Art chairman supports plan for museum

By Ronald V. Clayton

This is a response to Mark Bliss's substantial mischaracterization of my position on the plans for the new regional museum to be built as part of the River Campus School of Visual and Performing Arts in his article of April 24, "SEMO museum plan stirs debate on space for fine arts."

When Bliss called to talk about the museum plans, I naturally wanted to affirm the essential fine-art role that I feel the new museum should continue to play. And I wanted to help preserve the Department of Art's stake in the museum's future.

Bliss refers to the master plan-interim report produced by Lord Cultural Resources in his article. The plan explains very clearly "that the Department of Art will continue to be a major user of the museum at the River Campus." It refers to art faculty and student involvement. It includes points from the museum's mission statement affirming a primary focus on art, culture and history and a commitment to expand understanding of the fine arts in surrounding communities. I am very comfortable with that. I am equally comfortable with the planning as it goes forward.

My single criticism of the museum plan as presently budgeted is that it is too small for any of its constituent parts. Plans for substantial permanent historical and anthropological displays take advantage of the strengths our collections offer.

The Lord report is correct, as I told Bliss. We have no fine-art collection to speak of. And developing one would be redundant given that excellent and established comprehensive collections are available within driving distance.

The history and anthropology displays will be good for our art students because art must be seen in a cultural and historical context.

I absolutely disagree with Dr. Edwin Smith who is professor of art education. Museums are for museum-quality art and artifacts. The fine arts function for our new museum ought to be just as it is described in the Lord report: to provide a window on the world of contemporary art and world culture.

We will develop the Jake Wells Teaching Gallery to exhibit student work at the River Campus. The Department of Art faculty is largely in agreement on that. They've been consulted and had opportunities to provide input. In any group, as we are all aware, there are sometimes one or two members who are perpetually and unaccountably out of touch. A comprehensive regional museum serving art, regional history, and anthropological interests is the right concept for this region at this time.

I am profoundly grateful to Dr. Dale Nitzschke for his tireless and remarkably successful work to initiate and fund the River Campus project. I am equally appreciative of President Ken Dobbins' skillful maneuvering through legal impediments and his resolute determination to make the project a reality. I have utmost confidence in my friend, Dr. Stanley Grand, the museum director. He brings sophistication, vision and skilled leadership to the museum project.

I am in perfect agreement on this matter with Pat Reagan, who will succeed me as Department of Art chair in July. I hope she will be wiser than I and avoid the snares of wily journalists intent on stirring up controversy where there is none.

Opportunities such as the River Campus and School of Visual and Performing Arts occur once in a lifetime if one is very, very lucky. I truly regret efforts from whatever quarter that make me out to be a naysayer and critic. I am certainly nothing of the kind. Thank you for this opportunity to set matters straight.

Ronald V. Clayton is chairman of Southeast Missouri State University's Department of Art.