Fulbright in New Zealand
Chapter 6 — A Process of Global — Enlightenment
A Process of Global
" While I do not wish to argue that the New Zealand model should, let alone can, be transplanted to American society, or vice versa, there are lessons to be learned both ways. As a New Zealander I have gained a great deal in my understanding of people by participating in a society in which ‘every man is an island’, one in which vibrancy, drive, competitiveness, personal achievement and creativity are so highly valued. Americans who have immersed themselves in New Zealand culture have similarly come to appreciate the security and personal acceptance offered by an egalitarian society in which ‘no man is an island’, even if they are occasionally irritated by what they perceive to be a blandness, conformity and anti-intellectualism. Would that the best of both worlds could be combined. The Fulbright programme has enabled me to do that — in consecutive if not simultaneous experience." David Mitchell, Fulbright research scholar, 1982
"It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country and his immediate posterity, but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn." George Washington
The 1970s were a time of change for the Foundation in New Zealand. Until 1969 the Fulbright programme was administered as the United States Educational Foundation in New Zealand. When the original amount of $US2,300,000 had been used up, the New Zealand and United States Governments agreed to continue the programme as the New Zealand United States Educational Foundation, with the costs equally shared. It was a New Zealand initiative, an affirmation of the value of the Fulbright scheme in New Zealand.
In 1971, Eric Budge retired, after 22 years as executive secretary. Since
1949 490 New Zealanders had studied in America, and 414 Americans had
come here. An article in the
of 20 November 1971 paid tribute
to Eric Budge and spoke of the success of Fulbright in New Zealand:
"They have been graduate students, university lecturers, research scholars, and teachers. A large proportion of them have been in the sciences, but there has been a wide variety, ranging from accountants to zoologists. The age range has been from graduate students in their early twenties to eminent authorities in their 60s.
Americans or American-trained people are now on the staff of most of the departments of New Zealand universities. Before the start of the Fulbright programme there were virtually no American-trained academics here.
Earlier this month, the American Ambassador, Mr Franzheim, and Mr Laking were joint hosts at a luncheon for Mr Budge at Wellington's Hotel Waterloo, at which Mr Budge was presented with a Distinguished Service Award from the Board of Foreign Scholarships in Washington.
Another function in his honour to be attended by past and present Fulbrighters will be held in Auckland tonight.
Mr Budge was with the New Zealand Education Department before he joined the Fulbright board and his successor, Mr L. A. Cox, has also come from an education background: he was a primary school teacher and was an assistant registrar at Victoria University before his appointment."
And, the article added, ‘retirement will not be hard to fill for Mr Budge.’ Eric was one of New Zealand's keenest dahlia exhibitors — and he still grows the flowers today.
Both transitions — in the foundation's name and from Eric Budge to Laurie Cox — went smoothly; the mission was the same. The impetus of the 1970s did, however, have an effect on the direction of the programme. Until the mid-1970s the Foundation made little attempt to influence the scholarly fields of the visiting American scholars, and because of this it is difficult to assess the effect that the programme had on educational, social and cultural directions in New Zealand. There had been no attempt to enhance or inspire new directions in the development of New Zealand society, but this situation was soon to change.
In August 1971 the Board of Foreign Scholarships produced a far- reaching document. ‘A Statement on Educational Exchange in the Seven ties’ noted that the objective and means of the Fulbright scheme were as valid in 1971 as they had been in 1946, yet
"the context in which exchanges take place has changed greatly. The number of governments in the world has doubled and so has the number of exchange arrangements. Many other public and private agencies here and abroad support or facilitate international education. The emergence of new educational and research institutions has created new needs and opportunities. The requirements of many developing countries have become more sophisticated and complex. Americans have a heightened appreciation of how much they need to know about, and may benefit from, the learning and experience of others. Transport, communication, and print link the continents page 76
Believing this and hoping for a decade of educational exchange as fruitful as the past one, the Board of Foreign Scholarships has reviewed the programmes that are its responsibility in order to make recommendations to the Department of State and to the Binational Commissions and Foundations.
1. WHO should be participants in exchange? 2. WHAT kinds of subjects, problems, and concerns should be the focus of these exchanges?
3. HOW can these exchanges be organised and administered to maximise their value?"
The document then discussed the three points in order. Under the ‘who’ category it was stated that ‘It is time ... to increase the educational page 77exchange opportunities in appropriate non-academic fields, including — among others — journalism, law, medicine, management, public administration, and architecture.’
Under the ‘what’ category it was noted that the focus of subjects chosen in the past had often been very narrow —‘In some cases this is the result of decisions to concentrate in a few selected fields or institutions . . .’ It was recommended that ‘Commissions and posts in non-Commission countries deliberately seek to focus more of their activities at a given time on a few broadly conceived areas, subjects or problems, with new emphasis developing as earlier ones are phased out.’
The Board then recommended that the areas of programmic focus should be approached imaginatively and presented in a way designed:
"(a) to be of interest in different parts of the world; (b) to attract persons from various academic disciplines; (c) to be appropriately studied, researched, or taught in foreign and American settings by both foreign and American participants; and (d) to be able frequently to accommodate more than one category of grantee from among lecturers, researchers, and students."
Another list followed, of suggested broad fields of learning:
"— Social change. (Nature, scale and velocity of technological change; its cultural and sociological consequences; minorities; generations; women's role.)
— Educational development and innovation. (The problem of numbers; teaching materials research; adapting new communications media to educational use; English language teaching.) — Use and protection of the environment. (Urban planning and problems; ecology projects; land use.)
— Rediscovery and preservation of cultural legacies. (Collecting, preserving serving, studying, describing, and displaying the creative products of the past.)
— The professions. (The role of architecture, law, medicine, journalism, public administration, business management, mass media management, criticism in the arts, etc.)
— The general problems of minorities. (Ethnic, linguistic, religious, cultural, etc.)"
Under the ‘how’ category the Board urged that grants should be given in a way that encouraged people to pool talents and resources, to make the best use of what was available. ‘A pooling of talent and resources will reduce duplication of effort, facilitate sharing of information, and maximise the possibility of successful results.’ Experimentation with grants to teams and institutions was now in order, the Board suggested. Executive Director Laurie Cox has explained what happened:page 78
"‘Educational Exchanges in the Seventies’ had a profound effect on the kind of programme the Foundation promoted. The 1976 programme of visiting American scholars placed emphasis on a few broadly conceived topics (New Zealand Studies, American Studies, Educational Innovation and Social Change) with a view to strengthening certain academic activities. Sponsoring institutions were advised of the Foundation's interest in projects spread over 2-3 years and involving a sequence of visitors. Emphasis on humanities and social sciences at the expense of pure sciences and agriculture. The DSIR and Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries were removed from the list of organisations invited to suggest proposals and replaced by the Planning Council, New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, Turnbull Library, Queen Elizabeth II Council, National Museum and Art Gallery, Department of Education etc."
The basic criteria for choosing New Zealanders to go to the States had not changed at all, however; despite the new philosophies, grants were still made to individuals who were selected for their demonstrated ability, probable capacity for suitable performance abroad and long-term potential. The challenge and reward to the individual Fulbrighter was still recognised as valuable, as Senator Fulbright noted in December 1974:
"I think of these alumni scattered across the world, acting as knowledgeable interpreters of their own societies; as persons equipped and willing to deal with conflict or conflict-producing situations on the basis of an informed determination to solve them peacefully; as opinion leaders communicating their appreciation of the societies which they visited to others in their own society."
In 1975 the Board of Foreign Scholarships began planning a project to observe two events: the American Bicentennial and the 30th anniversary of the Fulbright-Hays programme. The Board decided it would bring together the men and women who knew the programme best: Fulbright alumni. Their brief was to review and assess international exchange efforts generally, and the programme specifically, in the light of the recommendations made in the ‘Statement on Educational Exchange in the Seventies’. The project was given the title, ‘International Education, Link for Understanding.’ At 10 one-day conferences hosted by universities and then during a three-day convocation at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, 250 scholars, statesmen and other concerned individuals from 33 countries assembled to discuss the future of international exchange.
It was not a self-congratulatory exercise. While it was agreed that the Fulbright scheme had had a most profound effect on the lives of the participants and their families and colleagues, doubts were also expressed. Had the programme truly promoted ‘international understanding’? Some of the delegates pointed out that political and personal freedoms had actually diminished on a global basis. The benefits, they said, had been personal, not political.page 79
Much of the doubt was expressed in a speech given by Harold R. Isaacs, Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, during the three-day summing-up seminar. He called his paper ‘The Closing Societies’. After pointing out that 40,000 Americans and 74,000 citizens of 122 countries had taken part in programmes of educational exchange during the 30 years of the Fulbright-Hays programme, he said:
"Foreign students and scholars who came to the United States during these three decades had an incomparable opportunity to see at close range how this society went through the convulsions of change in the patterns of race relations, how it responded to the crises of the Vietnam War, and finally how it dealt with the unfolding drama of Watergate. Some no doubt went home believing they had witnessed part of the decline if not nearly the fall, of American civilisation. Others may have been able to see in these events remarkably impressive evidence of surviving health, strength and recuperative capacity in the American system. Many thousands, of course, did not go home at all, but took every means they could to remain and make their lives here, an ultimately decisive comment on their experience.
Americans who went abroad as part of this programme also became witnesses of critical history, especially in the new states of Asia and Africa. What began in Asia and Africa beginning thirty years ago in the collapse of the colonial empires and the white supremacy system was a massive opening into the world for millions of hitherto isolated, subjected and subordinated people ...
But if ever there was a chance that colonial tyranny could be replaced by anything resembling open policies, it withered early.... The fragile shoots of democratic-style politics that did grow out of some colonial soil in a few places, as in the Philippines and India, lived a somewhat longer but sickly life, withering and dying with hardly a twitch after barely twenty-five years.
Today no scholar, no educator, no eager student, with or without a Fulbright grant, can follow his own bent in any of these countries any more, or for that matter almost anywhere in the world outside the shrinking sphere of surviving democratic political systems in Europe and North America. Much as they differ, all but perhaps two dozen of the world's 150-odd states are now governed in greater or lesser degree by closed political systems of one kind or another, from total orders of control and mobilisation as in China, to ineffectual little satrapies maintained only by a bloody-handed palace guard, as in Uganda. Never have more ‘liberated’ people become more subject to more tyrannies in the name of achieving more freedom, or in so short a period of time....
For at least two centuries now, the notion that ‘education’ would enable human beings to improve their state has remained a prime article of faith for all who remained convinced that knowledge and reason would and could prevail in human affairs. Now that conviction is painfully weaker and we are much less sure than we were that we know what education is in our own society, much less in the rest of the world. We are even less able to know page 80what ‘international education’ is. In what political context? In and for open societies or for closing or closed ones? To create what sets of values, for whom and for what? Until we can answer these questions for ourselves more effectively than we have until now, I do not know what answers we can make through any process of exchange with the rest of the world. The key word of the next thirty years in any case is not likely to be ‘education’. More likely, for philosophers, and educators, and geologists too, and for us all, it will be ‘survival’. The question will be on what terms." Quoted from A Process of Global Enlightenment', Board of Foreign Scholarships, 1976, pp. 82-86
Senator Fulbright replied, in an address titled ‘The Process of Humanising Mankind’:
"Since earliest times there have been only two ways of establishing peace and order in human groups — violent coercion and the forging of ties of sentiment among the members. In primitive conditions questions of ownership, territory, the forming of groups and their leadership were decided solely by superior force. But in the course of evolution — over many thousands of years — the use of force became modified. Gradually the rules and restraints which we know as law were introduced, forging random groups into communities. In due course the idea of ‘citizenship’ came into being, vesting in those who possessed it certain rights and degrees of security as to their lives and possessions.
As these incipient communities evolved, bonds of mutual loyalty and kinship came into being among their members, reducing though not eliminating the necessity of coercion for the maintenance of internal peace and order. Although only a minority of the nations of the world today are governed by democratic consent and the rule of law in the sense in which we understand and practise these concepts, all but a few are communities to the extent that their people acquiesce in the regimes which rule them; that is, they at least do not have to be controlled by overwhelming force. Modern nations, with few exceptions, are held together primarily by the consent of their members, by their sense of kinship and nationhood, and only incidentally by their internal police forces."
Quoted from A Process of Global Enlightenment', p. 28
It was, however, apparent to all those who attended the conferences that the world had changed greatly in the 30 years since the start of the programme; it had become more complicated, and despite the huge increase in communication capacity, it had become less open. In 1945 it had seemed relatively easy to solve global troubles with technology and idealism; now it was seen that these alone were not the answers. As Charles H. Townes, Professor of Physics at the University of California at Berkeley said:
"Many of us have been among the fortunate thousands of individuals who page 81have participated in the exchange of scholars between nations, and still benefit from this experience. A substantial part of the hoped-for rebuilding of the structures and economies of nations so damaged by war has occurred. A great deal of new knowledge and material progress has been achieved — not uniformly throughout our world but at least widely. There is, nevertheless, a strong feeling of disillusionment and discouragement. Rampant and sometimes bitter nationalism, further wars, abuse of the United Nations — that dream of world organisation — overpopulation, pollution and deterioration of the environment — by products of some of the hoped-for material success — along with resource shortages and the obvious limits to our world and of man's wisdom confront us now almost everywhere. Science and technology have lost some of their savour, and for some even taken on the aspects of dangerous phenomena to be exorcised or at least carefully contained."
Quoted from A Process of Global Enlightenment', p. 56
In this last statement he echoed what had been said by Foyohiro Kono of Gakushuin University, Tokyo, at a Council for International Exchange of Scholars Conference on ‘The Role of the University’ held at the University of Arizona almost exactly one year earlier. ‘There is growing need for technology assessment,’ said Mr Kono. ‘Society is facing many problems, such as pollution, food shortage, over-population, energy shortage, human alienation etc., and technology is expected to solve these problems. Contrary to these expectations, tremendous amounts of resources are spent in such technology as military equipment, space exploration, and model changes of automobiles.’
But — in the words of Senator Fulbright — ‘In view of the current low estate of the United Nations, are we to accept the inevitability of nuclear war and do nothing about it? If not the educational exchanges, then what better means is there to change the attitudes of man — what better way is there to break the pattern of recurrent violence and destruction which all of us have seen in this war-torn twentieth century?’ The Fulbright-Hays programme could not be abandoned; no one suggested that. What it had to do was adapt to this new kind of world.
Accordingly, after debate, a revised set of objectives was produced, along the lines of what had already been recommended in the ‘Statement on Educational Exchange in the Seventies’. The conference resolved that, while benefits should accrue to a host nation, the emphasis of the programme should be on knowledge sharing among individuals and not on simple technical expertise. It was decided that the emphasis on technology and pure science should be shifted to emphasis on subjects related to pressing world problems: the environment, food, population studies, transportation and so on. The special needs of the participating countries were to be taken into consideration; for instance, technical information could be exchanged in developed Europe, while in undeveloped countries cultural and broadly educational subjects would be emphasised. As one delegate page 82said, ‘The programme should not be used to supply cheap consultants.’
- there should be better language preparation and better orientation;
- the duration of a visit should be shorter for senior scholars, who find it difficult to be away for extended periods;
- a bibliography of work by Fulbright scholars should be compiled and made available;
- the programme should enlist more generalists and fewer specialists;
- the idea of exchanging non-university professionals (writers, lawyers, journalists etc.) should be explored;
- a successful candidate should be notified of his or her appointment a year in advance, in order to prepare adequately;
- foreign students should not be sent to the United States for education and training that is of sufficient quality in their home countries;
- greater use should be made of the reports that Fulbrighters file after arriving back home.
This, too, had an effect on the kind of programme that the Foundation in New Zealand promoted. In accordance with these stated aims, the Board began to look for new directions, to speculate whether, through the programme, new and promising ventures could be promoted; whether the New Zealand-United States Educational Foundation could, in fact, make wise investments in the future development of New Zealand society.
- American Studies. This was a general term used to include any study about the United States in the social sciences and humanities, with special emphasis placed on the fields of history, literature, political science, sociology, economics and law. The aim was to encourage a better understanding of the American people and their culture.
- New Zealand Studies. This theme offered the opportunity of bringing together members of the New Zealand and United States academic communities for the consideration of ideas and research in studies of New Zealand. The aim was to promote any study of New Zealand in the social sciences and humanities or the natural and applied sciences as they relate to studies unique to New Zealand.
- Educational Development and Innovation. This project offered opportunities for educational administrators to undertake 90-day grants and travel to the United States on a mission of intensive observation; it also allowed tutors and administrators in the field of technical and vocational education to go on similar missions, for 45 days. It was a timely recognition of the fact that the field of education is one in which America has substantial contributions to offer.
- Environmental Studies. This, too, was a field in which the Foundation had already shown a great deal of interest and, in fact, the description of the programme built around the theme of recreational resources was a model for this new approach. The purpose was to encourage the development of research and teaching in the use and protection of the page 83New Zealand environment. It was an expression of concern for the New Zealand outdoors.
Applicants were encouraged to think in terms of on-going projects that would involve a series of visitors over a three- or four-year period. A long term, well-thought-out and clearly stated proposal was the one most likely to find favour with the Board.
As Laurie Cox has pointed out, the Educational Development Grants had evolved much in the same way:
"The 45-day grants have evolved from the earlier Teacher Development Grant lasting 180 days. The Board felt this was too long a period to be away from home and family and work etc. and the grant was split into two awards of 90 days in 1974. Subsequent discussions saw the term successively reduced to 90 and then 45 days, with the numbers increased and the scope of the grants widened, for example into the fields of Vocational Development, cultural awards, writers' fellowships and so on.Some grantees have expressed a preference for a longer period, and the page 84length of the grant was reviewed again in 1986 when the recipients from 1980-85 were surveyed. On the basis of the results of the survey the Board reaffirmed its policy of awarding grants that are normally for a term of 45 days, for the consensus of grantees was in favour of that."
This new approach was very demanding, for both the participants and the programme. The 45-day grants, for instance, were extremely hard work. Contact with what the alumni called the ‘cutting’ or ‘leading’ edge of theory and practical application had great value but, as one wrote, ‘In retrospect, the schedule was probably too tight.’ ‘I just saw and did too much,’ wrote another. Too many New Zealanders failed to take into consideration the sheer size of the United States; it takes a lot of time merely to get from A to B.
‘I really needed a return visit to consolidate and follow up to get full benefit,’ one Kiwi wrote. ‘I'm sure I was dazed and confused at times.’ He gained immensely, however: ‘masses of information and new ideas. Very difficult later to sift out those which were directly applicable to New Zealand.’ Even the accumulation of material caused hassles, simply because of the large amount that was so quickly gathered. However, ‘I gained a measure of comparison of the New Zealand educational system,’ wrote another.
The country certainly benefited. Bruce McLeod, for instance, was on the Hawke's Bay Community Council and also in charge of the STEPS and TAP programmes in the Napier district, and so was quickly able to apply what he learned on his Vocational Education Grant.
The effects of the Board's new approach became obvious almost immediately, and were very apparent by the 1980s. By 1986 every visiting American scholar, except those on travel-only awards, was responding to a specific proposal which fell within the Foundation's guidelines. Several, indeed, were opening up new fields, such as Charlie French, in agri- business, Thomas Lineham, in computer graphics, Richard Young, in writing across the curriculum, and Richard Miller, in anti-monopoly strategies.
Jenrose Felmley came to the University of Waikato in 1980 to create a resource centre for women's studies, and the theme of women's studies is continuing, with the funded visits of such women as Helen Holmes and Ann Hill-Beuf.
"The Foundation has a commitment to the development of American Studies as a discipline in New Zealand and in 1986 the Stout Centre with Jock Phillips organised a two-day seminar on New Zealand-United States relationships called ‘The American Connection’. This was attended by Fulbrighters who were in the country at the time and subsequently the page 85 Auckland and the Foundation brought two scholars from the United States — Robert Wiebe, a historian, and Jackson MacLow, a poet and composer. When the conference is held in Australia the Foundation provides travel grants to facilitate the attendance of New Zealand scholars and teachers."
Another new theme has been in the field of entrepreneurism. Bruce Dixon of the University of Waikato's management development centre put in a proposal and thus far three visitors- Robert Brockhaus, Robert Pricer and Omer Carey — have come to assist in setting up a Small Business Centre. In July 1978 George (later Sir George) Laking presented a paper page 86reviewing the cultural direction of the programme. The Board, after discussion, decided that the ‘cultural exchange’ in the stated objectives had been neglected too long, and that it should be included in the new thematic approach.
Accordingly the Chairman and the Executive Secretary met Hamish Keith and Director Michael Volkerling of the Queen Elizabeth II Arts Council to discuss the establishment of cultural awards. These commenced in 1980, with the aim of enhancing mutual appreciation within the two countries of the values, traditions and potential of the arts and crafts in the United States and New Zealand. Richard Marquis came in 1981 and raised the standard of glass-blowing in New Zealand; since he returned to the United States several New Zealanders have travelled to see him. James Krenov came the following year and introduced new methods of working in wood.
Cultural entrepreneurism has had attention as well. Under a proposal from the Queen Elizabeth II Arts Council visitors such as Paul Davis, Ruth Harley and George Webby have been sent to the States to study marketing of the arts, art promotion, the need for business art managers, the methods of soliciting business sponsorship and the entrepreneurial approach. As George Webby declared later, theatre in England is ‘standing still, or moving in many directions very slowly’. The United States is leading the movement towards sophisticated arts management.
The lecturing grants have been extended to include arts and culture. In 1981 Gordon Epperson came on a lecturing award, and he — like Louis Harrison, who came in 1983 — was able to demonstrate his performance skills. According to Laurie Cox, ‘Almost every year since 1981 has seen an American musician (Epperson, Fruchtmans, Harrison, Korte and Hermaine Williams) shared among the universities.’
Louis Harrison involved himself in an art scene ranging ‘from music through choreography and painting to writing’. ‘New Zealand,’ he wrote, ‘seems to me a very stimulating environment.’ Jack Clay came to New Zealand for six weeks in 1984 — ‘It confirmed my general sense that one should do one's work in theatre wherever one is, not wait to work just in the world's theatre capitals.’
The composer Karl Korte came, and his tenure led to three original compositions, all of which have been performed. Martin Gibson came on a lecturer grant in 1982 in the field of newspaper writing. In that same year Jon Trimmer went to the American Ballet Theatre on a cultural grant — 'Nowhere else in the world do you see such a cross-section of the arts, continuously enlarging and changing ... utterly stimulating ... I feel very privileged to be part of this grant.'
The Foundation responded, also, to proposals put forward by the Alexander Turnbull Library. Sandra Myres came to Wellington in 1982 and a bibliography of nineteenth-century women's writing resulted, titled Victoria's Furthest Daughters. David Jones found it ‘extraordinarily pleasant’ to work under the joint auspices of the New Zealand-United States Educational Foundation and the Alexander Turnbull Library in 1985:
"The Foundation began by arranging accommodation in a pleasant book lined cottage owned by a distinguished scholar. They went on to serve as a home away from home, not just in terms of such mundane matters as mail, but also by providing the human warmth that must often be missed by the travelling researcher.The Turnbull Library must be one of the most pleasant scholarly environ ments around. Even in the midst of preparations for a move to new page 88
There has been, Laurie Cox has pointed out, a growth in the Foundation's support (usually a travel grant) for distinguished Americans visiting New Zealand for seven to 10 days to feature at conferences.
"In August 1987 we brought out Eugene Brody for the Mental Health Conference. Earlier the same year David Weikart was brought here for the Early Childhood Convention, and two years earlier Irving Lazar for the same conference. Harlan Cleveland, John Outterbridge and Joseph Jaudon came in 1986. In 1985 Malcolm Arth came for the Museum Education Conference and Shirley Ririe and Joan Woodbury for the International Dance and the Child Conference.
Quite a lot has been done in the area of counselling, social work and mediation. Working with the justice Department and Family Court judges, we sponsored the visits of Hugh McIsaac (1985) in establishing programmes for separated and divorced parents and this was followed up in 1986 with John Haynes presenting seminars in mediation skills for professionals. The page 89university departments offering programmes in social work over the period 1980-84 hosted three scholars and in 1987 Wynn Tabbert (helped) the Department of Social Welfare develop a programme which provides for consumer participation in the development of policy and practice."
Clyde Griffen came from Vasaar in 1984 to teach a new kind of social history: he uses public records for his resources, such as census reports and court records: ‘I left enormously pleased that our work helped stimulate creation of a Centre for Auckland Studies at the University.’ Marc Goldring came to New Zealand on a cultural grant to teach the craft of working in leather in 1983: 'I enjoyed seeing people react to my techniques from such a very different perspective.' The following year a Navajo Indian, Pearl Sunrise, came to teach her own techniques in traditional weaving and to learn from Maori practitioners of the same — but different — craft.
‘As a research scholar,’ wrote Judith A. Hoffberg, who held a cultural award in 1983, ‘I was assigned to the Archive of Len Lye, a remarkable sculptor, filmmaker, writer, lecturer and theorist.’
"In the 35 boxes of papers and 6 boxes of slides and tapes, I found the life of a genius.... The 50 000 pieces of paper, photographs, documents have all been inventoried and computerised, as well as organised and housed archivally. As a result, a computerised catalogue to the collection is now on disks on an Apple computer, as well as printed out. A guide to users is being written to accompany the disks and computer-printout so that researchers and scholars will be able to utilise the estimated 500 microfiche without ever having to come to New Plymouth, New Zealand."
New Zealand sculptor James Charlton was a Fulbright student in 1984: ‘Everything in America happens new. Everything is available all the time. It is the centre of activity, not the passive observer of action. . . . A gallery dealer from New York saw my work and offered me a show. This event opened up the possibilities that I didn't have to be an artist who worked at another job nine to five and made out at weekends. But I could practise my profession and that it could be financially viable to do so.’