Undermining the CT Visual Art Collection 1% at a Time

Something that becomes suspiciously obvious in examining the shopping patterns used by the Connecticut Office of the Arts (COA) is the recent volume of Giclee print and Digital Photography acquisitions the CT Arts Collection is accumulating.

In my original Complaint to the CT Human Rights and Opportunities Commission (CHRO), one of my concerns is the very fact that the COA simply ignores requests for more information about how much money and where that money is spent. These are public funds being spent on public art - transparency seems like a reasonable ask.

Most fine art galleries will not allow giclee prints into juried shows and with rare exception giclee and digital prints are considered risky investments as fine art (and there's a broad range of concern) but as casual decorative pieces they're acceptable. The question is (and its an important one), "Should the permanent collection of a State's taxpayer funded Visual Arts Collection be collecting inexplicably large volumes of these risky prints instead of buying the actual art pieces themselves?"

Furthermore, why are the most expensive acquisitions of art awarded to out of State artists instead of CT artists as written into law? This purchasing practice of buying inexpensive (and potentially worthless prints) by CT artists to create larger cash reserves for buying art-world-darling or aren't-we-ever-so-tasteful pieces surreptitiously is disturbing to say the least.

First, CT artists are getting short-changed in the small change 1% set aside AND getting misrepresented in the CT State Collection itself. Eastern CT artists are being erased as ever having existed thanks to the dysfunction of the COA to fairly ensure that all art that is submitted to State Call(s) for Art are given consideration. Everyone deserves better Arts administration than this.

Something that I hope to accomplish in my CHRO complaint resolution is that the CT Permanent Collection be inventoried by a tbd group of art lovers to be sure that whatever damage has been done is identified and safeguards are introduced going forward.

Secondly, whoever is judging the acquisition of new art needs to first have a reasonable sense of the scope of the existing Collection to reduce redundancy and ensure a rich, broad representation of CT artist's work and this means in no uncertain terms that 1% purchases of Art exhaust every potential, eligible CT artists before an out of State purchase is considered.

The acquisition of Giclee prints, digital photos, and temporally challenged art pieces needs to be rare and more compelling than nepotistic advocacy.

see: (ask an AI agent of your choice, "What are the various techniques that poorly managed State Arts organizations use to undermine the quality of State Visual Arts Collections?")

see: P0rn, G@mblin', and Cruel and Unusual Art Money Laundering Techniques