Talk:School of the Art Institute of Chicago

New President
As of the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year Tony Jones was replaced by Wellington “Duke” Reiter as president of the school.

And as of this writing (February 2, 2011) Wellington Reiter is out and Walter Massey is the new president. Cosmo1976 (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Notable Alumni
In order for a name to be listed as a "notable alumni" of SAIC, it's a fair test of the individual's true notability that Google returns a few links leading to things they've accomplished. If not, the name should be removed. This is a way to keep the article clean of egotistical clutter.

Rather, shouldn't the test of notability be an independent Wikipedia entry regarding an individual and/or thier accomplishments? Absolutely anybody could be Googled and have a list of "accomplishments." Does anyone agree with this? There is already some "egotistical clutter" going on with the existing guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.22.183.146 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the existence of an independent Wikipedia article would be the better test. I think that many current names would be removed if this test was applied. Cosmo1976 (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Change Article
Since Art Institute of Chicago is the official title of the museum, an article titled School of the Art Institute of Chicago might be more appropiate since it is their official title. It is likable to Boston Museum of Fine Arts being separated from School of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. --radiokillplay 16:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarifying Museum / School Relationship
Whenever someone has time, a separate article devoted to the School would be a good project to pursue. For the record, though, it should be factually understood by Wikipedian's that the Art Institute of Chicago is a single incorporated entity in which the Museum and the School are equal partners. While there is a valid image of separation in the public mind, it's a fact that the two are equal partners with shared administrative resources. Some examples:

There is one Human Resources Department which hires (and fires) employees of both the Museum and the School. There is one Design and Construction Department which oversees new construction and renovation in both Museum buildings and School buildings. I cite these two facts (which are only two of many others which would further illustrate the point) to clarify the Museum/School relationship for Wikipedian's who may not be familiar with these details.

It's also a fact that while names may be similar (Art Institute of Phoenix, for example) the Art Institute of Chicago has no corporate connection or administrative relationship with any other facility in any other city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.44.157 (talk • contribs)

NPOV
I've modified the first sentence of the article to remove the language that the Art Institute "is one of the premiere fine art institutions in the United States." While I don't disagree with this statement (in fact, I agree adamantly), it is not a neutral statement and thus technically should not be part of an encyclopedia article. CPAScott 22:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ...unless it is attributed to a reliable source. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That reliable source has been added. --SquatGoblin 23:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up and Improvement
School of the Art Institute of Chicago and Art Institute of Chicago are now separate. SAIC's article has a slew of new additions but could always use clean-up. I added many new sections, but it could always use more history. Let's try to keep everything consistent and clean. --SquatGoblin 02:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Chicago
How many times, exactly, is it necessary to indicate that the Art Institute of Chicago is in Chicago? Is there a widespread misconception that it's in Milwaukee? 01:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you feel it's redundant, remove the redundancies. It seems to me that "Chicago" is used where necessary and not superfluously. --208.44.234.50 22:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Mirth & Girth - Harold Washington Incident
Just a note: please use references and avoid using WP:NOR. Considering the controversial nature of this incident and the impact it had on the school, it would be best if we avoided original research and basing it on simple recollection of the events such as the argumentation of whether the school was right or wrong in their response.

Please also avoid adding information where there are cited references if the information isn't included in those references. --76.215.28.56 10:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Gashlycrumb Tinies.jpg
The image Image:Gashlycrumb Tinies.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --00:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Lists
Enough with the lists, it makes the article unreadible. I delted this list as one list too much and it is really uneeded:


 * Architecture, Interior Architecture, and Designed Objects (AIADO)
 * Art Administration and Policy
 * Art education
 * Art therapy
 * Art history, theory, and criticism
 * Art and technology studies
 * Ceramics
 * Design for emerging technologies
 * Interactive Design
 * Computer Programming
 * Web Design
 * Fashion design
 * Headwear design
 * Fiber and material studies
 * Weaving
 * Print for materials
 * Dye
 * Film, Video & New Media
 * First Year Program/Contemporary Practices
 * Core Studio [sections include "Surface"(2D media), "Space" (3D), and "Time" (includes performance and video.)]
 * Research Studio
 * Liberal arts
 * English
 * Humanities
 * Languages
 * Liberal Arts
 * Sciences
 * Social Sciences
 * Painting and drawing
 * Performance
 * Photography
 * Printmedia
 * Silkscreen
 * Offset printing
 * Etching
 * Lithography
 * Digital output
 * Book binding
 * Sculpture
 * Metal work
 * Foundry
 * Wood
 * Sound
 * Visual communication
 * Graphic Design
 * Information Design
 * Typographic Design
 * Package Design
 * Visual and critical studies
 * Writing

Undergraduate Degree Programs

 * B.A. in Visual and Critical Studies
 * B.F.A. in Studio Arts
 * B.F.A. in Visual Communication
 * B.F.A. with an emphasis in Writing
 * B.F.A. with an emphasis in art History, Theory, and Criticism
 * B.F.A. with an emphasis in Art Education
 * B.I.A. Bachelor of Interior Architecture

Graduate Degree Programs

 * M.F.A. in Studio Arts
 * M.F.A. in Writing
 * M.F.A. in New Arts Journalism
 * M.A. in Modern Art History, Theory, and Criticism
 * M.A. in Art Education
 * M.A. in Teaching
 * M.A. in Art Therapy
 * M.A. in Arts Administration and Policy
 * M.A. in Visual and Critical Studies
 * M.S. in Historic Preservation
 * Master of Architecture
 * Master of Architecture with an emphasis in Interior Architecture
 * Master of Design in Designed Objects
 * Master of Design in Fashion, Body, and Garment

Other Degrees

 * Post-Baccalaureate Certificate in Fashion, Body, and Garment
 * Post-Baccalaureate Certificate in Studio Arts
 * Post-Baccalaureate Certificate in Writing
 * Graduate Certificate in Art History, Theory, and Criticism

Ranking
Ranking needs to be updated for undergraduate program and graduate program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owellian93 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) 7 Art & Design Hahai123 (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

2002 "Columbia University" survey in lede
An unregistered editor recently copied a sentence from the "Rankings" section of this article to the lede. Specifically, the material is: "In a survey conducted by Columbia University, SAIC was named the 'most influential art school' in the United States." It is supported by this URL. It's annoying that the URL doesn't work but the more pressing issue is that it seems to be undue weight to include a survey this old in the lede of this (or nearly any other) article. Without having access to the document, I'm also skeptical that it was conducted by Columbia University instead of having been conducted by faculty or staff who work there. ElKevbo (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Technically it was the National Journalism Arts Program at Columbia University that conducted the research and the survey for their report, if that matters  but as the purpose of the lead is to quickly orient the reader, in an article on an institution a statement for example, '. . in the ___ century, it was considered influential' should do that well and encyclopedically, so it seems similar here (also fixing the cite as I have done also quickly informs the reader of when the report was written.) (Also, just fyi, the ip was actually restoring an older version of the article where some version of this was long in the lead) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding this! But that still doesn't answer the question of why this 17-year old survey is critical to readers' understanding of this subject.  Is this a particularly well-known and influential survey that is still routinely relied on and referred to as a current indicator of influence? ElKevbo (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there anything saying it's not? Do you have any other surveys on influence, at all? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The onus is on the editors who believe that information should be included in an article to establish that the information is necessary in an article. The survey is over a decade-and-a-half old and it's presented with little context to establish it as especially important or noteworthy so it's completely reasonable to ask why it's included in the lede of this - or any other - article. We're not obligated to include every bit of information about a topic, especially in the opening which must be limited to only the most essential information. ElKevbo (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Expert opinion of influence does explain why it's in the lead of this article. The "School of the Art Institute became one of the most influential in the country" Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That encyclopedia entry is a much better source for this kind of claim than a one-off, outdated survey! ElKevbo (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree, they are both fine sources. There is nothing that suggests it is "outdated", other than your ipsa dixit.  Academic sources (books, reports, articles) are published with a date, there is no magic shelf life.  I assume you know why it is specifically in an attribution form, it's because Wikipedia does not generally say such qualitative opinions in its own voice, it says, 'these experts said this'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please explain, very clearly and explicitly, why a single 17-year old source should be included in the lede of an article to make claims about the present. ElKevbo (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) It is an excellent source; 2) the information is salient to understanding the subject; 3) there is little reason to multi-cite a thought; 4) the claim of expired shelf-life has no basis. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Yes we should" is not a convincing reason to cite a 17-year old source to support a current claim so I'm reaching out to other editors to establish a consensus on this issue. In the meantime, I'm removing this from the article per WP:ONUS; I'll be happy to add it back if other editors disagree with me! ElKevbo (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And your blatant misrepresentations are not a good reason to do anything. No one said 'yes we should': RS information has been presented to your unsourced POV. And all you have provided is your unsourced POV. Nor is anything presented as anything other than that it is a study and report correctly presented with publication information.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason not to add the date, so the text would read: "In a survey conducted in 2002 by Columbia University's National Arts Journalism Program..."? I agree that, in this context, presenting a dated survey without showing the date might lead the reader astray. Neutralitytalk 15:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine. Editing the sentence is and always has been fine. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , would that compromise &mdash; keeping in the lead but adding the year &mdash; be acceptable to you? I am sympathetic to concerns on due weight, although for what's it's worth, this 2019 report from Nieman called the 2002 survey "seminal," so maybe that mitigates some of your concerns? Neutralitytalk 15:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it would be much better to (a) simplify the sentence so it just notes that the school is highly regarded and (b) include the supporting information, including the survey with this additional context (including the date and who actually conducted it) and the encyclopedia article mentioned above, in the body of the article. The lede should be a summary of the article and ideally should have minimal references because all of the supporting information is readily found in the body of the article. ElKevbo (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that approach as well. Neutralitytalk 18:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think including the original sentence in the lede is perfectly appropriate (with the date is fine), since it's well sourced and since the art school's overall influence is important information about it. The concern with just noting that it's highly regarded is WP:WEASEL (I'm a little surprised to see you suggest that approach,, given that you've previously fought so hard against having any references to an institution's reputation in the lede). - Sdkb (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * What's the proposal? Perhaps this is example number 5 billion of it's easier to blank, than write:
 * If we write "It's highly regarded [no cite]", there will be all kinds of objections around, 'No cite!, Wikipedia can't say that in its own voice-no attribution, and the sources on influence don't say "highly regraded", they say "influential", which is a different concept, than highly regarded.'
 * If we write, "It's influential", practically the same thing with the cry for attribution.
 * Yet, in the lead, we still have to try to get quickly across for the reader: 'Art school? So what?' Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And this is exactly why we typically don't include this kind of information unless it's (a) essential information that is (b) supported by the very best of sources. There are a few institutions for which their prestige or influence is so significant that it reaches the level of being necessary to include in the lede; in those cases, we can (or should be able to) substantiate that claim with superb sources such as high-quality encyclopedia entries or highly qualified scholars writing their own summaries and syntheses.  That's important because claims of prestige strong enough to warrant inclusion in the lede are rarely found in just one source but can be found in multiple sources including those that are themselves synthetic summaries of multiple sources.
 * This isn't a question of verifiability; no one, including me, is questioning whether this one source exists. I'm not even challenging the inclusion of this source in the article.  What I am challenging is its inclusion in the lede.  What makes the fact that this school was included in one 17-year old source so critical to readers' understanding of this subject that we must include it among the very first things we tell readers?
 * And yes, if we go down the road of a more general statement then we'll have to carefully craft it and ensure it's supported by exceptionally strong sources and reflective of what those sources say. If it should be done - I'm not completely convinced that it should but the encyclopedia article mentioned above is a positive sign - then we can figure out how to do it. ElKevbo (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We typically do say in the lead what the article body says that marks this school out. This report is a high quality source from academics, it is a WP:SECONDARYSOURCE, a WP:BESTSOURCES under WP:SOURCE. "Influence" is not something you as a Wikipedia editor or reader would be qualified to opine on. You have offered nothing but your unqualified, unsupported say so, on a source from the 21st century being 'too old'. We rely on sources much older in our articles. Moreover, you have refused to say what your proposal is. Give the exact wording of your proposal.Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * First, it's not a secondary source; it's a document written by the people involved in the study about the study they conducted. And merely being a secondary source written by academics isn't sufficient for inclusion in the lede of an article; that's a ridiculous and unworkable standard.
 * You are the one arguing for this material; it's up to you to establish your case and how it should be included. The obvious alternative to the material you've edit warred to retain is to remove it from the lede and leave it in the body of the article.
 * Why do you keep avoiding addressing the issue at hand: Why should we place so much emphasis on this one source? ElKevbo (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have answered you multiple times. Others see, what I see too. Influence is a qualitative opinion, it's not a primary fact that can be arrived at without interpretation, it is secondary transformative interpretation. We have an influential art school, we should lead with it because, it's an influential art school, according to people who have expertise. Which you have not. Even you have said we should note in the lead something about "highly regarded".  Still waiting for the exact words of your proposal. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * To add on to what Alanscottwalker said, and to zoom out to a higher level, sometimes we need to just call a spade a spade. I do understand the hesitation to talk about universities' reputation (it's necessarily a little subjective, and WP's reluctance to write anything that could possibly be perceived as promotional is there for a reason), but it's nevertheless something that any knowledgeable expert acknowledges exists, and your demands here and elsewhere for unreasonably perfect sourcing come across as wikilawyering. For a B-class article, the sourcing for the lede here is perfectly up to par, and our efforts would be better spent actually writing. (Also, as an aside, making accusations of edit warring isn't helping your case; to the extent it happened, you were equally involved, and anyways, Alanscottwalker's reversions were consistent with WP:STATUSQUO, which is the more pertinent policy for how an article should be left while discussion takes place.) - Sdkb (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

You're right, Sdkb - we shouldn't ever ask whether a single 17-year old source (a) is reliable and accurately described, (b) represents broader viewpoints, and (c) is still accurate. I apologize for my impertinence in doubting the wisdom and judgment of anonymous people on the Internet. How foolish of me! Of course we should rely exclusively on this survey and ignore the encyclopedia article that we've found! We don't need to even consider if this survey is out-of-date or taken seriously because there aren't any malicious or hopelessly amateur players in the college ranking business!

I look forward to supporting all of you as you add similarly strong sources and insightful writing to the lede of other articles! ElKevbo (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Now, Now. Your baseless caricature suggests more about the weaknesses of your arguments than anything else.  The source is excellent by policy and guideline, it is scholarly, the publisher is excellent, it is clearly independent, it is multiple experts opinion in the 21st century and not one or two.  No one has ignored what you claim and certainly our article does not. They have rejected your baseless, sourceless, unexpert POV, and your misrepresentations. No fair minded person can look at the Columbia source and think "business", unless they are blinded by their own POV.  (Moreover, as every thinking person knows, something can be looked down upon and still be influential.) Additionally, there was never any issue about adding any wording to the sentence, as there is always a balance between brevity and wordiness, especially in a lead. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed! A source that is 17-years old is an excellent source for supporting a contemporary claim!  Well said!  ElKevbo (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We rely on sources much older than those in the 21st century all the time but it's good now everyone agrees, it is an excellent source, even in bold type or italics.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)