In one of the last meetings before newly elected councilors come in, Ava speaks to council about forming an Ad-Hoc committee to fulfill the art sale referendum. A “robust art rental program” is offered as something that could be more financially viable than just selling the work. The committee would include “experts” but it’s unclear who these are, and they would do “not too much voting” on the committee (what does this mean?). The Art gallery commissioner is predicted to be in charge of seeing where the money goes.
Later in the same meeting, Jamiu raises the point of student input on the topic of how the money is spent, something that seems like it will be dealt with internally through the VP Admin staff, and then “left to the Art Gallery commissioner”.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
TERMS OF REFERENCE
In July of 2017, the newly elected president (sadly not the actual Engineering cairn) moves for an ad hoc committee that would oversee the sale. In the discussion period VP Admin Pooja Bhatti begs to not chair the committee, and president Alan seems fine to take charge.
And so, terms of reference for the SHAPE (Sale of Hatch Art Planning and Execution) committee are put forward. Objectives include looking at “potential selling avenues”, re-appraising the works, getting repairs done, and exploring options for the use of funds.
The composition of the committee is quite bizarre in certain ways, including the President, another AMS executive, 3 AMS councilors, two students at large, the Managing director (non-voting), the art gallery manager (non-voting), and a member of VASA (non-voting). It should be noted here that the Assistant Art Gallery manager is the position that oversees the collection, not the manager. Although the non-voting aspect of the last three makes sense in terms of them not being democratically elected, there is a lot to criticize here. Namely, where are the experts that were promised (remember the 2012 committee with representatives from AHVA, the Belkin, and a commercial gallery)? What about the idea of renting? How much influence do non-voting members have?
SHAPE in 2017-2018
SHAPE in 2017-2018
On September 27th, 2017 the SHAPE committee has it’s first meeting. Oddly enough, SHAPE meeting minutes have not yet been archived, and aren’t available for students. (In all fairness, from my time at the AMS Archives the meeting minutes are supposed to be sent to the archives by the committee chairs, and this is often forgotten for many AMS committees in the last few years).
The following are the next instances of SHAPE appearing in council minutes.
As I could not gain access to the report mentioned which would have information towards which paintings should be pushed to sell, this is a bit of dry section; there seems to be a fair amount of consultation with the Art Gallery staff at this time. What is interesting is that at the end of Alan’s presidential term, it is mentioned that money from a sale has been allocated to hiring an “events person” for the art gallery. Otherwise, the objectives of the committee were not completed in 2018, and they only met “once or twice”. The committee’s terms of reference are extended indefinitely.
To fulfill the goal of selling art that was voted in by the student body, the AMS creates the SHAPE (Sale of Hatch Art Planning and Execution) committee in the Summer of 2017. The seats on this committee are mainly AMS executives and councilors, with the AMS president chairing the committee. The Art Gallery manager sits on the committee as well, as does somebody from the Visual Arts Students' Association, but they do not get a vote. These two people are the only ones on the committee who are expected to have any background in the collection, or art in general. The SHAPE committee is tasked with re-appraising the work, looking into avenues for a sale, and figuring out how to spend the money. This committee meets twice in the coming academic year, and not much happens other than a mysterious report by the Hatch manager outlining recommendations for which works should be sold. Rumor has it the author of this report was somebody interested in pursuing a career in art sales, but this is not verified. Because of it's inaction, the committee is extended indefinitely into the future...