Jon Lender: $480K For Blocks Of Color On UConn Lobby's Wall
Jon explains:
The late Connecticut artist Sol LeWitt's "Wall Drawing #867" blares its bright blocks of color at passersby from the glass lobby of UConn's new Innovation Partnership Building.-snip-
Moreover, the $480,000 artwork was installed amid the flames of the state government’s final descent into budget hell last year. Great timing, right?Here let me simply interject a few thoughts. First, the State is not "in hell" because of its arts community. Along this line of thought, it also occurs to me that true investments in arts in fact are exactly what the State needs more of.
Why an expense like this at a time like that?
The explanation dates back 40 years to 1978 when the state legislature passed a law creating Connecticut’s Art In Public Spaces (AIPS) program — with a requirement that at least 1 percent of the state-bonded cost for construction or renovation of a publicly accessible state building be spent on artwork to be located there.
That requirement — intended “to provide the citizens of Connecticut with an improved public environment by investing in creative works of high quality” — applied to this project “because funding for construction … was approved by the State Bond Commission,” university spokeswoman Stephanie Reitz told Government Watch.
But is this the kind of thing you can afford when you’re in hell?
Also timing is irrelevant. This is both law and a legitimate business practice (assuming its legitimately exercised).
Secondly, I want to revisit the quality of the acquisition as we further explore the story points.
Lender goes on to point out that:
It turns out that the General Assembly has recently decided the answer is no — at least for two years. In the throes of their protracted deliberations of 2017, lawmakers put language in their budget bill saying that the bond commission “shall not allocate any percentage” of funds that it approves for such projects “commenced on or after Jan. 1, 2018, until Jan. 1, 2020” for works of art.Wait. WHAT!
The General Assembly did what!
Yeah. They did. They cut out one of the Arts funds in the State WOW! That must have upset the CT Arts community!
You're not going to believe what Lender reports next.
The need for the Innovation Partnership Building to still comply with the AIPS program has caused mixed feelings at UConn, Reitz said.
“UConn is a -snip blah, blah, blah - "
“At the same time,” Reitz said, “the university is relieved that this provision was removed from state law, as it arbitrarily mandated that substantial funds had to be diverted from projects such as this one to satisfy the requirement. Whether it was this specific [LeWitt] work, another individual piece, or a dozen smaller works, spending 1 percent of the overall construction cost on public art … was a mandate, rather than a choice."
A few more thoughts come to mind here.
UConn does not speak for the Arts community. Why UCONN administrators ever had control over this money or its proper award is a very big question given their seedy history.
It also occurs to me that positions such as Reitz's ARE THE FIRST PLACE TO CUT FUNDS. In an institution that - let's pretend - values knowledge cannot possibly seriously complain that Art is a MANDATE.
I cannot begin to tell you how angry this rhetoric makes me. There are no words for this moronic response.
And it just doesn't end... they claim there's an upside! No not what you think, just spending it on anything other than art...
With the requirement now gone, UConn and other state agencies can save money or devote part of projects' costs to “other aspects of the facilities,” Reitz said. For example, she said, the new UConn building “is a major research facility that is home to important partnerships between UConn and the private sector. In this case, a portion of these funds could have been used to fund laboratory space and research equipment, in addition to public art.”Under the AIPS program, the choice of an artist is made by a committee including the project architect, building users and arts professionals. In this case, Reitz said, “the specific piece was selected both because of its creator’s Connecticut roots, and because it was in keeping with the design of the [building] and its prominent location as one of the first features that many see on campus as they enter on Discovery Drive.”
SO. You're telling me that they spent 98% of the money on space that ISN"T laboratory space? Furthermore, building funds would get used like a pizza party stash to buy esoteric "research" equipment. Gee, fuck art.
Where Lender's article also fails is in pointing out that the committee that authorized the Lewitt buy should not only be named but held accountable to Connecticut artists. Lender's article goes on to explain Lewitt the artist.
IMO, Lewitt's work is not representative of 21st century Contemporary Art and, in fact, is antithetical to the expressed purpose of the buildings program. Lewitt's wall drawings that amount to spirograph-like drawing specifications are both an artifact of the 1960s AND their shelf-life has expired. These drawings have been way over-exposed and there's an artistic fatigue that sets in with museums that over-expose his work (think MASS MOCA).
A space dedicated to Innovation Partnerships should have had art that IS innovative and not was innovative say 70 years ago. This purchase has the smell of money laundering and insider trading. The money is not supporting CT artists (who need both the money and the exposure), it is going to NY gallerists, holding companies, lawyers, and likely special interests having to do with the building in the first place.
Misappropriated funds cannot be an excuse to extinguish an arts funding stream in CT. Rather it needs to be restored and its administration given to an independent body outside of UCONN and outside of the current, miserable State administration.
Fundamental, to its distribution must be that practicing CT resident artists - who pay taxes, who suffer under this worthless State government, and who contribute far more to the economy than superfluous administrators should be nurtured, NOT IGNORED.
IMO, Lewitt's work is not representative of 21st century Contemporary Art and, in fact, is antithetical to the expressed purpose of the buildings program. Lewitt's wall drawings that amount to spirograph-like drawing specifications are both an artifact of the 1960s AND their shelf-life has expired. These drawings have been way over-exposed and there's an artistic fatigue that sets in with museums that over-expose his work (think MASS MOCA).
A space dedicated to Innovation Partnerships should have had art that IS innovative and not was innovative say 70 years ago. This purchase has the smell of money laundering and insider trading. The money is not supporting CT artists (who need both the money and the exposure), it is going to NY gallerists, holding companies, lawyers, and likely special interests having to do with the building in the first place.
Misappropriated funds cannot be an excuse to extinguish an arts funding stream in CT. Rather it needs to be restored and its administration given to an independent body outside of UCONN and outside of the current, miserable State administration.
Fundamental, to its distribution must be that practicing CT resident artists - who pay taxes, who suffer under this worthless State government, and who contribute far more to the economy than superfluous administrators should be nurtured, NOT IGNORED.
Ironic Note: UCONN just held a STEAM forum in April:
Looks more like they are not only losing STEAM but pissing on the 'A' as they go.
No comments:
Post a Comment