Blue Mustang by Luis Jimenez (1940 - 2006) at Denver International Airport
A week or two ago, in my little travelogue about The Ironbound neighborhood of New Jersey, I poked a little fun at public art in Denver. I have received a bit of grief for that.
I received an email that leveled the accusation that I probably hadn't even seen first hand the great pieces of public art on display in Denver, and that I was jumping on a criticism bandwagon.
The Yearling by Donald Lipski in front of the Denver Public Library
Au contraire, mon ami. I have indeed seen and garnered my opinions of public art in Denver first hand.
Truth be told, I actually like quite a bit of it. The pieces I don't like, well, that's just my opinion now, isn't it?
It's no secret that I'm an opinionated ass, and it's no secret that I am an especially opinionated ass when it comes to spending tax dollars. Especially hundreds of thousands of tax dollars, on pieces of artwork that are supposed to be for the enjoyment of the public.
But my issue with Denver's public art is not a matter of whether or not I like a particular piece. Nope, it's much more involved than that.
Though, to give polite advance forewarning, there is one piece that I photographed that I will lay into. But only because it's crap.
But I digress. Denver's public art is problematic on several levels for me. First and foremost, it is obvious from the pieces of large-scale sculpture selected that the people doing the selecting are trying much too hard to be just like all the other big cities.
Big city envy is a terrible, terrible thing.
As various members of the selection committee have been quoted in the press over the years stating that Denver has to show not only visitors but also businesses considering relocating to Denver that Denver is not a "cow town" and is as cosmopolitan as any big city, it is not hard to imagine how the discussions at the selection committee meetings go.
Multi-degreed art snob, life-long Democrat #1: " We're going to need something by Lipski like that big chair with the horse on it in Central Park, and maybe something like the Vaquero statue that Luis Jimenez did for Houston."
Multi-degreed art snob, life-long Democrat #2: "I agree, and maybe something by Botero - even Anchorage has a Botero."
Democratic Party fund raiser with artistic background that is not actually in the visual arts: "Oh, and I know a local up and comer who creates such visually compelling interpretive sculptures - his name is John McEnroe, just like the famous tennis player."
Well-connected art gallery owner, life-long Democrat: "We're going to have to have a Borofsky, all the major cities have a Borofsky - his Hammering Man sculptures are all the rage."
Life-long city of Denver employee, staunch Democrat: "Is it possible to get a sculpture made of brightly painted twisted structural metal? I saw one when I was on vacation in Chicago, it was so cool."
And so on, and so on.
Dancers by Jonathan Borofsky in front of the Denver Performing Arts Complex
The Denver Public Art program that was established in 1988 stipulates that 1% of any Capital Improvement Project (That's bureaucratese for anything being built using taxpayer's money) costing over 1 million dollars in the city of Denver be set aside for the purchase of art.
Think about that for a moment, and then consider that the Capital Improvement Project that was/is the Denver International Airport (hmmm...interesting how the single costliest Capital Improvement Project in U.S. history was coincidentally launched right here in Denver the very next year after the Denver Public Art program was established) has so far cost almost 6 billion dollars (Costs totaled 4.5 billion the day the place opened in 1995, and as the construction has never actually stopped - Concourses have been expanded, parking garages built, roads ripped up and rerouted, tarmacs have had to be replaced due to poor quality concrete that was initially used, etc., the register has never stopped ringing).
For all those who do not wish to do math today, 1% of the cost incurred (so far) of building DIA is 60 (sixty) million dollars.
If you are ever in DIA, take a look around. See if you can find 60 (sixty) million dollars in art.
BTW, this 1% of C.I.P. program is not a program unique to Denver - most major cities have a program like this set up - somewhere, a number of decades ago, a group of artists and their agents were able to convince a city council to establish this program, and the tactics used to put it in place were re-used successfully everywhere, from Anchorage to Atlanta.
Those same people then created the Public Art Network, a self-congratulatory organization similar to the Grammys or Academy Awards, but with less integrity.
I See What You Mean by Lawrence Argent in front of the Denver Convention Center
I abhor the 1% for art program. I have stated this on countless occasions over the course of the past twenty years or so.
Government has no business in the business of art.
And make no mistake about it, it is definitely a business. A big dollar business. Billions.
It's primary business in Denver seems to be providing a welfare system for people who like to create large blue or orange (sometimes red) objects, and to reward lifelong Democrats for their years of service to the party.
The Denver Commission on Cultural Affairs (Not to be confused with the Denver Office of Cultural Affairs, which was merged with the Division of Theaters and Arenas in 2011 and renamed Arts and Venues Denver) is an interesting group. The commission members are touted as being selected from among Denver's most dynamic and accomplished leaders in areas of the arts, business and education.
They forgot to add "and beneficiaries of political patronage" to the introduction on the website. All members of the DCCA are appointed by the Mayor.
There are between 12 to 17 people sitting on the Denver Commission on Cultural Affairs at any one time (nearly all of them have been either life-long or long-term members of the Democratic party - such an accurate cross section of the Denver population). They are tasked with selecting works of art to be displayed in public spaces for "...more visually pleasing and creative environments."
Here are the stated goals of the Denver Commission on Cultural Affairs:
Demonstrate the highest levels of artistic excellence;
Enhance Denver’s identity, its civic pride and broaden our citizens’ understanding of and day-to-day experience with art;
Enhance and activate the public places visited by Denver’s citizens and tourists;
Feature a broad range of artists, working in a variety of media;
Celebrate Denver’s history and cultural diversity; and
Be selected in a fair and transparent public process.
Enhance Denver’s identity, its civic pride and broaden our citizens’ understanding of and day-to-day experience with art;
Enhance and activate the public places visited by Denver’s citizens and tourists;
Feature a broad range of artists, working in a variety of media;
Celebrate Denver’s history and cultural diversity; and
Be selected in a fair and transparent public process.
East 2 West Source Point by Larry Kirkland in front of the Webb Municipal Building
Reading the stated goals just gives you goose bumps doesn't it? They appear to be lofty ideals - who could argue with them?
Me.
Want to know why? No? Well, I'm going to tell you anyway.
Because not one of those stated goals actually represents the people of Denver. Those stated goals represent the whims of elitist academics and profiteering art gallery owners or high profile collectors, plain and simple.
"...broaden our citizens’ understanding of and day-to-day experience with art." Oh really? Are you going to explain color theory to us all? Interpretive dance?
What a load of hooey.
Read the bios of the current 17 committee members (well, read the bios of the 12 current members that provided a bio - you'll have to guess about the other 5. Transparency only goes so far with mayoral appointed committees I guess). What can be gleaned from the make up of the board? Is there one average, everyday, ordinary Denverite that simply enjoys art?
No. Well, maybe. hard to tell.
Woman and Man by Fernando Botero on the Denver Performing Arts Complex Galleria
The results so far of the Denver Public Art program are horrible, and not because the art selected is bad. The results are horrible because the results are incredibly homogenized - Denver's public art looks exactly like the public art in any other major city in the United States.
Know how people complain that cities and towns have lost their individual charm and identity because of the growth of chain fast food restaurants and big box stores? The Wal-Martization of America? Well, the same thing has happened with public art - the Seattlefication of America.
If you haven't been to Wal-Mart or Seattle, go - then you'll understand.
The fifth stated goal of the Denver Commission on Cultural Affairs is "Feature a broad range of artists, working in a variety of media."
That seems simple enough, eh? A broad range of artists. There are millions of artists in the United States, and thousands of them right here in Colorado. It should be pretty freaking easy to find quality work from a broad range of them.
But that is not happening. Instead of a broad range of artists working in a variety of media, Denver has stuck to the tried and true select few artists every other city has, and in fact a few of them have been singled out to receive tens of thousands of taxpayers dollars for several pieces.
The DCCA has made an effort to get a few pieces installed that were created by local artists, but to be honest, the artists and pieces selected raise a few eyebrows.
This is were I start to get ugly with my criticism. John McEnroe (The artist not the tennis player) is the beneficiary of five purchases made by the DCCA.
That reeks right there. That's a government subsidized artist of questionable value, to put it politely. It's not like Mr. McEnroe is the next Henry Moore. His work is incredibly derivative and Dali's ghost (and probably Thomas Feuerstein, too) wants a cut of the profits.
Fun information to consider: John McEnroe is represented by the Robischon Gallery. The Robischon Gallery is owned by husband and wife (and life-long Democrats) Jim Robischon and Jennifer Doran. The Robischon Gallery is regularly praised in the local (but part of a nationwide media group) alternative paper by noted art critic (and life-long Democrat) Michael Paglia...Michael Paglia gave John McEnroe's creation National Velvet, which was purchased by the DCCA in 2008 for $53,000, a review that gushed so obscenely in favor of it's installation it was nearly embarrassing to read.
National Velvet by John McEnroe in a plaza at the south side of the 16th street foot bridge
Here I go. I gave fair warning.
This above work by the artist, not the tennis player, John McEnroe, is National Velvet. It has been deemed controversial. Why? Because people have criticized it, which automatically makes it controversial.
And a big city, a "real" big city, not a "cow town", needs some controversial art, eh?
The defenders of this piece, to a man and woman, state that art is supposed to make you think, to provoke a reaction, and that is what this piece does.
That is standard institutional bullshit. Art is not supposed to make you think. You know what is supposed to make you think? Science. Math. Philosophy. Engineering. Extraordinary claims made by con artists.
You know what is supposed to provoke a reaction? Things that are shocking, disturbing, or threatening - it's nature's way of getting us out of harms way or of motivating us to do something about unjust situations.
Art is supposed to enhance the experience that is life, to lift the spirit, to help in the battle against natural decay that we all must endure.
Enhance. It's the first word in the second goal of the Denver Commission on Cultural Affairs.
Art is nature's strongest anti-depressant. But like all anti-depressants, in the wrong hands it can be abused.
If that sculpture was a poorly written book, it would be edited, heavily - probably re-written by a ghostwriter. If it was a bad movie, it would go straight to the DVD cut-out bin at Wal-Mart. If it was a stage play lacking in plot, characterization or structure, it would close on the first night. If it was a lame comedian telling stale jokes it would be booed off the stage. If it was a formulaic cornball sitcom it would never even get past the pilot episode.
But since it's a work created by somebody on the Denver Commission on Cultural Affair's darling resident artist list, it gets purchased and given a prominent spot for display.
It's doing so much to help promote Denver's "...more visually pleasing and creative environments" there, too.
Okay, I'm done. Sorta.
Sun Spot by Laura Haddad and Tom Drugan in front of the Denver Animal Shelter
You know the drill by now. Take an ordinary object and increase it's size 200 times. The use of dog tags for the skin of this 20-foot tall statue that is in front of Denver's new animal shelter is clever though.
Cloudscape by Christopher Lavery along the NW side of Pena Blvd. near Denver International Airport
Denver is the sunniest, cloud free city in America, so these fun-sized clouds had to be brought in and installed near the airport.
Indeterminate Line by Bernar Venet along Speer in front of the west face of the Denver Convention Center
This sculpture by Bernar Venet is similar to another work of his the city of Denver bought that is in Commons park. The DCCA has spent a lot of money on around 350 pieces, but that money has not gone to 350 different artists. the DCCA has favorites.
Infinite Energy by Victor Contreras at the Denver Performing Arts Complex Galleria
A exclamation point of energy if there ever was one in the west end of the DPA complex - for some reason it reminds me of DNA.
Marble sculpture by M. Wiener in front of the Colorado Supreme Court building
One of the newest sculptures to grace Denver, marble figures reminiscent of R.C. Gorman's seated native women paintings appear to be sharing wise council.
Union Spire 1990 by Kevin Oehler, collection of the City & County of Denver
Not quite the Golden Spike or one of Mylne's obelisks, but I guess it does make that particular corner near Speer and Auraria a little more interesting.
Doing Your Dance Of Denver by the Atkinson Iconography Studio Limited
Music is provided as well as encouraging instructions at the transit station near the Denver Convention Center. The most unused/overlooked art installation in Denver by a comfortable margin.
Stone Garden by Jonathan Bonner on the south lawns of the Denver Convention Center
The Denver Convention Center is home to many of the DCCA's purchases inside and out. The Rhode Island School of Design, of which Mr. Bonner is an esteemed graduate, has an interestingly strong presence in Denver.
Which probably has no connection whatsoever to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, which was held right here in little ol' cow town Denver, and that featured a little something called Dialog:City, an arts centered program that brought in an RSID project that addressed climate change.
Because nobody understands climate change better than young artists, let me tell you.
However, it's not like the RSID has as strong an influence on the DCCA's collection as former residents of Minnesota do.
Yep. looking right at you Ms. Buck and Dr. Blake.
Wheel, a 2004 piece by Edgar Heap of Birds was inspired by a native medicine wheel.
I've read that the inscription Nah-Kev-Ho-Eyea-Zim which is on the wall behind the 10 red sculptures that are supposed to represent forked trees (though I think they're forked tongues - ties in better with the political overtones), is a reference to a proverb that artist Edgar Heap of Birds Grandmother told him, and it translates as "We Are Always Returning Back Home Again".
Edgar Heap of Birds has a BFA from the University of Kansas, an MFA from Temple University, and he studied at the Royal College of Art in London. He is also a Professor of Native American studies. Impressive.
The installation sits on a parcel of land that Edgar Heap of Birds negotiated a 100 year contract for absolute control of. It is used for Native American ceremonies and is part of the route of the Sand Creek Massacre Spiritual Healing Run.
And it is actually quite an impressive creation.
But is it art? Every piece of work created by Edgar Heap of Birds is a statement on the genocide and marginalization of the tribes that had been living in North America prior to European colonization. He believes that historians have swept the true horror of what was done to the pre-Columbian inhabitants of North and South America under the rug.
That may or may not be true. I've yet to actually meet one single person who is unaware of how badly the colonial powers, settlers, and even other tribes treated the people who inhabited the America continents prior to the mass migration of the Europeans. Not one.
Are overt political statements art? Shouldn't this installation be placed in an area that is more inclined towards politics? I feel strongly that this should be in front of the state capital, or maybe directly across from the new Colorado Supreme Court building - remind those tasked with creating and maintaining laws what injustice is.
For Jennifer by Joel Shapiro at the Denver Museum of Art
This aluminum sculpture was designed and built as a memorial to Jennifer Moulton, director of Planning and Development for the City and County of Denver who passed away too young in 2004.
Controversial sculpture The Shoot Out by Red Grooms on the roof of the Denver Museum of Art
The cartoonish pop-art sculpture in the above picture now calls the Denver Museum of Art home after being booted from two previous locations.
Apparently, there are a few Native American (otherwise known as "We Were Here First Peoples") groups that have a problem with it's depiction of the wild west.
In case I failed to make it clear in my examination of Edgar Heap of Birds installation a few paragraphs back, I'm not a big fan of art for political purposes, and this piece strikes me as political. It's obvious satire, and while it is done extremely well (so well, in fact, that the obviousness is missed by most who view it), I'm not comfortable with it.
Some people argue for the separation of church and state. I argue for the separation of art and politics.
This grand and glorious use of structural H-beams is the work of Shanghai born sculptor Marco Polo Levi-Schiff di Suvero (his parents were Italian ex-patriots and they emigrated to the U.S. in 1941).
The first time I saw this piece I thought The Denver Art Museum had purchased it from San Diego, as there is an extremely similar piece in Balboa Park by the same artist.
If Denver did not have at least one piece by the team of Coosje van Bruggen and Claes Oldenburg, there is no doubt the earth would stop on it's axis and all life as we know it would cease to exist.
They were the masters of the mundane-made-large school of sculpture.
Van Bruggen (1942 - 2009) was born in the Netherlands. Her husband of 32 years was born in Sweden. Both of them immigrated to the United States and had become naturalized citizens by the time of their marriage in 1977. The lived in both L.A. and NYC, and also in France.
Their collaborations were almost always public commissions, with a few notable exceptions such as Cupid's Arrow, which was commissioned by the founders of the Gap clothing store - though it was installed in a public park near the Embarcadero in San Francisco.
Scottish Angus Cow and Calf by Dan Ostermiller Denver Museum of Art
This piece of monolithic sculpture does speak to Denver's heritage as a cow town, and it is realistically done by an artist who could be considered local (well, he lives in Loveland, an hour or so up the road). I will forever wonder how it was ever approved for purchase.
Pioneer Fountain on Lincoln and Colfax
I kid, I kid. Denver does have what could be considered conventional public art, or as art critics like to derogatorily refer to it, populist public art.
The Pioneer Fountain on the corner of Lincoln and Colfax is bedecked with larger-than-life representational statues of a pioneer woman, a prospector, and a trapper, all created by sculptor Frederick William MacMonnies. It was erected in 1911, and a plaque that commemorates the end of the Smoky Hill Trail was added in 1936.
Metal sculpture by Robert Mangold near McNichols Civic Center
However, for the most part abstract and unconventional sculptures abound, and they are not new to Denver by any stretch.
Robert Mangold (not to be confused with the New York minimalist artist Robert Mangold) came to Denver from Indiana in 1960 to teach at DU, and has a number of his conceptual metal pieces on display throughout the metro area.
His work is well-known and well-regarded. The piece above was acquired by a private organization and put in place in 1975.
In Civic Center Park there is an interesting monument to Christopher Columbus that was donated to the city by Alfred and Anne Adamo in 1970. Colorado was the first state to have an official Columbus Day holiday.
This recent addition to Denver's Civic Center park was donated by the city of Chicago at the behest of the sculptor, noted Mexican artist Yvonne Domnege. It was in Chicago as one of three of her statues featured in the Boeing Galleries at Millennium Park.
This wasn't acquired by the DCCA, rather, Denver's Arts & Venues applied for and was accepted as the recipient of the steel sculpture, conveniently already painted blue to fit in with all the other blue sculptures in Denver.
Bas relief and mosaic works decorate the underpass on 15th between Little Raven and Delgany
If you ever pay a visit to Confluence Park in downtown Denver and for whatever reason feel the need to walk to the Modern Art Museum Denver on 15th and Delgany, you'll notice the walls of the underpass have been decorated.
On the east side of 15th
The depictions seem to have a Native American feel to them, but I was not able to find attribution for the work.
Bench on the 16th street mall, unsigned or attributed
Approximately a mile and a quarter of 16th street in the heart of downtown Denver was turned into a pedestrian mall back in 1982. 16th street is considered Denver's spine, and there are well over 300 businesses along the retail corridor.
Art has been incorporated into the outdoor mall - actually, the mall itself is art, as the granite pavers used in the construction of the walkway were set to look like the back of a rattlesnake.
Piano on the 16th street mall - I couldn't find attribution for it! Apologies galore
The mall also has had pianos painted by local artists as part of an annual installation called "Your Keys To The City".
Street pianos as they are known are said to have originated with British artist Luke Jerram (so far he's managed to have close to 700 pianos painted and installed in cities all over the world).
I've seen the same installations in Fort Collins and in NYC, and I think Denver's hold their own quite nicely.
Painted metal buffalo on the 16th street mall attributed to Gian
Other than the word or name "Gian" painted at the base of a few of these metal buffalo, I can find no other information regarding them. They do add a splash of color to contrast the black and gray granite.
Pinky and Mr. Green by Michael Whiting on 20th and Park
On the outskirts of downtown Denver the sculpture takes a decidedly less grandiose turn. These two realizations of 8-bit video game characters (well, that's what they look like to me) are near a few of the homeless shelters at the Broadway/Park intersection.
Trade Deficit (1 of 3) by Joseph Ritchie near 20th and Park
The above metal storage container sculpture, which is 1 of 3 metal storage container sculptures by the same artist placed close to a number of the Denver homeless service centers and shelters, which I view as kind of a slap in the face to the homeless - it's pretty much saying, "Hey, see these old metal storage containers that would actually make great (and cheap) shelter from the elements for you poor unfortunate homeless? Well, I'm going to weld them shut and stack them on top of each other right in front of your face."
Metal palm trees near 6th and Santa Fe
Of course, no city is going to be able to call itself a big city unless it has an Arts District, and so Denver does indeed now have an Arts District, which is almost as public as art gets.
You are now entering the Denver Arts District. Buy some art.
It's generally along Santa Fe between 6th ave and 11th, but also includes Kalamath (which parallels Santa Fe).
In 2003, a few studios, galleries and theaters in that area formed a non-profit corporation which was the big step in qualifying for the grants and tax breaks needed to spruce the area up.
It was a smart move, as the area has indeed flourished.
The best ideas from the more organic Arts Districts in big cities throughout the U.S. have been adopted to make this particular manufactured Arts District viable - decorative banners that declare the boundaries of the art district, First Fridays (with free luxury guided shuttles during the First Friday art walk for those who want to do their art walking in...well, a luxury guided shuttle), and tie-ins with local brew pups, cultural festivals and movements.
Artists on Santa Fe
The Arts District is home to some fine galleries. One of my personal favorites is Artists on Santa Fe. There is a wide variety of art (and craft) on display and for sale, and on any given day it's possible to run into one of the many talents that work in one of the many studios the building houses and get to know creator and creation.
The only complaint I have about the gallery are the short hours. I can understand closing at 4 and 5 in the winter, but the longer days of summer warrant at least staying open until 7:00.
Come on, public art demands publicly hospitable hours.
Another great gallery is the Chicano Humanities and Art Council. it's kinda catty-corner and across the street from the Artists on Santa Fe, and is host to some great talents.
Now, generally I am against segregation of artists and art. I loathe shows that focus on artists of a particular skin tone, heritage, gender or sexual orientation as I feel strongly that it takes away from the art. I personally believe that the identities of artists should be hidden during juried shows and only revealed after the winners have been selected.
In my eyes, art does not have a reason for identity unless you're an anthropologist or a propagandist. Marc Chagall didn't create Russian-Jewish artwork, Salvador Dali didn't create Spanish Art, Van Gogh didn't create Dutch art - hell, Bob Ross didn't create happy little tree art.
Wait a minute, yes he did. Nevermind.
My point is, artists create art. Art is of the world, the Universe, not some small corner of a geo-political border.
However...that being said...I love the colors and vibrancy of the art created by Chicano/Latino artists. I suspect it has a lot to do with my childhood and seeing the murals that decorate Chicano Park in Barrio Logan nearly everyday during the summer months.
The Arts District features quite a bit of mural art, which I will confess to being partial to. Bare walls of buildings have always looked like big empty canvases to me, and if there is a simpler and easier way of creating public art than putting a mural on the big blank wall of a building, it eludes me.
Murals are one of, if not the, oldest form of public art. Cave paintings can be considered the first murals, and every civilization known covered tombs, palaces, bath houses and private residences with murals of some sort.
A lot of high falutin' pretentious art snobs look down on murals as being common. Well, yeah, that's what makes them great.
The only problem I have ever had with murals are when they become blatantly political, and thus base propaganda. I've seen that happen everywhere, and it's just sad really, the exploitation of art for political purposes. The Soviets were masters of it, but I've seen it used by everyone from the IRA (Actually, I think every group in Northern Ireland with more than five members is required to put up a mural) to sidewalk chalk artists.
Murals are often used by businesses to bring attention to the buildings they inhabit. It's advertising, but often it's done by art students who generally need every penny they can earn to stay afloat, so I'm cool with 'em.
Teddy Roosevelt and Jack Dempsey on the side of the Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. building
Murals can be fun and they can be educational. They can also be welcoming, as this wall covered with a portrait of a smiling Teddy Roosevelt appears to be.
Mural on the side of a building near 25th and Walnut
This business commissioned this mural to brighten up a rather dull wall in a rather dull industrial/warehouse section of Denver. Good work, anonymous mural artists!
Clever graffiti on a roll off dumpster in downtown Denver. The eyes tell me it was possibly done by the same artist who did the mural work on the building near 25th and Walnut.
Denver also sports quite a bit of what I consider true public art, by which I of course mean graffiti. I have had a love-hate relationship with graffiti for as long as I can remember.
On the one hand some graffiti is incredibly expressive and artistic, without doubt capable of holding it's own against any artwork enshrined in a museum or gallery.
And on the other hand a lot of graffiti is simply vandalism at best, gang territorial markings at worst.
I have encountered both extremes in Denver. The good graffiti artists also seem to be the smartest, as most of them seem to have become part of the Urban Arts Program, an initiative by the city of Denver to reclaim graffiti hot spots.
The bad graffiti artists, the taggers and vandals, the narcissists who simply want to put their names on a wall, apparently are somewhat dense. They all seem to fail to realize that in this computerized and digital day and age it is fairly easy for the police to catalog tags and track them, eventually catching the perpetrators red-handed.
Know what those idiots get sentenced to do? Cleaning off or painting over graffiti.
Graffiti as an expression, whether of pride in one's neighborhood or dissatisfaction with the powers that be, has been around for millennia.
Some graffiti artists have actually made the jump from the street to the gallery - Lee Quinones and the Fab 5 crew in NYC in the '70's, along with the late Jean-Michael Basquait, brought graffiti from the sides of subway cars and buildings into prestigious galleries.
Graffiti along a street in Denver
A number of the smarter businessmen have taken to hiring the better graffiti artists to decorate the large blank walls that usually end up tagged by the lesser talents.
Those walls are usually left untouched once painted, as even among the street talents there is a respect for the work of other artists.
TKO / MDR show a versatile hand in an alley in Denver
Typography and Calligraphy with a can is a mainstay of graffiti artists. I always marveled at the variety and creativity of the better taggers in the Southeast San Diego neighborhood I was raised in, and Denver has it's fair share of skilled word painters.
Graffiti on the side of a house in Denver
This signed wall near downtown Denver appears to be both social-political commentary and a declaration of war between Desk Pop and the Other Guys. There's quite a bit of youthful idealism and rebellion there, as well as an invitation to Disney's lawyers to come on down.
Note to the artist of this particular piece. You don't want to mess with Disney. They'll have your balls in a jar before you can blink.
A tag wall that has been repeatedly repainted in Denver
Quite a bit of graffiti is redundant and derivative, which is to be expected from a group of artists who are most likely young and learning their art via imitation. However, some graffiti can be original, or at least vary enough from the source material to be unique.
Graffiti brightens up an alley in Denver
If the city of Denver really wished to make itself known as more than the host city for the largest stock show in the Southwest, it wouldn't hurt the Denver Commission on Cultural Affairs to look beyond the conventionally accepted art factories that they are procuring what passes for public art from.
Maybe spend a little less time with the academic and institutionally trained artists who create art as a business, and a little more time with those that create art for the pure joy of creating art.
Nice job of sprucing up an ugly wall near 19th and Lincoln by some anonymous graffiti artists
Because, when it comes down to brass tacks, my real problem with the Denver Public Art program is that, by the nature of it's funding source and the process by which those funds are allocated, it is morally unconscionable.
First, 1% for art programs, which reared their altruistic heads in the late 1950's, are, without a doubt, the single largest swindle of taxpayer dollars since the creation of the GSA.
Think about this for a minute. The Denver 1% for art program has purchased around 350 different pieces of art. However, that does not mean that around 350 different artists have benefited from this unique welfare-for-artists system that has been cleverly foisted upon the public.
There are a number of artists who seem to have either secured the best gallery representation possible or latched onto this big ol' public teat with a death grip, as they have had several pieces either commissioned or purchased via the Denver Commission on Cultural Affairs.
You don't have to be Ida Tarbell to smell the potential for political corruption here, or at least cronyism.
A seat on the Denver Commission on Cultural Affairs is through Mayoral appointment. I have no idea if the seat comes with a salary (so much for "transparency. eh? That info is nowhere to be found on Denver's website - Whoops! *Update* Yes it is!! As of 05/04/2013, on the denvergov.org website, under Boards and Commissions, it states that there is no compensation given to commission appointees).
Whether or not a seat on the DCCA is a paid position is of little consequence though - anyone who paid the least amount of attention in a political science class knows that where there is heaps and heaps of taxpayers money at the disposal of an appointed, not elected, committee, there is endless potential for graft, fraud & theft.
The obvious no-brainer opportunity for corruption is, if the seat is a paid position then it can be either dangled as a potential award, or acquired through patronage/cronyism/favoritism.
Being as how since it's inception the Denver Commission on Cultural Affairs has been staffed primarily by Democrats, it does make one wonder.
Should we all assume that is because only Democrats know anything about art? Or would that be because no other political party has held the office of Mayor in Denver in the past half-century?
The less obvious (but still somewhat obvious if you haven't been living in a cave since the days of Tammany Hall), is the use of the seat by an appointee to steer business to a friend/associate/family member, etc.
Maybe even taking a percentage of the money spent as a kickback.
I'm not saying that it has happened, I'm saying it's possible, the potential for it to happen is there.
When you have a commission that has gallery owners (who represent artist, and are in the business of selling art) given a say over how millions of dollars are spent on art, and you have collectors and appraisers of art sitting on the same commission and they too have a vested interest in seeing particular pieces of art increase in value via improved reputation or cachet, it's a bit naive to believe that the temptation to push a few of those dollars towards your interest doesn't spring up.
And it would be pretty easy to make it all seem legitimate.
For example, Let's say gallery owner A does not sit on the DCCA. However, gallery owner A is on the executive committee of the Denver Art Dealers Association and through that little professional club is friends with Gallery Owner B, who does sit on the DCCA. Let's say gallery owner A and gallery owner B are having lunch one afternoon and somehow the conversation turns to a young up and coming local talent.
Further along in the conversation, gallery owner A suggests to gallery owner B that if this young up and coming talent was to somehow get more prominent public exposure...heh...and next thing you know the DCCA has purchased one, maybe 5 of this young up and comer's works.
I think you can probably figure out where I'm going with this.
Soft Landing by Kenneth Snelson installed in the courtyard of the Colorado National Bank Bldg
But the possibility of corruption in the selection process is just another of my concerns with the DCCA, not the biggest. I know there is going to be favoritism, I know there is going to be cronyism, I know there is going to be an effort made by the committee members to bring pieces in that make Denver look just like all the other cities with public art programs (actually, the Seattlefication of Denver started long before the DCCA existed - that Robert Snelson piece above looks just like the one in San Diego, which looks a lot like the one in Baltimore, and it was installed in 1982).
No, my biggest gripe isn't the added costs to Capital Improvement Projects that the taxpayer has to bear twice (once when it's taken from taxes to pay for the project itself, and again when the project is finished and prices for everything the project sells, whether it's parking or gate fees, are raised to recoup some of the increase in the cost of construction).
I know you were thinking that had to be it, but no, it's something a tad more important.
As I mentioned at the getgo of this little diatribe, the Denver public art program is problematic for me on several levels.
Well, we are finally at the top level. My biggest concern is the inherent elitism in the existence of the DCCA. Why in the world should the arts warrant an allocation of 1% of taxpayers dollars when there are so many other better uses for the money?
Off the top of my head, here are a few 1% programs that would be more deserving of the funds:
1% for children with disabilities
1% for disabled Veterans
1% for the chronically homeless
1% for drug and alcohol rehabilitation
1% for scholarships for low-income students
1% for meals for at-risk seniors
1% for subsidized energy bills for low income families
1% for...well, almost anything dealing with humans
Why humans? Because I'm pro-human. Humans matter more than art. Sure, artists are human too...some of them.
Given enough time, I'm sure I could think of a few...hundred more better uses for the 1% than the arts. The point is, why should artists of any stripe have their own private pipeline to the people's money?
Why are artists of any discipline more deserving of it than any other demographic? Why are they more deserving of it than say, amateur model airplane enthusiasts? Or classic car rebuilders? Or cake bakers? Why do artists get tax dollar patronage and not beer-league softball players?
I've heard the argument that the government has a responsibility to encourage and develop culture in it's citizenry by directly supporting the development of artists in every area of the arts, and I call bull puckey.
A far stronger argument would be that the government has a responsibility to encourage and develop a sense of responsibility and mutual respect in it's citizenry by directly supporting the development of schools that teach personal responsibility and mutual respect.
Denver, and every other city in the United States, had plenty of culture before the existence of 1% for art programs. It was organic culture, created by the people who lived in a specific area and reflected their reaction to that specific environment.
It was not foisted on them by a government committee that "knew what was good for them."
The general population could directly benefit by the use of those tax dollars in thousands of different areas superior to the purchase of a forty foot tall distorted slinky.
Denver's art program is actually not even supporting many of Denver's own artists - more than half of the DCCA's dollars go to out of state artists and performers. When our tax dollars are paying for L.A. or NYC actors to come to Denver to stage a play, how is that supporting the local thespians? When artists in France, Maine or Oklahoma are awarded huge commissions how does that benefit local artists?
Yes, I realise that just a few paragraphs ago I was ranting that art was of the world, that art was universal, so how I can be upset that the DCCA is buying art from artists from all over the world?
Because Denver tax dollars do not belong to the world, they belong to the people of Denver and if the city of Denver is going to subsidize artists, they may as well subsidize the local artists who are creating art for the world.
Pegasus by Sandy Scott. Public art, private dollars. Paint it blue and enlarge it 10X though....
Art and the arts existed for millennia before any tax-dollar funded art program ever existed. A true artist will pursue his or her art at any cost, regardless of the sacrifices that will have to be made or the hardships endured.
Sacrifices such as getting a job, or producing good art that someone might want to buy.
If an artist is good, unless they live in total isolation, people will notice. If an artist is bad then they will suffer the same fate that befalls every single untalented or lesser talented person in every single field of endeavor, from Baseball players to Doctors. They either find something else to do or they starve.
Then they'll be in the same position as the less fortunates who are walking around Denver wishing there was a 1% to feed the homeless program.
No comments:
Post a Comment