Waiting Game at the Art School (Interview with Tomáš Ruller, VUT Brno’s Fine Arts Faculty Dean)

In 1992, Tomáš Ruller was one of the founders of the Faculty of Fine Arts (FFA) at the Technical College in Brno (VUT Brno). Between 1992 and 1993, he transformed the video department into video-multimedia-performance department. In 1998, he was elected the Faculty’s dean and initiated its transformation. After one year in his post, i.e. the first third of his three-year term, Ruller faces a proposed dismissal. The Artist asked Ruller about the current situation at the Faculty in Brno.
What is your position after one year in office?

The situation is a bit strange after this past year, I find my position very unclear. It appears that the university’s president is recalling me from my office, at least he signals to do so.
What are the signals? Has the president indicated this in any way?

Yes, of course. Although the entire process is still not really clear in its formal sense. The university administration has addressed the faculty senate in this matter but the senators have stood up for me quite unambiguously. If the senate does not respond positively to the administration’s written request, the faculty will end up in a stalemate. In such case, the president’s administration is considering to take away some of the faculty’s privileges, the office is in fact thinking of changing the bylaw from faculty to institute which means taking away the department authorities and further curtail of academic freedoms, including a loss of vote in the university senate, etc.
I was first offered to go to America, to take a creative holiday, to disappear. This was followed by an offer of my resignation in exchange for certain existential guarantees, such as keeping my position in the department I founded. But this is not all that important for me right now because in the situation when I am responsible for the overall position of the faculty, it is the faculty’s program and its further development what is most important. In any case, I requested that there should be a written guarantee that my resignation would improve the faculty’s existential situation and the initiated transformation including personnel changes would receive even greater support. In such a case, it should be made clear who would run for the office to replace me and with what managerial and economic normalization program. There hasn’t been any response to this request. Unless my resignation is requested by the artistic council, the academic community and the senate, unless I lose support from students and teachers, I cannot betray them. Furthermore, I was invited to the last academic community meeting to debate with the president’s representative and this meeting’s result was quite unambiguous for me. The students declared that I am their representative and the president’s refusal to speak with me will be considered a refusal to speak with them.
What are the concrete reasons for your recall?

The arguments keep on changing all the time. First it was claimed that I was an untrustworthy person, followed with some of my decisions being labeled incompetent (without any proving so). When we went through everything in detail, the arguments turned into claims that I was unable to communicate with the president, then the president was not able to communicate with me, followed by criticism regarding the personnel changes that I had made. I made quite a point-blank generational personnel changes (professor Preclík, Mr. Janíček and others had left while I hired people such as Stratil, Mainer, Merta, Gabriel, Ambrůz, Titlová, Benish, Svobodová, Keiko Sei and others). The argument was that these people were shady artists who do not live in Brno, commuted to work part time for very little money, that they were not qualified to do their jobs yet it is impossible to receive the docent title without necessary teaching experience... Then the artistic council’s qualification was questioned although the council’s honorary members include presidents of both Prague art schools Hlaváček and Kotalík, president Schmidt of the Masaryk University in Brno, former Parliament Chair Milan Uhde, Spielman of Bochum, Germany, Vasulka of Santa Fe, USA, Buchler of Manchester, England, Šejn and Kokolia of Fine Arts Academy, Matasová and Gebauer of Applied Arts School, Sikora and Fila of Art College in Bratislava, Slovakia, Zippe, Chatrný, Dufek, Kobosil and others. Following this were talks about the faculty’s concept - i.e. that I changed it in conflict with the original idea (when the original concept was looked up, it turned out that I was in fact implementing the original concept as it was planned). And the last criticism consisted in arguments that the faculty was set for economic doom. This fact, however, has been known for the past two years. I took over the faculty in a situation that was almost impossible to handle following the government budget cuts and a job done by a short-sighted secretary. The changes I have been making are aimed to improve the faculty’s economic system and reach financial independence within two or three years. But perhaps this is precisely what the administration doesn’t want to happen. To have control over the faculty, it is better to dose subsidies and maintain dependence. We are told that the other faculties have to contribute to our budget and yet we are denied one of the key financial sources - creative performance donations.
How do you intend to reach financial independence within the university?

Based on current methodology, it concerns the number of students. The faculty’s capacity was originally intended to be about 200 students. My predecessors had reached 150. We are about 50 students short at the moment which represents 5 million crowns and this is exactly the faculty’s current financial deficit. We still have to provide the basic faculty services whether we have less or more students. Therefore, I made some budget cuts and changed the faculty’s internal structure so that it would be more flexible and able to accommodate 50 more students. The problem is, however, that the university administration set a numerus clausus last year which places limit on the number of students at each faculty. This represents yet another peculiar obstruction. We’re also expecting to be given a state subsidy coefficient which would be similar to art schools. We would then be fine with what we would receive from the state budget. So it is scramble for money that is behind the entire conflict but also the clash between culture and technocracy.
How do you explain the fact that the university’s administration cannot see a way how to get more money for such a small faculty?

I’m afraid this is about professional misunderstanding and false idea of what we do. I think that the administration could even see the solution but the problem consists in some of the old Communist structures’ unwillingness to make space for the new ones. The traditional faculties at the technical university have not been fully transformed and I’m not sure whether they have the will to actually do something about it. Until everything calms down, such small and new faculties as ours may be restricted by the giants. We could be self-sufficient but the power find it more favorable to cut our subsidies and hold us in the position of begging for charity.
What development do you expect now?

I’m not sure. I’m just waiting what is going to happen. The signals for me being recalled from my position were quite unambiguous. However, I may be recalled only in consensus of both the university and faculty senates. Despite the fact that money has been offered to the faculty senate’s budget in exchange for votes against me (first it was 4 million crowns, $114.000 US, then 3, then 2 and now mere 1,5 million...), I presume that the faculty senate is quite compact and infrangible. Further development, as it was indicated, leads to complete liquidation of the faculty. But the agreement of the Education Ministry’s accreditation committee is needed for such a step. The university administration has already approached the Ministry officials with this idea trying to find support. These are no rumors, the situation is quite serious. In the past two weeks, however, the pressure for my has eased down a bit in response to growing support for my person from the art world, for example the National Gallery. There are a lot of possible scenarios what could be happening now and I wouldn’t want to preconceive any of them. I kind of guess that the most likely development will be that the requests for my resignation will be pulled off but the faculty budget will be cut so much that we will be forced to restrict its activities ourselves.
Does the university have the authority to take away your money?

The new university act gives more power to the president’s administration as opposed to faculties and the powers of the president especially were extended. This represents a step back towards previous centralization, the university’s management received much more power than it had until now. So the relationships between the faculty and the administration will be about understanding and trust. Some people do not believe in what we do. And it is also a question of competence. I still can’t see what will happen. It’s a waiting game.

01.02.1999