When I found out that you reprinted my letter in full, I could not have been more horrified because, well, I hadn’t read the issue yet, and the person pointing it out to me was Johannes Goebel, Director of the Experimental Media and Performing Arts Center himself. Right away I thought “Oh boy, I am in hot water now,” because the letter I wrote did contain information that was hearsay, and not necessarily fact, and here was Goebel wanting to “discuss” my letter. However, I could not have had a more pleasant conversation.

Firstly, I would like to clear up the financial issue—that EMPAC is in fact funded from a separate gift account of roughly $130 million, and this money comes from donors to the Institute. This account was increased to $360 million early on in the project’s development. Student tuitions have no relation to the money used to fund the project, which in the end will be roughly 30 percent above the projected amount. In construction terms I am told this is pretty good. Secondly, I would say that EMPAC is trying to operate in a fashion similar to the Center for Biotechnology and Interdisciplinary Studies, which may not at first allow for a large participatory RPI faculty body working within it. These are facts I was not aware of. He is also working with a staff that is lower than production facilities of a similar size use.

The bulk of the rest of the conversation was getting a first-hand explanation of why things are the way they are with EMPAC, and why the misconceptions of those giving me the hearsay information is so widespread. I was surprised that Goebel was not angry at the letter at all, but rather inspired to explain away these misconceptions.

EMPAC is being developed to give the student body and the researchers who work there the opportunity to drive artistic innovation in a direction that one would not have been able to steer elsewhere. While it will not serve the campus like the Rensselaer Union does, it will allow for those undergraduates with the right experience and a desire to expand their horizons an opportunity to work there. Since there is no direct tuition link, there really is no way to justify EMPAC to work as the Union does. But those select students looking for an atmosphere that goes beyond a social hangout will probably find themselves well at home, and this I think is the essence of what RPI is as multi-disciplinary Institute that caters to a select student body.

Perhaps the lack of more mainstream-style projects will drive many people away, but I can see reason in Goebel’s argument that if he doesn’t roll the dice in an attempt to work out a specialized model with which to establish his facility, then all he would be giving to the student body in the end would simply reflect everything else already out there. What would be the point?

So while not I am not completely sold on the idea that EMPAC will be exactly what RPI needs as far as artistic endeavor, I now at least have a clear understanding of how it works and why it works the way it does, unlike most individuals on campus. I would hope that Goebel has a chance to explain this to every one else the way he was able to with me, so the pervasion of these misconceptions can come to a halt, and EMPAC can get on with being EMPAC, however it turns out.

Rob Ecuyer

Technical Supervisor

School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences