The first draft of the Fine Arts Facilities Assessment has been completed.
The professional architects of GWWO, Inc have made it clear that something must be done to improve the arts facilities here at WC. This is not a new recommendation, however.
A September 29, 1967 Elm article describes students' reactions to the building's exterior as "cold and unrefreshingly predictable." It goes on to describe how the sculpture on the front of the building "blends in beautifully with the brick exterior and the effect of a much needed contrast is lost."
Over the next few weeks, others commented on the supposed "state-of-the-art" facilities. A November 4, 1967 editorial commented on problems with the structural integrity of the building. According to the editor, while only months old, the building had begun to settle, causing cracks in the walls.
In addition, the sidewalk had already started disintegrating, and the temperature control proved to be lacking.In another 1967 issue, a visiting musician likened the acoustics within Tawes Theatre to "playing in a sea of tasteless marshmallows." This world-renowned pianist also commented that he "doubts that alterations could ever make the theater a 'fine concert hall'."
Now, 33 years later, another attempt has been made to address all of these issues. Lack of rehearsal, storage, and office space for both music and drama, the overall decrepit nature of the Gibson building, and general neglect of the arts facilities are commented on in the first draft. But this assessment does more than just comment on these problems. It, unlike other reviews, offers explicit solutions. Solutions that need to be seriously considered.
Understanding that WC currently plans on renovating Gibson in 2007, the architects offer a short-term option to temporarily help alleviate the music and drama departments with slight building alterations. But they also stress that altering the building in such a way will not produce the needed results.
This plan of action, while more cost-effective and timely, may be seen as the "easy way out" by faculty, students, and administration alike. It is, however, not the proper solution. The building needs to be fully renovated, and the sooner the better. But with a price estimate of $10 million, the 2007 date seems more likely.Many students and faculty have already expressed their concern about the future plans for renovation. One faculty member commented that the date for renovations has already been moved many times. She was extremely skeptical about the 2007 date as well.
Some students have started taking action by raising money for the departments themselves. While these small sums cannot be used toward major renovations, they do send a powerful message that this issue will not go away and that students are willing to take matters into their own hands on an issue that spans many decades.
It reflects the pro-active stance that student and faculty voices have been expressing this year, demanding to be heard.
And the college has heard them. And the college has ignored them, or at least pacified them for half a decade until disgruntled students have all graduated. Gibson is a perfect example of this. The college has played the waiting game for over thirty years.
It is very possible that such a negative analysis of the college's motives is overly critical and a total misinterpretation of its intent. If so, this assessment has given the college a perfect attempt to vindicate itself.
By acting on the advised renovation of Gibson, the college can prove to every student that has ever set foot on this campus in the past 33 years that their college cares about them, about us.Someday, Gibson will be renovated. Let us hope that for the college's own benefit, it occurs soon.
300 Washington Avenue, Chestertown, Maryland 21620 | 410-778-2800 | 800-422-1782