Public Art Review issue 11 - 1994 (fall/winter)

Also in this issue: J a n e Alexander, J o h n Frohnmayer, Marjorie Heins, Chris Burden, Mel Chin, Michael Hallinan, J a c k i Apple, Richard Posner, The Thing, Harriet F. Senie, Tilted Arc Revisited, Denver Airport Stalls, City of Phoenix Rises, NEA-Art 21, Reviews, Listings & More

a p r o j e c t of

J T i FORECAST Public Artworks

l

^

T

H

E

M I N N E S O T A

^ ( M B p e r c e n t " H P I L I K E T H E

i n

p u b l i c

P R O G R A M T O

A R T

p l a c e s W O U L D

C O N G R A T U L A T E

A R T I S T S

A W A R D E D F O R

F O R

S T A T E

R E C E N T L Y

C O M M I S S I O N S B U I L D I N G S

Minnasota Library for tha Blind, Faribault, MN

S t a n t o n Soars Saint Paul, MN

Constance M a y e r o n Minnasota Woman's Sainl Paul, MN Corroctional Facility, Fuller C o w l e s Shakopee, MN Sainl Paul, MN

Minneapolis, MN

Minnasota Correctional Facility, Faribault, MN

D a v i d Culver Karen Holmes

Minnasota Vatarans' Homo,

Marshall, MN

Minneapolis, MN

Joyce K o z l o f f

Mankolo Stat* University

New York, NY

Library, Mankolo, MN

February

I , 1995

for the program's Slide Registry, and several additional sites.

For application information, write to: Minnaiola Stat* Arts Board

432 Summit Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55102 or call (612) 297-2603 or toll-free at (800) 8MN-ARTS. _

9 0 9 Hennepin Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 5 5 4 0 3

IX Full Service Digital Imaging Center JL Custom Photo Lab

6 7 3 - 8 9 0 0

•

M-F 7:30am - 8pm

1 - 8 0 0 - 3 3 2 - 7 7 5 3

Saturday 8:30am - 4pm

We care a b o u t y o u r image.

Coming in Spring '95 Public Art Review G

LANGUAGE: U p

ffje

hfutTt

M U R A L S , G R A F F I T I 8c S I G N S

PublicArtReview Managing Editor: Bruce N. Wright Project Manager and Editorial Advisor: Jack Becker Copy Editor: Judy Arginteanu Art Director, Design and Production: Shannon Brady Advertising Representatives: Steve Whalen and Michael Schwartz Editorial Advisory Board: Cathey Billian, Peter Boswell, Fuller Cowles, Amanda Degener, Carolyn Erler, Regina Flanagan, Barbara Grygutis, Mariann Johnson, Patrice Clark Koelsch, Julie Marckel, Cheryl Miller, Christine Podas-Larson, and Herbert Scherer.

O

P

u

b

u

c

A D V E R T I S E IN

Public Art Review © 1994 Public Art Review (ISSN: 1040-211 x) is published semi-annually

by FORECAST Public Artworks, 2324 University Avenue West, Suite 102, Saint Paul, Minnesota USA 55114 Tel. (612) 641-1128. Annual subscription dues are US $12 for USA, $16 for Canada, and $21 for foreign. Public Art Review is not responsible for unsolicited material.

Please send SASE with material requiring return. Opinions expressed and validity of information herein are the responsibility of the author, not FORECAST, and FORECAST disclaims any liability for any claims made by advertisers and for images reproduced by advertisers.

POSTMASTER: Send change of address to Public Art Review, 2324 University Avenue West, Saint Paul, MN 55114 U.S.A.

For help with this issue, thanks to Harriet F. Senie, Jane Alexander, People for the American Way, and many generous individuals.

Support for Public Art Review comes from the National Endowment for the Arts-Visual Arts Program, the McKnight Foundation, and the Nathan Cummings Foundation. Additional funding for FORECAST is provided by the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council; Northwest Area Foundation; the Cowles Media Foundation; General Mills Foundation; Dayton Hudson Foundation, on behalf of Dayton's and Target Stores, The Minneapolis Foundation; Jerome Foundation; Marbrook Foundation; EcoLab Foundation; Honeywell Foundation; Center for Arts Criticism; Arts & Economic Development Fund of the City of St. Paul; and the advertisers, subscribers and friends of FORECAST.

Printer: Ideal Printers, Inc., St. Paul, MN

For advertising information, contact PAR at (612) 641-1128.

Published by FORECAST Public Artworks Managing Director: Paula Justich FORECAST Board of Directors: Ta-Coumba Aiken, Jane Cunningham, Jan Dreelan, Cheryl Kartes, Laura Migliorino, Garth Rockcastle, Susan Scofield, Tobi Tanzer, and Kit Wilson.

PUBLIC ART REVIEW FALL/WINTER

199412

•

i» tho noxt deadline

CONTENTS

P

ublic art is in a free-for-all. Rules are made up on the run. Public art often confronts audiences with personal views about sensitive subjects, and people get upset. They assume (in many cases, rightly so) that their tax dollars are involved, and they want someone held accountable. The question of what constitutes, and who's responsible for, "inappropriate" public art is the subject of much debate.

Given this sorry state of affairs, Richard Serra's reported reluctance to create public art in America is understandable. (He recently turned down an offer in San Francisco.) After Serra lost his court battle over Tilled Arc, it became clear that the public can take control over public space, and the stature of the artist—or the adherence to federal guidelines—doesn't guarantee acceptance. The clause in the contract that gives commissioning agents the right to remove work following installation should give artists pause.

With this 5th Anniversary issue of Public Art Review we examine freedom of expression in public art, including a number of complex and sticky subjects, such as the First Amendment, censorship, and federal laws pertaining to public art, free speech rights and responsibilities, and value systems that vary according to age, location, cultural orientation or sexual preference, and over time. We look at precedent-setting cases upon which our legal system relies, study contractual issues, and shed light on the current political and funding climate. And we consider massmedia venues and the "info-freeway" as territory into which public art is expanding.

We hear from free speech advocates of course, and a variety of artists, critics, curators, administrators, attorneys, educators, and public officials (Jesse Helms did not respond, but his presence may be felt). We travel from urban centers to college campuses (a relatively volatile free speech arena), from airport terminals to computer terminals. And we talk about Tilted Arc. It seems that much of the world's greatest public art is also its most controversial: the Eiffel Tower, the Washington Monument, the Statue of Liberty, La Grande Vitesse, the Gateway Arch, the Vietnam Memorial, and Tilted Arc (curiously, most of these are long strips of metal or stone).

Perhaps with the removal of Tilted Arc only a few years after its installation, artists have become more sensitive to their audience's values. Additionally, communities have gained a better understanding of their role in the development of "successful" public art (art that is not subsequently censored, at least). Regardless, we can no longer remain passive bystanders and hope that everything will work itself out.

Increasingly, artists and communities are testing the boundaries of free speech. As we all continue to explore the perimeters of public art, we're bound to stumble over some obstacles. All of us must eventually accept the fact that public art is really a broad spectrum of activities that represent many different values. And we must increase our efforts to fight censorship and uphold free speech, as our Bill of Rights dictates.

Let's face it, American culture lacks deep roots; we're a hybrid civilization still in its infancy. As such, we should exercise tolerance of other's opinions, even if they don't mirror our own. In fact, let's encourage more diverse opinions. If things are going to change for the better, public art, and all forms of speech, must remain a "free for all."

Let's continue to explore the new, seek the truth, and speak our minds.

—Jack Becker

Politically C o r r e c t b e c o m e s Public C o n t r o v e r s y

About the Cover: Two of the most significant public art controversies this year include a 1975 sculpture of a nude "family" with doves by St. Petersburg, FL artist Jack Becker [not the Jack Becker in this office]. After almost 20 years on campus, including use on UI letterhead, it was cut up, removed and later vandalized near the dumpster, where it was rescued by Barbara McDonald (see her essay, p. 22). Senay Dennis' Malcolm X mural lasted only seven days at San Francisco State University, yet made an even bigger splash. According to Tim Drescher and Jim Prigoff, mural scholars in the area, many people opposed the anti-Jewish symbol in the border (a dollar sign in a Star of David). "That small insignia, despite what the artists and others may protest, was an anti-Semitic stereotype" Prigoff wrote in a note to PAR. Considering the fact that SFSU had to sandblast the mural off the wall because people kept cleaning the paint cover off, it appears that at least a few vocal individuals felt strongly that the mural should have remained. Stay tuned for more about this debate in our next issue.

Thanks to Tim Drescher and Johnathan Jordahl for photos of the mural and sculpture respectively.

REPORTS Denver Airport Art Program Hits Turbulence

by Jennifer Murphy Phoenix Public Art Program Returns

by Judith Smith

5

FEATURES Art Hits the Wall: Property Rights vs. Artistic Expression

by Michael Hallinan 6 Public Art, Censorship, and the Constitution

by Marjorie Heins 10 Public Art and the Legal System

by Harriet F. Senie 13 What Happened? A Crisis in Public Support

by Alan Rosas 16 Scaling the "Wall in the Mind"

by Jane Alexander 17 Artist vs. Public: Round table featuring Richard Posner, Jane Whicher, Ming Fay, Randy Ross, and Jacki Apple 19 The "Deconstruction" of the Family

by Barbara McDonald 22 Risky Business

by John Frohnmayer 23 David Swim Case Study 23 Excuse Me! An Interview with Chris Burden

by Nicholas Drake 24 DEPARTMENTS COMMENTARY Dwelling & Dialogue: A Feminine Perspective

by Carolyn Erler

26

REVIEWS Public Interventions by Patricia C. Phillips Cyborg, Semiotics, and Free Speech by K.F. Giusti Mel Chin's "Invisible Architecture'^ Phyllis Rosser Art 21 by Kristen Schleifer Junction '94 - Symposium by Cynthia Abramson Sculpture '94 Biennial by Cynthia Abramson

27 28 30 31 32 33

BOOK REVIEWS "Public Lettering" by Carolyn Erler "On the Museum's Ruins" by Jim Czarniecki "Art for Work" by Patrice Clark Koelsch "Art in Other Places" by Michael Schwartz "What is Architecture?" by Garth Rockcastle

34 34 35 35 36

PUBLIC ARTICLES Barrier Free Art: ADA & Public Art by Robert Schultz ... 37 Legal Issues Surrounding Public Art Contracts

by Laura Danielson 38 WORTHY OF NOTICE That Beauty Problem by Regina Flanagan

39

LISTINGS Newsbriefs, Events, Publications, & Opportunities Edited by Jack Becker JK.

42

PUBLIC ART REVIEW

FALL/WINTER

1994 1 3

Nice Idea Doesn't Make for Pretty Picture Denver International Airport Art Program Hits Turbulence by

J e n n i f e r

M u r p h y

Public art: an oxymoron to any intelligent person. Art in public places: N o w that makes some sort of sense.

But sometime during the 80s we all began hearing about "public art," which was somehow bigger and better than those standard sculptures in a park or paintings in a government building. Public art involved collaboration and another new idea, the "design team."

Artists began working with architects, landscape architects, and others to create designs integrated into architecture. They concentrated on creating work that addressed larger concerns such as social, community, and environmental. And their particular perspective blended in with the overall vision and goals of the project.

Though the idea sprang from Seattle, public art eventually caught on in Denver. Wanting desperately to be seen as savvy and perhaps even "carefree," Denver plunged fullsteam ahead into an ambitious public art program at its soon-to-be-built airport. Seven and a half million dollars was to be set aside to integrate artists' visions into the building systems. Artists were to work in close collaboration with project architects. The program was to be the most innovative, biggest and best in the country.

Nice idea.

In January 1990, calls went out nationwide for experienced public artists to work alongside promising local talent. A team of artists was selected to participate in master planning and pave the way for commissioned works. By fall, 13 artists had been selected: seven to design works for the concourses, six for the main terminal. With the exception of a cumbersome contracting process, all went well in those early stages. Artists, project management and the design architects (which included two different firms, one for the concourses and one for the terminal) all met.

Then, however, the art program was directed not to work with the concourse building architects for so-called "political" reasons. Rather, the art program was to seek alternative architectural support.

That was just the beginning. Trouble began brewing in the main terminal as well.

PUBLIC ART REVIEW FALL/WINTER

Four of the six artists selected for main terminal projects chose to create works in the great hall, which was to be the focal point of the entire terminal and the arrival area for all travelers. These artists proposed a cohesive theme that involved land, water, and sky. The land portion of the proposal was to be a 26color terrazzo floor patterned after an Arapaho Indian carpet bag, to c o m m e m o r a t e the American Indians who migrated through the area. The artists, Jaune Quick-to-See-Smith and Ken Iwamasa, also planned to imbed native Colorado imagery into the floor. The sky portion of the proposal, brought forward

by Anna Murch, was to use light projection to cast subtle color shifts and cloud formations onto the fabric roof structure. Doug Hollis completed the environment by proposing "Mountain Mirage," a 24 by 60-foot wide water sculpture that would replicate the profile of the Rocky Mountains using individual jets of water rising at varying levels.

Following the selection process, the artists met with the building architects, who seemed supportive of the proposed designs.

A letter from the architects to project management indicated otherwise, however. Concerns were raised about the water feature's location directly over the electrically charged train below. Other issues like humidity level, sight lines, noise and traveler (dis)orientation were added. Regarding Murch's proposal, the architects were concerned that the project would—or should—be tied into the main lighting system, and worried that the cloud projections might show through the fabric roof and cause spotting on the pure white exterior, which might be visible from the sky.

And the architects had already designed a very intricately patterned floor that would directly abut the artist's floor. The proposed artist's design was not considered compatible with the approved architectural design. It was suggested that the artists' design be subtler and stay within the color palette determined by the architects.

All these concerns were addressed by the artists and the art steering committee (a group of local and national arts advisors charged with overseeing the program) and individually solved. The artists continued the design process and submitted the necessary materials to incorporate their works into the bid documents just like good collaborators. But somehow the water feature was later totally omitted from the documents and the lighting feature and floor were only partially included.

According to the architects, they had included all the information that had been officially submitted by project management.

Meanwhile, the floor, originally expected to be terrazzo, had been upgraded to granite and the artists were asked to redesign.

Hollis and Murch rallied Issues regarding leakage and humidity were readdressed by the art steering committee (using the same calculations and solutions). Hollis and Murch were directed to work on their own, without the aid of the building architects or general contractors. For the sake of expediency and familiarity, Hollis began work with structural and mechanical engineering firms;

199414

Murch did likewise with a lighting engineering firm.

The floor material changed yet again. The architects had discovered a new wonder material called thin-set granite. It had not as yet been used on anything but countertops and walls in the United States, but they were sure it had been used on floors somewhere in Italy.

The artists were again directed to redesign to accommodate the new material's color, availability, and fragility.

In spring 1993, Murch did a mock-up of "Sky Dance" on site. Members of the architectural firm, city project management, and other key individuals worked in close collaboration over a four-day period with the artist and her lighting designer to ensure the feasibility of the proposed work. A new site was found for her lighting fixtures and equipment and the artist accommodated the redesign prompted by the mock-up. At about the same time, bids for the architect's portion of the floor design came in higher than expected. Although the design was complete, the artist's portion of the floor was not a part of this bid package. In order to stay within the remaining budget, the general contractor told the artists to cut their design to 11 colors and eliminate all diagonal or curvilinear cuts.

A few months later, Hollis began an intense collaborative effort with the project management team to ensure conformance to all structural and mechanical requirements.

Hollis's designer and his local subcontractors generated detailed design, mechanical, and structural drawings and submitted them to project management for inspection. However, rumors about the precarious location of "Mountain Mirage" over the electrically powered train below, and its structural and mechanical soundness were trickling down from above. As a result, the local engineering firms who had been involved with the project refused to approve the drawings. A plea to project management was met with the suggestion that Hollis quit all dealings with any contractors or subcontractors associated with the airport project—which included most of Denver—because they were needed to perform other, more critical work. He was to find a local engineering firm to review and approve the already generated drawings within a matter of weeks in order to stay on schedule. The ceiling at station level below was ready to be installed, and if Hollis didn't solicit the necessary approval before installation, the feature was all but sunk.

The art program scrambled to find what was sure to be a needle in a haystack: someone willing to take on liability for a design that they did not generate. By some miracle, the needle appeared. An independent engineer agreed to take a look at the drawings, and after only a few days the drawings were submitted with all appropriate stamps of approval and time to spare.

During this adventure, installation had begun on the architect's portion of the main terminal floor. Intricate cuts and rich colors served to create a beautiful design. But local papers reported that the Italian granite supcontinued on page 32

Turnaround in Phoenix: Public Art Returns

public art projects should be limited to Arizona artists, and whether the c o m m u n i t y and city officials should have a bigger role in selecting artwork.

Whitehurst believes there was such an outcry over the pots not because people disliked the pots, but because they were angry about their neighborhoods split in two with the Squaw Peak Parkway.

Nonetheless, the "pot controversy" has had some beneficial side effects. It caused the b y J u d i t h S m i t h city council and citizens to revisit the mission of the Arts Commission. Current staff m e m When the Phoenix Arts Commission was bers, including new director Phil Jones, becreated by the City Council in 1985, no one lieve that the commission is stronger because protested. In fact, the council chambers were of the experience. "A healthy dialogue took packed with supporters as members cast their place between the city and Arts Commission unanimous vote. that resulted in some revisions in the ordiIn 1986, when the Phoenix Arts Commisnance. It strengthened and clarified the prosion proposed its Percent for Art ordinance, cess and defined the role of the council and which called for up to 1 percent of the mum a y o r ' s office as they relate to our nicipal capital improvement to be set agency," Jones said. aside for art, with artists involved in The revisions also "codified" the design and construction of the the previously informal understandcity's infrastructure, no one carried ing about how selection panels for protest signs outside City Hall. When artworks are appointed. "Selection the first projects were started, there committees are set up f o r each was no hue and outcry about "spendproject. Each one has a c o m m u n i t y ing public money on art." member, a city staff person and an But when pots began appearing on artist or design professional," said the walls of the Squaw Peak Parkway, Allison Kukla, public art project the first freeway cut into the heart of coordinator. "A number of projects the city, people suddenly discovered are community-driven and we ofthe Phoenix Arts Commission. And ten have c o m m u n i t y meetings," according to local newspapers. Phoesaid Jody Ulich, commission regnix residents were enraged that their istrar. money was being spent on something The revisions also include a as frivolous as pots on top of walls and mandate to use Arizona artists as pots in the neighborhoods that had mmuch as possible. "But we still been disrupted by the freeway. have balance," added Ulich. " W e For a while, it even seemed that the went to all the corners of the Valley Phoenix Arts Commission could have to talk to artists and we learned that lost its funding and its existence. But Mags Harries and Lajos Heder, Wall Cycle to Ocotillo, 1992. A series of large and Arizona artists d o n ' t want to be according to current staff members, small-scale vessels and planters, painted in different motifs. Squaw Peak Parkway. given special consideration. They the program is stronger today than it Phoenix, (photo: Bob Rink) want to be judged with national was before the Squaw Peak pot conand international artists." troversy.

This year, the commission will oversee in the final design, which was approved by The Phoenix Arts Commission was in$2.2 million in percent-for-arts funds. (The city staff. volved in the Squaw Peak Parkway p r o j e c t , average amount spent annually for such Whitehurst and consultant Nina Dunbar explained Deborah Whitehurst, the projects f r o m 1988 through 1993 was $1.4 wrote about the public reaction to the vessels commission's first director, because the Phoemillion.) " S o m e people feel w e ' r e in a conin a monograph titled "An Elephant in Your nix Planning Department had recommended servative mode with our public art projects," Living Room, or the Squaw Peak Pot Controthat voters approve $18 million in bonds to Jones said. "But what y o u ' r e seeing is a versy:" begin an ambitious freeway mitigation proslowdown in capital construction."

"Although community residents received gram. Of that money, $6 million went to the Thelda Williams, mayor of Phoenix, said notices alerting them to the two-month artSquaw Peak Parkway, and of that $6 million, city support for the arts h a s n ' t waned. "The work installation, most of the commuters two-thirds was allocated to neighborhood city is very much committed to the Phoenix using the Squaw Peak Parkway learned about revitalization, noise walls, bicycle and pearts program. Our residents are demanding the project when they saw the giant urns and destrian routes, enhanced landscaping and that every capital project be of the highest pots cruising down the parkway on a convoy public art. It was the Arts C o m m i s s i o n ' s role standard and have art included in it. People of flat-bed trucks. Like a circus coming to to help select and oversee installation of the have a sense of pride about what we do. town, the 15-foot-high vessels presented a art.

Things are beginning to turn around and dazzling, if not bizarre, spectacle. Their The artists, Mags Harries and Lajos Heder hopefully we can do more. Everyone wants a brightly painted surfaces contained an eclecof Cambridge, Mass.,who worked in colproject in their neighborhood." tic range of designs, including Victorianlaboration with the Planning Center of PhoeThe commission now is extremely busy style sunflowers, surreal underwater scenes nix, designed 35 vessels ranging from 2 to 15 administering dozens of ongoing projects and bold Native American and African imagfeet tall to be placed outside the parkway and preparing to launch new ones, all tied to ery." walls in the neighborhoods and atop the parkthe infrastructure in the sprawling city of The project raised such questions as why way walls. Some of the pots incorporate Phoenix. A m o n g the new projects are art for money was spent on art when the economy landscaping, water features, benches, solar a new fire station, the Phoenix Civic Plaza was in recession, if public art was an approlighting and pumping system in their design. (the city's convention center), a branch lipriate way to soften the impact of a 10-lane Ironically, said Whitehurst, the Squaw continued on page 29 freeway through neighborhoods, whether Peak pots were not a direct project of the commission. And residents had been notified of meetings to discuss the public art. "At least 6,000 to 10,000 households received a notice of the meetings and a notice that the projects were happening," Whitehurst said.

Fewer than 20 residents attended any of the meetings to discuss the proposed parkway art projects, however, so members of the city planning department and arts commission went out knocking on doors. When a conceptual plan for artwork and landscape improvements was presented at a community meeting about eight months after the first public workshops were held, more than 125 area residents turned out. "The response to the a r t w o r k s w a s g e n e r a l l y f a v o r a b l e , " Whitehurst said. "A few residents raised minor safety issues and others requested that more 'Southwest' imagery appear in the individual works." Both concerns were addressed

PUBLIC ART REVIEW

FALL/WINTER

1994 1 5

Diego Rivera, Man at the Crossroads, unfinished fresco at Rockefeller Center, New York City. Photo taken in May. 1933, just prior to the mural's destruction, by Lucienne Bloch.

Property Rights vs. Artistic B y

M

i

c

h

a

e

l

H

Expression a

l

l

i

n

a

n

"For this, as you know, is a public hall And people want doves, or a tree in fall.

And though your art I dislike to hamper, I o w e a little t o G o d a n d G r a m p e r ,

And after all, It's my wall."

S

o Nelson Rockefeller admonishes Diego Rivera in E.B. White's wily doggerel, published in 1933 after Rockefeller sent armed guards to surround and cover Rivera's unfinished fresco in the lobby of the new RCA Building.

Rivera had painted a likeness of Lenin in his monumental mural facing the Rockefeller Center plaza. W h e n the press got wind of it, the curmudgeonly socialist refused to paint him out. In fact, he moved Lenin to a more prominent position.

"There are rumors.. .that Rockefeller saw Lenin and did not like the idea." So wrote Rivera's assistant Lucienne Bloch with naive understatement. 1 Though the Rockefellers were great patrons of the arts, Lenin's iconic likeness at the very heart of American capitalism was eminently unacceptable.

Only three days after Bloch's first inkling of trouble, Rockefeller sent the guards to stop work on the mural. A few months later, workers chipped the fresco from the walls and hauled the chunks away in 50-gallon drums.

Rockefeller acted with impunity. If he wanted to chisel plaster in the lobby and pulverize it to chalk, he could.

It was his wall.

Second-Class Expressions Controversy inevitably attends public art. It is a form of public engagement, after all, and is to be desired of art from time to time. In the United States, public art debates large and small repeatedly contest fine points of property rights, public propriety, crass politics, copyrights, contracts, even janitorial service. But assertions of the right of expression quickly get shunted aside.

PUBLIC ART REVIEW FALL/WINTER

199416

Michael Spafford. Twelve Labors of Hercules, 1981, Olympia, WA. View of south wall, containing second set of six labors, prior to its destruction, (photo: Spike Mafford)

It's not that the issue isn't raised. The destruction of Rivera's mural struck an ominous counterpoint to Hitler's book burnings across the Atlantic. But the question of free expression in the visual arts rarely gets serious legal scrutiny. In case after case, judges reluctant to slog through the thickets of jurisprudence summarily dismiss attempts to apply First Amendment protections to works of visual art.

In the final analysis, the visual arts are second-class expression under the Constitution as the judiciary interprets it. The courts apply the First Amendment in full strength to "pure speech," generally oral and written speech. The visual arts, on the other hand, usually are classed as "symbolic speech," and as such they receive more limited rights.

When these enfeebled rights are set against a pillar of Anglo-American common law like property rights, the outcome is all but inevitable.

In questions of free expression, a word is worth a thousand pictures.

Against this backdrop, a showdown was inevitable, and it came in Tilted Arc. Five years have passed since Richard Serra gave up the fight to keep his 120-foot-long. 12-foot-tall curve of Cor-Ten steel in the space for which it was created, Foley Square fronting downtown Manhattan's federal office building. Though the arc is gone now, the case still rankles and reverberates as an emblem of public art controversy. [see article p. 13] Earlier disputes foreshadowed some of the arguments over Tilted Arc. In the 1970s, a group of judges objected to Baltimore Federal, a George Sugarman sculpture on the federal courthouse grounds in Baltimore. T h e case is perhaps most distinguished as the first instance in which a work of public art was alleged to be a potential staging area for terrorist attack. But dissatisfaction with the sculpture failed to grow beyond a vocal handful, and the installation remains in place, if not securely so. Just this April an op-ed piece in the Baltimore Sun called for replacing the sculpture with a memorial bust of the late Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Better known is the dispute over Maya L i n ' s design for the Vietnam W a r Memorial. As Serra's sculpture came to be tagged a rusted hulk of steel, opponents saw L i n ' s polished granite wall as a black gash in the ground. But the Vietnam memorial falls within the tradition of commemorative art, and the argument was over its form, not the appropriateness of the commemoration itself. W h e n it was agreed to place a traditional figurative grouping some distance away from L i n ' s wall, the controversy evaporated.

At issue are government restrictions on the time, place, & manner of expression

Public Patronage, Public Issues In the case of the Rockefeller Center murals, the art was public but the patronage private.

Matters really get complicated when the public assumes the role of patron and property owner.

Public patronage of the arts bloomed in the 1960s with the creation of the National Endowment for the Arts' Art in Public Places program, the General Services Administration's Art in Architecture program, and percent-for-art programs at local and state levels.

Simultaneously, artists were breaking down the public art tradition of memorial busts and equestrian statues, but forging no new consensus on the role and manner of public art.

PUBLIC ART REVIEW

FALL/WINTER

1994 1 7

j^VlBllflH m I \omM* %' > • 3 M M 1  George Sugarman. Baltimore Federal, 1973. (photo: courtesy General Services Administration) Kent Twitchell. The Freeway Lady, 1974, Prince Hotel, Los Angeles, acrylic, 30 x 22. Editor's Note:ln 1986 the mural was painted over without informing the artist (for advertising space).

Citing the 1980 California Art Preservation Act, Twitchell sued the building's owner, who later settled for S125.000 for restoration. The reborn version was completed in 1993. (photo: courtesy the Mural Conservancy)

guards, but its curve and 1 -foot tilt off its vertical axis could also concentrate the blast of terrorist bombs for maximum damage. And the wall was alleged to be an irresistible magnet for graffiti.

For their part. Tilted Arc supporters argued that the GSA had promised Serra a permanent installation. On that basis, he had created an artwork to redefine the space and the viewer's perception of and relation to the plaza. Serra, an artist of undisputed standing, considered the piece to be among his masterworks; as such, this was a significant artistic expression entitled to free-speech protections.

Inextricably tied to the site of its expression, Serra's statement could not be moved.

In the Sugarman controversy, the G S A mediated a complaint lodged by a party independent of the agency, but an agency official actually fomented the Tilted Arc dispute. When William Diamond took over as the Reagan administration's regional administrator in January 1985, he took a disliking to the Serra installation, erected in 1981 under the Art in Architecture program. Diamond invited workers who didn't like the sculpture to sign a petition for its removal.

With some 3,000 signatures in hand, he appointed a five-person committee with himself as chairman and two of his underlings as members.

Not unexpectedly, the panel recommended that Tilted Arc be moved. An NEA-appointed panel subsequently found no other suitable place for the site-specific work and recommended that it be left where it was.

Serra took his case to the courts, alleging, among other wrongs, the violation of his First Amendment right to free expression. Given the judiciary' s treatment of such cases, it was clearly a long shot, but the Serra case questioned some bedrock assumptions of First Amendment doctrine. At issue are government restrictions on the time, place, and manner of expression. Such restrictions are held to be constitutional when they advance a significant public interest and when the regulations are content-neutral. Time, place, and manner restrictions of pure speech get close scrutiny, but the courts grant regulation of symbolic speech a greater degree of deference.

Art Gets in the W a y Five minutes in Manhattan will prove that one thing you d o n ' t want to do is get in a New Yorker's way. If Rivera stepped over the line by painting a likeness of Lenin, the mortal sin Serra allegedly committed was that he blocked the path of workers crossing the plaza and thwarted their lunchtime socializing.

Elaborating on the Sugarman theme, Tilted Arc opponents argued that Serra's sculpture not only could hide terrorists from security

PUBLIC ART REVIEW FALL/WINTER

199418

Generally speaking, visual art is symbolic speech unless its content is political. But what of expressions in which the content cannot be extracted f r o m the form? What of expressions whose form is inseparable f r o m time, place, and manner? As arts lawyer Barbara H o f f m a n notes the Serra case challenges the underlying assumption that the idea can be divorced f r o m the manner of expression. 2 But the appeals court gave barely a nod to these concerns. In its summary judgment, the court simply found that Serra had given up all rights to free expression when he handed over his work to the GSA. At that point, Tilted Arc became not speech or expression but property.

In other words, Tilted Arc was the G S A ' s wall.

Obscenity in the Eye Though Tilted Arc focused nearly all public-art issues in a single controversy, Serra's non-figurative work managed to escape one perennial charge: obscenity. However, a contemporaneous Washington state case did raise the prurience issue. Just as Tilted Arc was dismantled in the end, so Seattle painter Michael Spafford's mural eventually was removed from the state House of Representatives chamber. The outcome for free expression was also the same: no contest.

The mural, The Twelve Labors of Hercules, depicts its subject in broad, loosely drawn brushstrokes of black against white. When it was unveiled in 1981, some legislators saw pornography. A year later, curtains were installed to cover the mural.

Then, amid Sen. Jesse Helms' attacks on the NEA in 1989, the speaker of the House ordered the mural uncovered to demonstrate the state's abhorrence of censorship of the arts. The gesture proved fatal, for it re-inflamed the mural's detractors, and in an unrecorded voice vote in the closing moments of the 1993 legislative session opponents passed a bill removing the mural.

In its contract with Spafford, the state had agreed that it would not destroy, damage or alter the artwork. But a court ruled the contract did not prohibit the state from removing the mural as long as the removal didn't damage it. Again expression took a back seat to property rights.

This time it was the state of Washington's wall.

Moral Rights If freedom of expression for the visual artist is only a limited First Amendment right, perhaps it is a moral right. Derived from French law, moral rights doctrine holds that artists, for instance, maintain an interest in their creative expressions even after the works become someone else's property.

In 1987, Sen. Edward Kennedy introduced the Visual Artists Rights Act, modeled on laws in 11 states, including New York and California.

Attention initially was riveted on provisions that would have granted royalties to artists whose work was resold at a profit. Then Hollywood grabbed the spotlight over provisions to restrict colorizing of blackand-white movie classics. As Congress rushed to adjourn in 1990, Kennedy snipped those controversial sections from the bill and tacked what remained onto a measure creating 85 federal judgeships.

The surviving sections of the bill preserve the act's potentially farreaching core. In adopting the law, the federal government acknowledged for the first time that a work of visual art is a unique individual expression and not simply a piece of property. Among its provisions, the act bars "modification, change, damage or destruction of any kind" to a "work of stature" by a living artist produced after June 1, 1991.

Tilted Arc was immune from New York's similar law because it was federal property. Would the federal law have saved it? The act is a slender reed indeed against well-entrenched property rights and First Amendment doctrine, but it might at least have tipped the balance enough to persuade a court to look beyond a summary judgment.

In the first courtroom test of the law, a federal district court judge in Manhattan ruled Aug. 31 that property owners could not remove a sculpture from the lobby of a Queens warehouse during the lifetimes of its three little-known artists, John J. Veronis, John Swing, and John Carter. Significantly, the judge favored great leeway in determining whether a work of art bears sufficient stature to qualify it for the law's protections.

Still, as Hoffman warns, defending artists' right of expression remains an uphill fight: "When the interests of the artist and those of a largely uninformed or hostile community collide...in practical terms the burden of proof will always fall upon art's defenders."

Michael Hallinan, assistant managing editor of The Herald in Everett, WA, studied media coverage of the arts as a research fellow at the Freedom Forum Media Studies Center at Columbia University.

Notes: 1. Lucienne Bloch, "On Location with Diego Rivera," Art in America (February 1986), p. 102-123.

2. Barbara Hoffman, "Law for Art's Sake in the Public Realm." Critical Inquiry (Spring 1991), pp. 540-73.

Editor's Note: As a result of this project, "Subculture Joe" and his band of art guerrillas became known as the Fabricators of the Attachment. or simply F.A.. (photo: Steve Gilbert)

The Ball and Chain onthe Other Foot A raid on a sculpture outside the Seattle Art Museum hammers home an intriguing point about public art: The right to expression is not the artist's alone.

On Labor Day 1993, a band of art guerrillas led by "Subculture Joe" attached a 700-pound ball and 10-foot chain to Jonathan Borofsky's HammeringMan'm downtown Seattle.

The raiders carefully padded the cuff to avoid any damage to the 48-foot-tall mechanized worker.

"Supposedly Hammering Man represents the workers, but the workers are getting hammered," Joe said in a manifesto issued to the press.

Subculture Joe and the members of his cadre were not charged with any crime, and the ball and chain were subsequently auctioned off to benefit a local arts organization.

But this "art action" clearly had the overt political overtones the courts require for protection under the First Amendment.

Though he did not want the ball and chain affixed permanently, Borofsky saw the raid as representing the best ideals of public art. "I think a work of art in a public situation is successful if it creates discussion within each of us and between groups of people..." he told the Seattle Times. "It becomes more successful when some group like this extends the meaning in a very thoughtful way."

Partial Bibliography Balfe. J.H.. and Wyszomirsky, M.J.; "Public Art and Public Policy," Journal of Arts Management and Law (Winter 1986), p. 5-29.

Buskirk, Martha; "Moral Rights: First Step or False Start?" Art in America (July 1991), p. 37-45.

Hoffman, Barbara; "Law for Art's Sake in the Public Realm," Critical Inquiry (Spring 1991), p. 540-73.

Merryman, John Henry; "Bernard Buffet's Refrigerator and the Integrity of the Work of Art," ARTnews (February 1977), p. 38-42.

Serra, Richard; "Art and Censorship." Critical Inquiry (Spring 1991), p. 574-81.

Serra, Richard; "'Tilted Arc' destroyed," Art in America (May 1989), p. 35-47.

PUBLIC ART REVIEW

FALL/WINTER

199419

Senay Dennis, Malcolm X mural, May 19-26,1994, San Fransisco Stale University, (photo: Timo-

m

thy Drescher) Editor's Note: According to San Francisco mural expert Timothy Drescher, "in ordering this mural sanded off the wall, S F S U President Robert Corrigan acted as agent for the vast majority of the SFSU community, which opposed the invidious anti-Jewish symbol on the upper border."

..vnwyffiitw

*Mle*l*\ May

Public Art, Censorship, and the Constitution b y

M

a

r

j

o

r

i

e

H

e

i

n

s

C

ontroversies over the censorship of "public art" have raged in this country at least since 1989 when Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano became household words. But the antagonists in these highly charged debates have not often paid scrupulous attention to what the term "public art" means or to how the free speech protections of the First Amendment might apply to its creators and audiences.

For example, when Sen. Jesse Helms and countless lesser demagogues railed against National Endowment for the Arts funding for the likes of Mapplethorpe and Serrano, they were surely onto something politically, but they were wrong as a matter of constitutional law when they claimed that "the taxpayers" (i.e., the government) can impose any sort of restriction on the content or viewpoint of art produced with the help of a government grant. That is because government funding or benefits for expressive activities like art don't necessarily imply government sponsorship. If they did, then public officials could censor the content of every public library book and every demonstration in a public park.

On the other hand, when a government agency commissions a work of art, the constitutional rules are different. Here, the government is speaking—delivering its own message—and thus has much greater power to control what is being said. Recently at San Francisco State University, for example, the Student Union commissioned a mural celebrating the life and thought of Malcolm X. When it was completed in May 1994, however, the work contained an unexpectedly incendiary anti-Semitic border consisting of an American flag, dollar signs, Stars of David, a skull and crossbones, and the words "African blood." After several days of politically charged confusion, the college administration had the work painted over. The artist claimed violation of his First Amendment rights; the college said it had commissioned the piece and therefore had the right to reject it.

S.F. State's position was certainly consistent with the theory of "government speech," as explained by U.S. Court of Appeals in 1988 PUBLIC ART REVIEW FALL/WINTER

1994110

in the famous Richard Serra case. The court rejected Serra's claim that removal of his commissioned sculpture Tilled Arc from a public plaza in Manhattan violated his First Amendment rights. The court said the First Amendment has only limited application where the art belongs to the government: "Serra relinquished his own speech rights in the sculpture when he voluntarily sold it" to the General Services Administration.' Yet the court added that if the government had exercised its "broad discretion to dispose of its [own] property" in "an impermissibly repressive partisan or political manner," Serra might have won. 2 Thus, even where the government is "speaking," it is still bound by the First Amendment; and just because a federal, state, or local agency may own a work that it has commissioned doesn't mean it can remove or destroy the work for any reason.-1 [see p. 13] The term "public art" can be used to cover a multitude of sins, from the Malcolm X mural to the Mapplethorpe show. How the First Amendment applies to censorship in this area depends very much on the context. I would argue that except in those relatively rare cases like Serra, or perhaps S.F. State, where the government owns the work, political officials violate the First Amendment when they impose ideological or moral standards on art that receives public support or is displayed in public spaces. So whether or not art that's exhibited in a public building is considered "public art," the agency in charge of the building should not have the power to reject works because they are deemed "blasphemous," "subversive," "sexually explicit," or otherwise "offensive."

Unfortunately, my view is not universally shared, especially by government agencies; nor by many members of the public, who think they have a right to demand removal of a work from public display, or the d e f u n d i n g o f an artist or arts organization, if they find the work offensive.

So we have innumerable censorship controversies constantly brewing over NEA funding; exhibits in county buildings, schools, and libraries; and community opposition to art installations on city sidewalks and parks. Repeatedly, the cry is heard that if the government is "sponsoring" the work, then the "taxpayers" should be able

Certainly, some restrictions are permissible—for example, limiting an exhibit to works on a particular theme, or to artists who are thought to have talent, thus eliminating velvet portraits of bug-eyed children. The problem arises when ideological or moral standards unrelated to artistic merit or to a particular t h e m e — " i n d e c e n c y , " or "blasphemy," for example—are imposed on top of a curatorial process.

This has been happening with increasing frequency where charges of "sexual harassment" are leveled at art with sexual content or even What gets censored simple nudity. Perhaps the most notorious incident occurred at Penn Some examples of recent censorship controversies illustrate the State University in 1991, when an instructor succeeded in having a scope of the problem. The NEA arts funding battle has been replicated poster reproduction of G o y a ' s sensuous Maja Desnuda removed in miniature at the state and local level. In 1993 in Cobb County, GA, for example, some citizens got up in arms over occasional references from a classroom wall because she claimed it amounted to sexual to homosexuality in Terrence McNally's play "Lips Together, Teeth harassment. The following year, a traveling show of Lee Friedlander Apart," then playing at a local repertory theater that received county nudes at Colgate University was dismantled after some students and arts funds. In response to the uproar, county officials proposed employees said the photos created a "hostile" and "intimidating" legislation that would restrict arts environment. Similarly, in 1993 subsidies to works that promoted administration officials and the "strong c o m m u n i t y , family-oristudent art committee at the Uniented standards," explicitly defined versity of Pittsburgh excluded a to exclude the "lifestyles advocated surrealistic landscape f r o m an by the gay community." The Ameriopen-entry student art show becan Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) cause of its phallic-looking tree and People for the American Way b r a n c h e s . S o m e students exwrote letters explaining that such plained the decision on grounds ideological restrictions on arts of sexual harassment. 5 Sadly, in 4 grants would be unconstitutional. these situations concepts develThe county board, perhaps partly in oped largely by egalitarians and response, decided to eliminate arts feminists have been distorted, funding entirely. sometimes by those with very different political agendas, to Of course, government doesn't censor art. have to fund the arts, so no constitutional problem ordinarily arises An e v e n m o r e p o l i t i c a l l y if it decides not to. It's only when a charged instance of censorship funding or benefit program is in occurred in New York City in place that the First Amendment lim1992 w h e n installation artist its what sort of content controls can Melinda Hunt was denied a perbe imposed. So although we were mit for a site-specific work called right, politically and legally, to obJust Outside the City, to be disject to the ideologically driven fundplayed at City Hall Park in Maning restraints that were proposed in hattan, c o m m e m o r a t i n g those Georgia, the end result—no arts w h o ' d been buried over the cenfunding—was not exactly a stunturies in potters fields just bening victory. yond the city. A handful of c o m The lesson here, perhaps, is that munity leaders persuaded the community organizing, coalition Melinda Hunt. Circle ofHope, 1994 (planted June 11 -12). 40' diameter corn planting. Madison Square parks department to deny Hunt a Park, New York City. Scheduled through November, 1994. While the corn is growing, New York City building, and educating about free- children are encouraged to participate by contributing their written hopes on molded plaster casts permit b e c a u s e they t h o u g h t dom of expression are crucial to which are later attached to the fence, (photo: the artist) v i e w e r s might c o n f u s e those preserving public support for the anonymous dead (many of them arts without sacrificing artists' freedom to explore the full range of paupers and criminals) with the African-Americans buried nearby in social and human concerns. In particular, established arts institutions the recently uncovered African Burial Ground in lower Manhattan. have to be out there vocally opposing censorship and not hiding their The city's decision was clearly based on ideological objections to heads in the sand and hoping their own funding will be preserved Hunt's w o r k — a n unacceptable and. I would argue, unconstitutional while radical, gay, and feminist artists, and those dealing frankly with rationale even where a temporary public art installation is out there on sexual politics, are driven out of public or publicly supported spaces. the street, not hidden in a m u s e u m or gallery space, and thus more The same issues rear their heads when, instead of funding an easily perceived as carrying government endorsement. Here, espeexhibit or film festival or repertory theater, a government body cially, disclaimers and other educational tools are useful (perhaps simply decides to make public property available for art. In Fairfax critical) in explaining that the loan of public land (or money) is County, VA, for example, the local arts council has extensive intended to foster creative expression, dialogue, and cultural life, and guidelines limiting what can be shown in public buildings. Banned doesn't mean the government endorses all the ideas expressed." are "nudes, weaponry, drug paraphernalia, and works which reflect violence, religious scenes, political expression or unpatriotic subThe Legal Rules: W h a t are they? W h a t should they be? jects." One might well ask: W h a t ' s left—ducks and trees?

As early as 1972, the Supreme Court recognized the principle that to dictate its content. And because in our society federal, state, and local governments own so much property and provide so much funding and benefits to so many activities (libraries and universities are just two examples), there's no greater threat to artistic and intellectual freedom than the notion that censorship is perfectly appropriate as long as the art is in a public place or receives public support.

The ACLU and the American Jewish Congress have been urging the arts council to abandon its restrictive and constitutionally dubious rules. The candid response we received (shades of Cobb County): If the public officials are told they can't censor the art on display, they' 11 close down the program entirely. Again, education seems crucial here, not only for the officials involved, but for those private citizens who think a nude or an "unpatriotic subject" displayed in a public exhibit space represents government "sponsorship" and that all artwork in public places must be sufficiently bland to offend no one.

government "may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests—especially his interest in freedom of speech." 7 The Court applied this notion specifically to public funding when it said in 1983 that government may not "discriminate invidiously in its subsidies in such a way as to aim at the suppression of dangerous ideas." 8 These precedents certainly seemed to apply to arts funding or benefits (including use of public space.)

But in 1991, the Supreme Court announced its infamous "gag rule" decision (Rust v. Sullivan"), approving a restriction on any

PUBLIC ART REVIEW

FALL/WINTER

1994 1 11

abortion counseling in family planning clinics that received federal funds. The Rust decision sent tremors through the arts world and others that depend to some degree on government money. Their fears were not calmed by the US Justice Department's eager announcement that it interpreted Rust to permit virtually any limit on art or other expression receiving government support.

The federal courts soon began to clip Justice's wings. In 1991, a court ruled that the government could not impose censorship as a condition of funding in an area so traditionally entitled to intellectual freedom as scientific research. The case involved a ban on discussion of preliminary research results without government approval. The j u d g e said the Justice Department's argument for applying Rust was "an invitation to government censorship wherever public funds flow," and would "present an enormous threat to the First Amendment rights of American citizens and to a free society." 10 Then, in the 1992 " N E A Four" decision, a federal court invalidated the infamous 1990 "decency and respect" law that restricted federal arts funding to works that conform to "general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public." The court struck down the law both because it was unconstitutionally vague (what's "indecent" to a minister in Iowa may not be "indecent" to a rock fan in California—or Iowa); and because it imposed ideological restrictions in an area—artistic expression—that "serves many of the same values central to a democratic society and underlying the First Amendment as does scholarly expression in other fields." 1 2 The same argument should apply to artists' use of public space, but the courts don't always agree. In one 1985 case, a federal appeals court rejected an artist/faculty m e m b e r ' s claim that the removal of his religiously and sexually charged stained glass windows from a prominent display space at his college violated the First Amendment.

One of the windows, charmingly titled "Adoration of the Penis," featured a rear view of a brown woman, naked except for stockings, and described by the court as "crouching in a posture of veneration before a robed white male whose most prominent feature is a grotesquely outsized phallus (erect penis) that the woman is embracing." The windows were done in the style of Aubrey Beardsley, and Judge Richard Posner, upholding the college's removal of the work to a less traveled spot, emphasized that the exhibit space was not a "public forum," that the college had no political motive in removing the work, and that the original location gave the college legitimate concern about offending passers-by, especially since this was a community "in which Aubrey Beardsley is not a household word." 1 4 Judge Posner did acknowledge that the case presented issues of artistic freedom. He was willing to "assume," without deciding, that "public colleges do not have carte blanche to regulate the expression of ideas by faculty members in the parts of the college that are not public forums." 1 5 He was also willing to assume that "the college's interest was not great enough" to justify banning the exhibit from campus altogether." 1 But he said that the mild chilling effect produced by removal of work "calculated to shock, to outrage, to ' e p a t e r le bourgeois' [sic] was not of "constitutional significance"; that "not every trivial alteration of the site of an art exhibit—not every modest yielding to public feeling about sexually explicit and racially insulting art—is an abridgement of freedom of expression." 1 7 If a public college, according to Judge Posner, can move an art display to a more obscure venue because the work is "calculated to.. .epater le bourgeois," or because the local denizens haven't heard of Aubrey Beardsley, this still doesn't mean that any restriction is constitutionally permissible. In July 1994 a federal district court in New York struck down a "no-nudes" policy imposed by a local public library for its community exhibit room, on the theory that the room had already been opened for art exhibits, and the nudes in question were "innocuous." 1 * The court went out of its way, though, to assure the town officials that they could restrict actual "sexually explicit" art. As a practical matter, the difference between the result here and in the college professor's case may have been simply the degree to which the judges were offended by the works.

Plainly, the constitutional rules applying to public art, and publicly funded art. are very much in flux. As demands for censorship continue, the A C L U and other groups will continue the critical work of educating and litigating for artistic freedom. But in the face of

PUBLIC ART REVIEW FALL/WINTER

1994112

escalating censorship pressures, traditional First Amendment advocacy is not enough. Increasingly, Americans all across the political spectrum seem willing to embrace the premises of censorship—don't talk about it, just shut it d o w n — w h e n the art question (be it "pornography," radical performance art, movie violence, or misogynist rap lyrics) offends them. If artists and others with a stake in free speech are not able to reverse this trend, then censorship pressures will continue to build, with results that will go far beyond the despoliation of government arts funding or bare walls in public buildings.

Marjorie Heins is director and staff counsel, American Civil Liberties Union Arts Censorship Project and co-counsel for plaintiffs in Karen Finley et. al. v. National Endowment for the Arts.

Notes: 1. Serra v. U.S. General Services Mnin. ,847 F .2d 1045,1048-49 (2nd Cir. 1988).

The GSA removed the work after complaints about unsightliness, rust (what Serra called "a golden amber patina"), roosting pigeons, safety, and general incompatibility with public use of the plaza.

2. Ibid, at 1050.

3. See Barbara Hoffman. "Law for Art's Sake in the Public Realm," 16 ColumbiaVLA Journal of Law & the Arts 39 (fall 1991). Hoffman criticizes the Serra decision for not recognizing that government ownership differs from private ownership: "The view that governmental ownership of art work transforms it into a form of governmental speech so as to defeat a claim of censorship is troublesome..The government is not simply another property owner when the property in question is public art." Ibid, at 70.

4. We relied on the recent decision in the "NEA Four" case, Karen Finley et. al. v. NEA. where a federal court ruled that politically partisan funding denials would violate the First Amendment. See note 11 infra.

5. After the ACLU files suit, the work was reinstated in the show. Other instances abound. In Oglesby, 1L, a male Post Office employee filed a sexual harassment complaint against a 1942 mural depicting Native Americans in loincloths with some bare buttocks showing. In Menlo Park, CA. the same year a city employee's complaint of sexual harassment based on the display of two woodcuts (by a female artist) entitled, respectively, "Aphrodite" and "Lust," forced the removal of the works. The artist, represented by People for the American Way, has sued.

6. At this writing, a new parks commissioner has reconsidered and granted Hunt's permit request. (The work is to be sponsored by the New York public art group Creative Time.) The politics of the Melinda Hunt situation resembled those of an incident several years before in which artist John Ahearn removed three of his own public art pieces commissioned for permanent display in Ahearn's South Bronx neighborhood, depicting three of the neighborhood personalities, after some community members objected that the works embodied racial stereotypes. See Jane Kramer, "Whose Art is It?" The New Yorker. Dec. 21, 1992, p. 80.

7. Perry v. Sinderman, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972).

8. Regan v. Taxation With Representation, 461 U.S. 540, 548 (1983).

9. I l l S.Ct. 1759(1991).

10. Trustees of Leland Stanford University v. Sullivan, 773 F.Supp. 472, 478 (D.D.C. 1991).

11. Finley v. National Endowment for the Arts, 759 F.Supp. 1457(C.D.Cal. 1992).

At this writing, the Clinton Administration's appeal of the Finley decision is pending.

12. Ibid, at 1473.

1 l.Piarowski v. Illinois Community College District 515,759 F.2nd 625,628,627 (7th Cir. 1985).

14. Ibid, at 628.

15. Ibid, at 629.

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid, at 630, 632.

18. Bellospirito v. Manhasset Public Library, Civ. No. 93-CV-4484 (E.D.N.Y. July 31, 1994).

Richard Serra, TilledArc, 1981. Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building plaza, New York. Cor-ten steel, 12' x 120'. (photo: Burt Roberts, taken in February, 1987)

Public Art and The Legal System "Contemporary

public art is still in the process of defining

its artistic and legal identity"

—Barbara

Hoffman

Editor's note: The following article is an excerpted chapter from Harriet F. Senie's forthcoming book Dangerous Precedent: Richard Serra's T i l t e d Arc' in Context (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995). b

y

H

a

r

r

i

e

t

S e n

W

hile the process that commissioned Tilted Arc was unravelling through various bureaucratic maneuvers in New York and Washington, Richard Serra sought legal means to protect his sculpture. Arguing initially on First and Fifth Amendment grounds, 1 and then invoking the recently signed Berne convention, Serra embarked on a legal battle that took two years.

Serra was not the first artist to resort to legal remedies in conflicts with federal patrons. Nor was his the first publicly commissioned work to be removed from its intended site. 2 Serra initiated his lawsuit in December 1986, naming General Service Administration (GSA) administrators Diamond and Ink in their individual capacities. He alleged that G S A ' s decision to remove Tilted Arc violated his rights under the free speech clause of the first amendment, the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, federal trademark and copyright laws, and state law. 3 The southern district court (Milton Pollock, judge) issued two opinions, both in favor of the defendants. The first opinion dismissed Serra's claims against Diamond and Ink on the grounds that they had qualified immunity as federal employees because they represented the government (which has sovereign immunity) and they had not acted beyond their granted authority or in an unconstitutional way. 4 Serra did not appeal this decision.

In a second opinion, the district court granted summary judgement (decision without trial) against Serra on the grounds that GSA actions were not based on the content of the sculpture. Judge Pollock ruled that the decision to relocate the sculpture was "a content-neutral determination made to further significant government interests and that the hearing provided all the process that was due." 5 Serra appealed this decision, challenging the rejection of his free expression and due process claims.*' The appellate court, presided over by a three judge panel that included a former counsel to the Museum of Modern Art, upheld the lower court's summary judgment. 7 It concluded that Serra's First Amendment rights were not violated. While assuming that Tilted Arc was expression "protected to some extent" by the First Amendment, the court ruled that Serra relinquished his own speech rights in the sculpture when he voluntarily sold it to GSA; if he wished to retain some degree of control as to the duration and location of the display of his work, he had the opportunity to bargain for such rights in making the contract for sale of his work} The reference to the G S A contract raised a murky issue. It was always understood by Serra and representatives of the Art-in-Architecture program that he was being commissioned for a permanent piece. As Serra recalled at D i a m o n d ' s hearing, he was assured early in the project by Don Thalacker, director of the program.

You get one chance in your lifetime to build one permanent work for one Federal building. There is one permanent Oldenburg, one permanent Segal, one permanent Stella, and one permanent Calder, and this is your opportunity to build a permanent work for a federal site in America.

For Serra, "The inducement was permanency. The G S A policy was, and still is, to build permanent works by nationally recognized artists for federal sites. That was their promise to me, and that pledge has been made to upwards of 250 artists in the United States." 9 Serra's view of the commission was confirmed by Julia Brown, project manager for the Art-in-Architecture program.

Richard Serra, Tilted Arc. 1981. (photo: courtesy GSA Art-in-Architecture Program)

In all stages of the decision making process it was understood by Serra, and by the government, that Serra was making a permanent work for that specific space. That principle is one of the foundations of the GSA Art-in-Architecture Program. It is a national program that seeks to commission works of art of the highest quality for federal buildings across the country that will be, to as large an extent as possible, integral to the sites and spaces in question... To remove this work would counter an agreement that was made between the artist and the government, which was entered into every stage with careful and responsible deliberation.10 There is a clause in the artist's contract giving the G S A the right to remove "all designs, sketches, models" which the government also owned "to the National Collection of Fine Arts Smithsonian Institution for exhibiting purposes and permanent s a f e k e e p i n g . " " This clause was intended to insure the conservation of preparatory studies since the G S A did not have adequate storage space. But the wording is vague. While the contract does not specifically grant the government the right to remove a commissioned sculpture, it also does not specifically prohibit it. Therefore arguing on grounds of the contract did not help Serra, in spite of what was understood by all involved. 1 2 In its own way. the appellate decision was as vague as the contract when it came to Serra's First Amendment rights. At one point the court posits. "Even assuming that Serra retains some First A m e n d ment interest in the continued display of Tilted Arc...," but the nature of that interest is never defined.

Instead the court upheld a "time, place, and manner restriction" applicable to situations where content was not being suppressed, the government had a significant stake, and other channels of c o m m u n i cation still existed. Relocating Tilted Arc. it was argued, c o n f o r m e d with these requirements. G S A had an interest in keeping the plaza PUBLIC ART REVIEW

FALL/WINTER

1994 1 3

"unobstructed," and Serra had already had six years to convey his H o f f m a n also challenges the court's finding of "content neutralmessage in the plaza. Since the First Amendment "protects the ity, significant government interest, and adequate alternative means" freedom toexpress o n e ' s views, not the freedom tocontinue speaking because it is substantially based on the premise that "the idea can be forever," relocation of the sculpture at this point "does not signifidivorced from its manner of expression." For an artist, especially an cantly impair Serra's right to free speech." He could still exercise his abstract artist, the medium and the message are essentially one and the right to free expression in other ways. same. Her most serious conflict with the court is based on this Notwithstanding that the sculpture is site-specific and may lose concept. its artistic value if relocated, Serra is free to express his artistic The Serra court found a reasonable manner restriction in that and political views through the press and through other means there is a significant governmental interest in having the plaza that do not entail obstructing the Plaza. unobstructed for public use. That finding is entirely unsupported This, however, ignores the specific nature of the commission, and that by the record before it. The "sheer size of the sculpture " was a Serra's medium of communication is sculpture, not the press. And, if part of its message, a message selected for the site on the implicit one accepts the premise that the site is part of the w o r k ' s content, then promise of permanence by formal procedures utilizing profesmoving it is altering it (and therefore changing its meaning). It would sional art experts selected by the GSA. Moreover, there was no be unthinkable to transform the content of a written work over time. evidence that the sculpture prevented the social use of the plaza The issue of whether this decision was "impermissibly contentin any way. Serra was entitled to a trial on that issue. The court based" involved the court in a discussion of the content of abstract art. demonstrated an improper deference to the political aim of the GSA in allowing its taste claim to override Serra's artisticHow could abstract art be shown to have specific political content? 1 3 expression and the professional advice of its Art-in-Architecture In all official communications, GSA officials stated (as they had been Program's administrators and art experts. instructed on advice of counsel) that their decision was based only on To a large extent, then, H o f f m a n concludes that the court came to the the obstruction of the plaza. Thus the appellate court decided: wrong decision because the judges didn't understand this sculpture, Serra is unable to identify any particular message conveyed by the concept of site specificity, and perhaps contemporary art in Tilted Arc that he believes may have led to its removal. In view general. of the uncertainty as to the meaning o/Tilted Arc and in the face of the overwhelming evidence Hoffman emphasizes the sigthat it was removed solely benificance of having art profescause of its obstructive effect of sionals involved in decisions that the Plaza, Serra has failed to affect art, and, barring contracpresent any facts to support a tual provisions for removal (which claim that Government officials certainly did not exist then), aracted in a "narrowly partisan gues for the assumption of permaor political manner." nency for works of art acquired But even if the G S A decision were with public funds. The GSA conbased on a j u d g m e n t of esthetic tract to date still has no procedure merit (as several of the petitions in for resolving controversies or refact claimed), that was permismoving works commissioned by sible too, according to precedent. it.

According to this ruling, it would As for due process, Hoffman seem that abstract art is considerargues that the Serra court once ably more at risk in the legal sysagain failed to r e c o g n i z e the tem than art with recognizable sub- Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building plaza, August 1989, and again in 1993 (following page), artist's rights appropriately. "At a (photos: Burt Roberts) ject matter. minimum, due process implies In spite of its decision, the court notice and a meaningful opportupraised the G S A ' s Art-in-Architecture program and affirmed the nity to be heard. In addition, the Supreme Court traditionally has government's role as "a significant patron of the arts." But as patron placed enormous weight on securing the neutrality of due process and owner, the g o v e r n m e n t ' s rights were paramount. "Its incentive to hearings." But the court, by considering the sculpture to belong to the fulfill that role must not be dampened by unwarranted restrictions on government, ruled that Serra's rights therefore did not apply. its freedom to decide what to do with art it has purchased." Art is Hoffman also suggests that other legal issues might have been property and the government owns it. Of course, property rights apply considered. The captive audience doctrine, as she explains it, to all art ownership, not just the government's. However, the governrecognizes that free expression may conflict with other constitument as custodian for the entire public has moral and ethical obligational values. Public suppression of unpopular or offensive tions that are ignored by making this solely a property issue. ideas has been on rare occasions permitted to protect the As far as due process is concerned the court decided that even if sensibilities of the captive or sensitive audience when "substanDiamond prejudged the issue before he called the public hearing (as tial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerhe demonstrably did by sending out inquiries for alternative sites for able manner." the sculpture), H o f f m a n believes that this doctrine should not be applied "for without a protected property or liberty interest, Serra was not suppression of artistic expression in a university or open public constitutionally entitled to a hearing before the sculpture could space." However, art historian Albert Elsen and attorney John be removed...Even if Diamond was not entirely impartial, Serra Merryman argue that it is appropriate, citing a precedent that states: received more process than what was due.

"Freedom of speech must recognize, at least within limits, freedom Since Ink was not charged with partiality and he reviewed the entire not to listen."' 4 case, the court decided that "the effect of D i a m o n d ' s prejudgment, if Thus, as far as the legal issues are concerned, the rulings that any, was marginal." The court concluded that since Serra was given applied to the case of Tilted Arc are, at least, questionable and the opportunity to defend his position before both Diamond and Ink, certainly arguable. The law, in rather alarming ways, mirrors national "any due process requirement that might have arisen in the context of cultural perspectives. Currently First and Fifth Amendment law this case was clearly satisfied." protects verbal and written forms of expression far more stringently Arts and entertainment attorney Barbara Hoffman supports Serra's than it protects visual forms, a clear reflection of widely held values. assertion that Federal Plaza constitutes a public forum. She argues Furthermore, as the Serra case clearly demonstrates, legal issues as that "once a site-specific work of public art is installed, it may be they apply to works of art are far f r o m clear or definitive, and reflect this country's highly ambivalent attitude towards art. properly analogized to either a traditional or limited-access public forum." This definition would grant far more extensive First Amendment rights to a work of art than the Serra court did.

PUBLIC ART REVIEW FALL/WINTER

1994114

Clearly public art enters the legal system at risk. Barbara Hoffman criticized contemporary legal doctrine for "its failure to accommodate or even adequately define the issues and competing values at stake in the public art context." 1 5 She attributes this failure "in part to the fact that neither legal theory nor art policy have been inspired by the vision of or located in the broader context of a sociopolitical public realm." The courts may also be a perilous place to decide matters pertaining to art for a more basic reason.

As the Serra case made its way through the courts, it became apparent that judges were forming opinions based on two antithetical principles: legal precedent and the esthetics of contemporary art. The legal system is structured on precedent. Judicial opinions are based on previous cases that invoke issues that are similar or analogous to the one they are hearing. A law school education is based on learning the cases that have made the law. Precedent-setting cases are rarely revolutionary; at most they are evolutionary.

A central premise of modern art, however, has been change, the more radical the better. One of the tenets of modernism in general is that history is not a useful model, and cannot be seen as a continuous, rationally explicable progression. 1 6 From the start of the twentieth century to the present, it is no exaggeration to say that the history of modern art primarily has been seen as a history of change and overthrow. 1 7 Each successive "ism" (cubism, futurism, expressionism, constructivism, etc.) replaced its predecessor with a new definition of what art was and should be.

One of the most scathing criticisms that one could level at this constantly new art is that it was in some way derivative.

In more recent decades with the acknowledged demise of the avant-garde'* change per se is no longer a prerequisite of serious art, but newness is still considered an admirable quality. In contemporary art the emphasis on new formal qualities has been replaced by an insistence on the inclusion of new subject matter, be it specific in nature (such as images relating to previously unrepresented ethnic and gender groups) or analytic ( s u c h as a p s y c h o a n a l y t i c or deconstructionist approach to signs and symbols). 1 " At D i a m o n d ' s hearings, many recognized that the newness of contemporary art might be the problem and stressed that this newness was also part of its content and function. Joan Mondale, wife of the then Vice President, observed: The artist is frequently at conflict with the status quo. He takes us out of the realm of the ordinary. He captures our imagination.

He stretches our minds. He changes the way we see the world.

Art opens our eyes, it offers a new perspective, it makes us turn an idea, a thought and sometimes even a fact over and over until we see it in a new light with new eyes.20 Film maker Emile De Antonio made the same point much more strongly: New art, particularly good new art lives at the edge of human experience andfeeling. It is a challenge to old ways of seeing and living. This is why Stalin destroyed a great Soviet art and it is why the French middle class sneered at Cezanne... it's why Hitler destroyed "decadent art" and it is why the yahoos of the GSA propose to move Tilted Arc. 21 S e r r a , s t y l i s t i c a l l y c l a s s i f i e d as e i t h e r a m i n i m a l i s t or postminimalist, 2 2 is essentially a modernist in that he is concerned primarily with formalist issues. His intention, as manifested in his 1967 Verb List, was to redefine sculpture in terms of sculptural acts and processes that might be brought to bear on any number of materials, most of them non-traditional. His current nearly exclusive use of steel merges a material of the modern industrial age with formalist concerns of a modernist esthetic. Serra's (re)definition of sculpture remains unique. It is, in fact, without precedent and although his art has been widely exhibited and discussed, he has today

no direct followers. Thus modern art in general, and Serra's work in particular, may in and of itself be antithetical to legal minds that are professionally set in precedent and tradition. Ideally all art styles should be equally protected by the legal system, but we have already seen that abstract works (key to the modern movement) are particularly vulnerable.

This is not to suggest that all lawyers or judges are insensitive to modern art. Clearly Barbara H o f f m a n is a notable exception, as were Serra's attorneys, Gus Harrow and Jerry Rosen. However, given the nature of legal training and practice, it is not surprising that so many lawyers and judges so often find works of modern art threatening.

At D i a m o n d ' s hearing Judge Di Carlo testified: "I concluded that his rusted, iron object was an anti-terrorist barricade, part of o u r c r a s h program to protect United States government buildings against terrorist activities." 2 3 Judge Rao was clearly threatened when he said.

"The erection of Tilted Arc. ..has caused our security to be reduced, if not eliminated." 2 4 Judge Bernard N e w m a n admitted, "It is difficult for me to mention or describe this rusting hulk in dignified language."

He subsequently referred to the sculpture as "this monster" that "was simply foisted upon this community." 2 5 Several judges blamed the sculpture for attracting graffiti and human and animal excrement. Judge Carmen testified that it "invites vandals to place graffiti upon it... Transients have actually been seen urinating upon it." 26 Similarly Judge Rao complained, "Graffiti is written all over it, most of which is obscene and unmentionable here and which has to be constantly removed and some of the animals use it as a waste deposit." 27 Thus members of the legal profession invoked a "blame the victim" argument against the sculpture.

Judge Re raised a due process argument for the public which was not consulted, thereby ignoring the G S A process that was in place and followed.

Why was there no due process when the Tilted Arc was installed 7 Not only did the public not know but also those who daily work in the Federal Plaza complex had neither notice nor an opportunity to express their views as to whether the plaza should have been altered, dislocated, changed as intended by the creator of theTihed Arc... Due process ought also to be accorded to those who originally conceived and created the openness and spaciousness of the plaza.2' Here Re was applying ex-post-facto a requirement of public involvement that did not exist at the time and does not to this date. He also implied that if the public expressed dislike for the sculpture, it would not have been built. In spite of the gap between the time the building and plaza were designed and the sculpture commissioned, the architectural firms were represented. Here Re both ignores fact and presumes to rewrite G S A procedure.

The objections to Tilted Arc raised by members of the legal profession were not unique, although perhaps particularly vehement.

The recent history of public art shows that complaints, if not antagonism, from lawyers and judges has been especially vociferous. This may partially be explained because federal buildings often house their offices and they are used to voicing their opinions and being heard. Nevertheless, it is worth exploring further the question of whether the legal mind set is not, a priori, antithetical to a reasoned consideration of issues that pertain to new and controversial art.

Harriet F. Senie is director of m u s e u m studies at the City College, C U N Y , NY. She is the author of Contemporary Public Sculpture: Tradition, Transformation, and Controversy, and co-editor of Critical Issues in Public Art: Content, Context, and Controversy.

Footnotes continued on page 37

PUBLIC ART REVIEW

FALL/WINTER

1994 1 15

l\\\\\\\\i\\\uv

AWAWW^V"

rite

Jane Alexander, with Mayor John Logie and Congressional Representative Vern Ehlers at Calder's La Grande Vitesse, on the 25th Anniversary of its dedication, (photo: John Corriveau)

What Happened?

Congress, The NEA and the Arts in America: A Crisis in Public Support Grand Rapids, Michigan, b

y

A

l

a

n

R

o

s

a

s

A

t a recent symposium here in Grand Rapids, Mich., I heard Jane Alexander, Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, say that the NEA has lost 46 percent of its purchasing power since 1979. Of course, everyone is aware that support for the NEA has diminished, but 46 percent! What happened?

As a nation, have we lost the will to support the arts that celebrate our diverse culture and challenge our norms? Has the federal government become mean-spirited, short-sighted, or too frightened of the possible controversy of experimental art? Should bureaucrats design a "social value filter" for public art projects funded by the NEA or should the government have a " h a n d s - o f f ' attitude?

These and other topics were discussed at the symposium entitled "Congress, the NEA and the Arts in America: A Crisis in Public Support." The symposium was held at Grand Rapids' Eberhard Center on the 25th anniversary of the dedication of the large red Alexander Calder stabile La Grande Vitesse that anchors the downtown center of Michigan's second largest city. La Grande Vitesse was funded in part by the NEA and was a pioneering effort in this type of federally funded art for public places. Twenty-five years after the initial and sometimes angry debate, this magnificent Calder is so completely a part of the city's image that a likeness of the stabile is reproduced on its garbage trucks and street signs. The Calder is the first thing proud residents show visitors.

June, 1994

Jane Alexander began the symposium with discussion about the real purpose of the NEA. [see next page] She said that the Endowment must not be defined by its involvement in controversy or socially challenging art, although a very small part of federally-funded public art is controversial. The Endowment's mission is to support and encourage excellence across a wide spectrum of our nation's artistic endeavors.

Each of the panelists made introductory comments, and were often in agreement. All agreed that, as an advanced nation, the United States must publicly support the arts, as does every other advanced nation. All agreed that our government lacks a clear mandate for the administration of funds for public art. Frohnmayer remarked that good public art should be risky, an acid test that the First Amendment is working, while Bollinger said we need a definite theory on which to build the institution of federally supported art and offered six points on judgments of values and quality.

The irony in holding the symposium on this anniversary is that the days of those kinds of accomplishments are gone. With today's limited money, the NEA could not provide enough support to bring a similar project anywhere in the nation.

The symposium was hosted by Peabody Award-winning broadcast journalist John Hockenberry, who grew up in Grand Rapids.

Hockenberry built a national following, first with National Public Radio, then as an A B C network news correspondent for the TV news magazine "Day One." His wry humor and plain talk were the perfect counterpoint to the philosophical and scholarly language of the panelists.

Weil discussed support forthe arts as symbolic of ourcommitment to community and placed the responsibility (for making Congress aware that art is a national priority) squarely on the citizenry. Write your congressperson.

Wetenhall, on the other hand, said that the people who commission art (since most public art is commissioned by individuals and is only partially supported by the NEA) have a responsibility to "stand tough" when controversy is a component of public art.

Throughout their comments and in the question-and-answer segment afterward, my impression was that the only message of the symposium is that we do not know how to deal with the crisis in public support of the arts. We want art, but we can't define it well enough to justify writing a check for it. We want culture, but we can't tolerate an extreme vision or offending any vocal minority. The public sees artists as non-conformist outsiders doing work of dubious value. I was left with the odd thought that there is an inverse relationship between the funding for the NEA and its ever-higher profile with Congress and the public. Perhaps the answer is to keep the NEA a secret. Now that everybody's talking about public art, I ' m afraid it's all downhill.

The distinguished panel included Lee Bollinger, dean of the University of Michigan Law School, John Frohnmayer, former chairman of the NEA, Stephen Weil, authority on art law, and John Wetenhall, critic and art historian.

Alan Rosas is a writer living in Grand Rapids, Mich. His documentary on the restoration of the Meyer May house designed by Frank Lloyd Wright has aired several times on public television.

PUBLIC ART REVIEW FALL/WINTER

1994116

Scaling the "wall in the mind" Remarks at the 25th anniversary of the dedication of La Grande Vitesse Grand Rapids, Michigan, b y

I

J

a

n

e

A

l

e

x

a

n

d

e

June 3, 1994

r

am delighted to be here in Grand Rapids for this celebration of

the 25th annniversary of the dedication of La Grande Vitesse, Alexander Calder's graceful, sweeping sculpture which dominates the landscape here in a way that symbolizes the tremendous power and impact of the arts in our daily lives. Familiar to the citizens of Grand Rapids as the Empire State Building is to New Yorkers, the Eiffel Tower to Parisians, the Washington Monument to the residents of Washington, DC, the Calder stabile makes its presence felt toevery visitor. It is a welcoming beacon to the homesick traveler, it is an icon, a totem, a sign that proclaims boldly the spirit of this city.

But this was not always so. Back in 1969, the reception for La Grande Vitesse was not as celebratory, not as warm. What was this giant modern sculpture planned for Vandenberg Center plaza? There were criticisms: it's not traditional, the money could be better spent elsewhere. There were difficulties. After Nancy Mulnix came up with the idea for a public art work that speaks to " m a n ' s ability to create," the money needed to be raised.

When it was dedicated, the reaction was mixed. Alexander Calder had gained international renown for his mobiles, and most folks can accept mobiles—they're "up there." But these stabiles live with us; they're right down here, beginning at eye level, gripping the ground and scorching the sky. And La Grande Vitesse—literally translated "The Great Swiftness," loosely translated "The Grand Rapids"—is grand in scale. It takes some getting used to. Gerald Ford, then a Michigan congressman, said, "1 didn't care for it at first, but now 1 wouldn't be without it." Perhaps that sums up a fairly common reaction, not only to this sculpture, but to new changes in general, and new art in particular. The new makes us uncomfortable.

As far back as Cicero in the first century B.C., people have complained, as he did, that "Nothing quite new is perfect." Change always upsets someone in the crowd, even when that change is for the better. There's an expression that's cropped up in Germany to explain the difficulty that some people have with regard to the unification of East and West. Those who cannot adjust to the new Germany are said to have die Matter im Kopf—"A wall in the mind." According to the Dallas Morning News, "Three years after German unification, every trace of the old has fallen.. .But a 'wall in the mind' still runs through the town, separating Easterner f r o m Westerner, and neighbor f r o m neighbor." It's a graphic symbol of psychological barriers that persist even when change is so obviously worthwhile.

Some people today, especially our most vocal critics, have a "wall in the mind" about much of modern art. They don't care for the abstract, the representational, the new styles and techniques in every discipline from music to visual art. They don't care for—indeed, they are upset by—the subject matter. Art that deals with difficult subjects like bigotry or violence, intolerance or discrimination is taboo. Some have a wall in the mind about art that cannot be easily defined or understood. La Grande Vitesse is about...well, it's about anything you want it to be. And the critics would ask, how can that be? 1 am not preaching an aesthetic relativism; all I am saying is that there's more to a work of art than meets the eye.

Similarly, some artists have developed a wall in the mind. Because their work is rejected or misinterpreted, they have withdrawn and become more insular. Some work becomes purposefully obscure.

The end result is a weakening of public confidence in artists and a wall between object and viewer, message and receiver, art and audience.

Of course, this is nothing new. Twenty-five years ago, it was a Calder stabile that created a wall between some people and a city square. A year before that in 1968, some people complained about a play and film that I was in, "The Great White Hope," which caused quite a stir because it dramatized the love relationship between a black man and a white woman on stage. I know about that wall in the mind. On it, I could post all the hate mail I received for portraying that woman.

Earlier still, but not so long ago, there were howls of protest and forebodings of impending doom for our society over the gyrations of an Elvis Presley. In the '50s, people thought Jackson Pollack—the abstract painter—had flipped his wig, man. Marian Anderson was forbidden to sing at Constitution Hall in 1939 because she was an African-American; it took the hand of Eleanor Roosevelt to let that show go on, and go on it did, in a memorable performance on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, where Marian Anderson sang out freedom in clear, crisp tones. James Joyce and D. H. Lawrence would scandalize readers, and a decent person wouldn't even think about listening to jazz or ragtime or watching modern dance. At one time, even the statues of generals on horseback were considered controversial, and Shakespeare himself was bowdlerized to make him decent for the average theatergoer.

The point is that it always takes time to understand what artworks are about. The Vietnam Veteran's Memorial is an example of how time changes our perceptions about art. When the design was first submitted to a National E n d o w m e n t for the Arts panel, the arts experts who make our recommendations were wildly enthusiastic about Maya L i n ' s proposal for a simple black wall with a list of our fallen Americans. Public reaction, however, was mixed. Some people felt it inappropriate or somehow disrespectful.

But if you walk west on the Mall in Washington. DC, you will come across a black gash in the earth. T w o marble triangles meet in the middle, and on those long black slabs are the names of the d e a d — over 55,000 of them. Memorialized here are the men and w o m e n who served our country during the Vietnam War. The wall attracts millions of visitors each year. They touch the names. They make charcoal tracings of the names. They leave flowers and flags, remembrances. The Vietnam Veterans' Memorial is a powerful demonstration of art as a healing force for a nation, for it speaks to our collective spirit. And like the Calder stabile, it goes to show how our initial reactions are often incomplete.

The first time I went to see a dance performance—I was 7 or 8 years old—1 wasn't aware of the story that was unfolding, I was only transfixed by the magic of the dancers and their ability to hover in the air, and the beauty of the costumes and the scenery. The first time you read Emily Dickinson, you may not "get" what she's saying, but dip into that rare poetry again, and its elegant power will stay with you.

The first time you encounter a painting or turn the corner and b u m p into La Grande Vitesse, you may not know what it's all about.

The same may be said of the National Endowment for the Arts.

Some people may have the impression that all we are about is causing controversy or funding the new or art that exists solely to change the status quo. We have rushed to judgment without considering the facts. The truth is that the E n d o w m e n t ' s mission is to support artistic excellence in all its forms and to make it possible for every American to participate in the cultural life of our country and in our c o m m u n i ties. That statement of mission is a bit of an abstraction in itself. What does it really mean?

PUBLIC ART REVIEW

FALL/WINTER

1994 1 17

We fulfill our mission by casting a broad net in search of excellence, in an attempt to be inclusive. The result is that the projects we support are as varied as the interests and enthusiasms of the American people. We support the traditional—folk arts, museum exhibitions of the great masters, symphonies f r o m classic composers, opera that was heard at La Scala in the 18th century. We support the innovative— computer-generated sculpture, interactive video, hypertexts, and a global jukebox that will allow you to track the origins of music from anywhere in the world with the push of a button. We support the mainstream and the avant-garde. We are all for educating ourchildren in the arts, giving them the opportunity to learn how to play the piano or craft a sonnet. Our grants reflect the diversity and richness of American cultures f r o m our most recent immigrants to the traditions of those pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock or the Native Americans who were there to greet them.

Some people, however, don't know the enormous scope of the Endowment. My goal is to change the public perception of this agency, to let people know that just as a work of art can mean many different things to different people, so, too, does the Endowment make possible the many different kinds of art that our diverse citizenry enjoys and needs in their lives. Not everyone is going to like everything we do, and 1 dare say, there are those in Grand Rapids who to this day do not like the Calder sculpture because it's red, because it's big, or because it's not a shape they recognize, or care for.

It is important, I think, to deconstruct the wall in the mind. The initial step may be to communicate more; artist to audience. If we listen to what our artists are trying to say, we may learn something from them, just as the people of Grand Rapids learned something f r o m Alexander Calder. An early editorial from The Grand Rapids Press realized as much when it stated: "For years people will look at La Grande Vitesse and ask: 'What does it mean?' The answer is, what does Beethoven's Fifth Symphony mean? Art speaks to us in its own language, because words are incapable of saying what it means. La Grande Vitesse means whatever the viewer takes it to mean. And that meaning will change as the city changes and as time alters the perspective of the viewer. But it will stand there as long as anything in the city stands, as a challenge to the imagination and as a symbol of m a n ' s constant striving to express the inexpressible."

Alexander Calder knew as much when he created this art for Grand Rapids. The people here listened, watched, let the work grow on them, and finally, it helped to define part of the city. Another gigantic Calder stands rooted in the central atrium of the U.S. Senate's newest headquarters, the Hart building. It is an immense black angular piece that cuts the air with its spikes like a knife. Some people feel that its sheer weight and size ruin the space.

I've come to look forward to my visits to the Hart building, if only to gaze at the Calder f r o m different vantage points of the atrium's many floors—for me, the Calder has come to define the space in which it sits. At floor level, you can take comfort in its shelter. At sky level, it's like lightning bolts splitting the heavens.

We define ourselves through art, for it helps us to say what cannot be said, to sing what cannot be sung, to give shape to our dreams, our aspirations of the spirit, our hopes. Artists of this generation have reinforced our awareness of society's obligation to the environment, taught us compassion for those with AIDS and to the disenchanted, promoted peace and understanding, and advanced civil rights through expanding our definition of tolerance. We will continue to work with organizations to strengthen the ties between artists and their communities. Artists speak to society and to each of us, in the words of the poet Sam Hazo "in our individual and irreplaceable selves."

Part of the stress for contemporary artists stems from skepticism about their work. For many people, artists are a little different, a bit touched. Even Shakespeare coupled the poet with the lunatic and the lover in a sort of unstable trinity of neurotics. Of course, work like Anthony Starr's The Dynamics of Creation and other inquiries have debunked the notion that creative people are necessarily motivated by neurosis. Creative people are, in Storr's words, motivated by a "divine discontent...that discontent is his most precious attribute."

Artists imagine different worlds, better worlds. They abstract and they synthesize, and their tools are the domain of symbols and of metaphor.

PUBLIC ART REVIEW FALL/WINTER

1994118

The artist and society have a tentative relationship, often wary of one another, for the artist is sometimes the sentinel on the precipice, heralding change as it peeks over the horizon. Artists challenge, ask difficult questions, and rattle our cages. And they can touch us to the heart's deep core. They will continue to do so, whether we listen or not. The Endowment will go on supporting these "divine discontents" as artists pursue their dreams and fulfill their visions.

Renewing the sense of connection between arts and community is another of my goals for the National Endowment for the Arts. Your Calder helped shape the identity of this community, and the annual arts festival that has grown around this anniversary helps foster and maintain a shared sense of community in Grand Rapids. People come here just to see and experience those 42 tons of steel arches, red against the blue Michigan sky. I've come to Grand Rapids just to see the real thing, and to celebrate with you the way that art can unite and renew our communities.

Art gives us the opportunity to come together to share something in common. Part of the solution of any schism between art and community can be bridged by forming these partnerships, just as you did here 25 years ago. Our solution to the crisis in funding is to work together, forming parterships for the c o m m o n good of the community. Partnerships have always been central to the work of the Endowment, and part of my time at NEA has been spent meeting with other federal agencies to see how we can join together. I've met with the secretaries of commerce, justice, education, housing and urban development, health and human services and the director of National Service to integrate the arts as a positive force in all walks of American life.

Our partnerships at the federal level and with state and local arts agencies can serve as models for this community as well. Funding probably won't increase unless and until the arts are seen as an essential component of society. Arts organizations might create partnerships with non-arts entities and cooperate on common goals; help other organizations with their goals and ask for their support for the arts, not compromising artistic integity but realizing that the arts are part of the solution to a c o m m u n i t y ' s health.

The NEA must struggle to fulfill its mission. We have lost 46 percent of our purchasing power since 1979. The budget is $170.2 million, and yet the not-for-profit arts industry generates $3.4 billion back to the federal treasury in taxes! One NEA dollar leverages $11 to $20 from other sources, an investment record that other agencies can't match. The Endowment is a good investment for the American taxpayer, who gives us 65 cents per year, the price of a can of soda.

Could we fund another project on the scale of La Grande Vitesse today? Would we have such ambition, given the fact that we are trying to do more and more with less and less?

What is threatened is the tremendous growth in the number and quality of arts organizations in every state since 1965. Expanding resources for the arts means re-connecting the arts to the federal government's agenda to each community, to every person. We connect through jobs, better standards of living; we connect through making living conditions better through the arts; we connect through improving overall student achievement through the arts. We connect through sustaining our artists and arts institutions and their high standards of excellence. We connect through giving voice to those songs unsung, those thoughts and flights of imagination which are made manifest in bold pieces like your Calder. We connect because as human beings we cannot do otherwise. We learn science to get us where we want to go; we learn art to tell us why. When our astronauts land on the moon, they say "beautiful." Art defines and unites us.

Jane Alexander is an actress and the director of the National E n d o w m e n t for the Arts.

Editor's

Note: PAR wishes to thank the NEA for permission

transcript Celebration

of Ms. Alexander's

to reprint

remarks (edited for length), and to the

Committee for generously

offering transcripts of the

the

Calder

symposium.

Artist vs. Public a round table on public art and freedom Public Art Review asked several prominent artists, critics, and administrators

familiar

of expression with public art to examine

current

issues and concerns, and speculate on future critical issues concerning freedom of expression in public art. We asked them to identify any restrictions they think should be imposed on artists, and to imagine how public art might fit into the future plans for the "information

superhighway.

" Participants

included Jacki Apple, a visual, performance,

nation's

and media

artist, and writer and producer in Los Angeles; Ming Fay, an artist living in New York City; Richard Posner, a public living in Culver City, CA; Randy Ross, a Native American artist living in Rapid City, SD; and Jane Whicher, staff for the American participated.

Civil Liberties

Union of Illinois. As expected,

counsel

were as diverse as the individuals

who

We begin with an essay by Richard Posner, follow with the questions and answers from our round table, and

conclude with Jacki Apple's provocative

critique of public art and public space in America

The Legend of Johnny Applestool b y

the responses

artist

R

i

c

h

a

r

d

P

o

s

n

e

r

I

entered the public art arena as an idealistic optimist. Now, two decades later, I am a pragmatic realist. How did my dream of a populist marketplace turn into a nightmare? One answer may lie in the life of the peripatetic performance artist, Johnny Applestool.

Aesthetic psychologist, Rogers Cardozo, describes Applestool's 1972-'74 long march across America's highways and byways in his best-selling book, Form Follows Feces: The Aesthetic Relationship Between Natural and Man-made Excrement. Armed with a jar of maraschino cherries and an aerosol can of whipped cream, Applestool decorated every animal dropping and plaza plop sculpture he encountered. While this labor resulted in the enactment of numerous pooperscooper laws across the land, his outdoor public sculptural embellishments inadvertently contributed to what he subsequently described as "Public Art Blight": "Public Art Blight has turned American cities into game preserves for bad art made of expensive inorganic materials with thousand year shelf lives. Designed as visual spinach, (i.e., something not particularly great to look at but somehow good for you), its proliferation has been exacerbated by federal, state, and local ordinances which threaten swift prosecution of anyone who even contemplates the application of whipped cream and a maraschino cherry to high-skill, content-free outdoor sculpture. As recently as a decade ago, such innocuous confections were infrequently plopped down like turds amidst our parks and plazas. Today, outdoor public sculpture grows faster than kudzu vine and is on the verge of turning entire parks and plazas themselves into turds."

Applestool's observation made me wonder just where is it written that public art must look as if it were designed by a Care Bear, in a palette limited to taupe and mauve, radiating a je ne sais quoi happy face beige-a-vu ambiance? I began to examine why it is so difficult to cultivate a substantive, grassroots partnership between design professionals and the people our work is intended to serve.

Form has followed the finance from the Medicis through the Works Progress Administration's Federal Art Program, to our current state of "in absentia" private art patronage and inadequate public arts funding. Rarely in the history of the United States, however, has the paucity of public arts funding coincided with such a fear of discussion and debate about the intentions and consequences of public art. Rather than invite discussion and real thinking, artists and administrators, as well as their public and private benefactors, con-

today.

tinue to network amongst themselves—the convinced talking to the converted—while neglecting the need to demonstrate to the public how their work can. and does serve society.

W h y is the notion of "service" an anathema to so many in the arts community? For me. service reveals a basic philosophic distinction between the practice of public art and the making of studio art. The creation of public art has been primarily a self-taught discipline which requires the eye of a poet, the ear of a journalist, and the hide of an armadillo. Each project is approached with a clean slate, an open mind, and a willingness to ask a community: " W h o are you? What do you want? How can my skills as an artist be of service?" This contrasts with the nature of studio practice, which asserts: "This is what I do.

This is who I am. The integrity of the work will be compromised by unsolicited suggestions to alter it." The f o r m e r activity invites conversation and consensus. The latter is a monologue, an artist speaking to the self aloud.

Public art is a zen practice, a Hippocratic Oath for aesthetic psychologists which requires the ability to listen, absorb, and synthesize a visual response in whatever media and methods seem appropriate to the animate and inanimate life of a particular place at a particular time. Preliminary information gathering phases of public art projects involve receiving much positive, negative, and indifferent citizen feedback. It is a process akin to being an aesthetic samurai, someone for w h o m criticism and compromise inform and strengthen the work, making it more responsive to the people w h o eventually will live with it. That is what makes public art as important for what it does as for what it is. The public and the artist are two equal components of the same equation. It is the artist's role to provide legitimacy to ordinary people's use of public space, to create an oasis for listening, for conversation, and in the words of Jean Cocteau. "to make the world safe for loitering."

Yet loitering, I have discovered, is a crime in America today.

Every one of my public art proposals made in the last couple of years was initially approved, rejected, re-approved and then ultimately rerejected on the grounds that each was "too public" and would "attract undesirables, aliens, immigrants, and the homeless."

The irony of this situation brought to mind Johnny Applestool's trials and tribulations. So I gave him a call. Next spring, the H o m e Shopping Network will begin offering his revolutionary "Public Art Blight Detector," a patent-leather shoe fitted with magnetized soles designed to avert walking into animal feces and outdoor public sculpture. Applestool is working on other shoe prototypes designed to desensitize the public against dealing with a vast array of other social problems ranging f r o m inadequate health care, unaffordable housing, under-employment, and racism to random violence. Will these demagnetized soles reinvigorate A m e r i c a ' s desensitized soul?

One size fits all.

PUBLIC ART REVIEW

FALL/WINTER

1994 1 9

Round table Q & A Q : Can you define public art?

A: Jane Whicher: From a legal perspective, the term "public art" doesn't have any defined meaning; whether we call something "public art" doesn't control the extent of legal protection available.

Rather, legal conclusions turn on whether the art has an expressive component, whether it is on public or private property, who " o w n s " the work, etc. I would propose a definition that highlights the nature of many recent public art controversies: Public art is art that people experience without purposefully seeking to do so. This is a locationdependent definition and would exclude, for example, work set in a museum, gallery or theater. It would include what one sees walking down the street, in a c o m m o n area of a student dormitory, or in a neighbor's front yard.

Q : What, if any, restrictions should be imposed on artists creating work for public space?

A: Ming Fay: The nature of the given public space dictates the restrictions.

Q : How might public art fit into this nation's future plans for the "information superhighway" ?

A: Randy Ross: The next decade will bring vast and powerful changes in how information is produced, distributed, and consumed. Emerging advanced technologies, the information marketplace and the growing discourse on building information-based market economies will create and generate new platforms for formulating public policy and standards for access. It is very possible that public networks and commercial networks (however each is defined) may each take a different course regarding public access, purpose, and function.

The regulatory climate may be easily understood in the way we understand public radio versus commercial radio.

Or the juxtapositions may have no bearing at all. My brief response serves to invoke critical thinking, to ponder on the future, and to ask new questions.

In the long run, the National Information Infrastructure (Nil), more euphemistically known as the "information superhighway," will ultimately mean changes in how information is transferred, accessed, archived, and distributed. It's difficult to know the exact form and state of the Nil in the next 24 months; and the N i l ' s form is even more difficult to predict by the end of this decade.

But if highspeed computing continues toward "connectivity," the Nil dream, it's very possible that the Nil will represent a high percentage of public and commercial network access interwoven with tremendous implications for the evolution of the cyber-finance world and global information economy/exchange. Buying, selling, bartering, and exchanging information will be commonplace through interactive highspeed multimedia communications. Information brokering is only a next logical step as even currency, fiscal and monetary policy adjust to the force of emerging technologies.

Public access to the Nil, 10 years from now, will undoubtedly mean new laws and regulations that govern access. The acceptable public use standards of today will most likely mutate into a multifaceted dimension of debate and argument. What policies and laws will guide public access to the vast supercomputer networks of tomorrow?

W h o will control, monitor, and enforce usage?

Public art and the freedom of expression through a constitutional rights perspective, in 10 years, may very well demand a new review

and reality cheek with respect to public right of way. Perhaps 10 years f r o m now, clarification of rights will become so unmanageable it may actually require a constitutional amendment to ensure the definition and set principles that afford access rights in ways never before accomplished through legislation or litigation.

So who will own the Nil of tomorrow? If the public owns it, then what public policies will prevail? If the communication industry (telephone companies, cable companies, computer companies, etc.) own it, what covenants must be put in place to ensure a healthy standard for public access?

The democratic principles and freedoms enjoyed by all Americans must be extended to public access in the digital world of tomorrow. The public good must be protected and advanced to ensure a new body of law and policy that protects the future.

Jane Whicher: Dedication to First Amendment values requires that we apply free expression principles to technologically created forums with the same vigor that we argue for them in other areas of our lives and work. A conceptual model of legal regulation faithful to these values is already at work in the cable television medium: Administrators of public access cable television channels are forbidden from making content-based decisions about what airs and what does not.

The underlying policy judgment is that affirmative steps must be taken to get cable television into the home in the first place; "just don't look" becomes "just don't watch."

Jacki Apple: The question of the rights of privacy is crucial to what kind of work we are going to be inhabiting. This is made even clearer by the controversy over the Clipper Chip [a computer chip proposed by the Clinton Administration to be installed in all computers to give government-controlled access to all data bases]. How the artist fits into all this will be largely determined by who controls the economics of the system, as this is directly linked to its politics.

Perhaps 10 years from

now, clarification of rights will become so

unmanageable it may actually require a constitutional

Q : In your opinion, what will be the most critical issue(s) concerning freedom of expression in public art over the next 10 years?

A: Ming Fay: The selection of public art will attach itself to a process -Randy Ross that defines the issue of the collective taste versus individual vision.

Free expression in a "free" society is free. The critical dimension will deal with the edges of "good," "free." and "public."

amendment...

PUBLIC ART REVIEW FALL/WINTER

1994120

Jacki Apple is a visual, performance, and media artist, and a writer and producer. She is a contributing editor of High Performance magazine, and the producer/host of "Soundings," KPFKFM, Los Angeles. She teaches modern art history, media and culture at the Art Center College of Design, Pasadena, CA. Ming Fay is an artist living in New York City.

Richard Posner, a Fulbright scholar and NEA Fellow, received the 1992 GSA Public Art Design Excellence Award. His Hope Diamond earthwork, made in response to the Los Angeles riots, was recently featured in Landscape Architecture (Fall '93) and High Performance ( S u m m e r '93) magazines. He lives in Culver City, CA. Randy Ross is a Native American artist living in Rapid City, SD. Jane Whicher is staff counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois where she specializes in First A m e n d m e n t issues.

A question of civic and personal responsibility b

y

J

a

c

k

i

A

p

p

l

e

W

hat an ironically confusing and perhaps even misleading designation "public art" is in the 1990s. It assumes that we all know what "public" means, and that the c o m m o n usage accurately describes what it signifies. Not so in a world of confounding contradictions. Given the complex politics and economics behind the semantic fa$ade, it is easy to be led astray. And, of course, when you tack "art" onto "public," it can become a very sticky euphemism indeed. Is public art all art that is publicly funded and/or is it all art that is situated in "public" space (space occupied by the general public though not necessarily belonging to them)? As you progress f r o m the specificity of geographical location to the all-pervasive generality of media space to the technological tentacles of the labyrinthine territory of cyberspace, the issues become incrementally more complex.

The fact is we are now living in a society in which all previous boundaries between public and private social behavior, space, and information have collapsed. Perhaps the only thing the word "private" aptly applies to is ownership. The privacy of individuals in public life has been totally violated by the media, and shamelessly displayed in that public arena, not for public good but for private profit. Likewise, ordinary people expose every aspect of their private lives daily on television. They are easily seduced into these catharses by the tantalizing prospect of having their "15 minutes of fame." The absence of functional distinctions between public and private space and the failure to differentiate between them is reflected in our speech, dress, conduct. Yet we continue to express surprise and dismay at the social disintegration that permeates every aspect of daily life.

Paradoxically, much of what functions as public space is in fact privately owned. In terms of geography, the urban and suburban landscape has increasingly become a "privatized" simulation of a public environment, the most obvious example being the shopping and entertainment mall. Places such as Universal Citywalk in North Hollywood, Calif., masquerade as an urban experience, when in fact they are monitored, controlled environments with their own security police and none of the messiness or vibrancy of real city life. There is no place for the unpredictable, or the random, for adventure or discovery in these corporately owned and operated fantasy cities that distract us from the harsher realities and conflicts of the outside world.

Simultaneously, in the industrial world the landscape of the media is the dominant public space that penetrates everyone's private habitat, regardless of race, class, or creed. It is also a vast shopping mall of information in which the inventory is determined by marketplace values and the economic interests of the controlling owners.

The "vest-pocket parks" of public broadcasting are the only venues where the artist occasionally has an opportunity to display work. This is more prevalent in radio than television because of the existence of small independent community and college stations. In many ways artist infiltration of broadcast media is both a guerrilla art act and a quintessentially public artwork.

In relation to the newest realm of public space—the information superhighway—the role artists will play will similarly be determined by who controls the economics of the system, which is directly linked to its politics. It is not a free space. In the early '80s everyone touted cable TV as the new public arena for artists. It hasn't turned out that way, and since the mega-corporations of the media, entertainment, and communications industries are already into "multimedia" products and technology as the next big thing, there is little reason to assume artists will be in any better position to claim anything but a marginal presence or influence.

Whose public space?

While many people think of public art as something in parks and corporate plazas that they are forced to view without their consent, they rarely apply the same criticism to advertising billboards and T V . let alone similar future proliferations in cyberspace. Ironically, only

when personal expression manifests itself in public space as "art" does it get censored and censured, usually because "the public" objects to paying for it in one form or another—as if we have anything to say about how the rest of our tax dollars are spent. It is much easier to vent frustrations against a work of art that jars your perceptions than deal with the fact that your taxes aren't being spent on poverty, prejudice, violence, pollution, etc. The defacement or removal of sculptural works in public places demonstrates the gross hypocrisy of our society, which continues to consume every level of vulgarity and violence in public media and entertainment.

In the ever-increasing realm of privately owned "public" space, the issues surrounding freedom of speech and expression are bound to become more and more complex. At the heart of the debate is the question of civic and personal responsibility, not only of artists, but of business, government, and individual citizens. Since the entertainment industry doesn't seem to comprehend what that means, it is up to artists who operate in any environment other than the private world of dealers and collectors to consider what they want a work to communicate and to whom, to think about the larger context and the social and spiritual consequences of what they manifest. There is a big difference between enlightened consciousness and self-censorship.

In legal terms, the First Amendment must be fully upheld, but in ethical terms we must acknowledge the power of language and images to determine the nature of our reality. The real challenge for both artists and individual citizens is to find and adhere to the sometimes delicate balance between the rights of the individual and the general well-being of the community.

While a predictable glut of trivia and trash is bound to clog the electronic networks, the most crucial issue in the revolution in telecommunications technology is not only freedom of expression, but the right to privacy. This issue—and how it is handled—will determine what kind of world we will inhabit in the next century.

The ability to infiltrate every aspect of our private lives, to monitor, spy on, and censor our communications is already technically possible. In the next 10 years, society's willingness to fight for the principles of free speech and the right of privacy are going to be put to the test. The crisis goes well beyond the devaluation of intellectual tolerance and an open discourse of diverse ideas and viewpoints.

Art is just one aspect of the repression of speech and personal expression, as is demonstrated not only by right-wing extremists and religious fundamentalists with political agendas, but by the gross violations of civil rights and due process of law being committed by educational institutions in the name of political correctness. Are the thought police waiting in the wings for the tools to be in place? In such an environment we are going to have to rethink the function and meaning of art in the public and private life of the society as a whole, its relationship to c o m m e r c e and politics, and its role in the spiritual and psychic life of a community.

PUBLIC ART REVIEW

FALL/WINTER

1994121

The "Deconstruction" of the Family Arty PoliticSy and Panic b y

B

a

r

b

a

r

a

M

c

D

O

o

n

a

l

d

fensive, just as it must against those who would label a single-parent or lesbian family offensive.

A later response confirmed that the sculpture was creating an environment of sexual harassment. I must admit that upon hearing this my first image was of the sculpture sneaking up and pinching unsuspecting victims. But genuine sexual harassment is serious. It robs victims of their dignity, security, perhaps their livelihood. The injudicious use of this label only demeans the experiences of victims of sexual harassment and trivializes the actual problem. If the mere presence of art that depicts the nude human form is the only prerequisite for labeling something sexual harassment, then many of our public places—universities, museums, parks, libraries, religious and cultural institutions—are in a lot of trouble.

ne Saturday in April. I picked up my 10-year old son after his art class. These classes were held at the University of Iowa, in a building housing the School of Art Education and the School of Social Work. I knew the building, having completed the undergraduate and graduate social work programs there.

That day, something was terribly out of place. There were mutilated human forms by a dumpster outside the building. Small children leaving their art classes would stop, comment or express dismay at what they saw.

What they saw was a sculpture of a nude man, woman and child.

The w o m a n ' s head had been torn off and was lying in the dumpster.

The child's head was gone altogether. The m a n ' s And actually, many of them are. According to a throat was slashed and one eye was gouged. Arms survey by Artsave, there were more than 200 attempts were ripped off; sculpted doves of peace lay on the in 1992 and 1993 to remove or censor works of art. ground.

These attacks came from across the political specI knew the victims well. The sculpture had been trum, and more than half succeeded. in one of the School of Social Work classrooms since The School also said that the role of social work 1975, and also served as the School's logo on newsis to protect individual rights and art must be secondletters, coffee cups, and the like. I was saddened by ary to this mission. Therefore, since individuals within what appeared to be a random act of vandalism, and the school (or perhaps the accreditation site team?) curious to know how it had happened. What I discovwere offended, their individual reactions justified the ered was much more disturbing than the thoughtless removal and ultimate destruction of the artwork. Howdestruction I had assumed. This was a deliberate ever, if one believes that art is a fundamental expresaction taken by well-meaning people reacting to sion of individuality, and that everyone has a right to controversy, resulting in the violence of the scene I express that individuality, then it is no longer a case of encountered. As a social worker, mother, and memart conflicting with individual rights. Instead, you have individual rights in conflict with other individual ber of a free society, I could not walk away. I took the rights, and unfortunately for the School, no more easy pieces home, where they were temporarily sheltered.

Jack Becker's untitled "family" sculpanswers. Perhaps this is the key issue—how do we When I spoke to the School of Social Work, I ture, 1975-1994, fiberglas. The Univeraccommodate competing individual rights in a free learned that they decided to dispose of the sculpture sity of Iowa School of Social Work removed it and set it by the dumpster, society ? To do so successfully entails including rather after the national Social Work education accreditawhere additional destruction took place, than excluding participants, expanding rather than tion site team made a recommendation to remove the (photo: Johnathan Jordahl) narrowing our collective vision. piece. Apparently, several groups of students and faculty had complained about the sculpture—some because of the When we infringe on intellectual and artistic freedom in order to nudity, some because the piece did not represent the range of families avoid one offense, we commit another, much greater one: the restricthat social workers serve, and some because they found the depiction tion of free expression. Intellectual and artistic freedom is important of what they perceived to be a "traditional family" offensive. So in not only in its own right, but because that freedom affects our response to these pressures, the School chose to remove the sculpacademic, personal, economic, political, and social lives. It affects ture—not only from the classroom, but to the dumpster. And that's how we treat each other and how we accept differences. where they thought it would end. It didn't.

The preservation of free human expression in the arts, literature, A picture of the battered sculpture ended up on the front page of music, philosophy, pedagogy, and politics has been a powerful norm the campus newspaper, articles appeared in both local and statewide in our academic, artistic, and social structures. However, there are newspapers, and a public display and forum on the piece took place. competing and adversarial norms as well. Censorship has been a The School responded to the unwelcome attention in several ways. powerful tool in the service of oppression.

An early response was that it was an accident: A hapless worker Since there has been so much effort to inhibit artistic expression, admitted that he had "dropped" the sculpture on its way out of the art must be very powerful indeed. Instead of asking whether art is building. What was not mentioned: it was on its way to the dumpster important, we should ask why it is important. Why, through the at the time—a decision made not by the worker, but by the School. horrors of genocide, is it the voices of Viktor Frankl, Anne Frank, or Another response was that the sculpture was no longer an approBlack Elk that endure? Why do the bowels of prisons produce the priate symbol of the School's mission, since it did not represent the tortured insight of Jean Genet or Jack Henry Abbott? Why, despite the barbarities of slavery, were its victims able to produce a powerful range of families that social workers serve. Certainly the School has musical tradition? Why are we drawn to, moved, horrified, dazzled, a right and an obligation to examine and adapt its symbols to better enraged, and challenged by the strange and familiar images artists reflect its mission. However, there seemed to be quite a leap between share with us? revising the School's logo, and destroying a piece of art because it does not present a universal image. Ironically, the School continues Art survives and transcends physical boundaries. It reflects and to use the three figures as its logo, since gender is not as apparent in sustains the human spirit. As such, it must be honored and respected that form as it is in the original sculpture. as an essential life force. We are concerned about its destruction not A related response was that the depiction of a so-called "tradibecause art is more important than human beings, but because it is part of what makes us human. It is the light that leads us, stumbling tional f a m i l y " offended faculty and students. Clearly, many types of forward, and the voice that reminds us where w e ' v e been. social groupings constitute families, and, clearly, social workers should be aware of and appreciate the diversity of the individuals and families with w h o m they work. But that very ethic of acceptance and Barbara McDonald is a social worker in Iowa City, IA, who appreciation militates against excluding "traditional" family as ofbelieves that art and social work have a lot in common.

PUBLIC ART REVIEW FALL/WINTER

1994122

Risky Business The Elemental Question in Public Art by

J o h n

F r o h n m a y e r ©

1 9 9 4

T

he purpose of public art is to help render human experience intelligible. It speaks to issues of significance: beauty, injustice, inclusion, remembrance. It lives where the public lives: in our squares and streets and buildings and parks. And, if it is successful, it provokes us to consider and review our most deeply held beliefs about the nature of love and community and politics.

Public art needs some slack from politicians and proclaimers of public morality, but it's not likely to get it. The rub is a generic one: Politics thrives on compromise, half truths and accommodations; authentic art comes from the essence of the artist's being and speaks the truth as that artist sees it. It brooks no compromise—makes no apology.

Can public funders stand back and let the artist speak even though the artist's voice may be strident, or from a minority or unpopular position? Odds are against it. Consider these two examples. In 1990, when the Arts Endowment was under siege, an independent commission of distinguished leaders was formed to advise Congress. They said that public art must meet standards beyond those for private art. These standards, they said, traditionally govern the use of public money and include promoting the general welfare, encouraging appreciation of art by all citizens, recognizing public sponsorship, and fostering mutual respect among persons and groups. The Endowment will have failed, they said, if it loses the trust and support of the American people.

Similarly, Sens. Robert Byrd and Don Nickles (Democrat and Republican respectively) recently wrote Jane Alexander complaining about a performance sponsored by the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis in which blood was drawn from a performer. The activity was described by the senators as "grossly improper," and their retaliation for this $ 150 indirect expenditure of NEA funds was a $3.6 million cut in next year's budget.

These two examples reflect a tension in the mission of public art between public acceptance (which usually requires a degree of familiarity and comfort) and artistic vision (which often has neither). It is a dilemma the independent commission resolved by imploring those choosing art to be sensitive to the majority view and the Senators resolved by monetary spankings. Neither response makes sense if public art is going to fulfil its important purpose.

The guiding principle is one hidden in the open. The First Amendment (Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech... )[see footnote, p. 37] requires protection of the speaker in all cases save three: criminal speech such as bribery; physically dangerous speech such as falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre; and judicially declared obscenity. The artist is the speaker. The independent commission and the Senators both focused on the hearer—the audience—the majority.

So the question is this: Do we want public art? If the answer is yes, then we establish fair procedures, follow them, and recognize not everybody will like all of it. If we say no, then taxpayer-supported public art is over.

The issue joined here is one of elemental significance. Its result will tell us whether we have a First Amendment in fact or only in name. It will describe, when the winners are crowing and the losers prostrate, whether we are a country of ideas or of orthodoxy, of daring or of fear.

John Frohnmayer is a former chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts.

'

f

f I

, *

1

David Swim, The Heart, 1993. (photo: the artist)

Case Study Artist: David Swim Title: The Heart Medium: Sculpture Sponsor: Austin (Texas) Visual Arts Association Challengers: City officials Claim: Nudity inappropriate Outcome: Work not permitted in exhibit, artist files lawsuit against city Artist David S w i m ' s sculpture. The Heart, is a plaster lifecast of a male nude that is broken off at the thighs and face. Swim is a member of the Austin (Texas) Visual Arts Association (AVAA) and has displayed his works in their exhibits around the community on several occasions.

After city officials asked the AVAA to display works of the artists' choosing at the City Municipal Building, the Association invited Swim to participate in a two month, 20-artist exhibit entitled Unconventional Visions. Swim has displayed his works in other Association exhibitions and was told he could select the work to include in the show. When the Association went to the Municipal Building to install the exhibit, they refused to install S w i m ' s sculpture telling him the work was not included because it depicted male frontal nudity.

Swim wrote and telephoned to Mayor Bruce Todd protesting the refusal to display his work, but never received any response. The artist filed a lawsuit against the City of Austin in federal district court claiming violations of his constitutional rights.

Reprinted from Artistic Freedom Under Attack, Vol. 2 , 1994, published by People For the American Way. Copies of the report can be ordered from them at: 2000 M Street, Suite 400, Washington, D C 20036; phone: (202) 467-4999.

PUBLIC ART REVIEW

FALL/WINTER

1994123

• - C u u c l u • I MAN I t r n U N u • V U U I N K H U A • 1 H U U1NH V A N • H O C H U G A P • B A O T H A N T R I • P H A M O U A N • Dl 0 H I N G • V O N G U Y E N T R U N G • N G U Y E N V A N N G O • LE O A N • T H A N LE P H A N • V O N G U Y E N L U • X U A N L O N G • V U VAI A N N G O C D A I • N G U Y E N H U U W I N • N G O O I N H G O • V O N G U Y E N H U N G • HA V A N T I N • X U A N S O • V O O I N H H O C • I f u V A N M A N H • V I N H T H A T • LA T H A N H T A P • 0 0 T A N OE • T R A N Q U O C C A M • B A O V I N H SI • H O C H U H I N G • B A O THA ' " 1 T H A M • V I N H M A T • V I NIH^ U C 0 N G • T R A N C H I N H • D O D I N H H A 0 • LE V A N A N H • D O I 1 T R U 0 N G N A I • V O V A N <if 9 E U • B A O KE • T R A N L 0 N • A U T A Y M A I • V O O I N H T H A N G • N V I N H • D U O N G L U Y E N • C A U D A N G • TRAN

01 T A N • N G U Y E N T I E N • 0 0 O I N H C H A N H • A U TAY P U U • T R A N LE S 0 C • - V I N • N G U Y E N V A N O U • H U Y N H P R A N D U O N G • N G O D I N H T H I • T R A N LE -

R A N Q U E BAY • V U H 0 A N G • B A O T H A N T H I E P • B A O 1 A O T I N H • N G O O I N H C H I N • T R A N V A N T O N • V O 01 1 / YAN • TRAN Q U E DUAN • TRAN O U O C ANH • BAO VINI V U V M I X U A N • LE O N G • v V A N TRUONG • A l VINH Q U Y E N • HUYEN K .

BE • D O D I N H H A C • VO V A M J R U N G • H U Y E N LUl

_ M ^ b u Y E N BONG-C i Q U O C H U E • V O N G U Y E N L A M • T R A N N G O C B U A • V O N G U Y E N O U • T H U D I N H L O A N • V O L O N • V I N H Al • HA D U C BE I • H U Y N H T R I • T R A N V A N D U • V U V A N T R A N • LE A P • T R A N O U Y T O • D U O N G V A N T R A C • H U Y N H LE • V U V A N C H I N I M A U • H y Y N H J O N G • N G U Y E N D I N H O I E U • N G U Y E N D I N H T H A N • D A N V A N L A M • B A O M O N G • V I N H V A N O U A N G • V ,1 THIN^Hl T H O • T R A N Q U A N G • C A U D O • H O A N G D O N G • H O T H A N H Dl • C A U V A N V U • V U VAN I I PHAfc®OCfcO H O T I E N D I E M • N G U Y E N O I N H G I A • V I N H V A N T H I C H • T R A N LE TAY • V I N H C A O THO \ 'G • O ^ f c c l W - H U V A N T R I • V O D I N H D U C • A U T R A N T I E N • V U V A N H O A N • H U Y E N T H A T • LE V A N TA N O U O C DINH • BUI EN • P H A N Q U A N T > HU • H A O A N G X U A N ' INH-LEVANMA " O N A N H • V I N H OUC T R A N O U O C Kl !

BANH • TRAN QUE S O C • V I N H V A N Tl • H U Y N H D U C TRA CAP • AU TRAN I CO • THU ONG • T H A N H L U Y E N • VI !U L I N H • V O V A N N H U • T R A N T R U N G N H O N • N G U Y E N V A N LOI • X U A N D O • V I N H O U C BA • LE V A N N G • LA T H A N H THAI I VAN Q U E N • VINH DUC CAN • BAO N I N H M U N G • V O DINH LUU • H O A N G CO C U O N G • VO D O N G • HO TIEN DINH • NGUYEN I S A C • V O N G U Y E N D O N • N G U Y E N L I E N • LE V A N C A P ^ B A O _ D I E M N A N • T R A N O U O C B A C • HO T H A N H T O • TRAN THI H u t

AU T R A N T I N - V I N H C A O BAI • N G U Y E N V A N T O N G • LA I • T R A N O U O C D A N H • H O P H O T R U O N G • T R A N OAI • TRAI • PHAM DOC SIEU • VO N G U Y E N GAI • 8 A 0 THAN TUAN • h B A O • H A O L U N G • H A O T I E U • 0 0 D I N H LAN • H O TIEN Oil | D I E U • N G U Y E N D U O N G • T R U D I N H LUC • T R A N V A N G I A P • H O A N G TUAt • N G U Y E N N G O C H U Y N H • HA V A N LOC • V I N H C A O THAM • X U A N D O • B«i J V A N LOC • LE V A N V I E N • T R U L O N G • V O O I N H T H R U O C • A U LE D O N • TR J A O T H A N O H U Y E N • A U LE P H U • V O DAI • N O U Y E N B I C H • P H A N 8 0 1 CH, ^ M T R U O N G • I E V A N C A N • H U Y N H V A N V I E N • VU V A N T H A I • VO DINH Tl R U N G DAI • AY T R A N L O A N • C A U D U • H O A N G FUC • BA 0 D I N H O N G • HAC H A N H L O N G • AU LE C O N • VU V A N L O A N • LE T H U Y • X U A N AN • T R A N N G O C T A P • H A O A N G D U C T H I • D O O I N H Dl • BUI VAI VAN A N H • H U Y E N N G U Y E T • VU V A N D A N • X U A N Al • T R U O U A N G • LE D U C V I N • T R U BE • VU V A N H O • N G U Y E N C A O VO • T H A N P H U • X U A N THE • T R U V A N P H U • D O D I N H Q U O C • V I E N D U C P H A N • N G U Y E N V A N C H U • N G U Y E N D I N H N U • TON LE G O • HA OUC L O A N • V I N H D U C T H A C H • T R U D I N H LUC • LE AP • H U Y N H P R A N D A N • T R A N N G O C C H A U • AU VAN S A N • 0 0 I I I V A N BAY • N G U Y E N N f i O C V I F N • T R A N O U C • A l l I F V I F N • 0 0 D I N H O I I F N • T R U O I N H V I E N • N G U Y E N C A O Q U Y E N • BAO

I n t e r v i e

by

N i c h o l a s

D r a k e

Editor's note: Chris Burden is an artist living in California created numerous controversial public art projects.

who has

Nicholas Drake: Let's start out by considering freedom of expression and the inevitable restrictions placed on artists who work within the public art genre and within public spaces.

Chris Burden: First of all, I don't know what a public space is.. .that's where I get confused, or what exactly public art is. I have a problem with what is considered public art n o w . . . I don't think that it has anything to do with art.

Drake: That's part of what your work has been about, testing what public art and a public space is all about, whether it's a locker room or a TV commercial. So what do you consider a public space?

Burden: A space that's accessible without effort—like Griffith Park here in LA—but even then you have to make an effort to get there.

What I really have a problem with is how public art has been institutionalized. I think the last thing these institutions want is art.

Drake: What do you think they are really looking for?

Burden: They're looking for some sort of design to complement the architecture. They're looking for signage. They have this $50 million building project—and, gee, all of a sudden—they come up with $500,000 for public art. They don't want art. They shouldn't get it.

Maybe they don't need art.

Drake: Then you feel that interacting with an institution or the government in itself is a kind of restriction?

Burden: Oh yeah, definitely. I think in most cases that it restricts you from making art. I think that there's a big hypocrisy about all that stuff—these budgets are raised and then calls go out for artists to design something. I think public art is art by vote. The general public wants Bambi. I think the issues in art are elitist and are confined to a small group of intelligentsia and the dialog between them. The public gets it 20 or 30 years later. First it is "art," then fashion, then you see an Andy Warhol soup can in the poster store.

Drake: One element to your work that might chafe against the restrictive/less of this public art process is that of surprise.

Burden: In essence they need to know what an artist is going to do beforehand, and if they don't like it, then it doesn't happen. Almost

powers of ignorance and darkness out there that you need to fight everything can become offensive. It doesn't have to be sexual or against to make your art good. political in nature. Almost everything that isn't Bambi—you know, The arts are threatening to society. The whole thing with the NEA big brown-eyed girls, cute cocker spaniels and Hallmark cards—is is a hot potato because either society wants culture or they d o n ' t . If offensive to the general public. they want culture then they are going to have to accept what they get.

Drake: What specific works of yours do you consider to be public art ?

Drake: It almost sounds as if you're saying that even though it's Burden: I think that my TV commercials were public art. The public was force-fed them whether they liked it or not, if they were watching financially tough for an artist here, in the long run it's been good for art in this country. that TV station. It was before cable and satellite TV and I was trying to break the grip on the idea that broadcast TV was monolithic.

Burden: And there's more freedom here. W h e n e v e r you take Drake: What about the work of other artists? s o m e b o d y ' s money, though, there are always strings attached. I Burden: Let's talk about the Tilted Arc pice that Richard Serra did. remember when the NEA gave out grants to artists that d i d n ' t even That was ostensibly public art. He had a totally tight contract with the apply. Yet that was a rare moment in history, when all those grants General Services Administration and the government. They studied weren't subject to all this scrutiny. the problems for years, then finally awarded the thing, and in the end Drake: What expressive limitations do you see in terms of your own made him take it down. So obviously, any contract you have with the work? government isn't worth the paper it is written on. It's because a bunch Burden: I can only talk about specifics. I can tell you about the piece of bureaucrats in the adjacent building found his art offensive. Excuse that I just did called the L A P D Uniform. I had the Fabric W o r k s h o p me! What about the building that they were working in? I think that in Philadelphia make an edition of 30 Los Angeles Police Department public art like that becomes a scapegoat. uniforms, complete with gun and badge and everything. W e made Drake: That's one of the things that has stunned me about the public them slightly oversized. T h e y ' r e hung on a wall sort of like Joseph art process around the country. ../could use Phoenix as an example, Beuys felt suits—they're on a rigid hanger. When you walk up to or something that recently happened in them you realize that not even a big cop would Charlotte, where the public gets outraged fit into them. They look more than just BIG. by something that's pretty tame.

Ostensibly the piece is about authority, the Burden: The public in my mind should LA Police Department and the riots. Really I have nothing to do with it. Why is their voice think that it is about A m e r i c a ' s role in the so important? It's like grocers getting mad world. I showed the work in N e w York, Philaabout at what kind of physics research sciendelphia. and in Colorado, but I w o n ' t show it in tists are doing down in their laboratories, LA right now, because I think the whole issue and then putting an end to it just because is too inflammatory. I ' m from LA. It's my city. they don't think that studying neutrons is the It's too vulnerable. way to go. Excuse me! T h a t ' s my basic gripe Drake: Do you feel that there is a role someagainst public art: It is the art that is supwhere in here for self-censorship? posed to appeal to the popular lowest comBurden: I think that we do so in general. I mon denominator. remember when I did a couple of pieces back Drake: Isn' t that really about taxes, though? in the '70s without my clothes on. When I did Burden: I don't think so. You don't have the piece crawling through the glass—the first any direct say in what your taxes go to—like T V commercial—I actually wore a bathing in the choice of a MX-12 missile over a M X suit on purpose, because I didn't want to be 10.1 don't know the intricacies of the state known as a nude artist. highway program, so I elect a representative Artists have to think about the ramificawho I think will follow the best course of tions of the things they do. I ' m not saying that action. But he decides. I think art has bethey shouldn't do them, but they should be come the big scapegoat for all the other aware and anticipate them. For example, I ' m Movie on the Way Down, May 1,1973. 'Wearing no clothes, frustrations of society. I don't think those I was suspended by my feet with a rope tied to a ceiling the artist that shot himself. During the N E A crossbeam. I was hanging in the center of a gymnasium people should have a voice in matters of art. thing I got crank calls f r o m Tennessee about above basketball markings which suggested a target. I held Drake: What kind of expressive restrictions a running movie camera pointed at the floor. In a far corner that, 20 years after the fact. of the gym, a piano player began a light melody, and the do you see for yourself or other artists then ?

Drake: Do you feel that the media affects art audience was permitted to enter. The music lasted for a Burden: The whole NEA controversy had and its expression ? Does the media, in a sense, minute and a half. As soon as the music ended, an assistant me upset. I was asked to be the Chairman of in the rafters severed the rope with an axe blow. I crashed to transform all public art? the floor, got up, dressed, and left." the New Genre panel the year following Burden: No, just because the public knows (photo: courtesy the artist) that. I asked them to put in writing that all about it doesn't make it public art. T h e media decisions of the committee be binding. They just make up myths. Accuracy or intent is not told me that they couldn't do that. So I told them that I couldn't one of their primary concerns, which really is to sell more papers and possibly serve, see ya later. magazines.

The NEA used to be something else. I got four or five N E A grants Drake: And yet that's how I have come to know your work, through myself at the beginning of my career. If I had come and given a public the media. press conference and had told people what the grants were f o r — Burden: Obviously more people know art through the media probshooting at airplanes, smoking pot, hanging nude upside down with ably by a factor of a million, than through direct experience. a movie camera in my hand—there would have been a real uproar.

There is this piece that I did three or four years ago in England in Somehow the N E A got perverted and became a political football which I wanted to outfit an antique destroyer with sails and take it and the artists became the ones being kicked around. I think things are sailing in the North Sea. I had no illusion that people would see it out better now, but during that period, I thought no one should have there sailing. I figured most people would see it as a 10-minute news applied for an NEA grant. Let them keep their money. I thought it was clip on the evening news. a dishonor to accept an N E A individual fellowship during that time.

I think of that when I chose images. It isn't just a random process.

And yet I think that some of these problems are good. It's good to 1 had 20 or 30 pictures that I sifted through until I distilled them into have an enemy to focus on and fight against. Just in talking with some one image that symbolized the event. So, in that case, yes. the media of the Soviet artists—when the oppressive regime was there—they does become a vehicle for the transmission of art. had a whole underground network of intelligentsia and artists who found meaning by fighting against the oppressive and creepy system.

Nicholas Drake is a critic and artist working in Charleston, SC. When the empire fell apart these guys were at a loss about what to do.

73742.566@compuserve.com It's sort of like you need evil out there to be any good. There are

PUBLIC ART REVIEW

FALL/WINTER

1994 1 25

COMMENTARY

Dwelling and Dialugue: A Feminine Perspective b y

C a r o l y n

E r I e r

In his study of birds' nests and the human imagination, philosopher Gaston Bachelard discerned rhythmic patterns of flight, migration, and return intrinsically related to the dream state. The nest, in his reading, is a natural counterpart to the "old home" of the past to which our dreams return us, responding to some information etched in body memory.

Cyclic returning is so structured within, he says, "because memories are dreams, because the home of other days has become a great image of lost intimacy." 1 In this essay I recover the contours of a sunken image in my own art.

1 also apply this contour to a sliding privatepublic model of artwork or built forms which transmit meaning through body metaphor and deep associative pattern.

Two years ago, I began testing my hypothesis that artists are first builders. My initial act was to locate a public space near my apartment and build from whatever materials fell within arm's reach. A tiny mud and stick tree-dwelling emerged. It was a peculiarly private space, a space that did not seem to belong in the landscape of public display.

The more fundamental issue of art as mediator or negotiator of private-public viewings initially went untouched in this work, probably as a function of my "studio" arts background. Eventually I came to understand that mediation, not manipulation, of viewership was the shift I needed to affect. I wrote a letter of introduction to veteran solar architect Ralph Knowles after discovering his books. Energy and Form and Sun Rhythm Form. His work helped me re-frame the study of ritual in relation to building and dwelling within a dialogue between art and architecture, private and public, ecosystem and culture, myth and history.

My own work, which Knowles saw only in photos, evolved in this dialogue to encompass the idea of "primordial shelter." He read this work as a counterstatement of the profane, uninitiated sight associated with public viewing; the tree and the shelter he saw performing together, through vision, to enlarge what is held to be private and sacredâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;a view in which the public tree is the world tree.

I began to see how an artist might extend private space tentatively, using a variety of human or structural mediators as the boundaries of private space expand. My own work began in a state of hiddenness, awaiting public co-optation, dependent to no small degree on grace. I now know that I would like my built forms to be co-existent with some form of women's ritual. I cannot invent "my" rituals, however; I must know them through the web of shared experience.

That the work might look like witchcraft to outsiders is an almost unavoidable hazard of environmental art with feminist spiritual content. Identifying women's religions with heresy is deeply ingrained in the Judeo-Christian worldview, and this notion has been a primary

PUBLIC ART REVIEW FALL/WINTER

shaper of our collective inner and outer landscapes. To bring this fact into public view as clearly as possible is a task that I feel public art can be asked to perform.

The public art of which I speak is an artistinitiated dialogue aimed at decoding the fears that undermine the quality of public life. The ancient matrix of images that links shelter, femininity, and the divine may be a relic of pre industrial society. In our own historical moment. we can locate rich examples of this matrix that are still fully functional. Knowledge of history can be a powerful liberator, and an integral component of the fear-reducing public art I propose.

A striking example of women, religion, and domestic space coalescing in a novel re-

versal of private and public occurs during early Christianity. Recent scholarship indicates that the first women to join the Jesus movement were in essence entering a restructured version of the Greco-Roman household in which a familial, brother-sister terminology was adopted to express the equal status of members. The family metaphor not only allowed women to reject their traditional roles as mothers, wives, and servants but, as anthropologist Michelle Rosaldo points out, "with the location of early Christian churches within private households...early Christian communities seem to have brought the public into the domestic sphere, and in the process to have further supported women's activity." 2 Rosaldo also notes that blurring the lines between public and private has enormous ramifications for gender roles. 3 By the Middle Ages, the open brothersister arrangement was well under control in the monastic institution. The economy was a home-based one, however, which valued women's work as intrinsic to survival. The home workshop was the basic site of production; the way of life was agricultural. Popular recognition of the value of women in this element is confirmed by the persistence of folk materials linking women to prosperity, high levels of production, robust health and fecun-

1994126

dity. Formal recognition of the feminine divine was, of course, heretical; the pervasive social configuration, however, which wedded w o m e n ' s p r o d u c t i o n to a h o m e - b a s e d economy, cast a shadow, the outline of which can be traced in vernacular custom: planting and harvesting festivities in which corn mothers, grain protectresses, May queens or any number of female saints ruled for a day.

The Middle Ages closed amid escalating demands for political and religious change, a historic shift that eroded women's power in the home on an unprecedented scale. Family industries struggled to compete with increasingly organized urban craft guilds dominated by men. "No female may lawfully practice a trade, even if she should understand it as well as a man," wrote Adrian Beier in his 1688 book on craft laws, illustrating the enforced division of professional from amateur, public from domestic, masculine from feminine labors.

Women's education was limited to domestic matters at the same moment they were excluded from apprenticeships and all modes of access to public life. Woman and home, the bond still intact, were gradually reduced to status possessions of a new class of aspiring middle-class males.

When I view my "primordial shelters" as functions of my femininity, I cannot help but see the house as a universally recognized symbol of hidden, possessed, private space analogous to cultural constructs of the female body.

It is not incidental that my work will be extended (with a degree of trepidation) into public view through a mediating complex of women performing rituals. Several meanings of private and public have been blended in this discussion, as they will be in the artwork; I hope this suggests the complexity and subtlety of the subject.

The home, in our society the very enshrinement of private property, has come to be completely dependent on goods manufactured and distributed in the public sphere. Land and yards that could be under cultivation are shaved and ornamented into submission or dismissed from sight (as in the case of land surrounding highways). The fact that home production is the seat of natural ritual, the threshold between ecosystem and culture, has become an elite notion; the very real suffering at the heart of community life is not widely linked to the death of the flame in the hearth. A ritual enacted in a public setting that orients viewers toward an effective representation of private space signals a turning around, an end of flight and migration, and the advent of return. The goal, which is re-entry of the home on informed, modern women's terms, begins with re-envisionment, and is concretized in ritual praxis.

What specifically should inform the ritualistic body and its patterns in space? It may be helpful to think of home production as the transubstantiation of the "host" in a vernacular expression. The earth is gathered there and cycled through the pattern language of the hands, hands that are the repository of human knowledge. Ritual and work establish the human values located in the numinous, intimate continued on page 31

Public Interventions Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston, April 27-July 17, 1994 by

P a t r i c i a

C.

P h i l l i p s

What is art capable of achieving in the public realm that no other field can? What are the possible manifestations of public art and how do they operate? What are its most promising strategies? Can public art stimulate the construction of a viable, vital public life? Public art—working the public realm— has required many artists to abandon the rules that dominate the gallery or museum.

Increasingly encumbered, sometimes isolated, by its own procedures, public art has had a problematic affiliation with and recep-

tion by more traditional forms of art, architecture, and representation.

If one indication of a successful exhibition is a torrent of unresolved questions, then "Public Interventions" was a winning effort.

Curated by art critic Eleanor Heartney and ICA director Milena Kalinovska, with an installation design by Group Material, this well-intentioned project raised vexing inquiries. Some of them precipitated f r o m the exhibition's unwieldy scope; still others came from the s h o w ' s internal structure in this context. The ambitious exhibition brought the varying "rules" of public and museum art face-to-face. Clearly, it was an unpredictable encounter that occasionally attenuated the potential effects of the exhibition context and the gallery context.

The stated mission of "Public Interventions" was to examine a wide range of temporary and permanent public art projects created in the past 20 years in communities and cities in the United States. The animating concept was the identification of projects that engaged particular social and political issues of contemporary urban life. Intent on documenting shifting values and non-traditional

methods in public art, the exhibition understandably disregarded work that offers aesthetic distraction or patriotic symbols in order to present work that embraces the notion of public as systemically derived and culturally diverse. Artists' projects embraced issues such as family violence, AIDS and health care, environmental degradation, freedom of expression, and public access.

The compelling, yet perhaps too broad, theme was managed by the application of four typologies of public art: " M o n u m e n t s , " "Community Concerns," "Public Address," and "Urban Infrastructure." The categories o f t e n upset c o n v e n t i o n a l a s s u m p t i o n s .

Projects in " M o n u m e n t s " were anti-monuments (Krzysztof Wodiczko' s projections on building facades, for example) that interrogated and subverted traditional ideals. Artists represented in "Community Concerns" avoided the objects, artifacts, and systems of the physical city to set their sights on c o m m u nity dynamics—the engagement and empowerment of the people to effect positive change in their lives and surroundings. " C o m m u nity" was conceived as demographic (for example, abused women nationwide in Peggy Diggs' work), as well as geographic (work with teenagers in the South Bronx as in Tim Rollins + K.O.S.).

"Public Address" projects often involved the appropriation and adjustment of conventional resources of mass communication including posters, billboards, and other advertising vehicles. "Urban Infrastructure," not surprisingly, was an ambitious section. Artists represented either worked with enormous municipal systems (Mierle Laderman Ukeles' projects involving solid waste management) or the objects or artifacts that proliferate in the city (Buster S i m p s o n ' s recycling of elements of the urban armature).

The effectiveness of this categorization is another plaguing question. Did these "types" illuminate significant shared characteristics?

Was this methodology a useful way to present a diverse range of projects and materials, or did it add another level of distraction to a visually c a c o p h o n o u s environment? This collection of projects by more than 4 0 artists included a range of representational methods that were conspicuously self-conscious, to some that were disturbingly banal. Projects ranged in scale from the intimacy of Mag Harries and Lajos H e d e r ' s Ben's Circular

Tower, an intimate story-telling space in Mission Hill memorializing a young child, to Viet N g o ' s vast 50-acre Lemna Project, which uses duckweed as a water purification system. Public was seen as the individual m e m bers that constitute community to the engineered environment of contemporary cities.

Perhaps fewerprojects more comprehensively documented would have still conveyed the breadth, as well as the depth, of this e x e m plary, sometimes experimental work.

The paradox that "Public Interventions" shares with the representation of architecture in the m u s e u m is the necessity to present creative projects or programs through secondary sources. A familiar taxonomy of conventions have developed to depict architectural projects: drawings, models, selected details, material samples, and photographs.

In the case of public art, a very eclectic range of representational strategies are deployed with varying degrees of persuasiveness. Perhaps the most gnawing obstacle of "Public Interventions" (and something that the curators valiantly tried to address) is how very difficult it is to present public art projects in the gallery: How can an exhibition seem more than an aggregate of disembodied images? What is the most effective way to present ideas that are central to the production of public art? Where is it? What is the relation of art to the extenuating conditions?

How does it influence c o m m u n i t y ?

Instead, there is data—drawings, photographs, narratives—that inadequately describe the "public"dimensions of public art.

The intellectual intentions of this exhibition were indisputable and courageous, but a dynamic concept was disabled by the paraphernalia of the exhibition (typologies, an i n d e p e n d e n t installation, and too m a n y projects too modestly described). The projection of a stronger point of view about public art might have made the clearly important work presented seem less indiscriminate. "Public Interventions" was an immensely complex opportunity. This intervention of public art in the m u s e u m did not support the laudable intentions of the exhibition or its environment. In this case, less (but more clearly focused) would have left us with more critical questions.

Patricia C . Phillips is an independent critic and chair of the art department at the State University of N e w York, N e w Paltz.

Lett: Art Attack, independent site work, 427 Mass, Av, N.W., Washington. D.C.. 1988-89. (photo: Edward Owen) Bottom: Tim Rollins, Amerika, mural, South Bronx, sponsored by the Public Art Fund, (photo: courtesy ICA) Top: Mags Harries and Lajos Heder. Ben s Circular Tower, 1994, Mission Hill. Boston, (photo: courtesy the artists)

Cyborg, Semiotics, and Free Speech b y

A

.

F

.

G

i u s t i

Something is spreading like black fungus under the New Museum in New York City, and no one knows how far it has leached.

T h e Thing The Thing actually grew in the New York basement studio of conceptual artist Wolfgang Staehle and now has an aggressive four-year history. Actually more like a synthetic life form, spreading miles and collecting territories, it is a public access computerized meeting place where multidisciplinary culturists can collaborate and communicate electronically through a modem connected to a computer.

Along with Staehle, the founders of The T h i n g — V o n Brandenburg, Decter, Emrick, Scher, Stauffenberg and Well—envision their pet as a global computer network devoted to the discussion and production of art. T h e y ' r e already hooked up in New York, Cologne, and Dusseldorf, with plans for nodes in Tokyo, London, and Paris.

Technically speaking, what this artistic and literary network offers is an electronic bulletin board conferencing system. You can posit or respond to messages in a running dialogue, participate in ongoing art projects such as exquisite corpses, or take part in live, regularly held conferences and panel discussions. There is also a "share ware" file that users can copy onto their own computers.

Visual trajectories that have come from The Thing in the past few years hold much promise and include the virtual exhibition of the "Manifesto S h o w " of artists' posters, designed to circulate as digital prints. A handsome project by Peter Halley was also published by The Thing, available on-line as an unlimited numbered electronic art edition also distributed on disk through Printed Matter, New York. Artists can now approach a number of art magazines via The Thing, such as The Journal of Contemporary Art, Lacanian Ink, Purple Prose, and many more.

This is just a superficial listing of all the things The Thing can do—but the things The Thing can't do are even more impressive. It can't recognize your race, gender, or socioeconomic strata.

If there is any credence to the FreudianLacanian theory of the gendered child catapulted into the patriarchal symbolic order of

PUBLIC ART REVIEW FALL/WINTER

language by the Oedipal experience, then the cyborg "hommelette" is born into non-gender through the "if/then" of binary choice.

Since the patriarchal constructs of spoken language have helped define institutions as we know them, then the cyborg semiotics might offer alternatives based on new choices, a listing of freedoms yet uncharted.

The founding premise of The Thing is to have the opportunity to operate outside institutionalized galleries, museums, and alternative cultural spaces, and to establish an independent art forum. Aided and abetted by the computer network web of cyberspace. The Thing has had the opportunity to do just that.

Cyberspace, with its network of roads to the global village, offers many forums and opportunities for discourse in the cyber-plaza, the multidimensional equivalent to the public plaza. Neither a private nor a governmental space, the cyber-plaza is free of political and privatized manipulation where no authorization is necessary and freedom of expression is possible.

So far. The Thing has been able to operate independently, and has only very recently attempted to venture into the realm of governmental support in the form of an NEA grant. But is electronic freedom of expression insured?

A thumbnail-sized piece of electronic equipment for inscribing computers with a code is in the works and the government may hold the key. Some computer users are very concerned that Congress might make the "Clipper Chip" mandatory in every piece of computerized equipment in the country.

Here's the scenario: The government produces tamper-proof chips and installs them in all computers, modems, and electronic communications equipment. Each inscription chip has a serial number and a "key" code. One federal agency keeps the serial numbers; two other agencies are entrusted with the key codes. The sender's Clipper Chip encodes the message, while the receiver's Clipper Chip decodes it. Hacking is consequently discouraged and the govern-

Plugged into "The Thing" Robert D'Alessandro, The Universal (TV) Brain, 1984. pencil drawing.

On location at BRAT Studios

1994128

ment has access to all the codes.

So far, the Clipper Chip is envisioned as a voluntary system, so it seems, once again, to be a matter of choice.

On TV In the primal origins of the mathematical structure of symbolic logic, there is only zero and one, which generates the "if/then" statement—herein lies the birth of choice. Freedom to choose is central to issues of artistic freedom of expression. Just as important is the freedom to access those forms of expression. On Television, Ltd. is an independent, nonprofit organization devoted to education about television and telecommunications.

Both On Television's Mary Megee and Bob D'Alessandro have come from art backgrounds. Megee is a media analyst and the executive producer and writer of On Television. D'Alessandro is a photographer and artist involved with the media. They are interested in social issues and what happens in the public arena of television. They believe that there are operating systems and structures in this country that are malleable and can be changed if people are informed. Television is a major example of the lack of knowledge about larger operating systems in the public arena.

Instead of being used to its full potential, especially in education, television has become a censoring organ contained in and of itself, distorting the world through commercial eyes. According to D'Alessandro, kids walk around wearing product logos without understanding the depth of their commercial seduction.

And seduction it is. Unlike the cool and calculating language of the computer world and its cathode-ray tube, the tube for television viewing has always had a history in the cinematic visual language of seduction. The connections of the cinematic gaze to our earliest emotional triggers are well-known.

Commercial sales pitches on television know how to satisfy our visual pleasure while playing to the deepest needs of our own formative obsessions.

The substructure of this language is not inscribed by choice like the "if/than" binary of the computer world; rather, it is inscribed with the visual and verbal codes formed within patriarchal structure. This can be seen in linear motion, as in a narrative scenario of

victory and defeat viewed at an accelerated pace in which the v i e w e r ' s catharsis is triggered and subsequently gratified.

The seduction in television, just as in cinema, takes advantage of our deepest pleasures in visual stimulation from looking at the human form. Consider the simple erotic pleasure of looking at the numerous c o m m e r cials in which advertisers chop up a w o m a n ' s body in as many ways as Perdue serves chicken. These advertisers know how to seduce, and it is in the seduction of the innocent that the problem is the most despicable.

"Teach the Children" shows how, in the words of Erik Barnouw, "this unparalleled educational medium could also serve as an instrument of commercial child abuse."

Since 1977, Megee and D ' A l e s s a n d r o have developed a 13-part On Television series, a media curriculum for teachers. The first three On Television programs have aired nationally to acclaim and work is in progress for the next documentaries in the series.

Of the first On Television productions— " T h e Violence Factor," "Public Trust or Private Property," and "Teach the Children," the latter deals with the most needy and the vulnerable of the viewing audience in the context of commercial manipulation. "Teach the Children" traces the conflicts between media policy geared toward public service and private gain of commercial interests only aimed at profit.

Since children aged 6 to 11 spend more time watching television than they do in the classroom, "Teach The Children" instructs parents, teachers, and media students how to scrutinize hidden agendas presented on television f r o m Saturday-morning cartoons to sit-coms, music videos and kid commercials.

It explores the values television pushes on kids and the role models it provides. As Vice President A1 Gore observed recently, " W e ' r e strip-mining our children's minds and w e ' r e doing it for commercial profit, without any concern for the consequences for them or for our society."

The Communications Act of 1934 made it

Phoenix from page 5

brary and downtown streetscapes.

Continuing projects include three new major buildings—the new central library and science and history museums—either under construction or soon to be built. There are also pedestrian bridges, hatch covers, mural projects, a demonstration project for part of the extensive canal system in the city and a new Native American artwork collection.

There also are several less traditional projects in the works. One is an educational program explaining the benefits of recycling and responsible waste management of the award-winning solid waste facility.

Another is the Police Activities League Photography Project, where students learn to use a camera to document their lives and their environment. Yet another is a literacy campaign for a new west Phoenix branch library.

mandatory that licensed television stations serve the public and the act still governs radio and telecommunication today. When President Reagan killed the C h i l d r e n ' s Television Act in Congress, it was under the guise of the First A m e n d m e n t . In reality it allowed television not to be called to account for its publicservice. In 1990, a very watered-down version of this bill slipped through Congress thanks to the non-participation of President Bush. Americans are the only people to let commercial interests monopolize access to children's television time. " T h e answer is education, not censorship," Megee argues. She believes that you can change things by developingcritical viewing skills, by lobbying local stations to limit commercial tampering and by pressing for more educational content in children's television. Megee believes that to fight the total usurpation of television by commercial interests, you need to know something about its structure. For instance, do you know the difference between networks and stations? A network in and of itself is not regulated, but it owns a number of stations and each of those is answerable to the Federal C o m m u n i c a tions C o m m i s s i o n which, in turn, is answerable to Congress.

But—every local television station also is answerable to its c o m m u n i t y . Its license c o m e s up for renewal at regular intervals, so as m e m b e r s of the public, we can get involved in the license renewal process. This happened last spring in New York City when almost every local station in the New York area was up for licensing. It was barely mentioned in the news media. (Some television stations are even owned by newspapers.)

Nevertheless, several interest groups did complain that some of the stations were not meeting the needs of the public, which is a major criteria for license renewal.

B R A T and "Candyass Kitchen" Air waves belong to the public—just ask B R A T and Cary Leibowitz (a.k.a. Candyass).

B R A T , founded by Anne Pasternak and

Here, an artist will be commissioned to work with the project architect to develop a literacy campaign aimed at children and adults.

Designs developed for the campaign will be integrated into architectural features of the building and may also be used to produce bookmarks, posters, banners and other materials that will promote literacy and use of the library system.

In conjunction with construction of the new central library, three consultants have been selected to curate a collection of artistmade books to be displayed at the library.

This project is being done in several phases and will conclude with the opening of the library in 1996.

Jones said he believes Phoenix is in the forefront of the public art movement and that other U.S. cities look to Phoenix as a model.

"What sets Phoenix apart is the way artists

Ellen Salpeter, is a not-for-profit arts organization devoted to public art and public access art projects, particularly those using nontradition venues. T h e y have joined with N e w York City artist Cary Leibowitz to produce a o n e - h o u r talk s h o w c a l l e d , " C a n d y a s s Kitchen."

Last season in Soho, B R A T hosted the pilot not-ready-for-prime-time but soon-tobe-ready for television talk show taped on location at B R A T ' s studio in N e w York.

Candyass presented an evening of " f a u x " television with juicy art-world gossip. The 90-minute program, "I Love S o H o , " c a m e complete with surprise guests, door prizes for losers, and a buffet of Ding-Dongs, HoHos, Yo-Hos, and Snowballs.

The weekly program will air on N e w Y o r k ' s Public Access television. C a n d y a s s Kitchen is a truly collaborative project, drawing on the active participation of artists w h o will take art out of the usual cultural venues and into the manipulated reality of tele vision.

Program viewers will be invited to participate in a broad range of art activities, including world happenings, aesthetic dialogue, pop culture events and performances.

The talk and variety television format, which is a mixture of entertainment, vital statistics, fact and fiction, is beloved buffoonery in American homes. It also speaks of a type of proletarian democratic production that is a perfect marriage between public art and the media.

K. F. Giusti is an artist active in the field of temporary and permanent public projects, and frequently writes about art theory and public art.

For More Information: T h e Thing. 44 White Street, N e w York, N Y 10013; (212) 9257576.

O n Television, Ltd.. 388 Broadway, Studio 4, N e w York. N Y 10013; (212) 925-5289.

B R A T , A n Arts Organization, Inc.. 115 Spring Street, N e w York, N Y 10012; (212) 219-9106.

have been involved early in the process as problem-solvers," Jones said.

How did Phoenix attain its place in the vanguard of public art? "It had to do with the leadership of the commission and city department directors such as Ron Jensen w h o were willing to take a risk." Jones suggested.

T h o u g h the Squaw Peak Parkway pots heated up the art landscape for a while, they were, perhaps, a turning point for the arts in Phoenix. "Before the pots the mayor and city council didn't know we were here," Ulich said. " N o w , everyone is involved and supportive."

Judith Smith is a f o r m e r m a g a z i n e editor and n e w s p a p e r reporter w h o is now a public relations specialist and adjunct professor at Arizona State University.

PUBLIC ART REVIEW

FALL/WINTER

1994 1 2 9

Mel's Chin's "Invisible Architecture" b y

P h y l l i s

R o s s e r

Mel Chin greeted his workshop students at Anderson Ranch Arts Center in Snowmass, CO, this summer by telling them they were going to sell (or "lease") T-shirts in Aspen about the O.J. Simpson trial. His workshop, "Invisible Architecture," was part of "Art into A c t i o n : Public Art f o r P e o p l e , " a weeklong series of events on public art.

Chin is a conceptual artist whose beautifully crafted and sensuously appealing work has appeared in many museums. But he is best-known for Revival Field, an environmental garden in St. Paul, MN, which brought funding criticism to the National Endowment for the Arts. Plants that extract toxic metals f r o m the soil are grown in the field, then are harvested and burned in a special furnace that captures the ash. allowing the metals to be retrieved and reused.

"We will get the pulse of the public," he said, "and put ourselves on a lower scale of class." Black letters on the white shirts said "Truth Hertz." "Hertz" was set at an angle in a black-edged yellow rectangle, suggesting the rental car company O.J. promoted on TV. The phrase meant "you can't buy your way out of situations but maybe you can rent your own reality for a while," Chin told an Aspen Times reporter. The students swallowed their pride and "leased" over $300 worth of shirts, which they donated to RES P O N S E , a local organization for battered women.

What did Aspenites think about O.J. Simpson? How did they react to this "art attack?" What "truths hurt" in Aspen? The students found that some liked the message; others thought it was ambiguous; others generously bought to help R E S P O N S E . Nearly everyone was polite and interested (unlike many passersby in large cities). Ultimately the shirts became a collector's item among the "Art into Action" participants.

T h e w o r k s h o p devised other covert strategies for raising public consciousness about various issues. Students ran an ad in the Aspen Times weekly edition (mailed to thousands of subscribers throughout the country with second homes) featuring a straw-roofed hut in Rwanda. The ad parodied real estate ads in Aspen newspapers: "Breathtaking Lakeside Estates, Fabulous Mid-African Countryside," the ad copy gushed. "Over 100 million invested in this d e v e l o p m e n t , totally u n f u r n i s h e d , many homes available," it continued. A student's local phone number was provided for more information. Interested callers heard a recorded message thanking them for their interest in the "real state" of Rwanda and en-

PUBLIC ART REVIEW FALL/WINTER

couraging them to donate money to one of the three organizations whose phone numbers were provided. "You need to sculpt the environment in which you do the action and have positive solutions ready if people call," says Chin. (A week later the ad was mentioned on the front page of The Wall Street Journal's western edition.)

In another project, "Parking Permits," imitation p a r k i n g tickets were placed on windshields as a reality check, heightening awareness about A s p e n ' s lack of diversity in race, class and sexual preference.

Residents

m n I

MHGiaw

inna as v°u ">'"""

This p o , r n i l *he please

colons you. c Red YeWoW

"" BlacK Biowf*

"

Atfc

"Asian/America" —HW NeW/*™'"*" Other _

Bisexual

"

Homosexual Transs<iexual Asexual

wall5y o U .V«"V

income?

S0-S6000 S,00.0M Crther

pert ol < " > < *

M

'

Tjtk

and tourists were asked to mail a survey (the "permits") to the Arts Center in the stamped envelope provided, answering questions such as " W h a t is y o u r s e x u a l p r e f e r e n c e ? Bisexual, Homosexual, Transsexual, Asexual, Other; What is your yearly income? $0-6,000, $100,000+, Other; Which of the following are you? African-American, Asian-American, Hispanic-American, Native-American, Other."

Chin is pessimistic about art's ability to make a social impact, but feels you have to work for change despite the futility. He sees public art as "a catalytic structure that allows us to break out of the art world into other areas such as language" (or recycling) and

1994130

avoid the usual public dismissal of art. " W e ' r e also not competing with other artists, but with Madison Avenue," he says. He thinks our fundamental problems are psychological and invisible—especially the ways in which people respond to differences in ethnicity, class and sexual preference. The major purpose of his public work is to make these reactions (which he calls psychological spaces) visible or apparent, particuM larly in relation to ^ f l civil rights and "the W mythology of jus^ tice."

— * When an article about the workshop's activities appeared in the local n e w s p a p e r , the Aspen Commissioner of Finance fined the participants $30 for selling T-shirts without charging sales tax and unlawfully putting brochures on car windshields. A psychological space had been revealed.

Chin brought so much concern, compassion, humor, and energy to these projects that students didn't resist even when he asked them to collect "artifacts" from the town dump, give them outrageous labels, and sell them at the Aspen Museum's outdoor fair as "True Lies"—mocking art as a commodity and c o n s u m e r i s m as e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y wasteful.

However, he believes aesthetics are of utmost importance. He makes his work beautiful, he says, hoping to "hold the eye long enough to give the message time to go into the head." Artists must empathize with the public but do the work for themselves, making inner connections and gaining selfknowledge. "Not good enough" is often his response to an object he's made and he remakes it despite missed deadlines.

During the next year he will prepare a counterculture Olympiad to run concurrently with the Olympics in Atlanta, featuring people not represented in the games. Events will include endurance comparisons between a long-distance runner and a Haitian sugarcane cutter or a Tibetan postulate climbing a mountain to meditate. His comments will be dubbed in over the official coverage. "It's a global opportunity," he says gleefully.

Phyllis Rosser is a sculptor, feminist art critic and educational researcher known for bringing national attention to sex bias in the Scholastic Assessment Test.

Mel Chin with Invisible Architecture workshop participant making "parking permits" at Anderson Ranch Art Center, July 25-29,1994, Snowmass, CO. (photo: the author) Sample "parking permit" torm.

Truth Hertz T-Shirt, from Mel Chin's worskshop. (photo: courtesy Anderson Ranch Art Center)

Art 21 by

Kristen

Brooke

Schleifer

Last April, approximately 1,000 artists, arts administrators, and related professionals braved Chicago's legendary gale-force winds (and a $200 entrance fee) to attend "Art 21: Art Reaches into the 21 st Century," America's first national conference on the arts. The purpose of this gathering, convened by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), was to gain input from the arts community, and help shape NEA policy for the next five years. The results will be included in a report to both the National Council and the general public. At the same time, arts organizations could get a glimpse of the new NEA agenda, as evidenced by the conference's four themes: "The Artist in Society," "The Arts and Technology," "Expanding Resources for the Arts," and "Lifelong Learning through the Arts."

In theory, the conference represented a major step for embattled arts organizations and artists who have long felt frustrated in their search for funding and, perhaps more important, respect. There is no denying that Jane Alexander succeeded in giving the NEA a human face, and many left this conference impressed, at the very least, with her skills as a morale booster and public-relations whiz.

The first topic of the conference, "The Artist in Society," highlighted the more disappointing aspects of the event. It was clear from the moment Thulani Davis began delivering her heartfelt and eloquent keynote speech, that the conference was preaching to the converted. No one in the audience needed to be enlightened as to the hardships—and merits—of pursuing creative expression in a hostile economic and social climate. Similarly, a number of the panelists for the breakout sessions were in the fortunate position of having received N E A funding while many in the audience were not, factors bound to mitigate any potential criticism of the agency.

But most unfortunate, "society"—as represented by members of government or the general public—was not invited to the discussion.

Since the main problem for artists in society is that they are perceived as anti-society, these often oppositional factions would certainly have benefitted from hearing artists speak firsthand about why they do what they do.

Instead, they were all but overlooked, no doubt feeding the powerful notion that the NEA and the arts in general are elitist and exclude mainstream taxpayer interests.

Erler from page 26

geography of the home—the threshold, the hearth, the places of storage, the places of processing raw goods into blankets, clothing, and food—and women's deep association with them.

The work I have described physically extends beyond women's gestures; it touches, and changes, the internal image of the home as a trap or a prison. My methods, like most

One of the first breakout sessions, "Facing Society's Censure," seemed to suggest that artists, arts organizations, and the NEA would finally address together the controversies that have plagued this agency since the Mapplethorpe imbroglio. Instead, the panelists—Native American f i l m m a k e r Nedra Darling, Brian Freeman of the performance group Pomo Afro Homos, and public sculptor Luis Jimenez—shared their experiences as marginalized or multicultural artists battling "mainstream" insensitivity and intolerance. Only Jimenez spoke directly to issues of funding and the accountability and lack of understanding artists face when creating work that coexists with society in public, democratic spaces.

Opportunities were certainly missed: No member of a local government was asked to discuss how to mediate between free artistic expression and public opinion. (Chicago, with its distinguished history of public sculpture and its less distinguished history of forcibly removing so-called "offensive" artworks from galleries, might have been a good choice.)

Curators such as Susan Wyatt, who led New Y o r k ' s Artists Space during the 1989 flap over the gallery's presentation of David Wojnarowicz, were also relegated to the audience. No NEA representative was on hand to speak of the difficulties or pressures the agency faced in such situations. These stories would have opened the door to a discussion of the real tension: that the arts are being asked to serve too many masters, and that the N E A is often perceived as the treacherous comrade cracking the whip.

But despite its feel-good atmosphere, the substance of the conference raised disturbing questions about the compromises the arts may soon be asked to make in order to defend their existence.

One of the main messages of "Art 21" was that arts in education is now the N E A priority. The gradual disappearance of arts curricula in U.S. schools and the erosion of entire generations of potential artists and audiences have been m u c h — a n d rightfully— lamented in recent years. Yet for all its merits, it's difficult to ignore that the N E A ' s new stance also solves a number of the agency's image problems. Making the arts part of a badly needed social agenda broadens the N E A ' s appeal to government and corporate funding sources, which are under increasing pressure to spend their dollars for the greatest public good. Also, by championing the arts as a method of community outreach, the NEA defuses charges of elitism, obscenity, and otherwise "questionable" values. As

President Clinton put it in his videotaped address to the assembly, "the moral fabric of our nation depends on the arts to enrich our cultural awareness and to further our appreciation for the diversity of experiences that unite us as A m e r i c a n s " — a n attempt to beat conservative opposition on its own turf.

The arts could surely use a presidential pat on the back, but was this a pat or a poke?

Essentially, attenders were served a utilitarian vision of the arts as a remedy for America's social ills, a vision underscored by the inclusion of H U D secretary Henry Cisneros as keynote speaker and Clinton's own references to his Goals 2000 education reform package.

The aim, it would appear, is to refocus the arts on less controversial subjects for example, not on contemporary artistic practice.

At the same time organizations were fed this new agenda, however, they were reminded that NEA funding would remain scarce. Hence the last two sections of the conference, which seemed designed to o f f e r alternative models for attracting private support.

In general, debate was not on the N E A ' s agenda for "Art 21." As often happens with events of this scope, the greatest benefits came in terms of informal exchanges, renewed contacts between far-flung comrades, and the spiritual uplift of being surrounded by peers.

The glow d o e s n ' t seem likely to last, however. By linking the future of the arts with information technology, education, and community renewal, "Art 2 1 " suggested that art for art's sake seems well on its way to becoming, f r o m the N E A point of view, indefensible, unfundable, and not worth the seemingly endless trouble. Clearly, f r o m events that have followed the c o n f e r e n c e — the cut in N E A appropriations and the ongoing debate over Ron A t h e y ' s bloodletting performance sponsored by the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis—even a sympathetic White House and a proactive leader cannot protect the N E A and the artists it f u n d s f r o m congressional backlash.

In the face of this reality, it may indeed be wise for the N E A to consider overhauling its mission to focus on what Alexander is already doing so well—arts advocacy, education, and public relations. Whether the new arts policy hinted at during this conference will ultimately end in victory or another surrender remains to be seen.

artists', borrow from the magical. Any way in which the public gaze can be brought into contact with the impoverished private should be tried, because each attempt keeps the dialogue going. This motion can, over time, redraw boundaries, produce gardens, weave fabrics, and rebuild the place to which we return.

mental art and folk art have appeared in Artpaper and Iris: A Journal About Women.

Carolyn Erler is an artist and writer living in St. Paul. Her essays on environ-

Kristen Brooke Schleifer is a writer living in Chicago.

Notes: 1. Gaston Baehelard, The Poetics of Space: (Boston: Beacon Press. 1969). p. 100.

2. QTD in Ross Shepard Kreamer. Her Share of the Blessings: Womens' Religions Among Pagan Jews and Christians in the Greco-Roman World. (New York: Oxford University Press), 1992.p. 142.

3. Ibid.

PUBLIC ART REVIEW

FALL/WINTER

1994 1 31

Junction'94: City Art and Public Transportation An international symposium held in Brussels, Belgium, May 26-29, 1994 by

C y n t h i a

A b r a m s o n

"Junction ' 9 4 " marked the second in an ongoing series of Europe-based international public art symposia designed to bring together a select group of public art commissioners, government agencies, architects, planners, artists, sociologists, writers, and academics to discuss contemporary issues in European public art. This year's symposium, held in the Lippens Auditorium of Brussels' Royal Albert I Library, focused on art projects for public transit systems (subways, light rail, buses), and how art can enhance transit systems and facilities for passengers, and promoting transit use.

The symposium served two other purposes: to celebrate and publicize Brussels' 25-year-old metro art tradition, in which the metro remains the premier showcase of contemporary Belgian art; and to unveil plans for bringing public art out of the "underground" and onto public spaces throughout Brussels to an international public art, architecture and planning audience.

Topics for panel discussion included the role of elected officials in the development of public art programs and transportation systems; durability and conservation of artworks; partnerships for the integration of art and architecture; the role of arts organizations in the support of public art; and a roundtable discussion entitled "What public art for Brussels?" Unfortunately, many of the speakers did not fully address the topics at hand. Those that did stick to the subject were most enlightening, particularly Werner Brog, the opinion research firm of Socialdata in Munich, who proved that money continues to be

Denver from page 4

plier was in financial straits. Sure enough, supplies dried up before delivery of the artist's floor. A heart-to-heart talk with project management led to the recommendation that the artists redesign in terrazzo rather than wait for supplies to resume. The impending opening of the airport would mean that the artists' floor be either entirely deleted or completed in carpet. The general contractor was told to work with the artists to match the designated granite palette to terrazzo, to minimize design i ntricacy, and to cut the number of colors to five. A floor was eventually installed.

A year after M u r c h ' s mock-up, well after she had ordered fixtures and prepared for installation, her lighting consultant discovered that wiring necessary to accommodate "Sky D a n c e " had never been installed at the

PUBLIC ART REVIEW FALL/WINTER

pumped into road projects instead of public transit because politicians are laboring under the misconception that people prefer cars to transit; Wendy Feuer, who took us on safari into the New York subway and chronicled how, phoenix-like, it rose from its ashes to become home to some very innovative art projects; and Vanessa Swann of the Royal Society of Architecture, who reported on a truly collaborative and successful public art and architecture project for a leisure center.

Perhaps as interesting as the subjects that were presented were the underlying issues that were not discussed. The most obvious was why artists are still being called upon to "humanize" relatively new metro systems, not only in Brussels, but in Los Angeles, where light rail stations are being sited under eight levels of freeway overpass! More to the point, why are architects being allowed to "dehumanize" these new facilities from the outset through poor planning, design, and siting?

A second item surfaced at the roundtable discussion. It illustrated one of the primary differences between public art planning processes in the United States and the United Kingdom, versus those in France, Belgium and elsewhere in Europe. In sum, it would appear that the notion of artists as servants of the State is alive and well. Consequently, the role of the "community," however one defines it, simply does not exist; it was not addressed by any of the symposium participants, nor does it figure in the planning scheme launched by the Commission Artistique des Infrastructures de Deplacement (CAID) for public art in Brussels. In fact, the $135 million in new art initiatives planned for the Belgian capital will be used to identify the right places for public art throughout the city and to chose the right (i.e. well-established) artists for those sites. Jos Chabert, Minister of Exterior Relations, espoused C A I D ' s philosophy thusly: "Artists have the opportunity to match themselves in an obstinate way with the public space. Artists should not submit to 'common sense' or a trivial assignment. This radical style of communication is needed."

Beside the obvious problems that leap

new location, even though it was ordered.

Similarly, although installation on the Hollis work was well underway and all the liability issues had been resolved, project management told her to stop work until after the airport was up and running. The halt was said to have been called because work on the water feature might affect other contractor work in the terminal and could delay the airport opening. A few weeks later, a substantial portion of remaining art program funds was "borrowed" by project management to help defray cost overruns. In anticipation of an April 1994 opening, a large planter was built over the base of the water feature and work on the station level ceiling went forward. Money later was found to install the necessary wiring for "Sky Dance," but the piece is still not installed.

1994132

immediately to mind like consensus building for art expenditures and public acceptance of public art, there are other obstacles C A I D may face if it sticks to the "art-for-art's-sake" or "interventionist" approach to public art.

For example, according to Walter Moens, Director of the Flanders Department of Culture, Brussels has little experience showcasing public areas and culture is not usually included in plans for public space.

In addition, there is the widely held assumption that the public is ignorant about art.

Marie Van H a m m e o f the President Minister's Office claims that the gap in arts education between "connoisseurs" and the public, leads to paralysis and rejection of artworks. However, Jean-Michel Mary, President of the Federation of Local Resident Committees, claims that the Brussels residents are opposed to public art projects because the community is not involved in defining the objectives and location of public art, and because public spaces are not improved to better accommodate works of art and the public.

The solutions to the issues raised at Junction '94, however, speak to the public art world at large. These included recommendations for celebrating indigenous kinds of art (in Brussels, it is the cartoons of Asterix and Tintin; in Atlanta, it's naive and "outsider" art); the importance of feedback and evaluation of public art projects; the urgent need for a channel of communication to the public about public art, besides the press; and, of paramount importance, listening to the community.

Junction '94 was very enlightening, and not only because of what was on the agenda.

Important topics that were overlooked included how public art and transit facilities can be used as catalysts to revitalize and restore livable communities; the possible roles for artists in designing the transit improvements required under both French and American disability legislation (ADA); and how the government can strengthen art in transit programs. Maybe at Junction '96 in Lisbon ?

Stay tuned.

The situation in the great hall of the main terminal was by no means the only example of strained collaboration that occurred in the airport project, but it was far and away the most poignant. The constant ping-pong effect created by the presentation of yet another seemingly unsolvable issue, which only fortitude and grit could overcome, left many of us feeling worn and ravaged by elusive foes disguised in the uniforms of our own army.

The problem is we all believed in the "nice idea." In effect we (the artists, administrators and art steering committee) supported the vision and ideal embraced by "public art." We believed in the potential to create a program, that through its focus on the social and spiritual, would evolve into something so much more important than merely placing art in public places. And what's worse,

Sculpture '94 Biennial

The magnitude of the questions posed at the International Sculpture Center's (ISC) "Sculpture '94 Biennial" tended to outstrip the capacity to address them as thoroughly as they deserved.

This was both good and bad. It was good because the issues were fundamental, thoughtprovoking and touched on the future of sculpture in the 21st century: What form will it take if any?; How important to the art form will be the notions of content and beauty?; Why do we consider transience as failure and permanence as success?

Yet the strictly enforced conference format of three simultaneous 75-minute sessions, loaded with four to six speakers each, left little time for any real discussion, and no time for a speaker to fully come to grips with the subject or do much more than run through slides of project work illustrating the topic at hand.

That the conference agenda was as ambitious as it was rigorous was a function of both the number of planned activities and the scheduling. The agenda included three to five technical demonstrations and artists workshops each day held simultaneously in different locations after the regular panel sessions, and over a dozen late afternoon "networking sessions" held as follow-up to panel presentations on such diverse topics as mediation and dispute resolution practices for sculptors, new computer applications for sculpting, open-air sculpture collections, and a session for sculpture educators. Several of these post-panel small-group discussions proved even more enlightening than the panel sessions that spawned them; they were a worthwhile addition to the conference because they provided a venue for exchanging practical information, complementing the

theoretical nature of much of the panel discourse.

During one panel, titled "The Continuing Issue of Form," art critic Eric Gibson asked why there is so little art made today that is c o m m i t t e d to f o r m . S c u l p t o r C h a r l e s Ginnever proposed that the minimal aesthetic is responsible for the transformation of form into a reductive entity and for leveling the artistic landscape to such an extent that the post-minimalist generation of sculptors have been left with no usable tradition to grow on. As a result, while form remains a valid aspect of sculpture, it is no longer the central issue it once was.

In some ways, it has been supplanted by issues of content which, according to the panel of the same name, has as much to do with the way sculptors formally express content in their work, such as through the incorporation of previous life experiences, as it does with how their approach to articulating content shapes a particular body of work.

A related question was raised during the panel "Artists' Rights vs. Civic Responsibility": should works of art with political content or created with a social agenda be permanent? The counter-argument is that the symbols used may change over time as the meaning of the site changes and as the public contributes meaning to the work.

In the panel entitled, " W h o ' s Afraid of Beauty," artist and critic Amalia Mesa-Bains advocated a renewed examination of what she calls "political beauty," that is, art that affirms the culture, memories, traditions and community life of people, rather then depicting a group solely in terms of how they oppose or react to a dominant group. This kind of art. whose meaning, she argued, is ultimately more enduring, has been supplanted by a socially relevant art with no political beauty and simply consists of different types of intervention relevant to contemporary social issues. The panelists proposed that beauty includes sincerity, the beauty within daily lives, intensity and power, and the fact that nothing which constitutes it can be guaranteed. But it is avoided by the art world for fear of sentimentality, even though

it is omnipresent in mass culture.

A panel in which I participated questioned the continued usefulness of percentfor-art programs and their effectiveness in supporting a genre of emerging public art works, which are characterized by artist and c o m m u n i t y collaboration, and seemingly spontaneous manifestation. Panelist Jerry Allen suggested that, given the fact that hundreds of percent-for-art programs are producing thousands of public artworks each year for a finite number of public spaces, it's time to disassociate the word " p e r m a n e n t " f r o m the notion of public art. He added that, in some instances, the dialogue that occurs about a work of public artâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;whether in the press, the town hall, or the artist's studioâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; may be sufficient in and of itself to complete the art-making process.

These were just a few of the 30 or so topics discussed at the "Sculpture ' 9 4 Biennial." I was struck, however, by what was missing: the lack of interest in and discussion of the impact and relationship b e t w e e n public sculpture and the public space in which it is sited; similarly by the lack of positive models for involving communities in the process of public art-making and planning; and the dearth of methods for training emerging sculptors to work in the public realm which, given sculptors' repeated complaints about how hard it is to break into the percent-for-art "market," seemed most unjustly neglected.

Unfortunately, in all but a few instances, the conference organizers seemed fully prepared to sacrifice depth for breadth, and quality of presentations for quantity of presenters. In the final analysis, however, the "Sculpture ' 9 4 Biennial" provided participants with the chance to contemplate those questions that are perhaps among the most basic and enduringâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the future role of beauty, form, and meaning in contemporary sculpture.

most of us still believe. We still want, against all odds, to see "Mountain Mirage" installed, and "Sky Dance" waltzing above it. And we still seek to be involved in other "nice idea" projects, hoping that this time we can do public art right.

Those of us no longer associated with the project perk up our ears at any mention of Denver International Airport. Although we laugh with guilty pleasure at its bad fortune, it is through bitter tears, mixed with dubious pride. After all, all but three of the art projects envisioned in the original master plan have been installed. And many of them rose above the "collaboration." So what are a few failures here and there?

As administrators, it is our responsibility to look at the larger issues of collaboration and revisit the collaboration's initial intent. It

is probably time to question whether it is worth hanging on so fiercely to product when process is so hopelessly flawed. We have always understood "public art" to embrace process first and foremost. Therefore, if we truly want to create public art. when do we show the white flag and save ourselves misery and leave the artists their self respect?

And should we continue to leave this decision to the artists, who may end up working on a project for years, only to be left with slides of an unrealized proposal, and potential for the next selection panel to question their ability to finish projects?

More discussion is needed about failed collaborative efforts. Only through honest disclosure of the events surrounding such situations will artists be allowed to thrive. In the case of Denver airport, the artists had

little or nothing to do with the "collaborations." By and large, they were up against individual and political agendas that negated the collaborative process long before the "nice idea" was even hatched. Those that escaped with their projects intact are to be c o m m e n d e d . But those still held hostage should be applauded because they are truly heroes. Somewhere along the line, those of us who were supposed to be in the know finally "got" it. Or maybe we always knew it. but we finally started talking about it. It w a s n ' t a pretty picture.

The ISC's 15th International Sculpture Conference, San Francisco, Aug. 17-21, 1994 by

C y n t h i a

A b r a m s o n

Cynthia A b r a m s o n is a public art and amenity planner with Project for Public Spaces, Inc. in New York City.

Jennifer Murphy is currently the executive director of the Charlotte/Mecklenburg (VA) Public Art Commission, an affiliate of the Arts and Science Council.

PUBLIC ART REVIEW

FALL/WINTER

1994 1 3 3

BOOK REVIEWS P • U • B • L • I • C

ML

E T T E R I N G

N

SCRIPT, POWER. AND CULTURE

mnmmkuim TIVITATlSEIVSDeiCT.C

HUEMUID'EtffDAi )\ ')UCA:E JcVAGaI

-v f

1

i?T)N!;^NWLfrrr>i

L€i[CT^€fI>Al?l61IO^'«

. V i m <3 C V l ' B I M , I T ( K o ; M T !

'( ~.7<f

-Li

PGTR1!)/

M L 0 1 If: H . o i AUfPACO ARMANDO TRANSLATED

PETRUCCI

UY L I N D A

LA P P I N

"Public lettering" Script, Power, and Reviewed

by Carolyn

Culture

Erler

A title such as Public Lettering: Script, Power, and Culture is certain to attract readers with an interest in the impact of writing— official, personal, criminal and otherwise— on the public landscape. But beware: 12 pages from the book's end, author Armando Petrucci writes: "From what we have said thus far in this book, the reader could easily conclude that the ceremonial and official display of writing in open urban areas is the exclusive privilege of the public authorities and of the ruling classes who have manipulated display writing for centuries as political propaganda or as a means of self-celebration." So it seems curious that, in its concluding paragraph, the book claims to have traced "two separate routes of display writing"— one the obtuse lapidary gestures left by successive waves of rulers, popes, and powerful families; the other the awkward but truthful markings of folk culture.

That Petrucci is a scholar with a certain encyclopedic knowledge is indisputable. But readers attuned to our age of cultural diversity may be surprised at the assumptions this author brings to chapter nine, titled "Deviant Phenomena." This chapter examines the funerary epigraphy of the Italian working poor, a group which won its right to public cemetery space in Italy in the 1920s and '30s.

The graves are easily identified by their irregular layout, combination of text and image, religious symbols, bright colors, and variety of scripts; many sites are also accompanied by carved or painted domestic items such as olive presses, canes, cattle yokes, and wooden cups. Strikingly, the authordescribes this alternative funerary tradition as "the product of a separate and inferior cultural context." 1 An example of "graphic deviance," it

PUBLIC ART REVIEW FALL/WINTER

exhibits "the use of inappropriate or crude techniques and of substitute materials" and w a s " h a m p e r e d by the p a t r o n s ' and c r a f t s m e n s ' limited graphic knowledge, which corresponded directly to the low cultural level of the potential audience for whom these products were made.'"

Similarly, Petrucci calls carved and painted vernacular inscriptions in 15th- to 18th-century Italian convents to be the products of communities "condemned to cultural inferiority, often bordering on illiteracy." 3 This opinion may be particularly stinging to students of w o m e n ' s history, who know that while poverty and illiteracy did cripple some convents, it is equally true that religious life historically was w o m e n ' s sole point of entry to higher learning and often produced libraries, scriptatoriums, and scholars of the highest quality. Developing his point, Petrucci cavalierly strips such examples of any worth, reasserting throughout the chapter that a defining characteristic of "deviant phenome n o n " is that "these isolated anomalies are...the product of the writer's inability to reproduce the norm" and "cannot be considered of any historical value." 4 But Petrucci seems to warm to the underclasses as they approach him chronologically. In chapter 13, "The Signs of No," he discusses modern display mural writing (graffiti) as a function of the writer's awareness of political and economic disenfranchisement. He cites the explosion of spontaneous writing precipitated by the 1968 student revolution in Paris as the first largescale European manifestation of this kind of graphic production. Tiberi is eloquently quoted: "The entire city became a huge mural newspaper. The walls of the university, of the houses, of public buildings—which had always been accustomed to listening—now began to speak.... No general editing, no censorship, no official responsibility." Petrucci perceptively comments that the importance of this new public writing, so familiar to us all, is the conquest of urban space.

These are refreshing moments in an otherwise overly detailed, pedantic survey of graphic production and public inscription in Italian urban centers. Complete with 134 black and white glossy reproductions, the book documents a palimpsest-like landscape the author knows intimately. Scholars of Italian architecture, graphics, and book design will relish Petrucci's thorough acquaintance with major and minor figures from Medieval, Baroque, and Neoclassical times through the 20th century, when the Futurists would equate writing directly with architecture. A minor flaw is the book's lack of annotation, which is needed to guide readers through the thicket of references to historic artists, patrons, and sites. Far more serious is the book's inability to live up to its title: Public Lettering: Script, Power, and Culture promises a certain mindfulness of the complexity of power and related constructs such as "deviance" and "inferiority" that it does not deliver.

Carolyn Erler is an artist and writer living in St. Paul. Her essays on environmental

1994134

art and folk art have appeared in Artpaper and Iris: A Journal About Women.

Notes: 1 .Armando Petrucci, Public Lettering: Script, Power, and Culture, (Chicago: the University of Chicago Press, 1993), p. 89.

2. Ibid., p. 90.

3. Ibid., p. 82.

4. Ibid., p. 77.

"On the Museum's Ruins" Reviewed

by Jim

Czarniecki

On the Museum's Ruins is a collection of essays and photographs published with the assistance of the Getty Grant Program of The J. Paul Getty Trust. The essays by Douglas Crimp were, with one exception, previously published in a variety of journals and museum catalogues; the photographs are by Louise Lawler or are chosen by Lawler. All are gathered here in a single volume to facilitate inquiry and dialogue, the premise being that the images will offer new or expanded meaning to the essays.

This device is particularly effective since photography and its inclusion in museums is at the heart of the thesis, a theory of postmodernism in the visual arts based on a Foucauldian archeology of the museum: "the modern epistemology of art is a function of art's seclusion in the museum, where art is made to appear autonomous, alienated, something apart, referring only to its own internal history and dynamics." These illustrated essays perform what Crimp describes as a "balancing act": they juxtapose and interpret much like the deft curator who places contradictory works of art within the same space to draw meaning beyond that of either work alone.

These oppositions are carefully (if occasionally cumbersomely) stated, then revised in successive essays. Postmodernism vs. modernism is followed by a postmodernism of resistance vs. a postmodernism of accommodation, which in turn is followed by practices vs. works, contingency vs. autonomy, and so forth. The essays are organized into three sections: Photography in the Museum, dealing with authorship and authenticity, The End of Sculpture, redefining site-specificity (or, as Crimp puts it, "a materialist critique of aesthetic idealism"), and Postmodern History, which launches a critique of art's institutionalization by the avant-garde.

None of these paths have gone untrodden in the past 20 years. The compelling format of the Crimp and Lawler guide, however, js illuminating; there is an eloquent unfolding of argument illustrated with rich and surprising photographs. A subtext which, as this is being written, is being played out against yet another attack on the NEA, employs an AIDSrelated theme and a skillful use of imagery from Mapplethorpe to Sherrie Levine to

Lawler's own semi-erotic views of museum installations and storage (!) facilities.

Lawler's photographs and those by the artists she includes are, in the end, the chief reason for this book. After all, how many times can we revisit Richard Serra and the embattled Tilted Arc (1981 -1989), the High and Low show at the Museum of Modern Art (1990), and Rudi Fuch's aborted attempt to return the Documenta 7( 1982) exclusively to painting and sculpture?

For artists, patrons, and curators who may have been born after 1965 or so, the essays include thoughtful and well-reasoned accounts, but usually buttress now-familiar arguments. For the rest of us, they do bring some spice, fresh thinking, and new contexts to these flash points in our recent art history.

Serra runs the risk of uncovering "the true specificity of the site, which is always a political specificity"; High and Low curators Varnedoe and Gopnik "dismiss the entire range of serious thinking about their subject, relegating it the work of commissars and scholiasts"; and Fuchs' desire to manipulate individual works of art conforms to "his inflated self-image as a master artist of the exhibition."

If there are shortcomings in this otherwise engaging volume, they appear to stem from the collaborators' somewhat monolithic view of the institutionalized art world: the museums, galleries, auction houses, "blue chip" artists. Rauschenberg, for example, is elevated to dizzying heights of significance: postmodernism in the art museum began with Rauschenberg's 1960 flatbeds—picture planes that can "receive a vast and heterogeneous array of cultural images and artifacts"— and Crimp uses Leo Steinberg's quote "[the flatbed] effects the most radical shift in subject matter in art, [emphasis added] the shift from nature to culture" to bolster his claim.

One should also remember that there are more than 7,000 museums in the United States, but only about 750 are art museums.

Hence, the book might be better titled On the Ruins of Art Museums. The "oppositions" that the collaborator so carefully crafts fail to consider the groundbreaking work at many of lesser-known institutions: the Albright Knox in Buffalo, which initiated and exhibited its photography collection in 1906; the Arkansas Art Center, which hosted artist residencies and in-the-gallery demonstrations in the 1950s; the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, and their 1950 t o ' 59 series with W G B H TV; the Open Gallery at the Mississippi Museum of Art (actually funded by the NEA through the late 1970s); and even the venerable Art Institute of Chicago, whose film/ video/kinetics exhibitions and collections were well established by the mid-1970s.

Still, many of our nation's prominent art museums were (are?) failing to recognize the rapidly changing role of art in their very own galleries and storerooms. On the Museum's Ruins is a clear and original effort at drawing this line for these institutions, even if many of the seeds of ruin have long been sown—and reaped for their benefit—by smaller museums years before.

Jim Czarniecki is president and C E O of the Institute for Photographic Studies, and partner with S/RI Cultural Planners. From 1976 to 1993 he directed art m u s e u m s in Mississippi and Minnesota.

On the Museum's Ruins by Douglas Crimp, with photographs by Louise Lawler, (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1993.)

iiidii n ; u i y n u n

•

'Hi:

hnovtrtm A/i Program!

I

(TOO) A/OUNJ

WWM

WORK

P

The N e w Renaissance in Corporate Collecting

MARJORY

JACOBSON

"Art lor Work" The New Renaissance in Corporate Collecting Reviewed

by Patrice

Clark

Koelsch

There is a lot of horn-tooting in Marjory Jacobson's lavishly illustrated showcase of corporate art programs. Jacobson, a corporate art consultant, profiles 4 0 corporate art ventures to demonstrate how the arts can benefit business when they are used as "sophisticated management tools geared to stimulating right-brain thinking" or regarded as a kind of "educational stock with a high-yield cultural return."

Art for Work consists of descriptions of corporate art efforts and interviews with top brass about their interests in, and expectations of, the art programs they support. The actual programs range from Norwest Corporation's collection of modernist functional objects, to Dainippon Ink and Chemicals Kawamura Memorial Museum of Art with its Rothko meditation room, to Liz Claiborne's "Women Work" project, in which the marketing division commissioned artists to create works on social issues for public consumption. Jacobson is generally leery of projects with a "social" rather than "cultural" orientation. In a telling conversation with Claiborne's spokeswoman, Jacobson comments, "I cannot emphasize enough the fact that you are not just going out there and getting a bunch of mediocre artists. You are going to the highest possible level. It is not merely a matter of art therapy."

It's not surprising that many corporate art collections have works by many of the same artists. Jacobson attributes this to corporate recognition of excellence and innovation and the connoisseurial standards of professional

art advisers and "gallerists" (her e u p h e m i s m for commercial dealers). But the " m o n k e y see, monkey d o " factor is at work here, too.

Thus, as Arthur Fleischer, the chairman of the art committee at the N e w York law firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, S c h r i v e r & Jacobson, explains, "you consciously edit out things y o u o b v i o u s l y w o u l d n ' t h a v e in t h e o f f i c e . . . Y o u are not going to have explicit political statements. You are not going to have nudes. We had a Robert L o n g o drawing and people thought it was too harsh. It is about the urban nightmare. I thought if I were going to have it next to my office that was one thing. Why should I assault another partner with it? I changed that idea when I went into Paine W e b b e r and Donald Marron had a Longo hanging in the reception area. I said if an investment banking firm can do that, my firm can do it too." Such thinking hardly exhibits "cultural leadership."

Jacobson handles the interviews as if she's wearing protective gloves. She never presses a question, never questions the w i s d o m — o r the veracity—of the company line. She shows little, if any, interest in the critical and ethical issues of corporate arts patronage. She mentions Hans H a a c k e ' s refusal to sell his work to the Cartier Foundation because of their complicity in South African gold-mining interests, and that the Centre Pompidou also turned down Cartier support for a Warhol exhibition for the same reason. But then she sings Cartier's praises for mounting its own concurrent " W a r h o l f e s t " which c o m p l e mented the Pompidou show. Everyone benefits! End of story, end of discussion.

Corporations (and C E O s ) featured in Art for Work will surely enjoy this book. And businesses considering starting a corporate art p r o g r a m m a y f i n d the last c h a p t e r , "Launching an Art Program: A Practical Guide," uplifting and helpful. But if your idea of cultural leadership involves more than executive privilege. Art for Work w o n ' t work for you.

Patrice Clark Koelsch is w riter, critic, and cultural worker living in Minneapolis.

Art for Work: The New Renaissance in Corporate Collecting by Marjory Jacobson (Cambridge. MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1993). 256 pages, $60.

"Art in Other Places" Artists at Work in Americas Community and Social Institutions Reviewed

by Michael

Schwartz

In New York, youth begin the process of revisioning their city. In L.A. people w h o never met their neighbors collaborate to create the w o r l d ' s largest mural. Throughout California disabled people tell their stories for the first time.

PUBLIC ART REVIEW

FALL/WINTER

1994 1 3 5

All over the country, the elderly, prison inmates, people with disabilities and mental illness, hospital patients, youth, and c o m m u nity members are healing and empowering themselves. Sound like a far-off dream? This is the daily work of our nation's cultural workers and community animators, often overlooked in our high-speed, market-driven "art world." Art in Other Places: Artists at Work in America's Community and Social Institutions, by William Cleveland, features these people who have dedicated their lives to working with the millions of Americans who live in the margins of our delicate social tapestry.

The timing couldn't be better for arts organizations and artists struggling to define their role in society in the face of dwindling financial resources. Art In Other Places provides them with vital information illustrating that the arts not only make good economic sense, but may be the missing link in our social programs, as we attempt to stem an ever-increasing tide of violence, despair, and cultural and class divisions.

The book raises many questions. Among them: How do these types of partnerships emerge? Where does the funding come f r o m ?

How are programs developed ? Do these ideas and techniques have relevance to the mainstream? What are the shortcomings of working within an institution? Art In Other Places successfully addresses these questions while examining several of the underlying forces that perpetuate institutional stereotypes about artists.

Cleveland relies primarily on interviews conducted in 1988, and at the "Art in Other Places" conference of 1986. The book is not overly scholarly, instead it describes the struggles, successes, and shortcomings of artists working in partnership with institutions, taking, in Cleveland's words, "the first steps toward making both the arts world and general public more cognizant of the quiet revolution" taking place among communitybased cultural workers.

One such organization is California Art in Corrections, which invited artists like Gary Snyder, Bill Everson, and Jonathan Borofsky to create programs in the visual, literary, and performing arts for inmates in California jails. The results were clear: Studies conducted showed rates of recidivism reduced by 75 percent to 81 percent among inmates who had participated in the programs.

Many of the artists in this book give people the opportunity to affect their own condition. This is a theme that was repeated again and again: Given access to resources, a little bit of guidance, and love, people will take responsibility for their lives and communities. "Better than thorazine" was how a patient who participated in a Hospital Audiences Incorporated (H Al) described the work of Michael Jon Spencer. Spencer's mission is to get "as many patients as possible out of their institutions and into the vibrant life of the city, and for those who can't leave, bring them as much of the performing arts as possible." A classical musician by training, Spencer found that many in the program had not

PUBLIC ART REVIEW FALL/WINTER

been in public for as long as 20 years.

Among the 29 other programs described are Susan Perlstein's "Elders Share the Arts," Liz L e r m a n ' s "Dancers of the Third Age," and Allen E d m u n d s ' "Brandywine Printmaking Workshop." Cleveland makes a point to carefully delineate the dedication and perseverance it takes to develop relationships with institutions and communities.

Art in Other Places attempts to fill a void by articulating the importance of the artist in society, while gently implying that artists and arts institutions should begin to re-examine their relationship to the communities they live in. This book helps redefine the role of the artist in an age of diminished public support. Skillfully written, it offers an important tool for community artists, policy makers, and others interested in using the arts in their strategy for social change.

Michael Schwartz is a community animator, visual artist, and board m e m b e r of the Alliance for Cultural Democracy.

Art in Other Places: Artists at Work in America's Community and Social Institutions, by William Cleveland, (Westport, CT: Praeger Press, 1992.)

W H A T

I S

A R C H I T E C T U R E ?

A N ESSAY ON LANDSCAPES. BUILDINGS, AND M A C H I N E S

-i'

PAUL

S H E P H E A R D

"What is Architecture?"

Reviewed

by Garth

Rockcastle

Books written to shed light on the significance, or nature, of architecture usually fall into one of three ways of approach. The first are historical, defining what architecture is by describing what it has been. The second are subjective books, usually ideologically and critically driven by defining what architecture is and should, or should not be, through highly selective criteria and terms. The third approaches the subject with presumed objectivity, practicality, and utility by discussing observable realities, measurable qualities, and the concrete experience of architecture.

What is Architecture ?, by Paul Shepheard, avoids the trappings and failings of any one of these approaches by utilizing all three in a dynamic, collage-like adventure into compelling historical and theoretical musings, personal and usually anecdotal stories, and occasional practical insights. Shepheard asks the right questions, exposes many of the real dilemmas, and plays with our preconceptions when asking and re-asking the central

1994136

question "What is architecture?" He does so in the most entertaining, knowledgeable, and clever ways. He has written a thoughtful and important book that creatively crosses the boundaries between architecture and other cultural phenomena, between the past and the present, and between essay and story.

Unfortunately, the creative stew becomes murky and at times too clever for its own good. It is not the occasional problem of getting lost in his mazes and confused by his juxtapositions that 1 object to; that is actually enjoyable, refreshing, and rewarding in books on architecture. Rather, it is his most bizarre and comprehensive knowledge, use of military hardware as analogy, and the strange people he invites to discuss rather extreme and even at time's racist and classist ideas that offend. I found myself struggling to hope that his clever story maze was not camouflage for some deep seated disturbance.

Ironically, one issue Shepheard most gleefully and relentlessly assaults is the recently argued notion that language and architecture share a useful and theoretical kinship through the science of the life of signs in society: semiotics. He says with great disdain, "Literature. the art of content, has triumphed over architecture, the art of form!" He argues for an understanding of architecture that is not contaminated by the ambiguities and arbitrariness of form - content relationships that language has. He believes the popular use and understanding of architecture as sign and symbol is dangerous and corrupting of the more true essence of architecture in its form and durability. While criticizing the views and concepts about architecture that use language as an analogy, and style or convention as relevant, he promotes the easy and irrelevant view that we can defend a concept about architecture that doesn't envision or even hint at any specific space or form. This is ultimately too easy and simplistic a thesis and suggests to me a nostalgia for another time or place when the world was a more simple place. While there are certainly limits to the relationships between language and architecture, Shepheard does not conduct a careful sorting between the legitimate analogies. What is most curious to me is how he allowed his obvious love and facility with language to bring him blurry-eyed to the conclusion that the idea and the nature of language should be removed completely from any correspondence with architecture. But then again, the English architectural critical scene of recent times has been experiencing an overdose of language architecture discussions and is certainly in need of cleansing and balance. There is just no need to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Garth Rockcastle is an architect and head of the architecture department of the University of Minnesota College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture.

What is Architecture?

An Essay on Landscapes, Buildings, and Machines, by Paul Shepheard, (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1994.)

PUBLIC ARTICLES

Barrier-free Art

a p p r o a c h e s projects with a

predetermined

c r e a t e an e n v i r o n m e n t " t o a l l o w a r t i s t s w i t h

e m p h a s i s on pedestrian issues and says that

disabilities equal access with

ADA and public art

she " f o l l o w s A D A r e q u i r e m e n t s without be-

a r t i s t s " in t h e f a c i l i t y ' s d a r k r o o m , l i v i n g q u a r -

ing a s k e d . " V e r m o n t artist, M i c h a e l S i n g e r

ters, c o m m o n areas, a n d the lush s u r r o u n d i n g

b y

says the "accessibility w a s a l w a y s o n e of m y

w o o d l a n d s . T o that end, she and the b o a r d of

c o n c e r n s even before the ( A D A ) law

directors hired Michael Singer to p r o d u c e a

R o b e r t

S c

h

u

I t

z

S i g n e d i n t o l a w in 1 9 9 0 , t h e A m e r i c a n s with Disabilities Act ( A D A ) guarantees equal

was

non-disabled

"universally designed artists' e n v i r o n m e n t "

passed."

S o m e arts administrators o f f e r other v i e w s C y n t h i a A b r a m s o n of P r o j e c t f o r

and they have raised about half the $ 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 project budget.

o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r p e r s o n s w i t h d i s a b i l i t i e s in

on A D A .

e m p l o y m e n t , state and local g o v e r n m e n t ser-

P u b l i c S p a c e s , Inc., a N e w Y o r k u r b a n d e s i g n

vices, telecommunications, and most relevant

firm, o b s e r v e s that her N e w Jersey

t o t h e f i e l d of p u b l i c art, p u b l i c a c c o m m o d a -

project faces accessibility problems such as

impaired and wheelchair users to w o r k out-

tions and transportation.

A c c o r d i n g to t h e

buses d e s i g n e d for non-users, and s p a c e s that

d o o r s , e n e r g y - e f f i c i e n t site d e s i g n , a n d

l a w , all n e w c o n s t r u c t i o n in p u b l i c a c c o m -

i g n o r e t h e n e e d s of m o t h e r s w i t h b a b y stroll-

panel of disabled artists to r e v i e w

modations must be handicap-accessible, and

ers. "It h a s b e e n s t y m i e i n g w i t h o u t a s y s t e m -

development.

" r e a s o n a b l e c h a n g e s in p o l i c i e s , p r a c t i c e s ,

atic m e t h o d f o r i m p l e m e n t i n g A D A c h a n g e s , "

board " c o u l d n ' t be happier" with

and p r o c e d u r e s " must be m a d e to e l i m i n a t e

she says.

involvement.

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n in e x i s t i n g p u b l i c f a c i l i t i e s .

J o d y U l i c h tells o f p r o b l e m s g e t t i n g

transit

At the P h o e n i x Arts C o m m i s s i o n ,

Singer's conceptual proposal includes a w o o d l a n d a c c e s s p a t h w a y to a l l o w v i s u a l l y a

design

Lesser says that she and the Singer's

Eyeing the future, she points

clear

out that the project d o e s n ' t end with c o m p l e -

S o if y o u ' r e a n a r t i s t , l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t ,

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of A D A r e q u i r e m e n t s , n o t i n g

tion, but will continue to e v o l v e as artists use

engineer, administrator, or other design pro-

that s h e a n d P h o e n i x P u b l i c E m p l o y e e M e m o -

the environment.

f e s s i o n a l i n v o l v e d in p u b l i c art p r o j e c t s , will

rial p r o j e c t artist O t t o R i g a n w r e s t l e d w i t h c i t y

A s the Millay C o l o n y project s h o w s , in-

i n c o r p o r a t i n g A D A r e q u i r e m e n t s m e a n al-

staff over g r o u n d slope and hand

railings.

novative solutions incorporating A D A regu-

tering your conceptual

( E v e n t u a l l y , t h e s l o p e as d e s i g n e d w a s d e e m e d

lations are being realized. Ultimately, A D A ' s

acceptable for wheelchair access. "Railings,"

long-term effect on conceptual

says Ulich. " w o u l d have interfered with the

p u b l i c art p r o j e c t s m a y o n l y b e r e c o g n i z e d

e n t i r e d e s i g n of t h e p l a z a . " )

after users have experienced and lived with a

design

of

public

spaces?

S o m e artists view c o m p l i a n c e with A D A s i m p l y a s a n o t h e r f a c t o f w o r k i n g in t h e p u b l i c r e a l m , m u c h like t h e a r t i s t s e l e c t i o n

O n e exciting and original

ADA-related

p r o j e c t is u n f o l d i n g in u p s t a t e N e w Y o r k o n

schedules, and other tentacles of the public

a 6 0 0 - a c r e f a r m at t h e M i l l a y C o l o n y f o r t h e

R o b e r t S e h u l t z is v i s u a l a r t s

art b u r e a u c r a c y . S e a t t l e a r t i s t V i c k i

Arts.

for the city of M e s a , A Z .

Scuri

Tilted Arc from page 15 Notes: 1. The First and Fifth Amendments read as follows: I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

V. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

2. For a discussion of other works of art that have been removed or destroyed see Jeffrey L. Cruikshank and Pam Korza, Going Public: A field guide to developments in art in public places (Amherst. MA; Arts Extension Service and the National Endowment for the Arts, 1988), pp.123- 31; Barbara Hoffman, "Law for Art's Sake," Critical Inquiry, Spring 1991, pp.

544-48. Hoffman published a iater version in Law and the Arts, Fall 1991, with more examples found pp.44-52. See also Artistic Freedom Under Attack, vol. 1, 1992, published by People For the American Way, a nonpartisan constitutional liberties organization based in Washington, DC. 3. Richard Serra v. United States General Services Administration, United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Docket no. 96 Civ. 9656, December 17, 1986. An edited version of Serra's complaint is reproduced in Documents, pp. 199-205.

4. Richard Serra v. United States General Services Administration, United States District Court. Southern District of New York. Dockett 33. 86 civil 9656, opinion #61441, decision by Judge Milton Pollock.

A u g u s t 3 l , 1987. An edited version of this decision is reproduced in Documents, pp.206-18.

5. Richard Serra v. United States General services Administration, 667 F. Supp. 1042 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).

Judge Pollock's decision are summarized in Circuit Judge Jon O. Newman's ruling on Serra's appeal.

6. The appeal filed by Serra on December 15, 1987, United States Court of Appeals, for the Second Circuit. Docket No. 87-6231, is reproduced in Documents, pp.219-38. An edited version of the brief filed

by the defendants on January 26. 1988. Docket Nos. 87-6231,87-6251, is found in Documents, pp.239-45.

The arguments and issues are superbly analyzed by Barbara Hoffman. "Law for Art's Sake," Critical Inquiry, Spring 1991, pp.540-73, and in a later version with more legal detail in Law and the Arts, Fall 1991. pp.39-96. 1 rely heavily on her analysis and interpretation. All subsequent quotes, unless otherwise noted, are taken from the article in Critical Inquiry.

7. The decision by Judge Jon O. Newman. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Nos. 822, 823 - August Term 1987. dated May 27. 1988 is reproduced in Documents, pp.246-53.

8. Richard Serra v. United States General Ser\<ices Administration, 847 f.2d 1045. 1048. 1049 (2nd Cir. 1988).

9. Documents, p.67.

10. Documents, pp.85-6.

11. Article 6 of the contract, entitled Ownership. reads as follows: "All designs, sketches, models, and the work produced under this Agreement for which payment is made under the provisions of this contract shall be the property of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. All such items may be conveyed by the Contracting Officer to the National Collection of Fine Arts-Smithsonian Institution for exhibiting purposes and permanent safekeeping." The contract is reproduced in its entirety in Ink, Attachment J. Article 6 appears on page 6 of the 29-page contract. The GSA did organize a travelling exhibition entitled Art in Architecture in 1977 that was very well received.

12. Barbara Hoffman, in conversation with the author in October 1993, suggested that the contract remains the best place to protect public sculpture.

13. An interesting argument for the content of Serra's site specific art is made by Douglas Crimp. "Serra's Public Sculpture: Redefining Site Specificity," in Richard Serra/ Sculpture (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1986), pp. 40-56. This hardly constitutes a legal definition of specific political content, however.

14. They cite the appellate court opinion in Close vs.

Lederle, in which a state educational institution was granted the right to terminate a temporary exhibition of erotic art deemed offensive by many students and faculty forced to circulate through the area where the art was hung. Both have also conducted programs at law schools discussing the issues raised by the Tilted Arc controversy.

Albert Elsen has kindly shared his notes from these presentations with me. See Albert Elsen and John Merryman, Law Ethics and the Visual Arts.

15. Hoffman, p.540.

16. A standard work delineating this view of history

of

variety of fully accessible public spaces.

process, contractual haggling, construction

Director Ann-Ellen Lesser wants to

design

supervisor

can be found in Karl Popper. Popper Selections (New York: Harper & Row. 1977).

17. A good example of the interpretation of modem art as a series of revolutions is provided by Robert Hughes, The Shock of the New (New York: Alfred A Knopf. 1981).

18. Any number of publications have documented and interpreted the end of the avant-garde. Notable among them is Renato Poggioli. The Theory of the Avant-Garde (Cambridge. MAA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 1968).

19. For examples of this postmodernist approach see Brian Wallis, ed.. Art After Modernism: Rethinking Representation (New York and Boston: The New Museum of Contemporary Art with David R. Godine.

1984) and Howard Risati. ed.. Postmodern Perspectives: Issues in Contemporary Art (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. 1990).

20. Hearing. II. p.315.

21. Hearing. III. p.621.

22. In most standard histories of modern art Serra is included with the minimalists. See. for example. Sam Hunter and John Jacobus, Modern Art (Englewood Cliffs, N.J. and New York: Prentice Hall and Harry N. Abrams, 1992, third edition). On the other hand, Robert Pincus-Witten. Postminimalism (New York: Out of London Press, 1977). begins his collection of essays with "Richard Serra: Slow Information" under a category titled "Pictorial/Sculptural."

23. Hearing, II. p.298.

24. Hearing testimony. I. p. 177. Casey Nelson Blake situates the perceived threat of the sculpture in the climate of the times. He suggests: "In the political context of the early and mid-1980s, when American politicians and the media hammered away at the threat of international terrorism, it is not surprising that the demonology of Tilted Arc included charges that associated the work with terrorist violence. See his "An Atmosphere of Effrontery: Richard Serra.

Tilted Arc. and the Crisis of Public Art." in Richard W. Fox and T. J. Lears. eds.. The Power of Culture: Critical Essays in American History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), p.276. However, similar arguments were made by members of the legal profession against George Sugarman's GSA sculpture. Baltimore Federal, in 1975.

25.

26.

27.

28.

Hearing, II, p.587-88.

Hearing, I, p.72.

Ibid.. 1. p. 178.

Hearing, II, p.360.

PUBLIC ARTICLES

Legal Issues Surrounding Public Art Contracts by

L a u r a

D a n i e l s o n

As we all know, many recent public arts commissions have embroiled artists in controversy and entangled them in bureaucratic red tape. While some of these conflicts are unavoidable, certain legal issues can be anticipated and dealt with effectively in the public art commission agreement. When an artist receives a public a n commission, he or she is typically presented with a standard, often lengthy contract that spells out the obligations of both parties. It details the project and its dimensions, timetable and delivery, payment schedule, insurance, artist's warranties, etc. An artist should be wary, however, of signing such an agreement (no matter how acceptable it appears on its face) without first analyzing whether it addresses certain key issues. These issues, relating to artists' rights and liabilities, include copyright ownership, creative control and freedom of expression, moral rights, resale royalties, credits, and liability.

Copyright Both the artist and the commissioning party may have a strong interest in retaining the copyright to the completed work. The artist's primary concern is in preserving the right to control exploitation and to create derivative works based on the original work.

The commissioning party's concern is that the work, because of its "public" nature, can be photographed, reproduced, and otherwise exploited without interference by the artist.

The artist does not have to forfeit his or her rights to resolve this conflict; he or she should expressly retain the copyright, and license to the commissioning party only those particular rights it actually needs.

Sometimes the commissioning party wants the copyright so that the artist is restricted from creating similar works, which would mean the original work was no longer unique.

Again, this can be resolved without the artist giving up the copyright. The artist can agree not to make exact reproductions or publicly exhibit the commissioned work without written permission.

Creative Control T o avoid disputes, the artist should try to retain all artistic and aesthetic decisions about the work, allowing for flexibility in design changes. The contract should describe the proposed w o r k ' s design, dimension, and materials as fully as possible, but still allow for artistic variations. This w o n ' t preserve the work if the public ends up hating it and cries out for its removal or destruction, but it will at least ensure that the artist gets paid.

Another reason it is essential for artists to reserve creative control is that they occasionally b u m p up against union requirements that

PUBLIC ART REVIEW FALL/WINTER

interfere with fabrication and installation.

With full creative control artists have more power to object to offensive changes.

Moral Rights "Moral rights," which have long been recognized in Europe, are held in such low regard in the United States that most people do not even know what they are. These rights are the artist's personal rights in the artistic expression, the most important being the right of "integrity"â&#x20AC;&#x201D;protecting a work from unauthorized mutilation or destruction. The idea is that mistreatment of an expression of an artist's personality affects his or her artistic honor and reputation, and so impairs a legally protected personality interest.

There are many examples of interference with American artists' moral rights, from the removal of Richard Serra's Tilted Arc in Manhattan, to the public revolt in Tacoma against a neon mural by Stephen Antonakos, to the total destruction in 1980 of Isamu Noguchi's sculpture in a Wall Street bank.

In the United States there are a few states with moral rights legislation, as well as the federal Visual Artists Rights Act, recently enacted by Congress after the United States signed the international Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which contains certain moral rights provisions. The protection this legislation affords is limited, however. Artists are advised to further protect themselves by including clauses in the commission agreements that limit the commissioning party from altering or relocating the work without the artist's written consent. Further, if the work is improperly maintained, damaged, or otherwise modified, the artist should reserve the right to disassociate himself or herself from the work.

Resale Royalties A very common lament of artists is that they never get to profit from the appreciated value of their work. California is the only state that has enacted a statute that gives artists the right to receive royalties on the resale of their works. But, this legislation is effective only if the artwork remains in California and the seller complies with the law.

Another way to ensure resale royalties, at least on the first resale, is to include a provision in the commission agreement that requires the commissioning party to pay the artist a percentage (typically 15 percent) of the increase in value of the work on resale.

Credits Failure to ensure that an artist receives proper credit can lead to serious conflicts. An artist should require that his or her name and the name and date of the work be placed and adequately maintained at the public art site.

1994138

Also, any photos or reproductions of the work should require appropriate credit to the artist. Further, the artist may want to reserve the right to use the commissioning party's name and identifying information in connection with promoting his or her work.

Liability If a work is damaged or lost during fabrication, shipping, or installation, and there is no provision in the contract to the contrary, the artist generally bears the risk. It is therefore vital to ensure that the artist has adequate insurance coverage.

A tragic example of other risks an artist can incur in a public art project is the case of Christo's giant yellow umbrella project, in which one of the 485-pound umbrellas toppled and killed a woman. The California county where the project was constructed was shielded from liability as the result of a "hold harmless" clause in the agreement with Christo, who had fortunately purchased his own liability insurance for the project. While an artist may be able to ensure in the contract that only the commissioning party incurs liability for injury, this case points out how important it is for the artist to thoroughly understand his or her potential for liability and need for insurance.

By addressing all these issues early in the game, before any serious conflicts have arisen, artists can assure themselves fewer legal headaches later on. If a conflict does ensue, especially one related to issues of creative expression, the artist will at least be armed with greater protection and clarification of his or her rights.

Laura Danielson is a Minneapolis lawyer with a specialty in patent, copyright, trademark and related causes, and is vice chair of the Midwest Center for Arts, Entertainment, Literature and the Law (MiCAEL).

Notes: John Henry Merryman and Albert E. Elsen, in Law, Ethics, and the Visual Arts, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990.

Scott M. Martin and Peter W. Smith, "Commissioning Public Works of Sculpture: An Examination of the Contract Issues Involved," Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & the Arts, 12:481, 1988.

Sylvia Hochfield, "The Moral Rights (and Wrongs) of Public Art," ARTnews, 87:5, May 1988.

Albert Elsen, "What We Have Learned About Modern Public Sculpture: Ten Propositions," Art Journal, 291, Winter 1989.

Louise Kertesz, "Christo Accident Covered," Business Insurance, 25:44, Nov. 4, 1991.

WORTHY OF NOTICE

That Beauty Problem Four Artists on "Beauty" in Public Art A column devoted to exploring what public art practitioners, administrators, critics, historians, curators, and advocates are looking at, reading, and thinking about.

Correspondence is welcome. by

R e g i n a

F l a n a g a n

The 19th-century English essayist and critic Walter Horatio Pater believed "beauty" was a catalyst for visual pleasure in the beholder. Late in our century, "beauty" is more frequently used as a pejorative term, applied to art viewed as superficial, deceptive, corrupt, or inconsequential. That a work provides visual pleasure seems to be less important than its social or political relevance.

Does the concept of "beauty" have any bearing on a discussion of contemporary art?

Dave Hickey, in his recent book. The Invisible Dragon: Four Essays on Beauty, tackles this provocative topic. 1 Hickey proposes to examine the idea of beauty, not in terms of what it is, but what it doesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;its rhetorical function in our discourse with visual images. According to Hickey, "Any theory of images that is not grounded in the pleasure of the beholder begs the question of t h e i r e f f i c a c y , a n d d o o m s i t s e l f to inconsequence...(Beauty) enfranchises the

Palestinian Refugee House, Jericho, 1980. (photo: Richard Fleischner) Top: Doris Vila, A Device tor the LiftingofGravity andOther Serious Situations, 1992. Hologram installation with live video, Cologne, Germany, (photo: the artist)

beholder by exhibiting markers that designate a territory of shared values between the image and its beholder, thus empowering the beholder to respond...and also causing the audience to acknowledge its own power." 2 However, the rhetorical force of contemporary images seems to demand equation between how the work looks and what it means, between the w o r k ' s formal characteristics, and its content. While beauty may open a door, inviting the beholder's participation. if only the "beautiful" is rendered "beautifully" there is no friction, and perceptions do not change. "Yet the vernacular of

beauty, in its democratic appeal, remains a potent instrument for change in this civilization," Hickey remarks. 1 The arena of public art is a good place to test the idea that what is important about beauty is what it does: how it engages the viewer, its effects. Many public art programs and projects profess to invite the v i e w e r ' s participation, even during the design and production of the work. But a public work remains vital only when it continues to engage the public, over time.

The public art I have found most consequential has exhibited "beauty." It invites participation, whether by direct physical engagement with the space defined by the work, or an intellectual and/or visual stimulation that allows me to surprise myself with my own thoughts and reactions. Consequential work also retains its ability to engage and stimulate, growing richer and more meaningful with time.

The work of Doris Vila. Ray King. Joyce Kozloff, and Richard Fleischner displays "beauty" on these terms. I decided to weigh my perceptions as a beholder against the artists' intentions, and find out w h e t h e r "beauty" was one of their concerns. Over the past 10 years, 1 have worked with these artists, and felt they might find a conversa-

PUBLIC ART REVIEW

FALL/WINTER

1994 1 3 9

Joyce Kozloff, Underwater Landscapes, 1989. Atrium of the Home Savings of America Headquarters, Irwindale, CA. Floor: marble mosiac, wall: glass mosiac, fabricated

by Crovatto Mosaics, Spilimbergo, Italy. 21' diameter floor, 16' high wall, (photo: Tom Vinetz) Opposite: Ray King, Solar Projections, 1980. Glass, Lead, Steel, Artpark, Lewiston, NY. 12'H*12'Wx16.5'Long. (photo: the artist)

tion about this topic intriguing.

Our conversation was framed by four questions: 1. Do you agree that what is important about beauty is what it does, rather than what it is?

2. Are you c o m f o r t a b l e using the word "beauty" when speaking about your work?

3. Are you conscious of pursuing beauty as you create a work, or do you become aware of its existence through public response, after you have completed the work?

4. Can you point to one (or several) of your own works, or work by other artists, that you would identify as exhibiting "beauty"?

Allowing the new to enter Doris Vila, of Brooklyn, NY, creates experimental multimedia installations including holography, video, film, and specially composed music. She is fascinated with light and artistic media that render it in a substan-

PUBLIC ART REVIEW FALL/WINTER

tial form. "Holography produces a ghost of an object.... By encoding light waves, the hologram stores many points of view effortlessly, so our perception of it at any moment is just a fraction of its whole," says Vila. "The creation of the hologram becomes the framing of a possible set of experiences."

All Vila's workishighly interactive. While artist-in-residence at G M D , the German national computer research center in 1993, she produced The Book of Air, which explores cultural beliefs. As viewers walk across the room, their infrared shadows trigger computer-controlled sound, digital video, and lights that change the imagery and color in five large holograms. The entire room becomes an instrument played by the viewers.

Another work, sited in a pedestrian shopping area in Cologne, Germany, includes a large hologram depicting fire and flames, placed in a store window. A video camera trained on the sidewalk outside captures pedestrian' s feet as they pass, projecting them onto the holograms inside, so that the pedestrians appeared to be walking through the flames. For Vila, part of her mission was to produce an almost visceral effect: "There is something in this gesture [of] removing the

1994140

pedestrians from a daily, commonplace context, into another, where they appear to have passed unscathed, through trials by fire and physical danger."

Vila is fascinated with a viewer's threshold for allowing the " n e w " to enter. Her work contains an open invitation to the viewer; she aspires to create a framework of possibilities that the viewer can complete. "The experience should be many-layered, like an onion, which can sometimes make you cry," she says. "It is important to me the work also contain a stimulus to transcend the personal, and aloneness, to engage in a social arena."

Vila points to the beauty of Robert Irwin's sculptural work; Maya Lin's Vietnam memorial, which she believes has an effect that will echo for a long time; and Marc Chagall's blue stained-glass window at the Art Institute of Chicago.

Harmony and balance Ray King of Philadelphia, PA, has a background in fine crafts, and was initially trained in stained glass. His interest in mathematics, geometry, and architecture has led to his current sculptural work in glass and metal, which uses light as the primary medium.

Beauty has always been an important part of his life and his artwork.

King believes that beauty and nature are inseparable, and that his work needs to breathe and change, just as nature's living organisms do. In 1980, he created a sculpture entitled Solar Projections al Artpark. A tent-like form composed of a steel structure sheathed with glass panels and strips of glass prisms, the work took advantage of the movements of the sun from east to west. Sited on the edge of the escarpment of the Niagara River, the form appeared to float above the ground.

Viewers could walk inside, where rainbows of light and shadows of clouds bounced around.

In King's view, beauty also parallels nature in displaying the values of harmony, balance, color, and form. He embraces 19thcentury art critic John Ruskin's writings on beauty and the sublime, and recently used them as a premise for the symbolism of a series of torch-like lights entitled The Seven Lamps of Learning. Named after the character-building traits of O b e d i e n c e , T r u t h , Memory, Sacrifice, Life, Power, and Beauty, the lamps are composed of an illuminated swirling flame of stacked glass atop a raw steel base, [see p. 44] Works of beauty King admires include A n n e and Patrick P o i r i e r ' s Promenade Classique in Alexandria.VA; the stainedg l a s s w o r k of E n g l i s h a r t i s t P a t r i c k R e y n t i e n s , and avant-garde furniture by Danny Lane, who recently created a balustrade for the Victoria and Albert Museum in London composed of columns of stacked glass. All these works take myth and mystery as their subject.

Beauty involves people Joyce Kozloff, New York City, is primarily known for her public work in ceramic tile and glass mosaic. In the 1970s, she was part of the "pattern and decoration" movement, a group of artists whose work was inspired by worldwide cultural traditions in the decorative and functional arts. Kozloff remarked that the word "beauty" is often currently applied in a pejorative way, similar to how "decorative" was used in the 1970s. "Perhaps it is time to embrace this word, and turn it around," she declares.

Like most artists, Kozloff has a big appetite for the visual and isn't afraid to use the word "beauty" often. She recognizes that standards of beauty vary widely a m o n g people, and are quite subjective. Kozloff does not believe in the existence of one universal definition of beauty, but that standards are culturally determined.

However, while she is creating her work, she seeks to reach a visual refinement that has to do with beauty. In the middle of a piece, Kozloff is very conscious of pursuing beauty, and isn't satisfied unless she can hold the work to her standard. Making something visually pleasing is very important to her because "beauty involves people (in the work), and enables one to talk about different things."

A series of mosaics created in 1989 for the Home Savings of America building in Los

Angeles are among K o z l o f f ' s most beautiful works. In particular, Underwater Landscapes, a luminous blue glass mosaic wall with surrounding imagery inspired by Eastern and Western pottery, along with a marble mosaic floor, create an environment of unsurpassed visual richness. Kozloff credits her artisans and mosaicist, whose combination of skill and craft, and attention to detail, made this work special.

K o z l o f f s current visual inspirations include mosaics in several early Christian churches she visited recently in Rome (San Clemente, Sant' Agnese, and the Mausoleum of Santa Costanza) as well as an exhibition at the Bronx Museum of "casitas" built in vacant lots by members of the Hispanic community and used as gathering places for significant neighborhood events and barbecues.

She also finds a recently installed terrazzo

In King's view, beauty parallels nature in displaying the values of harmony, balance, color, and form. floor by Alexis Smith at the Los Angeles Convention Center, spectacular. Pacific Basin depicts a map of the world and the night sky, covering 40,000 square feet.

Beauty doen't mean pretty Richard Fleischner. of Providence, RI. frequently orchestrates entire public spaces that include the layout of grades, pathways, landscaping, lighting, and seating, as well as sculptural elements. All of these components, from trees to lights to integrated sculptural elements, form the overall work. Viewers become part of the work as they move through the space. As they move, they perceive the unfolding of spatial relationships within the site. Experiencing Fleischner's work is a dynamic process.

While his work contains an invitation that enfranchises the beholder, which is a component of what beauty does, in Hickey's view,

Fleischner contends he does not build his work seeking beauty. Rather, he is seeking objective relationships to something subjective; intentions govern his actions. " B e a u t y " is an abstraction that Fleischner is uncomfortable with. The word has implicit and inherited meanings, and carries too many proscriptions of meaning.

"Beauty is not necessarily prettyâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;there are things that are not at all pretty that are indeed beautiful," says Fleischner. By way of example, Fleischner noted that several years ago, he photographed some abandoned refugee houses in Jericho. While he appreciated the houses for their simple and direct structural qualities, for Israelis, they carry a different meaning, and terrible political implications.

As he creates a work the distance between elements in a site become as significant as the elements themselves. Fleischner seeks to define the centers and edges/boundaries that form the cumulative quality of a place. H o w ever, Fleischner allowed that beauty might exist in the dialogue between the finished work and the "participant," a term he prefers to "beholder." "People may have good feelings. but might not be able to articulate them.

Finding simple words to convey the experiential nature of a physical experience may not be possible," Fleischner declares.

Fleischner referred to the spare and elegant photographs of Aaron Siskind as works that display beauty. This work exemplifies all F l e i s c h n e r h o l d s to be s i g n i f i c a n t .

S i s k i n d ' s aesthetic choices have become intuitive through practice and repetition, and have become second nature to him, like the moves of a musician or basketball player.

All four artists agreed that an examination of beauty's rhetorical function seemed worthwhile, but that d e f i n i n g beauty was impossibile. Beauty is important to the creative process and work of Vila, King, and Kozloff, but remains a problematic concept for Fleischner. All recognized beauty in works that invite a total engagement of the intellect and the senses, f r o m Maya L i n ' s memorial, Anne and Patrick Poirier's sculptural environment, and early Christian churches, to ethnic "casitas," and the photography of Aaron Siskind. The artists are attracted to work that often exhibits the same qualities as their own work, an indication of the power of the "territory of shared values between the image and the beholder" Hickey describes.

Regina Flanagan is a photographer and art administrator living in St. Paul, M N , w h o frequently writes about public art and design issues.

Notes: 1. Dave Hickey, "Enter the Dragon: On the Vernacularof Beauty," The Invisible Dragon: Four Essays on Beauty, (Los Angeles, C A : Art Issues Press, 1993), p. 11.

2. Hickey, "Afterthe Great Tsunami: On Beauty and the Therapeutic Institution," p. 57.

3. Hickey, "Enter the Dragon: On the Vernacular of Beauty," p. 24.

PUBLIC ART REVIEW

FALL/WINTER

1994141

LISTINGS

NEWSBRIEFS & LISTINGS Public An Review encourages individuals and organizations to participate in this department. Send information and photos to: Public An Review, 2324 University Ave. W„ Suite 102, St. Paul, MN 55114.

Information should arrive by September 1 and March I respectively for issues published in October and April. We also welcome letters to the editor.

O f Special Interest October is Arts and Humanities Month In October, 1993. the National Cultural Alliance (NCA) initiated the first multi-year public awareness campaign targeted to the American public. Artists, scholars, and arts and humanities organizations were joined by President Clinton, 45 governors, over 300 mayors and the general public in celebrating the first National Arts and Humanities Month. The NCA's mandate is to promote the importance of the arts and humanities in the everyday life of Americans. Let's make this October a humane one for artists.

Over 300 people attended the conference Aesthetics and Infrastructure: Designing A Livable Environment held last April in Waterloo, Iowa, sponsored by the Cedar Arts Forum, including city planners, park managers, and public works directors. Speakers included artist Patricia Johanson. Fritz Steiner, of Arizona State University's Architecture and Environmental Design Dept., landscape architect Diana Balmori. research botanist Gerould Wilhelm, and John Tilman Lyle, professor of landscape architecture at California Polytechnic, Pomona. The complex and engaging questions raised included: Can we move toward a regenerative infrastructure—one that constantly renews itself—and away from one that constantly consumes? Can we design cities, buildings, and landscapes that use rain water instead of divert it? Can we find our lost humanity by integrating reality back into the landscape? The answers are: we have to try. even if we fail miserably, or otherwise accept that we are all going down the preverbial drain.

Letting your grass grow wild and not raking your leaves will not achieve bio-diversity; weeds will not regenerate your lawn. Nature is under the mercy— tender or brutal—of people who inhabit the earth.Videotapes are available of the entire symposium ($ 19.95 each, $ 130 for entire set). Call the Cedar Arts Forum for details: (319) 291-6333.

year-long process of examination by a panel of artists, historian, activists, and conservation experts. Of the 300 murals studied, 75 were found to be in critical condition, with 16 deemed most vulnerable or deteriorated. The MMIP is the first program that comprehensively catalogues, tracks, and cares for murals in the United States. The information is being organized in a database which will be made available for use in libraries and cultural centers. For more information, contact SPARC at (310) 822-9560.

Serrano Gives a !

Artist Andres Serrano, best known for his Piss Christ photograph of a crucifix floating in urine, was hired by the Jersey City Alliance to Combat Drug and Alcohol Abuse to work with teenagers to create antidrug billboards. According to a Newhouse News Service article, the teens and Serrano came up with the image of a marijuana cigarette burning through a group photo of themselves with the message "Our Lives Are On the Line—Who Gives a —-." The fillin-the-blank part caused a commotion, and after deliberation, the image was revised. "Who gives a" ends with a burn mark instead of the dashes.

Tampa Selects Sonfist for Park Design The Public Art Committee of the City of Tampa, Fla. commissioned environmental sculptor Alan Sonfist to collaborate with the city's parks department to design the Curtis Hixon Park. In addition to incorporating pieces of history relevant to the site, Sonfist included paths laid out in the outline of indigenous leaves. Leaf-shaped benches created from poured concrete are decorated with glass tiles recycled from the original Curtis Hixon Convention Center building. Scheduled to be completed in early 1995. the Park will become the heart of Tampa's Cultural District.

Culver City, Calif. Seeks to Change Guidelines The Culver City public art program may no longer distinguish between artists and architects in their effort to support public art in the community. After a City Council meeting in late September approved revisions to the selection criteria for a project that would allow for architects, including the project architect "under certain circumstances" to participate in the program, the city is left with the challenge of rewriting its guidelines, and as we go to press, artists in the community are wondering what's in it for them.

Turnovers NEA Grants Support Public Art Projects The National Endowment for the Arts has awarded 45 grants totalling $411,000 (ranging from $5,000 to $25,000) in 1994 for Visual Artists Public Projects.

This is the second year of this funding category which offers grants to visual artists organizations, museums, colleges, local governments and other non-profits.

Among the recipients are: Abington Art Center, Jenkintown, PA; Art in General, NY; Arts Festival Association of Atlanta: Brooklyn Academy of Music; Center for Exploratory and Perceptual Art, Buffalo. NY; The Field. NY; University of Hawaii. Honolulu; Installation Gallery, San Diego, CA; Intermedia Arts Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN; Maryland Art Palce, Baltimore; Montana Institute of the Arts, Boseman; National Black Arts Festival, Atlanta; National Museum of Women in the Arts. Washington, DC; Philipine Resource Center, San Francisco; Public Art Fund, NY; Real Art Ways, Hartford, CT; Santa Fe Arts Commission; Snug Harbor Cultural Center, Staten Island, NY; Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art. Winston-Salem. NC; Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, 1L; Southwest Arkansas Arts Council, Hope. AR, Sushi. San Diego, CA; The Village of Arts and Humanities, Philadelphia. PA; and Washington Project for the Arts, Washington, DC.

Philip Jones has been hired as the new director of the Phoenix Arts Commission. Jones previously served for five years as director of the Office of Cultural Affairs for the city of Dallas, and also worked in management positions with the Nebraska Arts Council and the Indiana Arts Commission. Jones has a master's degree in piano performance, a master's degree in c o m m u n i t y arts management and a bachelor's degree in music, (see report, p. 5)

SPARC Targets 16 Murals for Restoration The Social and Public Art Resource Center (SPARC) has targeted 16 murals throughout the City of Los Angeles for restoration as part of its Los Angeles Mural Maintenance and Inventory Program (MMIP).

Included are murals in East Los Angeles, Koreatown, Jefferson Park, Venice, Pacoima, Canoga Park, Santa Monica and Watts. The murals were selected after a

Anne R. Pasternak has been appointed Executive Director at Creative Time, a New York public art presenter celebrating its 20th anniversary. Pasternak was Director and co-founder of BRAT, a new nonprofit public arts organization in New York (see review, p. 28). She also served as the Curator of Real Art Ways in Hartford. Pasternak replaces Cee Scott Brown, who has accepted the position of Executive

PUBLIC ART REVIEW FALL/WINTER

Jennifer Dowley has been appointed visual arts program director at the National Endowment for the Arts.

The program allocates $4.9 million annually to artists, arts organizations and public art projects. Dowley, whose career in contemporary visual arts and public art programming has spanned both coasts, was director of Headlands Center for the Arts. Headlands, located in Golden Gate National Recreation Area just north of San Francisco, sponsors artists' residencies, public forums, performances, and public art projects.

Prior to her Headlands position, Dowley was the coordinator of the Art in Public Places Program at the Sacremento Metropolitan Arts Commission. She also developed a public art program for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority as a national pilot project for the U.S. Department of Transportation's Urban Mass Transportation Administration.

1994142

Vice President of Art Matters Inc., a private foundation offering fellowships to visual artists.

Mitchell Kane has been appointed director of the Hirsch Farm Project (HFP), an arts-based think tank investigating the interrelationship between public art, the environment and community. Kane is the artist and curator who organized HFP's annual dialogue projects since 1991. As director, Kane will continue to oversee the remaining four years of the ten-year experimental forum, and work with the Hirsch Foundation to develop additional programs.

Amada Cruz has been named Manilow Curator of Special Exhibitions at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago. Cruz comes to the MCA from the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden of the Smithsonian Institution, where she was a curator.

The new Huntington Beach Art Center (CA), has announced the appointment of four staff positions: Marilu Knode, Curator (formerly with P.S. 1 and White Columns in New York); Tyler Stallings. Education Director (writer, visual artist and independent curator); Randy Pesqueira, Programs Coordinator (critic and performer); and Joe Husovsky, Exhibition Designer (formerly Chief Preparator at the Newport Harbor Art Museum). The Huntington Beach Art Center is scheduled to open in March, 1995 with the exhibition Community Properties, featuring 22 regional and national artists addressing issues and concepts about community (for info call 714-374-1650).

Conferences & Meetings Public Art: Realities, Theories & Issues (PARTI), October 27-30, at the Los Angeles Biltmore Hotel, organized by the California International Arts Foundation. PARTI is an international conference that brings together artists, administrators, and design professionals to discuss the complex and expanding role that artists and public art projects are playing in relation to a host of contemporary issues. Session topics and tours will focus on new directions in public art, including: "Humor and Irony in Public Art," "Critical Writing about Public Art,""Film as Public Space," and much more. Call: (213) 258-4924.

Borderline Clay, the 29th Annual Conference of NCECA (National Council on Education for the Ceramic Arts), March 22-25, 1995, in Minneapolis MN, hosted by the University of Minnesota. Topics which address midwestern and Canadian concerns will be highlighted. Call Minerva Navarrete, NCECA Conference Planner (718) 939-0963.

Exhibitions & Events Through October 22. Effect or Infect: Ecological Art. Artists Representing Environmental Arts (AREA) presents an invitational exhibition at SOHO 20, 469 Broome Street, NY. Scheduled as part of their "Art and Science Team Up For Ecology" program, the exhibition features documentation of realized and proposed projects by such notable artists as Helen Mayer Harrison and Newton Harrison, Patricia Johanson, and Ann Lorraine Labriola.

Through October 30. inSITE94, the first of a planned biennial exhibition of installation and site-specific art takes place in the San Diego/Tijuana region. The exhibition includes temporary artworks at more than 30 public spaces on both sides of the US-Mexico border. Coordinated by Installation Gallery in conjunction with the Museum of Contemporary Art, San Diego and the Centro Cultural Tijuana, inSITE94 includes projects sponsored by 37 of the region' s nonprofit arts organizations. Among the artists are Dennis Oppenheim. John Outterbridge, Ming Mur-Ray, Anne Mudge, Chris Burden [see p. 24], Roberto Salas, and Buzz Spector. Installation Gallery, Box 2552, San Diego, CA 92112; (619) 293-0145.

Ongoing. The Caponi Art Park, in Eagan MN, is a novel experiment. Unlike sculpture gardens that use space as a neutral background to display their collections, the Caponi Art Park utilizes conventional art works as integral parts of the whole. Sculptures by artist Anthony Caponi are conceived and created on site as a natural outgrowth of the park development.

According to Director Cheryl Caponi, "the land itself is used as a medium to achieve a single work of art" out of the 60-acre parcel. The Caponi Art Park, while still under construction, is available for pre-arranged group tours only. For information: (612) 454-4338.

November 1 - October, 1995. Wildlife Sculpture Series. Cypress Gardens, Fla. Over 30 life-sized figures have been commissioned by 18 artists from the United States, Canada and Australia at a cost exceeding $720,000. Most of the pieces represent threatened or endangered species, including the Florida panther. Key deer and the African rhinoceros. For more information call I -800-237-4826.

B o o k s & P u b l i c a t i o n s ( see also reviews, p 36) Public Interventions (videotape) (1994). Produced

by Branka Bogdanov for The Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston in conjunction with their exhibition [see review p. 27], this videotape is the first of its kind to pull together the diverse and often complex array of contemporary public art activities in America and make it accessible and understandable to broad audience. The 45-minute tape features commentary by critic and exhibition co-curator Eleanor Heartney, interviews with artists, and documentary clips of many significant public art projects. Copies of the tape may be ordered from the ICA, 955 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02115; (617)266-5152.

Public Art in Minnesota (1994). Published by FORECAST Public Artworks (publishers of Public Art Review), this compact yet comprehensive booklet surveys the last 20 years of public art activity in Minnesota, including over 25 photos, an essay by cultural critic Laura Weber, and a useful resource directory, glossary of terms, and bibliography. Copies may be ordered through the mail. Send $5 (includes postage and handling) to FORECAST: Public Art in Minnesota, 2324 University Ave. W. #102, St. Paul, MN 55114, or call (612) 641 -1128.

Urban Paradise: Gardens in the City (1994). This special edition of Public Art Fund's Public Art Issues is dedicated to their program of the same name. The publication documents ten commissioned proposals with texts and illustrations (many of them in color) of work by Vito Acconci, Lorna Jordan, Alison Saar, Meg Webster, and others. Contributing to this issue are landscape historian Leslie Rose Close, critic Patricia Phillips, architect Linda Pollack, and public art specialist Harriet F. Senie. Send $ 12.95 plus $2.50 postage and handling to Public Art Fund, One 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022.

NCFE Bulletin, the quarterly newsletter of the National Campaign for Freedom of Expression. The NCFE's newsletter is one of the best sources available to keep up with the ongoing battles over censorship and freedom of expression. Formed in 1990 to empower artists and activists in the arts community to respond to the aggressive attacks waged by right wing religious and political factions, the NCFE provides education and advocacy, pro bono legal counsel and support to artists and arts organizations in selected censorship cases. For membership information write NCFE, 1402 3rd Avenue, #421. Seattle, WA 98101.

Artistic Freedom Under Attack, Volume II (1994) 232 pp. Published irregularly by the People For the American Way, this report documents state-by-state challenges to artistic expression in 1992 and 1993 [see excerpt p. 23], The hundreds of incidents cited provide a unique picture of the many issues confronting both artists and the viewing public today. The report gives insight and analysis into the complex political, social, and cultural forces creating pressure in communities across the nation to silence artistic expression. Send $ 13.95 ($ 11.95 for members) to People for the American Way, 2000 M Street. NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC, 20036.

Artsave Technical Assistance Kit (1992). Published by the Artsave program of the People for the American Way, this how-to kit can help artists and educators battling censorship in their community. Included are sample letters to the editor, a guide to forming an anti-censorship coalition and sample press releases.

Send $5.95 ($4.95 for members) to People for the American Way. 2000 M Street, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC, 20036.

Celebrate Northeast! A Coloring Book of the Many Cultures of Our Neighborhood, (1994) by Susan Fiene. Public artist Fiene created this book and parent-teacher guide in conjunction with her Northeast Gateway public art project for the Minneapolis Arts Commission and the Northeast Neighborhood Consortium. Exploring the signs, shapes and colors of dozens of diverse ethnic cultures, this coloring book is at once educational and child-friendly. Copies may be obtained for $5 plus postage from Milo Janski, Northeast Neighborhood Association (612) 781 -6620 (Tuesdays - Thursday mornings).

Lee Dubrow, and John Nagus, this catalog includes works by many notable artists: Edgar Heap of Birds, Group Material, Chris Burden. Buster Simpson.

Jonathan Borofsky, Daniel Martinez, Nori Sato, and others. To obtain a copy, contact the Seattle Arts Commission, 312 First Ave. Nâ&#x20AC;&#x17E; Seattle, WA 98109: (206) 587-5500.

Recently Completed Projects In September, 1993, funded in part through a $4,000 grant from the Rockefeller Foundation, three artists selected 70cowsnear Boulder, Wyoming, and painted feminist poetry by early settler Phyllis Luman Metal on their hides. According to Chuck Shepherd's News of the WfiVdcolumn, artist Sue Thornton said "Cows are great, and so are women. Their lives are about selfsacrifice and motherhood."

San Francisco Murals: Community Creates Its Muse -1914-1994, by Timothy W. Drescher (Pogo Press.

St. Paul). In this expanded edition of Drescher's survey and commentary you'll find a wealth of beautiful murals which appear throughout the neighborhoods of the San Francisco area. With lots of photos (many in color), maps, and detailed information, this book is a valuable guide to anyone driving or walking the streets of San Francisco, or anyone interested in the rich history of mural-making. Send $19.95 to Pogo Press, 4 Cardinal Lane, St. Paul, MN 55127.

Art on File International 1995 Catalog.

Rob Wilkenson, Kathy Henwood, and Colleen Chartier at Art on File have assembled a most impressive array of public art slide programs. Public art enthusiasts will enjoy looking through the catalog, but the real thrill is owning your own set of slides for presentations, lectures, or reference. Categories include Public Art. Sculpture Parks, Temporary Exhibitions, Parks and Gardens, and Architecture. With over 30 collections available (8 new ones this year), there's something for everyone. To receive a catalog, write Art on File, Inc., 1837 East Shelby, Seattle, WA 98112; (206) 3291928.

Magdalena Abakanowiez. with wooden sarcophagi, part of her sculpture Sarcophagi in Glass Houses.

1989. A 1994 gift from the artist to Storm King Art Center and now on view in the sculpture park in Mountainville, NY. (photo: Artur Starewicz)

Arts Censorship Project Newsletter (quarterly). Published by the American Civil Liberties Union, this newsletter contain articles, essays and information about the A C L U ' s continuing struggle to assist artists fighting censorship around the country. The Arts Censorship Project, established in 1991. engages in precedent-setting First Amendment litigation and educational campaigns; it works with ACLU affiliates to fight censorship on the local level, and with the ACLU National Washington Office on federal legislative issues. The Project offers legal assistance in censorship cases to individual artists and arts organizations. For more information, contact the ACLU Arts Censorship Project, 132 West 43rd Street, New York. NY 10036.

Little Tokyo: The Public Art of Los Angeles, Part 2 (1994) by Michael W. Several. This beautifully published book contains a history and photograph of each of the 20 works in the district, plus one scheduled for installation next year. It is the most comprehensive and up-to-date record of this important collection of public art. The guide and reference, funded by a grant from the Los Angeles City Department of Cultural Affairs, will only by sold through non-profit bookstores, including the Japanese American National Museum, the Museum of Contemporary Art and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Index On Censorship, The Magazine for Free Speech (bi-monthly). Founded 22 years ago by Stephen Spender, INDEX has covered all regions of the world and all political persuasions, presenting confronting opinions, and defending the right to dissent. The "relaunch" issue features Umberto Eco, Salman Rushdie, Dubravka Ugresic, Doris Lessing and many others. Send $20 for a one-year subscription to Index On Censorship. Lancaster House, 33 Islington High Street, London N1 9LH, United Kingdom.

In Public: Seattle 1991 (edited by Diane Shamash).

Published by the Seattle Arts Commission, In Public documents a series of diverse temporary and permanent public art projects sponsored by the agency in 1991. In addition to essays by Eleanor Heartney, Gail

Mark Balma. The Frescoes of St. Thomas. Ceiling mural depicting the seven virtues for the University of St. Thomas. Completed in August. 1994. the fresco measures 17 by 112 feet, reportedly the second largest fresco in the U.S. (Detail of "Justice" in the foreground). (photo: courtesy University of St. Thomas) Jayne Charless Beck. Pearl of the Conchos, 1994.

San Angelo, TX. Beck's unexpected death on January 1, 1993 motivated friends and family to proceed with the artist's vision of a larger than life-sized mermaid for the city. The bronze statue was developed and cast from a smaller model submitted to the city in 1992.

Helen Chadwick. The Daisy and HIV. 1994, as part of Artangel's Mundo Positive series. Great Britain.

Over 100,000 copies of a postcard (color photograph on one side, information about AIDS on the other) were inserted into copies of The Face magazine, and the same number were folded to fit in a CD box distributed by the Real World label.

PUBLIC ART REVIEW

FALL/WINTER

1994 1 4 3

s h f b

i R i t

-

~

Billy C u r m a n o . Swimmin' the River. Following a set-back during the great flood of '93, Curmano continues his journey down the Mississippi this year, reaching the Missouri-Arkansas border, (photo of Curmano in 1988 at the beginning of his performance near Aitken, MN by Andi Shankle) [see PAR #31

April Hickox. Can You Hear the Flowers? (detail), 1994, at Harbourfront Centre, Toronto, as part of their Artists' Gardens series. Detail shows one of four small gardens, each based on one of the senses. The project was inspired by the artist's daughter, who was born deaf, (photo: Regina Flanagan)

Peggy Diggs, The Grandmothers Project: An Exchange with City Teens, 1994. On June 16th, 25,000 scratch-and-view cards were inserted in the Hartford Courant (CT), addressing issues of urban violence.

The project is the result of a year-long collaboration among the artist, the Wadsworth Atheneum and the Courant.

David Griggs. Dual Meridian, 1993, at the Central Core of Concourse A, the Denver International Airport (not yet open to the public). Three years in the making, the work reflects the evolution of transportation. Titanium, fiberglass, aluminum, steel, wood, stone, and concrete. 66'x 115'x 113'. (photo: courtesy the artist)

Dyke Action Machine (DAM!), Straight to Hell: The Film, 1994. 5,000 posters placed throughout lower Manhattan. DAM! evolved from the activist organization Queer Nation, and was founded by Carrie Moyer and Sue Schaffner. This year's poster campaign spoofs mainstream advertising by inserting lesbian images into a recognizable commercial context: movie posters.

Barbara Grygutis, Garden of Constants (detail), 1994, at Ohio State University'sCollege of Engineering and Computer Sciences, Columbus, OH. Commissioned through Ohio's Percent for Art Program.

Materials include cast concrete, ceramic tiles, fabricated and painted steel, brass, and granite, with cast bronze "constant formulas" embedded in walkway, (photo: Kevin Fitzsimons)

Fabricators of the Attachment (F.A.),The Heartbreaker, February 14, 1994, Westlake Center, Seattle, as part of F.A.'s AP4 series (Adult Public Playground Project without Permission). This antiHallmark Valentine's Day installation allowed viewers to swing sledge hammers at a 14-foot hanging sheet metal heart. Over 600 passersby wrote names of unloved ones and took a swing. A speaker mounted to the top played Billie Holiday. A "cupid's arrow teeter-totter," which fell short of its mark is not shown, (photo of F.A. artist Jason Sprinkle taking a swing: Steve Gilbert)

PUBLIC ART REVIEW FALL/WINTER

Marylee Hardenbergh. Bridge Dancing, August 20 and 21,1994, on the Aerial Lift Bridge in Canal Park, Duluth, MN. The site-specific dance event included simulcast music, a large fabric component, 11 dancers, 6 kyakers, and 11 skaters, (photo: the artist)

1994144

Ray King. Seven Lamps of Learning, 1994, at Austin Community College, Austin, MN. Commissioned under MN Percent for Art in Public Places program.

Glass and steel, (photo: the artist) [see Worthy of Notice, p. 40]

Marilyn Lindstrom, with youth artists. We Claim OurLives, 1994, Minneapolis, MN, mural, 12'x 109'.

Artists include: Alethea Barros, Natchez Beaulieu, Zeke Caligiuri, Constanza Carballo, Lashawnta Copeland, Jeremy Crowder, Jose Curbelo, Phillip Davis, Adonijah Espinosa, Adrian Garza, Waleed Hasan, Brett Stately, Aaron Thomas, Touch Thouk, Timothy Reese, Timothy Reese, and Aerin Vanhala.

Mentors include Doc Davis, Robert DesJarlait, Svoen Mao, Marcie Rendon, Sofia Rodriguez, Janet Stately, and Tou Vang, (photo: Marilyn Lindstrom)

nized steel, 12 x 26 feet. This large abstract eye features a steering wheel and seat located behind the iris. According to the artist, the work can be seen as "a living populist sculpture that cameos whoever takes the wheel, and helps to steer a vision." (photo: the artist)

Joseph Mannino. Deaf and Numb, 1994, temporary terra cotta installation as part of the Erie Art Museum's exhibition, "Artscape: An Invitational Exhibit of Works by Regional Artists," Erie, PA. (through October). (photo of Mannino with sculpture: courtesy Erie Art Museum)

Nick Micros, Monument with Niches and burls, 1994, Flushing Meadows Corona Park, Flushing, NY, sponsored by the Queens Council on the Arts with funding from the New York State Council on the Arts. Indiana Limestone, steel, 156" x 96" x 60". (photo: the artist) Judith Shea. The Other Monument, 1994, sponsored

by Public Art Fund. This wood sculpture, on display at the Doris C. Freedman Plaza in Central Park. NY. was conceived as a counterpart to Augustus SaintGauden's equestrian monument to General Sherman, located across the street, (photo: courtesy Public Art Fund)

ft

James Mason, The Topiary Garden, planted 1988, Deaf School Park, Columbus, OH. This life-size recreation of Georges Seurat's painting A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grand Jatteâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the only known topiary interpretation of a paintingâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;will be in process for 5-10 years as the 95 yews mature. Pruning is performed by the Mason's wife, Elaine, who works for the Columbus Recreation and Parks Department, sponsor of the project, (photo taken in September.

1994: Elaine Mason) Pam McCormick, Hudson River Art and Marinelife Mix, 1994, Hudson River sites in NYC. This one-year installation consists of nine habitats resembling large floating lobsters, shrimps, and clams that attract plant and animal microorganisms that fish need. Sponsored

by Artists Representing Environmental Arts (AREA).

Don Merkt. The Driver's Seat, 1994, at the new North Bus Terminal, Portland, OR. Commissioned through Portland's Percent for Art program. Galva-

George Rhoads. Celestial Balldergarten, 1994. at the Philadelphia International Airport Terminal ARotunda. Commissioned by the City of Philadelphia and the Airport, and produced by Rock Stream Studios, the kinetic work includes golf balls, wood musical devices, plastic, bronze, steel and fractional horsepower gearmotor. (photo: Michael Trobich. Office of the City Representative) Joel Sisson. Green Chair Project (installation). August 20, 1994, sponsored by FORECAST Public Artworks, St. Paul, MN. 918 green Adirondack chairs were built by teenagers during the summer under Sisson's guidance, and placed on the front lawn of the Minnesota State Capitol. The chairs were later distributed to individual patrons and "chairitable" nonprofit agencies, (photo of Joel, his grandmother, and teenage crew, just after completing installation: Paul Shambroom)

Jennifer Schlosberg. Bugs of New York. Ballet for Volkswagen Beetles, staged at Staten Island's Snug Harbor Cultural Center, September 18, sponsored by Dancing in the Streets Festival NYC. Over 30 Bug owners from region participated, (photo: Ellen Kaplowitz)

Larry and Kelly Sultan, in collaboration with students from San Rafael High School and Bahia Elementary School in San Rafael. CA. Have You Seen Mel'. 1994, was a series of autobiographical pieces in which the students publicly revealed their lives and feelings. The intimate, powerful, and controversial series of text and images were reproduced on grocery bags and milk cartons between July 1-31, sponsored

by Public Art Works.

PUBLIC ART REVIEW

FALL/WINTER

1994 1 4 5

Opportunities & Competitions

Cultural Program, 3rd Floor, 100 Community Place, Crownsville, MD 21032.

City of Rockville Art in Public Places Program.

Deadline: October 31. A site-specific sculpture is sought within a water feature at the Courthouse Square Park. For information, contact: Francoise Yohalem (301) 816-0518 or Betty Wisda (301) 309-3357.

Minnesota Percent for Art in Public Places Registry. Deadline: February 15. For application forms, contact: Minnesota State Arts Board, 432 Summit Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55102; (612) 297-2603 or 1800-8MN-ARTS.

Florida Art in State Buildings Program. Deadline: November 1. The University of Central Florida seeks four projects for different interior locations. Media include laser, optic light, computer animation, solar activated, etc. For information, contact: Art in State Buildings, Art Department VAB117, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816; (407) 823-5941.

Bemis Center for Contemporary Arts. Deadline: March 1, 1995. Bemis Center for Contemporary Arts offers a residency program for visual artists. Residencies of two-six months include a large, private studio and living accommodations, plus a small monthly stipend. Applications are being accepted for September 1995 through August 1996. For a application form, send an SASE to: Bemis Center for Contemporary Arts, 724 South 12th Street, Omaha, NE 68102.

ArtLink Projects. Deadline: November 1. Arts in Transit, the public art component of the Bi-State Development Agency is seeking proposals for temporary site-specific installations. Project will highlight MetroLink light rail stations and Bi-State bus neighborhoods. Open to individual artists and teams.

For applications. Arts in Transit/Bi-State Development Agency, 707 North First Street. St. Louis. MO 63102-2595.

University of South Carolina-Aiken. Deadline: November 15. The University is seeking a sculptor experienced in large metal works to design and build a freestanding Aeolian Harp for the campus. For information, contact: Dr. Henry Gurr, USC-Aiken, 171 University Parkway, Aiken, SC 29801; (803) 648-6851, ext. 3299.

Water & Power Building/Robinson Public Art Project. Deadline December 12. This public art project will commemorate the lives of Mack and Jackie Robinson. The budget will be $100,000+. For information, call the City of Pasadena Arts Division: (818) 568-1220.

The Sculpture Center. Deadline: December 16.

The NY-based alternative exhibition space is reviewing slides for its 1995 public art exhibition program at Roosevelt Island. For information, contact: Sara Pasti, Sculpture Center, 167 E. 69th St., New York, NY 10021; (212) 879-3500.

The Ohio Arts Council. Deadline: October 28.

Artists are invited to submit proposals for a work of art for the Eppler Complex at Bowling Green State University. Approximately $85,000 is available. For application materials, contact Carol Snyder, Percent for Art Program BGSU/EPPLER, The Ohio Arts Council. 727 East Main Street, Columbus. OH 43205; (614)466-2613.

Randstad Holland. Deadline: November 15 for inquiries. The Eo Wijers Foundation is seeking artists and design teams for a competition to help plan and design the inner-fringes of Green Heart Metropolis in Holland, specifically near Rotterdam or Utrecht.

Total prize money available is 150,000 Dutch guilders. For application information, write the Eo Wijers Foundation, c/o NIROV, Mauritskade 21, 2514 HD The Hague, The Netherlands.

Intermedia Arts Minnesota/McKnight Interdisciplinary Fellowships. Deadline: December 7. Five awards up to $ 12.000 are offered to artists from Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska. North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin who are producing work that fuses, integrates, or explores the boundaries between two distinct disciplines. For applications, send SASE to: Arts/McKnight Fellowships, 425 Ontario St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55414; (612) 627-4444.

Sculpture Space, Inc. Deadline: December 15. Twomonth residencies are offered, with a limited number of stipends provided. For information, contact: Sylvia de Swann, Sculpture Space, 12 Gates St., Utica, NY 13502; (315)724-8381.

Thurgood Marshall memorial. Deadline January 1, l995.The State of Maryland is seeking proposals for a sculpture to be located on the State House grounds in Annapolis. For information, write Ms. Nikki Smith, Maryland Division of Historical and

PUBLIC ART REVIEW FALL/WINTER

Airport Public Art Projects. No deadline given.

The San Francisco Art Commission is soliciting applications from artists to design artworks for the new expansion of the San Francisco International Airport.

To receive a prospectus, send a SASE to Susan Pontious, San Francisco Art Commission. 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 240, San Francisco, CA 94102; (415) 252-2590.

Artpark. No deadline given. Residencies for professional artists at the upstate New York colony are offered. For information, contact: Artpark. P.O. Box 371, Lewiston, NY 14092.

ICHTHUS Studios Art Park. No deadline given.

ICHTHUS is seeking outdoor artworks for display and sale. Send slides or photographs to Lawson Glasergreen, ICHTHUS Studios, 6787 U.S. 60 East, Josiah Henson Trail, Owensboro, KY 42303; (502) 264-1474.

Hillsborough County Public Art Program. No deadline given. Slides and support materials from artists in all media are sought for slide registry. To receive form, send SASE to: Hillsborough County Public Art Program, Community Action and Planning Agency, 28th floor, P.O. Box 1110, Tampa, FL 33601.

Art in General. No deadline given. Art in General is reviewing submissions by artists, curators, and critics for consideration for 1994-95 project programs. For prospectus, send SASE to: Future Programs, Art in General, 79 Walker St., New York, NY 10013; (212) 219-0473.

The Chicago Cultural Center's Department of Cultural Affairs. No deadline given. $150,000 is available for public artwork to be installed at seven branch libraries. All artists are eligible, including those in slide registry. For info: Public Art Program, Dept. of Cultural Affairs, 78 E. Washington St..

Chicago, IL 60602; (312) 744-7487.

Freshwater Bay Sculpture Park. No deadline given.

Sculptors are invited to create hands-on installations in an ecological manner for the preservation of the environment from April through October. Freshwater Bay Sculpture Park, P.O. Box 522, Alert Bay, B .C. VON 1 AO, Canada.

The Pollock-Krasner Foundation Grants. Deadline: ongoing. The foundation offers support for artists of merit who work in painting, sculpture, graphics, mixed media, and installation. One-year grants of $ 1,000â&#x20AC;&#x201D;30,000 awarded throughout the year. Write for application: The Pollock-Krasner Foundation, Inc., 725 Park Ave., New York, NY 10021; (212) 517-5400.

Hirsch Farm Project. No deadline given. Artsbased think tank invites artists, writers, scientists, historians, and administrators to engage in dialogue and develop project proposals that bridge public art, environment, and community. Forum stresses development of new ideas rather than production of objects. The Hirsch Farm Project, 450 Skokie Blvd., Suite 703, Northbrook, IL 60062; (708) 480-2000.

New York Mills Art Retreat. No deadline given.

Two- to eight-week residencies provide living and

1994146

studio space plus $200 stipend in exchange for five hours per week of community arts participation. Call or write for further information: New York Mills Arts Retreat, RR 1, Box 217, New York Mills, MN 56567; (218) 385-3339. (eligibility: international) Healing Through Art. No deadline given. $1,000 matching grants available for artist residencies in hospitals and healing centers. Write or call: Healing Through Art, P.O. Box 411, Wayland, MA 01788; (508) 358-5553. (eligibility: US) Lookout Sculpture Park. No deadline given. Residencies available to artists submitting proposals to create outdoor sculpture projects at sites in California and Pennsylvania. Artists who work with environmental media/issues preferred. Send slides, videos, proposals, letters of interest and SASE: Lookout Sculpture Parks, Rd. 1, Box 102, Damascus, PA 18415; (717) 224-6300; or Susanne Wibroe, 1077 Lakeville St., Petaluma, CA 94952; (707) 762-6502. (eligibility: US) The John Michael Kohler Arts Center. No deadline given. Two- and six-month residencies available in the industrial setting of the Kohler Company to develop installations, public commissions, and sculptural and functional work in vitreous china, cast iron, or enameled cast iron. John Michael Kohler Arts Center, 608 New York Ave., P.O. Box 489, Sheboygan, WI 53082; (414) 458-6144. (eligibility: US) Creative Time, Inc. Deadline: ongoing. Creative Time is seeking artists' proposals for site-specific works for its City Wide series. Projects should address current issues; artists are encouraged to be experimental. Past budgets have ranged from $300 to $ 10,000. New proposals are reviewed every three to four months. Send SASE to: Creative Time, 131 West 24th Street, New York, NY 10011. (Professional artists only) The General Service Administration's (GSA) Artin-Architecture Program invites artists to enroll in a National Artist Slide Registry for public art commissions in federal buildings. Please send current labeled slides and resumes to: GSA, Art-in-Architecture Program, 18 & F Streets, NW. Room 1300, Washington, DC 20405; (202) 501-1256.

Central Artery/Tunnel Project. No deadline given.

Permanent and temporary public art are an essential component of this massive project as it rebuilds 1-90 and 1-93 in Boston. Permanent and temporary works will be incorporated. To receive a complete package write to: Artery Arts Program Central Artery/Tunnel Project, One South Station, Boston, MA 02110.

Sculpture Source, the International Sculpture Center's computerized visual registry and referral service, is accepting applications from artists (no deadline). This system refers hundreds of artists annually to a wide range of international arts professionals. For information and application: Sculpture Source, ISC, 1050 17th St. NW, Suite 250, Washington, DC 20036;(202)785-1144.

National Slide File: The National Museum of American A r t ' s Inventory of American Sculpture database contains information on more than 50,000 American sculptures in public and private collections, including both indoor and outdoor works. Inventories are available through computer networks such as the Canadian Heritage Information Network, Research Libraries Information Network, and Internet. For information, or to request printouts, contact: Inventories of American Painting and Sculpture, Research and Scholars Center, National Museum of American Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560; (202) 357-2941 for painting, (202) 786-2384 for sculpture.

Although Public Art Review makes every effort to verify the information contained in these listings, artists are advised to check deadlines and eligibility requirements before investing time or money.

- Compiled and edited by Jack Becker

Public Art: Realities, Theories & Issues

Now Ox Sale!

PUBLIC A R T I N

MINNESOTA H T A public art ® • ' conference at the Los Angeles Biltmore Hotel October 27-30,1994

From the publishers of Public Art Review, a c o m p r e h e n s i v e o v e r v i e w of the last t w o decades of public a r t in Minnesota.

Includes critical essay, a n historical overview, m a n y photos, glossary of terms, a d i r e c t o r y of M i n n e s o t a agencies a n d b i b l i o g r a p h y .

Siixn OuiHius

To receive registration information call 213-258-4924.

A Project of the California/International Arts Foundation

To:

FORECAST Public A r t w o r k s Public Art In Minnesota 2 3 2 4 University Ave. West, Suite 1 0 2 St. Paul, M N 5 5 1 1 4

I field guide to developments in art in public places

$ 5 per c o p y (postage included) 10% discount for orders of 10 o r more.

An u n m a t c h e d central resource for public arts coordinators, artists, architects, landscape architects, planners, developers, consultants, and educators. Includes: ' A r t i s t contract and proposal guidelines ' P u b l i c art policy 'Preservation issues •Procedures for implementing projects •Listings of public art

Please m a k e checks p a y a b l e to

r e s o u r c e s •Going Public is published by the Arts Extension Service in

FORECAST Public Artworks

cooperation with the Visual Arts Program of the National Endowment for the Arts. Softbound, illus., 303pp.. S23.70. Call 413-545-2360 to order.

Mail Order Only.

A l l o w 4 - 6 weeks for delivery.

Division of Continuing Education' University of Massachusetts at Amherst

PUBLIC A R T AFFAIRS

Public Art Review is seeking information for future articles about—

1994-95 Grant

|

Recipients

Kenneth Choy

Janell K o e n e n

Sara S o l u m Hayashi

Katy Kysar

W i n g Young Huie

Ken Meter

Jeffrey K a l s t r o m

M o n a Reese

Kel Keller

Richard Solly

15, 1995 Deadline for MN Artists--February 1993-94 Color Postcard Catalog Available for Call FORECAST at 612* 641* 1128 for More Information

• • • • •

Graffiti Programs Art in Storefront Windows Artist-Scientist Collaborations in Public On-line Public Art Dialogues Environmental Projects Involving Artists Send Information to: Public Art Review 2324 University Ave. West, Ste. 102 St. Paul, MN 55114

1995 $5.00

SUBSCR ^ '5

Yes, I want to subscribe before the rates go up in 1995!

Send Your Check N o w : $12 for 1 year (two issues)

£

$23 for 2 years (four issues) $32 for 3 years (six issues) Fill out inserted subscription card

SI U B S C

RI B E!

o

Now On View

• A R T PAPERS* the lively, reader-friendly magazine for exploring the f i e l d of contemporary and experimental art and a r t i s t s .

THE LISTENING PROJECT This unique m u l t i m e d i a installation w a s c r e a t e d by T w i n C i t i e s a r e a teens in collaboration with local filmm a k e r Helen De Michiel. It includes excerpts from students' journals and a short film by De Michiel. Divided into five categories — Questioning.

Listening. Responding. Challenging,

• • • •

topical articles a r t i s t - t o - a r t i s t interviews reviews from across the U.S. extensive artists' info section

and D r e a m i n g — the film captures the s t u d e n t s ' a s s u m p t i o n s , ideas, and impressions as they explore the world of contemporary art.

N o w on view as part of the exhibition Selections from the Permanent Collection. Galleries 4. 5. and 6.

$ 2 5 for 6 Issue Subscription Call 4 0 4 . 5 8 8 . 1 8 3 7 for a free sample copy, or write to: ART PAPERS • P.O. Box 77348 Atlanta, GA 3 0 3 5 7

Listening Project participant Madeline Fairbanks performs a dance inspired by a work by Sigmar Polke

GALLERY HOURS T u e s d a y — S a t u r d a y . 1 0 a m - 8 p m ; S u n d a y . 11 a m - 5 p m . C l o s e d M o n d a y .

Walker Art Center

V i n e l a n d P l a c e at L y n d a l e A v e n u e S.. M i n n e a p o l i s (612) 3 7 5 - 7 6 2 2

You are Cordially Invited to

A n Opening Celebration of

T h e Frescoes of St. T h o m a s

fz ^

/W,

- /CIS •

y I Meet artist Mark Balma

\ '))

• Hear the premiere of Fanfare on Seven Virtues by Dr. Lawrence Siegel, composer-in-residence, performed by U S T Faculty Brass Ensemble I Enjoy light refreshments

CENSORSHIP IN A FREE SOCIETY: NOT A PRETTY PICTURE C e n s o r s h i p sits t h e r e like a n ugly stain o n art in A m e r i c a . It constricts t h e m i n d , distorts u n d e r s t a n d i n g , a n d l e a v e s u s i g n o rant. A political m o v e m e n t t o d a y w a n t s to d e s t r o y all f o r m s o f e x p r e s s i o n that d o n ' t c o n f o r m t o their n a r r o w political view. S o all o v e r t h e country, art is b e i n g c e n s o r e d a n d artists a n d c u r a t o r s a r e being h a r a s s e d .

T h e a t t a c k s of t h e s e s e l f - a p p o i n t e d c e n s o r s a r e e n d o r s e d b y o u r silence. T h e f r e e d o m to create and the freedom to view are

I J

a m o n g A m e r i c a n s ' m o s t p r e c i o u s rights.

D o s o m e t h i n g to protect t h e m . Call P e o p l e For t h e A m e r i c a n W a y ' s s p e c i a l a r t s a v e hotline t o report a n incident o f c e n s o r s h i p o r to lend y o u r s u p p o r t in t h e battle for f r e e expression.

5 - 6:30 p.m. T h u r s d a y , Oct. 20 1000 LaSalle Ave. Downtown Minneapolis — 962-4000 A Gift to the

Community

FREE A N D O P E N T O T H E P U B L I C

Call

artsave A p r o j e c t of P e o p l e For t h e A m e r i c a n W a y 1 -800-743-6768

PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY Dtjrndine GnMtubmoi Ubmta

M i

N1VI D > v O•

STTHOMAS V