|
|
ARTISTS IN RESIDENCE
The Academy comprised of nine departments covering nine disciplines: architecture, ceramics, design, fiber, metalsmithing, painting, photography, printmaking, sculpture. Each department was headed by an artist in resident who was the sole faculty member for that discipline. The artists mostly lived on Academy Way in close proximity to one another and their students; for the dorms and studios were also on or adjacent to this street. The Academy was, and remains, a small community; in the words of Eliel Saarinen, “a working place for creative art”.
During the academic year, I decreed that a faculty/staff meeting was to be held monthly on the first Wednesday of the month. Attendance was mandatory, no exceptions, not even the President; schedules were to be arranged accordingly. From the beginning, the meetings were held to share information on the activities and achievements of faculty and staff. No issues or problems were addressed in these meetings; no whining or complaining. My mandate was that if you have a problem come to me with the solution that would be discussed and considered; one to one. I was not, and never have been, a believer in collective decisions or rule by committee. I told the faculty that my neck was in the noose and asked if they wanted to join me? The faculty declined. As President, I made the decisions, right or wrong, and took the consequences.
Joan Mondale, wife of VP USA, Roy, Richard Thomas
Richard Thomas
When I arrived, the senior faculty member was the Head of Metalsmithing, Richard Thomas. Accepted as a student in 1946, he reopened the metal shop the following year and graduated in 1948; becoming the head of the department that year. For thirty years, Richard had been at Cranbrook, developing a reputation as an outstanding craftsman and teacher. Being of the old school, he quietly offered me his resignation; I declined and he continued on as artist in residence. His knowledge of Cranbrook and its early days were invaluable as was his commitment. In the book “Design in America: The Cranbrook Vision 1925-50”, his legacy as teacher and craftsman is clearly articulated, as is his “place in the Cranbrook tradition”. Worthy of note is the fact that Richard saved the famous ‘Andirons 1929’ by Eliel Saarinen. These priceless works had been thrown away as Saarinen House was gutted. He returned the bronzes to the fireplace and the work is now acknowledged as from the “Collection of Richard Thomas and Cranbrook Academy of Art”. In many other ways, Thomas was supportive and his knowledge indispensable during the restoration of the house and community.
Richard Thomas had many a tale to tell of the early days. I could rely on him as a resource of institutional knowledge. I remember being puzzled by the long Christmas vacation, over six weeks; that meant graduation occurred in June. The long vacation disrupted studies and creative continuity; the late graduation meant that our students had difficulty getting jobs. Everything seemed wrong and I asked Dick why the long vacation. He smiled and said, “Well, Eliel Saarinen always went home to Helsinki for Christmas”! My response was, “But Eliel has been dead for a quarter of a century”. Immediately, the Christmas recess became two weeks; students were allowed to stay in the dorms; everyone was pleased, particularly with the graduation in early May. Old habits do die hard; often are kept going out of ignorance.
When Richard Thomas retired in 1984, the problem was what to give him after his decades of service to the Academy. Later that year, the exhibition “Design in America” was to open at the Detroit Institute of Arts and travel to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and then to Helsinki. Dick was one of the few living artists included in the exhibition. I had an idea and that was to pay for his trip to Helsinki; the Board of Governors readily agreed. At his farewell party, fittingly held in Saarinen House, I gave a short speech in which I thanked him and wished him well in his future travels along life’s way. Solemnly, I presented him with a package which he slowly unwrapped, revealing a travel bag with shoulder strap. “Now, I said you are ready for life’s travels”. Dick looked nonplussed and then I told him to open the bag; inside were travel vouchers for the trip to Finland. For the first time, the ever stoic Richard Thomas showed emotion, thanking us for his first visit to Helsinki. The following year, he was part of the group that was welcomed at the Museum of Crafts and Richard Thomas was acknowledged as one of the exhibiting artists. In 1988, he died and the family asked me to speak at his memorial service. I was privileged to speak at Christ Church Cranbrook and paid tribute to an artist, teacher, colleague and friend. I concluded my remarks by recalling how Richard would acknowledge people, passing on Academy Way, with one finger twirling in the air, his salute; one that was tearfully recalled by everyone.
As I think back, I can recall other memories from visiting Dick on Lake Muskogee in Canada to the famed cocktail flaked with gold leaf, served in his studio to celebrate the end of the week or whatever was a good reason. For the other artists in residence, there is an abundance of memories for we lived and worked closely together in a small community. In these particular writings, I will try to keep reminisces to those that relate to their work and art as teachers and artists.
Michael Hall
My next door neighbor was Michael Hall with his wife Julie and their two children. They lived in Milles House, originally the home of Carl Milles, the Swedish sculptor who taught at the Academy and whose sculptures adorn the grounds of Cranbrook. Milles was renowned as a figurative sculptor; Michael was far different, concerned with construction, large and monumental abstractions that also enriched the grounds. Much has been written on his work; suffice to say that I wrote in a 1978 catalog: “The element of construction is blatantly apparent and becomes the sculpture, as does the concern for changing space and environment.”
At that time, Michael and Julia Hall were known nationally as having one of the best collections of American Folk Art. Both were articulate and wrote well; Julie Hall was the author of “Tradition and Change: The New American Craftsman”, published in 1977. I was to learn a lot from Mike and Julie on Folk Art and the Crafts. In 1989, I was crossing Academy Way, when Michael invited me to Milles House for champagne. “We’re celebrating”, he said. Much to my astonishment, in his house was Russell Bowman, director of the Milwaukee Museum, who told me that his museum had just acquired the Hall’s American Folk Art Collection. I knew Russell and congratulated him and those board members that were with him. What a coup for their museum; what a surprise for me; and what riches for Michael and Julie; subsequently they divorced. Michael left Cranbrook in 1990.
The gift at his farewell party was a TV with a built in player and a video of Mel Gibson in “Mad Max”. That macho character was very much the persona that Hall projected; the male, earth moving sculptor of grunts and grunge. However, Michael was, and is, a highly intelligent artist, author, lecturer and collector. His knowledge is encyclopedic and he is an authority on a wide range of subjects from Folk Art to Mid West Painters of the 1920’s. He and his wife Pat Glascock are avid collectors and have published a number of books including “Table Top Icons: Novelty Salt and Pepper Shakers” and “Great Lakes Muse: American Scene Painting in the Upper Midwest 1910-1960”.
Last year (2007), we met at USF Tampa at a dinner party. Hall had been invited to write an essay on the sculptor Robert Stackhouse, a distinguished grad of USF and a friend of mine from our days together at the Corcoran. In 1978, thirty years ago, Michael and I had invited Stackhouse to create a sculpture on the grounds; “Cranbrook Dance” was a 160’ wooden structure, installed on a hill above Kingswood Lake. The work is illustrated in the USF 2008 publication “Robert Stackhouse: Editions Archive” with the essay by Michael Hall.
Michael and I talked of Cranbrook and of yesteryear. During his tenure, Michael Hall did a fine job as Head of Sculpture, both as teacher and artist. Moreover, he was supportive of and contributed well to my efforts in the Academy and Museum; particularly with visiting artists; the General Studies program; and sculpture installations throughout the grounds. Michael was a lively and valued colleague; he remains a friend.
Gerhardt Knodel, fabric commission.
Gerhardt Knodel
Gerhardt Knodel had been Head of the Fiber Department since 1970; the same year that Michael Hall and George Ortman joined the faculty. Knodel had studied and taught in California; he was highly regarded as and artist and teacher. Like me, he had taught in high schools; whereas I taught in a mining village in Wales, Gerhardt taught in the Los Angeles City Schools. We shared that common experience of teaching youngsters and a commitment to teaching. He was the consummate teacher: cajoling; critiquing; informing; and inspiring through his words and own creativity.
In the old days, fiber was known as weaving in which the Academy had a strong tradition, beginning with Loja Saarinen. She had a studio and loom and played an important and influential role at Cranbrook. In 1980, an exhibition was presented at the Museum, entitled “Studio Loja Saarinen”; with a modest catalog and insightful essay by John Gerard, Curator of Collections. John was born and educated at Cranbrook Schools; his knowledge and commitment to the community and its history was deep felt and valuable. He writes of Loja Saarinen and of Maija Wirde, Lillian Holm and Marianne Strengell who worked in the studio. More is written on Loja and her contemporaries in the book “Design in America: The Cranbrook Vision 1925-50”. The chapter “Textiles” by Christa Thurman describes those early days and also the work of later distinguished alumni: Robert Sailors; Jack Lenor Larsen; Ed Rossbach.
In writing these reminisces, I am reminded constantly that, in recent years, so much has been written on Cranbrook, from its architecture to its artists. No doubt, much more will be written as students and scholars do more research. Of course, ever present is the internet with endless entries and infinite information on anything and nothing?! Information may not be knowledge in the true sense of awareness and understanding. Hopefully, my writings will give first hand insights and informed opinion of my time at Cranbrook; that is my intention.
Through its teachers, students and alumni, the Academy changed the nature of weaving with innovative use of new materials and innovative form. Gerhardt Knodel was more than aware of that tradition; indeed, he was most knowledgeable about the history of textiles throughout the world. His travels were extensive as were his acquisitions; his collection of textiles was highly regarded. He was most generous in sharing these textiles through exhibitions and lectures; his students were given an invaluable and lengthy history of textiles.
In his own innovative work as an artist, he extended and expanded the boundaries of weaving and fiber. I wrote that he was making: “art without epoch; sensitive to past traditions but concerned with future concepts…..he has made a synthesis of realism and abstraction, surrounding the viewer with shimmering threads of light, imagery, space and sensation.” To view his work in his large studio in Pontiac was always as a delight as was seeing his exhibitions and commissions; often vast works that change and challenge our perceptions. I admired his work as an artist and as a teacher; his students benefited greatly, as did we all . Elegant and eloquent, Gerhardt lived on the upper floor of a faculty house across the street from Saarinen House. His apartment was richly decorated with textiles and objects; always a pleasure to visit..
Carl Toth photograph. Carl Toth
Carl Toth, wife Judy and their two sons lived on the lower floor. Carl, the youngest faculty member, headed the Photography Department; considered the “youngest” department as the degree program started with his appointment in 1972. However, photography had been used at the Academy as a media from the early 40’s; certainly in the design department. Over the years, I had become knowledgeable about photography and had presented exhibitions at the Corcoran of major American photographers. I had also supported the photography department of the school and intended to the same at Cranbrook .
Carl Toth was born, educated and taught in Buffalo, New York. Writing of his work, I stated that, “Toth manipulates photographs to break away from conventional restraints. His early work was of montages combining many prints together to form one image of many sides, not contained by the rectangle but liberated in a kaleidoscopic juxtaposition of imagery.” Later I write of his “the sensitivity and vision”. Carl Toth was indeed sensitive, particularly in his reviews of student work. His caring critiques were sought out by students who respected his quiet and thoughtful opinion.
George Ortman
Connor Everts
George Ortman was a painter of national repute. He had studied in California; Paris; and New York. He and his wife, Connie Whitten, studied with Hans Hoffman; both were knowledgeable of the artists of the New York School. Ortman had exhibited widely and his work was included in the collections of the major museums, including the Museum of Modern Art, Whitney, Guggenheim and Hirschorn. His resume was impressive, almost intimidating for those that studied with him in the Painting Department. He was born in 1926, the same year as Connor Everts who headed the Printmaking Department. Connor had established himself as an innovative printer on the West Coast; he returned there after his time at the Academy. As I was a painter myself and having studied printmaking, I did not have as much to learn from George and Connor as I did from other faculty, particularly the McCoys.
 Michael and Katherine McCoy 1985 Formica Corporation Chairman's Office Kathy & Michael McCoy
In 1977, with one exception, the faculty was all male; not unusual in that day and age as the same held true for college presidents and museum directors. The exception at Cranbrook was that the design department was headed by a husband and wife, Mike and Kathy McCoy. As Kathy reminded me constantly, “one pay check”; they did work as a team, backing one another up, allowing for more outside professional activities. The design department had been started by Ray and Charles Eames, the famed designers; Kathy and Mike were continuing a grand tradition. Indeed, they furthered the Academy’s reputation in their own way and were a delight to work with. I will never forget my journey to Japan with Kathy and Mike or, later, the visit that Agnes and I made to their home in Colorado. Mike and Kathy left Cranbrook in 1995; as I was retiring, they decided to move on with their careers. I learnt so much about design and designers from them; for that and their friendship, I am grateful.
“Cranbrook Design: The New Discourse” was published in 1990 by Rizzoli. The publication, with lavish illustrations, provides an overview of innovative design in the decade 1980-1990 when Cranbrook designers “challenged the accepted notions of what design can accomplish”. The Academy became “known as an experimental laboratory of cutting-edge design. Much of the recent work has been a challenge to the mute or neutral Modern design aesthetic that eliminates any reference to the life around design. These are designs that celebrate life’s diversity, that bring technology out of its black box, and that engage the audience’s interpretative powers and participation.”
 "Cranbrook Design:The New Discourse", Rizzoli, 1990. In the introduction, I write that ”Katherine and Michael McCoy cochair the Design Department and, through their teaching and work as designers of national and international repute, extend the finest traditions of design at the Academy.” I go on to write of design alumni and of students who study in”a mutual atmosphere of investigation and experimentation that infuses the studios with energy and common purpose.” Other essays include those by the McCoys; Lorraine Wild; and Neils Diffrient. As ever, when looking back at these publications and catalogs, I am amazed at the amount of writing that I did; much of which seems relevant today.
From the beginning, I was insistent that Academy publications be of the same size and style; easily recognizable as being from and of Cranbrook. I had done the same at the Corcoran; and, at Cranbrook, I had a willing ally in Kathy McCoy. Initially, Kathy was responsible for the graphic design and type face, establishing ‘a house style’ for all printed material. Later, her students took over and designed fine catalogs, invitations, brochures and posters. These publications remain as a testimony to her and her students; outstanding and innovative design of the highest quality, for which I remain appreciative. 'Benevolent Dictator'
When I arrived, Richard De Vore headed the Ceramics Department. He had studied, 1955-57, under the famed Maija Grotell; by many, regarded as “the mother of American ceramics”. Dick took over the department in 1966 but decided to move on in the spring of 1978. I respected the work of De Vore as an artist and teacher.
Overall, the enrollment at the Academy averaged annually about 140 students in the nine departments. However, the Architecture Department had only two students enrolled. Before I arrived, consideration had been given to closing the department as there were few students wishing to enroll. Architecture could be considered the first of the disciplines taught at Cranbrook as Eliel Saarinen was the architect. To close the department seemed unthinkable.
As president, I felt that the faculty regarded me as “a benevolent dictator’; which, indeed, I was. May be “emperor” was a better analogy for I treated them as heads of the individual fiefdoms, like dukes of olden days. However, mine was the ultimate authority within the Academy. As artists in residence, the faculty had not only housing and studios but implied tenure. The President appointed the faculty; reviewed their performance; and set their salaries. I did have the opportunity to appoint new faculty; usually because faculty left, died, or when, as with Architecture, a new appointment seemed inevitable.
(06/07/08) Architecture Department 
Cranbrook School for Boys model made by students of the Architecture Department, under the direction of Daniel Libeskind. c1982/3 Daniel Libeskind Before I go further, I should admit that I am relying on my memory for most of what I write; I do use Academy publications for dates and quotes. The Cranbrook Archives have my papers and correspondence that may give more accurate information but not be as personal as my reminisces? I did find my appointment calendars but these contain only appointments and travel. Sketchy at the best, I find these calendars of little value as they are not diaries of what I did. However, as I write, I do find that I remember more and more. Certainly this is true as I write of Daniel Libeskind; his name does appear on my calendar for June 1978 and he did take charge of the Architecture Department that September. There is much more to the story than that…..
As there were only two students studying architecture in 1977, some action had to be taken to increase enrollment and sustain the department. I realized that of the nine departments, although architecture could be considered the oldest, the study was an anomaly. During their two years at the Academy, other students created art in their various disciplines from painters making paintings to ceramicists creating ceramics. Even the designers created actual graphics from posters to publications or prototypes and three dimensional models. The architecture student could not see a building built? I realized a more radical approach was needed and sought advice.
Fortunately, I knew George Sadek who was Dean of Cooper Union School of Art in New York City; that institution had a fine reputation, particularly in architecture. George and I had known one another over the past years, meeting at conferences and visiting together in Manhattan. George was an artist and educator, like me; also from Europe. I regarded him as a good colleague and friend. I asked George for his thoughts and he suggested that I talk with John Hejduk.
A few years earlier, I had been on an accreditation team at Cooper Union. At that time, I met Hejduk who was Dean of the Architecture Department. John was highly regarded as an artist, architect and teacher. Intelligent and articulate, his was a towering presence in every way. He was taller by far than my 6’. I looked up to him in every way; even his voice was more resonant and louder than mine, that says a lot. I sought his guidance.
John Hejduk knew and admired Cranbrook and its architects, particularly Eero Saarinen. I respected Heyduck and was delighted that he was willing to discuss the issue; more important, he did have a suggestion. One of his 1970 graduates had gone on to England, gaining his Masters in the History and Theory of Architecture. His name was Daniel Libeskind; he was currently teaching at the University of Toronto.
My discussion with Hejduk was forthright and honest; John warned me that Libeskind had difficulties with other architects and teachers. Daniel was brilliant, articulate, intelligent and self opinionated; he did not work well within the normal architecture department. At the Academy, that would not be an issue, as he would be the sole teacher. Libeskind was regarded as a theorist, visionary and rebel; sounded perfect for Cranbrook?! After careful discussion, John Hejduk and I agreed that I should contact and meet with Dan. As I felt that radical action was necessary, may be a radical would be an ideal choice to head the Department of Architecture. I invited Dan Libeskind to visit Cranbrook.
I have clear memory of that meeting in the office of John Hejduk; a meeting that would bring Libeskind to Cranbrook and, eventually, to the architectural world. However, I can not recall how contact was made with Daniel nor am I sure of the date of our first meeting; may be that date in June 1978? What I do remember was how impressed I was with him on our first walk around Cranbrook; we walked and talked and talked. We discussed the grounds and architecture; Dan shared my appreciation of the work of Eliel Saarinen. With his studies in England and teaching in London at the Architectural Association, we shared much, including the fact that we were both born in Europe. From the beginning, I knew that Daniel Libeskind was the ideal choice and, as President, I had the authority to offer him the position as Head of Architecture; he accepted.
My decision and his appointment were not unanimously accepted nor embraced within the community. The most outspoken criticism was that Libeskind had never designed a building that had been built; how could he be considered an architect? Local architects were most critical and skeptical. How ironic that Daniel Libeskind would become one of the most famed architects in the world; even though still controversial.
Indeed, I have been told that the best thing that I did for Daniel was to “hire and fire him”! Of course, there is more to that statement but I am proud of my initial decision to hire Libeskind. Some faculty were uncomfortable with his forthright manner and outspoken opinions; attributes that I admired and shared. Indeed, his impact on the community was immediate: he supported the restoration with professional advice and encouragement; he gave lectures; his interviews with the press went well; overall, he made an impression.
As Head of Architecture, Dan did a remarkable job and revitalized the department; his accomplishments were admirable. Immediately, some of his former students came with him to Cranbrook to pursue graduate studies. Other students came, having heard of his innovative approach through word of mouth; already, the architectural profession was becoming aware of Libeskind through his teaching, drawings and published writings.
His drawings and collages were exhibited in “Cranbrook Artists in Residence. 1978”; shown in the museum that September. Libeskind had just arrived and his work was on public view. In the catalog, Dan writes, “My work has been concerned with the constructive possibilities of architecture, especially those dealing with the poetics of form. More specifically, I have been interested in finding the points of contact and correspondence between architecture, the fine arts, poetry and philosophy. To that end, I felt it necessary to reappraise architectural ‘language’ not only in terms of its traditional syntax but also in the light of a symbolic and perceptual recovery of meaning. The use of collage with which I have been involved, both as a conceptual dimension and a methodological means, allows for a direct access to perpetual transformation, assembly and reassembly of human emblems embodied and sedimented in architectural form.” (catalog footnote: Daniel Libeskind to Roy Slade, August 16, 1978.)
Also in that catalog, I included an extract from an article “Intermediate Unit 9”, Architectural Association Projects Review 1976-77 (London, 1977). Writing on the problems of urban architecture, Libeskind state, “We believe that it is within our possibility to re-think and to re-dream, once again, the effacement of wonder, the expropriation of time and the labyrinth of present-day mediocrity.” Of course, Dan was right in that most of architecture and architectural teaching was awful, worse than mediocre; but such views did make him popular with other architects and teachers.
In a later catalog, “Artists in Residence 1984”, the Architecture department of Daniel Libeskind summarizes its philosophy: “The study of architecture has, since classical times, embodied the roots and concepts of the fine arts, the humanities and the sciences with a view toward enriching human life.” Other than his revitalization of the department, I was most grateful to Dan’s emphasis on and support of interdisciplinary study. As President, I kept stressing the need for collegiate and creative activity between the departments. I stated that the art of tomorrow would be created between the disciplines: my favorite phrase and continual exhortation was to look “between and beyond the boundaries”.
In my first year at the Academy, I had received a letter from Finland written by the architect Erik Kragstrom. After Eliel’s death, Erik had promised Loja that he would try to sustain ties between Finland and Cranbrook. His earlier letters had met with no response; when he heard of my appointment, he wrote again. I was interested in his ideas and suggested that he visit Cranbrook; which he did with a younger architect, Juhani Pallasmaa. We had dinner and talked, little realizing the many consequences of our conversation. In summer 1979, I visited Finland for the first time; the first of many trips to Scandinavia. Our further discussions led to more collaborative endeavors, including Daniel Libeskind teaching and exhibiting his work in Helsinki, and culminating in the exhibition “Design in America” being presented at the Finnish Museum of Applied Arts and Museum of Finnish Architecture.
Libeskind had taught at the Architectural Association of London and took off a semester to teach in Helsinki. In much demand as a speaker and teacher, he was travelling extensively. His 1983 awards included a Graham Fellowship and a National Endowment for the Arts Grant; in1979, he had received a US/ Scandinavia Society Travel Grant. Through his lectures, teaching and writings the reputation of Daniel Libeskind continue to grow. On the one hand, his activities and accomplishments gave him growing recognition, nationally and internationally; and brought attention and students to the Architecture Department and Cranbrook. On the other hand, his activities and absences were beginning to have a detrimental effect on his responsibilities as the Head of Architecture and its sole faculty member, supposedly full time and in residence?!
As President, I was in a dilemma as I admired Dan as an artist and teacher. I appreciated everything he had done in revitalizing his department. At the same time, my commitment was to the Academy and its students. Other faculty expressed their resentment and felt that Libeskind was not fulfilling his teaching commitments. My concern grew as architecture students came to me with their frustration over his absences; the feeling that their education was being neglected; and other complaints. In fairness, Dan was an energetic teacher and brought in Visiting Artists to cover for him; nevertheless, resentment and frustration festered and grew. I was accused of treating him as a favorite; may be that was true as he done so much in bringing international acclaim back to Cranbrook.
In 1985, the issue came to a head as Libeskind was awarded the Venice Biennale First Prize Stone Lion Award. He came to the office, asking for more time off, having just been away teaching in Finland. For me his request was the breaking point; our meeting ended in angry rage, both of us being somewhat belligerent and intolerant. I believe that, in an emotional outburst, I said, “You have bitten the hand that fed you”?! Our next meeting was at a lawyer’s office; his dismissal in 1985 was not my finest hour but his appointment in 1977 was.
Of course, there is more to the story; I am sure that there is correspondence in the Archives. On a personal note, I did enjoy the company of Dan and his wife, Nina. She was, and is, a remarkable woman; intelligent and articulate, forever and fiercely supportive of Dan, his career and creativity.
My appreciation for his accomplishments at Cranbrook remains; as did his legacy. Since then, I have watched with admiration his achievements as an architect. I have written a lot on Daniel Libeskind at Cranbrook; subsequently, considerably more has been written on his architecture. What a twist of irony that when I appointed Dan, I was criticized for appointing an architect who, at that time, had never built a building?! Now, I do feel that my decision “to hire and fire” Dan did help place him on the world stage of architecture; deservedly so.
(06/14/08) 1985-86.
When Dan Libeskind abruptly left Cranbrook, I had little alternative but to take over the Architecture Department. For the academic year 1985-86, I was acting Head of Architecture, dependent on the cooperation of the students and an active visiting artists program.
The architecture students were fully committed and cooperative. During that academic year, the students produced a publication, “Architecture at Cranbrook: Works 1985-86”. In the introduction, I concluded that, “The poetic, visionary and innovative aspects of architecture and art are exemplified in this publication. The future of the department is assured by the commitment of the Academy and its students to architecture.”
The eight students worked together on this publication with photographs and writings on their work. The graduate program attracted students with wide experiences from teaching architecture at college level to working in architectural studios. These students were mature and knowledgeable; many questioning the established and current field of architecture; mediocre at best? They were intelligent and articulate; their preface began: “The coherence and substance of the Cranbrook studio is derived from a commitment to ideals of architecture that can only be addressed through confrontation with objects and the art of making them. We seek to explore through our work the essentials that constitute what architecture can be, these cannot be found by the unquestioning acceptance of particular ordering systems or formal styles. The lesson history clearly teaches is that no methodology or dogma can claim to constitute architecture.”
Among the students, I relied on the opinion of one student in particular: Frank Fantauzzi. He was most helpful, mature and expressive. He wrote, “The object is the enigma, and for the architect, the object of necessity is even more so. There is a profound relation between the hand and its object. At times touch is the purest reason.”
Dan Hoffman
I knew that another appointment had to be made; again I turned to John Hejduk. Although I had dismissed Libeskind, I think John understood and may be even sympathized. Whatever he felt, John was willing to come to Cranbrook and be a visitor to the Architecture Department. At the same time, he remained a friend and mentor to Daniel. I was appreciative of everything that Libeskind had done for the Academy and was pleased that I had accepted Hedjuk’s suggestion. Once more, I turned to John for advice and guidance; again, he had an idea of a possible candidate and another of his graduates, Dan Hoffman.
I invited Dan Hoffman to be part of the Visiting Program of the Architecture Department. He did participate but, if I remember correctly, he seemed reluctant to take over the department. I do know that I met with him in New York. Dan was a practicing architect and was working in the studio of Ed Barnes; I visited him there. I continued to pursue him and eventually persuaded him to come to Cranbrook; I think at a coffee house on Columbus Avenue in Manhattan. Again, I was grateful to Hejduk for his suggestion; Dan Hoffman was the ideal choice, for he sustained the program and furthered the reputation of the Architecture Department at Cranbrook.
Although Libeskind and Hoffman were “Dan”, they were different in many ways, yet shared a commitment to challenging and changing the nature of architecture; both in teaching and practice. Intense and intellectual, as was his predecessor, Hoffman, in contrast, was quiet and calm; persuasive in his own way.
Hoffman had taught and worked in Detroit. He took over as Head of Architecture for the academic year 1986-7. The following is quoted from the Academy Graduate Studies Catalog: “Dan Hoffman received his architectural training at The Cooper Union in New York City. After completing his studies, he moved to Detroit to teach at the University of Detroit and practiced in the office of William Kessler Associates.” The brochure goes on to describe his teaching in Canada and Italy; his work as project architect for Edward Larrabee Barnes Associates in New York; and concludes that, “He currently maintains an individual practice while continuing his speculative studies at the studio at Cranbrook.”
In 1994, Rizzoli published the book, “Architecture Studio: Cranbrook Academy of Art 1986-1993”. The book presented more than thirty studio projects, produced over that seven year period, with extensive photography and commentary. Dan wrote the introduction and project essays; there can be no greater tribute and lasting testimony to his tenure at Cranbrook than this publication. Dan Hoffman had not only a profound effect on the Architecture Department but left a lasting legacy throughout the community; for which he served as advisor and, in his later years, as architect. His design for the guard booth and Woodward Avenue entry remains the official and public access to Cranbrook Educational Community.
In the foreword, I acknowledged how Daniel Libeskind and Dan Hoffman had brought further international attention and acclaim to Cranbrook. I go on to write, “The maturity and ambition of the projects in this volume demonstrate the intensity with which work is pursued at Cranbrook. Students are keenly aware of the passion for work that inhabits the walls like a ghost, calling forth a commitment to the traditions of the place, as well as bearing witness to the importance of individual pursuits.”
On a personal note, the Studio members in their acknowledgements thank Roy Slade “for his foresight and irrepressible enthusiasm” and Agnes Fleckenstein and the Women’s Committee “for their hard work”. Rather a timely and touching tribute for we were to retire in 1994 and leave Cranbrook at the end of that year.
(06/17/08)
New faculty appointments The Process
I have written at length about the architecture department. The situation was dire when I arrived, with the possible closure of the department due to lack of enrollment. My appointment of Daniel Libeskind not only revitalized the department but, eventually, had a profound impact on architecture itself. Dan Hoffman was another fine appointment as, through his efforts, a fine tradition and reputation was sustained and furthered within the Architecture Department.
In other departments, I would have appointments to make and, eventually, I did bring in new faculty to the Academy. I knew that I needed to look outside Cranbrook for new faculty; to infuse new ideas and fresh ‘blood’. The search process started with me getting into contact with fellow presidents and deans and by asking my faculty for ideas. The position was advertised nationally. Those candidates that I felt worthy were invited to come to Cranbrook. If different applicants came to be interviewed, they were never brought in at the same time. The candidate met with faculty. When I was being considered as potential President, I met with the entire faculty; watching the egos and personalities clash. However, I instigated a process where the candidate met with faculty on a one to one basis, in their individual studios and departments. In this way, candidates got to know the Academy, its facilities and faculty. Later, as needed, I could then seek out the independent opinion of faculty.
Within the department, candidates were asked to review the equipment and facilities and make suggestions for improvements. They met individually with students in the department, reviewed their work, and collectively discussed their needs. Most important to the interview process was the lecture to the student body, faculty and staff. The talk was to be a slide presentation of the candidates work; this was most revealing. I would take each candidate to dinner for a lengthy and leisurely conversation. I encouraged the spouse to come on the visit and to dinner; as they would be living at the Academy. I felt that the interview was a two way process, particularly at Cranbrook, where the applicant and spouse needed to know about our community. I was finding out as much as I could about the candidate over a couple of days, in order to make an informed decision. Finally, I would get a sense of the consensus among faculty and students about the different applicants. Eventually, the decision to offer a position and make an appointment was solely mine as President. Of course, the candidate had to accept my offer. As will be seen, such was not always the case but, once my mind was made up, I was nothing if not persistent.
Ceramics: Jun Kaneko
Other than architecture, the most challenging appointments were to occur in Ceramics and Metalsmithing. For years, these departments were headed by legendary Cranbrook teachers: ceramicist Richard De Vore and metalsmith Richard Thomas; both were graduates of the Academy. As De Vore left in my first year, I had to deal first with the Ceramics Department. Initially, I asked George Mason to take over in an interim capacity. He had studied with De Vore and, for a year, would carry on the fine traditions of ceramics at Cranbrook.
In ceramics, after meeting with various candidates, an obvious choice emerged and that was Jun Kaneko. He was reluctant to accept my initial invitation to come to Cranbrook. Eventually, he accepted and was Head of Ceramics from 1979-1986.
The story of his coming to the Academy is documented in the book “Jun Kaneko” by Susan Peterson (publishers Laurence King 2001). This publication is an in depth survey of Kaneko and is a stunning tribute to his accomplishments in art. The author writes of Jun giving a lecture in 1979 at Cranbrook and says,” It did not occur to Kaneko that it was more of an interview. Slade, the entire faculty, and most of the 150 students attended his lecture.” At that time, Kaneko declined my offer to become Head of Ceramics but I persisted; as did Connor Everts, his good friend and Head of Printmaking. “Connor Everts called Kaneko every day, urging him to accept the job offer. The Japanese ceramicist was insistent in his refusal, but did agree to spend a week on the Cranbrook campus to observe activities more closely.” In his own words, Kaneko describes how bad the ceramics equipment and kilns were. He then made a serious evaluation of what was necessary.
The author writes that “Kaneko’s proposal was for an amount of money that he was certain that Roy Slade would find unconscionable. In a few days, the president responded positively to the artist’s request, but admitted that it would take him two years to raise the funds. Slade asked Kaneko if he could spread the project over that period of time and still teach. The ceramicist said he needed a day to think about it: ‘I’ll figure out if it makes sense or not.’ He accepted.”
Jun Kaneko was perfect for Cranbrook and that is why I was persistent and insistent. Jun was a painter, printmaker, sculptor and ceramicist; the complete artist. The book “Jun Kaneko” fully documents his career and achievements with lush and colorful photographs of his work. Nothing can duplicate or describe the sheer scale and huge size of some of his recent work. His vision and vitality as an artist served him well as a teacher. Jun inspired his students who adored him. At times, Kaneko had difficulty expressing himself in the English language but his work and work ethic spoke volumes. He taught through example as a true artist; his is a life committed to creativity. When visiting his studio, I was in constant awe of his innovative and expressive art, whether in paint or clay. Jun had an impact on all students in the Academy, and the faculty, through his work and commitment. His work transcended the disciplines and went ‘beyond boundaries’; he dealt with the totality of art: form, color, craft, decoration, design, space, expression, image, imagination and innovation.
While at Cranbrook, Jun visited Omaha and was intrigued with the large kilns at the Brickworks. He began to work on a huge scale and started his “Dango” series, large scale painted forms. I was fortunate to visit Jun at the Omaha Brickworks and saw another dimension of his ongoing creativity. This year (2008), at the St Petersburg Arts Center, Agnes and I saw an exhibition of his current work, as fresh and as vital as ever, awesome in its scale and color. I continue to admire his work and appreciate his tenure at Cranbrook; he was the right choice!
Graham Marks Tony Hepburn
In the 1978 initial search, one of the candidates that I considered was Graham Marks. Although his work was widely exhibited and highly regarded, Graham was young, then in his twenties. By 1987, when he was appointed Head of Ceramics, his reputation had grown and matured through his teaching, awards, exhibitions and publications. In his philosophy, printed in the Academy brochure, he stated, “Clay has been used throughout time to make the intangible real and express the immaterial through material. The Ceramics Department at Cranbrook strives to be a place in which one can work toward a vision of the thing one doesn’t quite yet know.” Graham Marks served the Academy well as a teacher and his own work in ceramics was impressive.
His successor was Tony Hepburn who was appointed Head of Ceramics in 1992. He was visiting artist and I had asked him to take over the department for a semester after Marks had left. As the search was going on, a group of ceramic students came to me and suggested I invite Tony to stay at Cranbrook. An obvious suggestion but one I had not considered as Hepburn had tenure at Alfred University. However, I immediately talked to Tony and, eventually, I am happy to say he accepted my offer to be Head of Ceramics. Much has been written on Tony Hepburn as an artist; I would like to quote his words, “A material that is liquid in one state and stone like in another will sustain its fascination for the next 35,000 years.” Certainly, Tony’s work was fascinating as was evident in his 1993 exhibition at the Museum entitled “Do Not Think About a Blue Door”. The show presented his work to the community and revealed his multimedia approach to art. Hepburn advanced the exploration of art between disciplines, as had Jun Kaneko. I was proud of these appointments that furthered the rich heritage, started by Maija Grotell, and the innovative traditions of ceramics at Cranbrook.
Gary Griffin, gates Bloomfield Hills MI. Metalsmithing:
Gary Griffin
Gary Griffin took over the Metalsmithing Department in 1984; to replace the legendary Richard Thomas had been a challenge. I met with distinguished alumni who had studied with him, including Brent Kington and I do believe that he mentioned Griffin. Whoever brought us together, I am grateful; as soon as I met Gary, I knew he was the right person. I admired his work and his knowledge of the craft. Gary Griffin had taught at Rochester Institute of Technology; lectured extensively; and his work had been widely exhibited. He was involved with Metalsmithing through conferences and publications. (In 1987, he organized and hosted the North American Goldsmiths Annual Conference held at Cranbrook.)
I was pleased to invite him to come to Cranbrook; even more pleased that he accepted. Gary Griffin was a fine faculty member and contributed well as artist in residence; his work and opinion were highly regarded.
In early 1985, the exhibition of his work, “Recent Works in Steel”, was presented at Cranbrook Art Museum. A group of these tall, elegant and fine sculptures revealed his technical mastery and personal imagery. For the accompanying brochure, I interviewed Gary and my final question solicited his views on Metalsmithing and his own work.
Gary Griffin responded: “The field of Metalsmithing is currently extremely diverse. It encompasses people who are working from the hollowware tradition that deals with the vessel or an orientation towards toward volume, to those who are dealing with architectural or environmental situations. I include myself in the latter group.
“The qualities in my work that I view as uniquely American are extremely important to me. Not only do I include the American landscape as subject matter, but the work embraces the notion of fantasy, of the tall tale, of playfulness. Though the work is designed, it is not an expression of design concept. Rather it reflects a less rational approach, a more fundamental sensibility such as, ‘Hey, let’s go build a gate!’.”
He did build gates as was evident in the museum exhibition “Critical Mass”, celebrating his tenure 1984 thru 2005, and showcasing his work and the careers of over one hundred of his students. As was stated at that time: “During his Cranbrook tenure, Griffin – considered one of the nation’s foremost metalsmiths – maintained an active practice focusing on utilitarian works for residences and institutions, resulting in regular commissioned work, from tables, furniture and lighting to gates, fences and railings. Interest in his work has resulted in pieces being placed throughout the country including the award-winning vehicular and pedestrian entry gates to the Academy of Art at Lone Pine Road and Academy Way – something Griffin credits as one of his greatest achievements at Cranbrook.”
Equally evident and impressive was his teaching for he influenced and inspired his students to work in diverse ways; both traditional and experimental. Through his own creativity and that of his students, Gary Griffin furthered the fine traditions of Metalsmithing at the Academy; a remarkable achievement for which, as President, I was grateful.
On a personal note, a gift from Cranbrook that I appreciated was that of a sculpture by Gary Griffin. The steel sculpture is 81” tall; one of the 1984 series shown at the museum. The work is in our Florida apartment; for Agnes and me, one of our treasured possessions, giving us daily delight and visual pleasure.
Printmaking:
Steve Murakishi
Steve Murakishi was invited to be Head of Printmaking in 1981. Born in 1949 in Hawaii, he studied in Michigan with a BFA from Michigan State and an MFA from the University of Michigan, where he also taught. Steve worked in multi media; again, an artist who pushed between disciplines and beyond boundaries. Writing of his department, he writes, “Within Cranbrook’s experience or experiment is the challenge to renew creative freedoms and to regain the substance of meaning. Making prints, making art mirrors our lives and our thoughts. We are curious, enlightened, disappointed and humored by these connections and assessments. The reflexitivity of our modern landscape is recorded and a new generation born…..Printmaking must realize visions.”
Murakishi read and wrote; published articles included “The Teasing of Empowerment: Big Hair and Tromp L’oeil” and “Morphability in America”. His exhibitions had equally challenging titles: “Murder as Phenomena” at San Francisco Camerworks; “The Cult of Aesthetic” at Wesleyan University; and “Mo Colors, Mo Better” at Florida State Museum. The titles reflect Steve’s wide ranging interests and curiosity; reflected in the multi media of his own creativity. At times, he appeared confrontational; at others, he was conciliatory. Nationally, like other faculty, he furthered his own reputation through his lectures, writings, exhibitions and participating in panel discussions; in so doing, he promoted the Printmaking Department.
Again, as I write of these appointments, I advise the reader to access the internet to find out more about these artists. Through its website, Cranbrook presents the artists and work, often with colorful images of recent work; much more information is readily available in cyberspace. To the best of my ability, I try to recall and record my memories of these artists in residence: colleagues and friends. My favorite story of Steve was of his playing golf with Buddhist monks; he told of their colorful vestments, flowing and billowing across the course. This image, graphically described, remains in my mind as incongruous and particular; as was the work and teaching of Steve Murakishi.
Heather McGill, sculpture. Sculpture:
Heather McGill
When Michael Hall left in 1990, I would have another challenging appointment to make. Although Michael had neither the longevity nor legendary status of Richard Thomas, he was a larger than life character, a volatile presence within the Academy. The fact that I replaced this macho sculptor with a woman was because Heather McGill was the best candidate for Head of Sculpture.
Heather McGill became Head of Sculpture in 1991; she immediately took charge of the department, facilities and students. From the beginning, I was impressed by Heather as an artist, teacher and colleague. I remember a lecture she gave as part of the interview process. She talked and showed slides of installations that she created throughout the West Coast; site specific work, dealing with historical and environmental issues.
Her department’s philosophy as stated in the brochure: “Questions, not answers are what engage us as artists. Questions that expand our capacity to understand our sphere of existence. Questions that challenge the very forces that have influenced us and carried us to this point in time………The Academy functions as a creative bell jar, an environment to explore, define and develop potential.”
In her own art, Heather McGill continues to realize her own potential in works that a critic recently described as “austere but playful, severely masculine and ridiculously feminine. She uses advanced automotive technology to embellish her minimalist aluminum wall sculptures, lending the metal that usually takes the form of an incredibly powerful machine a bit of a sense of humor.” I do know that I was impressed with her art, innovative and accomplished, and with her transformation of the sculpture department. My regret is that we never had those many years to work together; the same could be said of her colleague in the Painting Department.
Painting: Beverly Fishman
When George Ortman left, another void and vacancy occurred; once more, my choice was to be a woman, Beverly Fishman, the best candidate by far. I knew painters well but most were established, unwilling or unable to move full time to the Academy as an artist in residence. Moreover, I wanted someone with new ideas, an experimental approach and interest in the potential of painting. As usual, I sought out suggestions. I had known Barbara Price for many years; she had taught for me at the Corcoran and I had persuaded her to join me at Cranbrook as Dean of the Academy; another story. She was Vice President at Maryland Institute at the time that I was looking for a painter to come to Cranbrook. Barbara suggested I talk with Beverly, who was teaching there; I did so and was intrigued. Beverly Fishman accepted my invitation to become Head of Painting in 1992; another good decision and right choice for Cranbrook.
The 1992/3 brochure philosophy reveals her attitude that reflected my own thoughts. Beverly stated: “Painting today is a rich and complex activity. While existing in a continuum with centuries of painting craft, styles and issues, contemporary painting may encompass media that go far beyond the brushstroke. Elements of sculpture, photography, printmaking, collage or writing may well be part of a painter’s craft today.” I could not agree more. In her painting, Beverly went between the boundaries of art and science; indeed beyond boundaries, spatially and conceptually.
Beverly Fishman and Heather McGill are artists that enriched the programs of the Academy through their work, teaching and professional activities. Both are artists who exhibit widely; lecture; gain awards and ever growing recognition. I am proud of them and of those appointments that I made, as President of the Academy, over my years at Cranbrook. VISITING ARTISTS 
Le Corbusier and Eliel Saarinen 
Eliel Saarinen and Frank Lloyd Wright 
Agnes Fleckenstein,RS and painter John Alexander The Visiting Artist Program was a critical part of the education of Academy students. Distinguished artists, designers and architectures were invited to lecture, teach, work and interact with students and faculty. The visits could be for a day or much longer, dependent on the individual and invitation. The visitors came based on the recommendation of faculty or suggestions of students; with my approval as President. The visiting artists offered a range of possibilities: lectures, critiques, workshops, panel discussions, studio visits and sabbatical teaching. The richness and diversity of opinion offered by visitors was an invaluable enrichment of the educational program. In addition, artists came to the Museum for exhibitions and installations; these artists were integral and invaluable to the program. I was committed to bringing in as many diverse ideas and opinions as possible to broaden education and give enrichment.
From the early years, visitors came to Cranbrook; Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier curious to see the work of Eliel Saarinen. The opportunity to see Cranbrook was often enough in itself; for air fare and lodging, many notable names visited. Artists were proud to participate in programs and exhibitions; much was achieved, programs and reputation enhanced. During my tenure, visitors included Magdalena Abakanowicz, Vito Acconci, John Alexander, Siah Armajani, Rudy Autio, Alice Aycock, John Baldessari, Robert Blaich, Pieter Brattinga, Daniel Buren, Ralph Caplan, William Christenberry, Mildred Constantine, Niels Diffrient, Ray Eames, Peter Eisenman, Dale Eldred, Dan Flavin, Kenneth Frampton, Sam Gilliam, Frank Gehry, Keith Haring, Grace Hartigan, Lloyd Herman, Roni Horn Patrick Ireland, Richard Meier, George Nelson, Louise Nevelson, Isamu Noguchi, Yoko Ono, Dennis Oppenheim, Judy Pfaff, Philip Perlstein, Aldo Rossi, Alan Shields, Carol Summers, Ann Sutton, Lenore Tawney, Stanley Tigerman, Peter Voukos, Massimo Vignelli.
On a personal note, I must mention Ann Sutton; she was a fellow student at Cardiff College of Art. She was invited by Gerhardt Knodel to visit the fiber department in 1985; I was delighted to see her again, a lifetime later! Ann is a notable fiber artist, living in England; her lecture was fascinating. Not only did students benefit from the visiting artists; so did the President and the entire community
|
|