April 25th, 2008

Dear Yvonne Guy, Dean of Students,

I am writing to voice a complaint pertaining to the posters that Nate Page relocated in the early morning of April 24th. While his actions of removal of posters from around the institute's hallways, stairwells, and corridor walls was a violation of Calarts' policy on vandalism, in no way did his actions damage the posters and in no way did he steal them. Calarts vandalism policy applied to this case falls short in consideration of the full scope of the movement of the posters as they importantly neither left the institute's walls nor came down before the listed events occurred.

I have worked with Nate for two years through which I have scrutinized with him the follies and strengths of his practice as an artist. There was no obstruction to any of the posters Nate used in his installation in the Main Gallery stairwell as all were on full display organized in their groupings, which logically acknowledged both the diversity of design present on any given day in the halls and the multiplicity of the information therein. Furthermore, all posters used constituted the entire content of the stairwell installation, a gesture that placed an emphasis on examining the merits of the posters themselves and the varied activities, events, receptions, etc. taking place within this educational environment, nearly all led and/or organized by students. While Nate's actions thus far have been interpreted as a removal of student property, and thusly an act of vandalism, consideration should be placed on the fact that the removal was never fully realized as it was never intended; the posters, most clearly, were not removed, but moved.

In contest of an initial complaint made by one student citing the work as  "most inconsiderate" I believe both Nate and the work demonstrated a regard for the posters while his intentions were nothing less of considerate. Ostensibly, the complaints that make remark towards the posters having less wide-spread exposure is valid, yet the exposure given to them as things not to pass by, noticing most always peripherally, but as compositions repositioned as the central focus in the area of the school which receives arguably the most extensive foot traffic in the entire building should be observed. Nate's effort produced a temporary kiosk of sorts, which, if it had been able to remain uninterrupted for longer, would have served as the most expansive destination, site, and survey of both the event information and the designers' personal demonstrated aesthetics and abilities.

While Nate is being used as an example by you as a violator of Calarts vandalism policy, it was the brevity of his action that you are using as propulsion to throw a shallow light on the School of Art and its constituents. The removal of posters in the institute is perhaps more rampant than known. This semester I have been running a student lecture series on Friday afternoons, which I have commissioned a corresponding poster series for. Repeatedly, I have noticed these posters "disappearing" nearly every week to some extent. I am neither bothered nor issuing a complaint of my own here as the posters that happen to be removed prior to Friday are taken for their merit and are acknowledged because of their eye-catching, arresting, or otherwise aesthetically pleasing designs. If you take notice of the advertisements that linger past their expressed dates you will find a disregard for the design as well as potentially the event. Nate's use of the posters were not based on these pretenses of judgment but arose from a self-imposed logic of relocating all advertisement found on the walls proper to a single place of display, allowing all design to become additive and contributively dynamic, arresting, and zones of curiosity. Two of the posters from the student lecture series were included in the installation, which speaks towards the fact that there were only two of these posters left in the original hall locations when Nate moved them, meaning an upwards of nine had already been removed by others. For the two posters that did make it to the installation I am most happy as they stood out in being placed next to each other and fully observable to perhaps a quite different audience than would have bothered to notice them elsewhere.

 It has come to my knowledge through at least two eye-witness accounts that removal of the installation took an upwards of seven Facilities staff workers, which were advised then and there to, "take their time" in the removal of the posters from the stairwell. While I am unclear as of now whether Nate will be charged for Facilities deinstallation and to what extent, it is irreconcilable that the workers "took their time" as this would imply a synonymous rolling fee which Nate would potentially have to pay for (as punishment?). I question whether this was intended to be a lessen for him. I've questioned one of the staff who was re-taping the posters to the hallway walls yesterday afternoon on what grounds he was able to judge where to locate the posters for re-placement. He responded that he was simply trying to space what he had out as best he could. Posters are hung by various members of the community in rarefied areas in order to catch the attention of particular amounts of traffic and/or a particular student demographic. In the re-installation of the posters in the hallways a further "detriment" could have occurred to the advertisement of these events whereas they were at least locatable in Nate's Main Gallery installation prior. I don't follow how the "vandalism" of one is grounds for the institute to "vandalize" that one's work.

Thank you for your time and attention,

Adam Feldmeth

Student, School of Art