Public Art Conference Archive—2003

Study Session: Examining Controversy
Friday, June 6, 2003 10:45–12:45

Presenters:
Peggy Kendellen, Regional Arts & Culture Council, Portland, Oregon
Karen Spahn, Greater Milwaukee Foundation, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Buster Simpson, Artist, Seattle Washington

Session Summary by Katrina Gilkey

Overview
This panel addressed three separate instances of public art projects that experienced controversy and were ultimately terminated or brought to litigation. In addition to detailing the trajectory of each project, and their individual experiences of them, the panelists discussed lessons learned and possible future tactics.

Peggy Kendellen
Percent for Art Project, Multnomah County Administration Building, Portland, OR

This project began with a traditional committee development process for a percent for art commission. One unique aspect from the start was the selection of the Chair of the County Board of Commissioners as the chairperson of the art selection committee. The project proceeded normally, with the review of 94 applications, narrowed to four semi-finalists (two from the Portland area, one from Washington state, and the fourth from Canada. Noel Harding, the Canadian artist, ultimately won the competition and proceeded to develop his proposal for a rooftop project, incorporating an earth mound, moving trees and a windmill. An ancillary project was being developed simultaneously by the county to install an adjacent green roof to accommodate storm water runoff. Initially, the environmental and sustainability issues of the art project were well received, though there was some controversy over the aesthetic qualities of the proposed windmill and practical issues related to the budget. Ultimately, a series of unforeseen developments derailed the project. Below is a list of the particular issues that impeded the project.

1. The departure of the County Board Chair to run for higher political office. The discovery that she had not nurtured support of the project among her peers on the Commission.
2. Increasing concern over the viability of the artist’s budget, maintenance issues of the piece once installed, and collaboration between the arts council and the county in maintenance and construction of the piece itself and the adjacent green roof.
3. Negative commentary from the press following a leak of information when the project was still under development and the county was not wholly supportive.
4. Concern by a minority that the artist was not American.
5. Complicated involvement of the Design Review Commission and interested parties, required because of the zoning circumstances of the building. The problems that arose from the Design Review process included
• concern about the windmill as an image and its considerable scale
• criticism from members of the American Institute of Architects
• concerns about long-term maintenance issues
• design criteria applied to art without concern for aesthetic details

The arts council countered the Design Review’s concerns with an appeal, arguingagainst applying architectural guidelines to art; that Portland themes and district themes were not the selection criteria for the public art; and that successful public art does not require that it be didactic or duplicative or integrated into its surroundings. In addition, Noel Harding was consistently willing to suggest alternative solutions to problems when they arose. These efforts did not ultimately save the project, however. Almost 3 years after the process began, the arts council chose to terminate the project, preferring to maintain curatorial control over the art selection process, rather than letting it become further mired in political and bureaucratic wrangling.

Currently, funds have been redirected to another site at the building’s entrance. A new committee has been convened, which includes multiple representatives from the County, but none who are elected officials.

Lessons Learned:

• perhaps it’s best not to have elected officials serve as panel chairs
• address and research maintenance issues early in a project’s development
• be proactive in communicating with the community – knowledge is power

Questions to Consider:

• should there be overlapping review responsibility if art is integral to architecture? In this case, who goes first? Who has the final word?
• How should the size of public artwork be regulated and by whom?

Karen Spahn
Mitchell International Airport, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Dennis Oppenheim’s Blue Shirt

Overview of Public Art in Milwaukee: Prior to the 1990s, public art was uncommon in Milwaukee. Interest grew in fits and starts, and in 2000, the county established a precent for art program, dedicating $100,000 in the first year, but providing no particular guidelines. Simultaneously, a $600,000 budget was set aside for public art at the airport, drawn from airline user fees. Administrators were given the task of developing a long term process for the county public art program, while they had to immediately implement a plan to use the $600,000 at the airport. The airport process proved to be a bugaboo. Independent of it, however, since the public art program was started in 2000, $1.2 million has been spent on 11 projects, 8 of which are complete, and 3 of which are still under way.

Overview of the Airport Project: Through a panel process, on which one county official sat but was non-voting, three finalists’ proposals were considered. Dennis Oppenheim submitted two proposals, one being that of the blue shirt, which was selected. Once his proposal became more widely known, it received a hostile reaction from the larger County board. Great resistance arose to the ‘blue collar’ associations raised by the design, an inadvertent stereotypic image of the working class, of which politicians were leery. Government resolutions were introduced to terminate the project and the entire public art program. In protest, project supporters placed a full page ad in the local paper, defending Oppenheim’s work and stressing the importance of taking risks in the 21st century. Oppenheim’s Blue Shirt was front page news for two weeks, with many politicians asserting a knowledge of art without attending to the concerns of the cultural community.

In the midst of the controversy, the project was delayed. Oppenheim offered to pay additional expenses as they arose, but also requested an extension to his contract when the process became bogged down. The County denied the request, accused Oppenheim of breach of contract and is now suing him for $165,000 he received. In response, Oppenheim is suing the County for $35,000 he believes is due to him. The controversy and lawsuits have raised innumerable issues, including the relationship between breach of contract and issues of free expression or censorship.

Lessons Learned:

1. The artist’s original model was not appropriately scaled; the blue shirt appeared proportionally larger than it would have been in reality, adding fuel to the resistance fire.
2. If extensions need to be requested, artists should ask for them well in advance of the actual project deadline.
3. Strong communication strategies need to exist, between collaborating partners, the press and the public.
4. Community input should be sought early-on in substantial projects such as the airport’s.
5. Stable staff support is fundamentally necessary when implementing major projects. In Milwaukee’s case, they relied solely on consultants.

Buster Simpson
Redevelopment for the Embarcadero, San Francisco, California

Simpson began his remarks by pointing out the important role that artists can play in contributing to civic projects. Not only do they add their aesthetic ideas but, because of their practical experience as artists, as fabricators, as people who have to abide by budgets and timelines of their own careers, they bring a lot of common sense and fiscal responsibility to the table. They are fresh voices in often-bureaucratic conversations, and are valuable in their capacity to recommend ideas that might not occur to the regular players in large, government­–sponsored projects.

Embarcadero Redevelopment

Simpson and William Maxwell were the artists who won an RFP (Request for Proposals) competition for the Design Team of San Francisco Embarcadero redevelopment project. The project emerged following the San Francisco earthquake that severely damaged much of the area where Market Street interfaces with the Ferry Terminal. Central to the reconfiguration of the district was the demolition of the highway that bisected it, and an attempt to make the Embarcadero more community and pedestrian friendly. As is typical of San Francisco, a great deal of importance was placed on having multiple facets of the community involved in the planning process. Many business and civic interests were involved, including the Port Authority, the Board of Public Works and City Center businesses. The design team was also a complex group, consisting of Roma Architects and additional consultants, as well as the artists. This amalgam of partnerships made progress very complicated and sometimes inefficient.

For his part, Simpson gradually developed an overall concept and a central sculptural component, which will be outlined below. He worked in good faith with his fellow collaborators, accommodating his siting desires to some architectural design concerns, but maintaining a clear vision of the symbolic purpose of his piece. However, a restless press demanded early information about his proposed sculpture and a visible controversy ensued between two papers arguing pro and con. As a result, the San Francisco Board of Commissioners ultimately vetoed his project in 1999.

Embark ~ Simpson’s proposal for the Embarcadero

As Simpson considered possibilities for a public artwork along the Embarcadero, he was particularly interested in the layers of history that cities and nations have the capacity to build up, break down and cover over. The demolition of the long controversial highway that bisected the Embarcadero was symbolic of that phenomena, while the location of the Embarcadero itself, at the far Western edge of the nation spoke to the transcontinental destinies of the many peoples who had settled in California. To celebrate the complex histories of the area, and to reflect on future possibilities, the artist proposed Embark, a large scale sculpture of a foot. As he described it in his artist statement for his proposed sculpture:

“Embark is a civic sculpture symbolizing a global stride. At the start of the new millennium. Embark suggests a new paradigm for journey. Reflecting and projecting aspiration, the sculpture stands on the bulkhead of San Francisco's Embarcadero, at the foot of Mission Street. The monument serves as a beacon to the bay and as an illuminative sculpture for the promenade.”

Simpson noted that the controversies surrounding his proposed sculpture largely occurred without his input. Media interest demanded an early look at the proposal, before Simpson had fully developed his concept. He was given limited opportunities to counter initial press and public skepticism, and the symbolism of his proposal was not fully aired. He also noted that, while his proposal generally received a positive consensus from the arts commission, artist peers, and public committees, the perspective of the Board of Supervisors was not as obvious, and Simpson was not able to be actively involved in defense of the proposal. He witnessed layers of internal governmental bickering, and was troubled by the fact that neither the Board of Supervisors nor members of the press engaged with him about the ideas of the project.

Post Presentation Discussion and Questions:

When asked about rumors of racial bias surrounding Embark, Simpson clarified that there was one claim made that the foot was degrading to minorities, but that it was immediately countered and did not gain credence.

Multiple questions were raised regarding how the media should be managed when dealing with controversial public art projects. Below is a list of responses:

• Limit formal response to the media, which will ultimately diminish the furor; don’t fan the flames of controversy (this was the method used in Portland.
• Make sure the arts commission can lobby in support of a project (this was not permitted in the case of the Embarcadero controversy)
• Give intelligent journalists scoops before information leaks in an unflattering way
• Provide a forum for discussion among interested parties, possibly in the form of a website
• Consider billboard promotions or magazine advertisements for projects
• Ensure that your organization has an organized PR plan, and a strategy for managing a crisis (Spahn noted that talk radio was especially difficult to manage in Milwaukee, and a strategy had not existed for dealing with this)
• Engage in pragmatic politics, behind the scenes. Make sure that important figures know about a project that may be controversial, before it reaches their desks unexpectedly.
• If an unexpected crisis occurs, and the art advocates don’t succeed, DON’T GIVE UP. Sometimes you just have to let the situation pass, and begin again.

Issues discussed related to Public Art Advocacy:

• There is an important need for advocacy and lobbying in defense of art
• Have a strong means of communication with the public about art
• Promote and facilitate public discussions within the arts community; include those who are not just the regular suspects
• Simpson noted that Seattle has a long-standing advocacy group (Artist Trust, 1-866-21Trust, or 206-467-8734) that may be a model for other cities.
• Emphasize the importance of arts education in public schools and other public contexts
• Promote good relations between art councils and other governmental agencies.