Art 2015–2016 BULLETIN OF YALE UNIVERSITY Series 111 Number 1 May 15, 2015 BULLETIN OF YALE UNIVERSITY Series 111 Number 1 May 15, 2015 (USPS 078-500) The University is committed to basing judgments concerning the admission, education, is published seventeen times a year (one time in May and October; three times in June and employment of individuals upon their qualifications and abilities and a∞rmatively and September; four times in July; five times in August) by Yale University, 2 Whitney seeks to attract to its faculty, sta≠, and student body qualified persons of diverse back- Avenue, New Haven CT 0651o. Periodicals postage paid at New Haven, Connecticut. grounds. In accordance with this policy and as delineated by federal and Connecticut law, Yale does not discriminate in admissions, educational programs, or employment against Postmaster: Send address changes to Bulletin of Yale University, any individual on account of that individual’s sex, race, color, religion, age, disability, PO Box 208227, New Haven CT 06520-8227 status as a protected veteran, or national or ethnic origin; nor does Yale discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. Managing Editor: Kimberly M. Go≠-Crews University policy is committed to a∞rmative action under law in employment of Editor: Lesley K. Baier women, minority group members, individuals with disabilities, and protected veterans. PO Box 208230, New Haven CT 06520-8230 Inquiries concerning these policies may be referred to Valarie Stanley, Director of the O∞ce for Equal Opportunity Programs, 221 Whitney Avenue, 3rd Floor, 203.432.0849.
    [Show full text]