p0n
4
Page 6
Wednesday, July 21, 1982
The Michigan Daily
f
The Michigan Daily
Vol. XCII, No. 44-S
Ninety-two Years of Editorial Freedom
Edited and managed by students
at the University of Michigan
Open the fair
T HE ANNUAL ART fair begins today and,
as usual, throngs of people are expected to
converge on the State, South University, and
Main Street exhibits. But this year, the art fair
has been tainted by a controversy, involving
alleged racial discrimination, that need never
have happened.
The controversy involves artist Jon
Lockard's rejection from participation in the
art fair, and his subsequent charge that his
disqualification was based on his race rather
than on the quality of his paintings.
It is up to the courts to decide whether
Lockard was discriminated against, but quite
clearly he was denied the due process all artists
deserve from the art fair organizations. After
appearing in the art fair for 22 years, Lockard
was cut-without explanation or chance for ap-
peal.
Clearly, the criteria for both the selection of
judges and the works exhibited should be made
public. Because the art fair organizations use
both city streets and services, they should be
accountable to the public. But it took a City
Council resolution to force the organizations to
release exhibit selection criteria.
For four days every year Ann Arbor virtually
becomes one big art fair. The organizations
that sponsor the fest have a duty to both the city
and its artists to see that the art fair is not only
enjoyable, but open and just.
r
10 BEHM'PV 1 AUL W 4 ' Wu Su31-s up eo*46
Wasserman
I LO IM ~It5 RIGT- A DEMOCRAT A SOCAL L\RAL WIT GEE... YOU DON T 4
RUNN\N& FOR A CEO- 0Wo UK i\& TEC)NO C(Y TAE HEART OFA ASCAL LOOK L\KE
.CS RSAA LIBERAL? A.. TAX R FOR CONSERvATIVE JIMMy CARTER
LETTERS TO THE DAILY:
ectc
4
i
To the Daily:
Street Art Fair Coordinator
Richard Brunvand has
repeatedly implied in his com-
munications with the press and
the Ann Arbor City Council that
Jon Lockard is out of order for
not acquiescing to the decision of
the Ann Arbor Street Fair Selec-
tion Committee that his work is
"unacceptable". In a July 12,
1982 communication addressed to
Mayor Belcher and Ann Arbor
City Council Members in
reference to Resolution' C-6,
Brunvand states, "The artist was
one of 37 who did not pass the on-
street jury during last year's fair.
He was one of 800 who was not ac-
cepted by the slide jury this past
spring ... This is the first time
that one of our applicants has
tried to makea public issue out of
the acceptance or rejection by
our acceptance committee into
the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair."
What Mr. Richard Brunvand
is saying is that to be in the
majority is right and that to be in
the minority is wrong. I find it
very insulting that Mr. Brunvand
believes that the Ann Arbor
public would find this a credible
argument. He must think very
poorly of a constituency he thinks
he can insult on one hand while at
the same time requesting public
support in his bid for the office of
County Commissioner, District
No.2.
I must also take issue with his
above mentioned statement that
"this is the first time that one of
our applicants has tried to make
a public issue out of the accep-
tance or rejection by our accep-
tance committee." In the entire
matter involving his rejection
from the 1982 Ann Arbor Street
Art Fair, the only thing Mr.
Lockard has asked of the selec-
tion committee is an explanation
of why his work has been found
unacceptable. Those who are at-
tempting to make a public issue
of selection criteria and
procedures arequite simply, the
public to whom the Street Art
Fair Selection Committee is ac-
countable. (Perhaps Mr. Brun-
vand also reasons that because
the public has not demanded or
been given an explanation until
now that there is no reason why is
should be done this year or in the
future.)
When an. artist enters a juried
show he realizes that his work
might not be accepted. However,
just because a show is juried does
not mean that criteria used in
selection are a private matter.
And if the show is funded by
public monies as in the case of the
Ann Arbor Street Fair, then
selection criteria are a public
matter and the artist and his sup-
porters deserve an explanation.
If Mr. Brunvand is publicly
"appalled that people are saying
that there is discrimination", and
that "There was no
discrimination in Mr. Lockard's
case" (Daily, June 16) then it
would seem that he would be
very eager to clear the air by
publicizing selection criteria and
procedures and by releasing
jurors names and qualifications.
However, if perhaps there are no
established guidelines and the
jurying process has indeed been
an act of arbitrary
discrimination, then his reluc-
tance and defensiveness are un-
derstandable.
Mr. Brunvand and the Ann Ar-
bor Street Fair Committee owe
Mr. Lockard, as well as other ar-
tists a public . apology, not
because they have been juried
out of the show, but because they
have disrespectfully been refused
an explanation. Mr. Brunvand
and the Ann Arbor Street Art
Fair Committee owe the Ann Ar-
bor public an apology for being
remiss in their obligation of ac-
countability to the public.
-Sarah Olson
July 15, 1982
4
4
Tempered criticism
4
To the Daily:
It is unfortunate that an article
such as "Reaction to ISMRRD
cut" (Daily, July 15) couldn't
have been more balanced from
my perspective. I have no doubt
that space limitations, and the
"news" value of representing
testimony as one sided are.
realities of daily print media.
However, fairness dictates a
response and a request for equal
time for my other views on the.
Institute for the Study of Mental'
Retardation and Related Disor-
ders (ISMRRD) as well.
What wasn't printed were the
successes ISMRRD has enjoyed,
and those quality individuals,
both talented and committed,
who have ben a part of these
programs. I should be remiss for
not singling out their Early In-
tervention Project and the Dental
Screening Programs as exam-
ples of successful meaningful ef-,
forts. Further, Dr. Henry Kanar,
Eleanor Lynch, Gene Handley
and Larry Turtin are among a
number of competent individuals
who have served ISMRRD and
the retarded exceedingly well.
As was reported, I could not
support continuing ISMRRD as
presently constituted. A gover-
ning board, with representation
from non University
professionals and consumer
groups would be most useful in
redirecting their activities and
garnering support for their
existence.
I should hope this letter will
temper my criticism and allow it,
in some measure, to be construc-
tive.
-Dohn Hoyle
Executive Director
Washtenaw Association
for Retarded Persons
July 19, 1982
I
4