Frank Gaydos on sun 27 aug 00
Janet,
Sorry I picked on you but you were the most quotable.
But you still are saying 'the system has broken down' It has not.
I guess I got angry because everyone jumped on the Valley without 'really'
knowing what happened.
They had one students viewpoint and as it turned out that student did not
lose any work whatsoever.
After talking with the tech responsible today he admitted he made a mistake
with the ramp settings in the computer
kiln which were reset after a prior workshop. An honest mistake. Some
students lost some work but they tried to
make up for it by firing a wood/soda kiln.
As for the clay meltdown, the tech stated that a student 'helped himself'
and picked out the wrong clay. It was one
student and one bag of clay.
So much for all those nasty descriptive adjectives.
The administration made a decision by looking at the 'harm' done and decided
that it did not warrant a full or partial refund.
This is my viewpoint only. I printed up some of the comments and gave them ,
pro and con, to the powers that be.
Frank Gaydos
PS The Anagama firing was sensational! I'll post some pics if anyone is
interested. About 1500 pieces were tumble stacked, very few were lost.
If you get a chance to work with Bill Shillalies the Anagama workshop
leader, do so, he is a fine human being.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
But really, "Holier than thou"? Me? I think not!
I certainly did not go off at the deep end, but
I think I would have done if it had been me at
the receiving end of this breakdown in the
system.
Janet Kaiser
-------------------------------------
Christopher Anton on mon 28 aug 00
Frank -
Thank you for adding the PV view point. Their description does not match
the one we had received earlier, and this is to be expected: People usually
have differing memories, even with the best of intentions. This is why
prosecutors prefer physical evidence over eye-witness accounts!
The basis of their decision, however, shows why even artists might want to
consider some basic business courses if they are going to be involved with
offering works or services to the public. "Harm done," to them, meant work
damaged. The real harm was to people's perception of them. _That_ was the
one thing they failed to address adequately.
Thank you for taking the time to contact them and adding their viewpoint.
- Chris
mudslingers@ATT.NET on mon 28 aug 00
Sorry, Frank, but at this point you are just
a third party! I WAS THERE.
> They had one students viewpoint and as it turned out
that student did not
> lose any work whatsoever.
>
I find it quite intersting that someone else can speak
for me! Yes, in fact, I too had pieces blown up and
melted onto. And does the poor handling of the matter
really have any correlation to if I did or didn't?
> As for the clay meltdown, the tech stated that a
student 'helped himself'
> and picked out the wrong clay. It was one
> student and one bag of clay.
Since there was one male in the class, I guess I know
who the tech is talking about! However, I remember it
was mentioned that 3 bags were missing and we were asked
if anyone had "helped themselves". Since my wheel was
located directly across from the one guy, I heard him
say that he was "handed" his clay.
> The administration made a decision by looking at
the 'harm' done and decided
> that it did not warrant a full or partial refund.
I wrote it in my response to PV, I wrote it in my
original post, and I'll write it again here:
I did not request a REFUND, but a discount on a future
class limited to next season only.
I'm sure everyone is already tired of this thread!
And I "think" I promise not to defend my position
anymore! Thanks to all of you for all of your views.
(But naturally, I especailly appreciated the ones of
support! :-)
lauren
| |
|
