I would like to comment on The Spectrum's coverage of the recent performance by art students in the Center for the Arts Atrium. I disagree with The Spectrum's editorial criticism of the piece.
The issue of sovereignty over space in which art students can practice and display artwork is definitely a source of discussion among UB art students, professors and administration at the Center for the Arts. Perhaps the performance in the Atrium was not successful as a protest, as The Spectrum's editorial suggests. The performance was not intended in the sense that a sit-in or strike is a protest. However, it was very successful as an art piece, which is generally the intent of an artist.
Albert Chao, the student who initiated the project, went through the Center for the Arts administrative rules to make the project possible. He enlisted the backing of professors, filled out the appropriate paperwork and worked within guidelines so as not to damage the building in any way. The action did, however, bring an issue to light; it commented on a situation that the artist, and many other art students, find frustrating. In this sense, the piece was largely successful.
Personally, I find it surprising that The Spectrum editorial board, a group of people who continually gripe that UB students are apathetic toward their political environment, would so harshly criticize students who actually took a stance about a situation they find frustrating.
Photo: Meredith Forrest Kulwicki
