I think the much of the history of public monies for public art has been invested in long-term investments for tourism purposes - creating the identity of a place. So...this particular concern has not arisen much. Major funding for public art projects rooted the identity of a place.
Interestingly, another painting by Kerry James Marshal that had been sold (for $25,000) to Chicago's McCormick Place (a complicated private/public entity) in 1997 was sold earlier this year for $21M, the most money every paid for the work of a living artist. It had not been purchased with public money, and was exhibited in a public, but tightly controlled space. Last I saw of this was that it be replaced by a digital version of the same piece. Not exactly clear what the money will be spent on.
Given the complications of maintenance/protection of such an important work (as the library piece)...and because we live in an increasingly digital work where our experiences of art (and life) are often seen, without being directly in front of the work, I can see the value of having the ability to transfer ownership.
And...as has been noted...the profit from such a move should be used to strengthen the specific communities in which the work was held. This would result in (perhaps long) conversations about local need. It should not be a process that makes politicians or public art administrators particularly happy - unless their happiness is derived from the enrichment of impoverished communities based on complicated and difficult conversations.
Jon Pounds
He Who Was Once...And Is Now
On 10/2/18 10:48 AM, Bloom, Roberta wrote:
This issue over who profits from the sale of public artworks in private development is very concerning, and is not addressed within the context of the two art in private development ordinances that I oversee. This is definitely something to consider.
Roberta
Roberta Bloom, Public Art Coordinator
Department of Library and Cultural Services | City of Aurora
14949 E. Alameda Pkwy., Aurora, CO 80012
office 303.739.6747
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | Nextdoor | AuroraTV.org
From: public_art_network@americansforthearts.simplelists.com [mailto:public_art_network@americansforthearts.simplelists.com] On Behalf Of Sarah Conley Odenkirk
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2018 11:31 PM
To: Sallyann Kluz <skluz@pittsburghartscouncil.org>; public_art_network@americansforthearts.simplelists.com
Subject: Re: Chicago to sell Kerry James Marshall's "Knowledge & Wonder" for funds for library?
This is a complex issue with many considerations of course. It is a shame that the public will probably no longer have the benefit of being able to see this Marshall work especially because he is a Chicago artist who has become so important important internationally. Though, while probably not easily portable, this is a particularly valuable asset that may not be secured and/or cared for as carefully in the library as its stature and value warrant. I think what is of primary importance here is that there is honest and serious consideration given to the underlying goals of the public art program. If the sale of this asset can go to sustain many more services, art and engagements in the community for which the work was originally commissioned, this is a noble and valuable goal that is in line with what most programs aim to achieve.
The more concerning situations are those where private parties are enriched from the sale of work originally intended for the public benefit as in the situation we saw in LA earlier this year. Two sculptures, a Miro and a DuBuffet, were sold by the private property owners for an expected profit of around $10M. There is no requirement that the profits be reinvested in the sites so the public loses two treasures and gets absolutely nothing to replace them. The private sale of the works also seems diametrically opposed to what the public art in private development programs are designed to provide to the public.
Both of these situations, however, emphasize the need to think about the future of public art and consider consequences in the deaccessioning process. Prospectively crafting both the goals of public art programs as well as thinking through maintenance, conservation and deaccession policies is key to being able to approach these situations with a clearer idea of what is truly in the best interest of the stakeholders.
Thanks for raising this issue, Sallyann—it’s really an important discussion!
Sarah Conley Odenkirk
Art Attorney | Founder
This E-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this E-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this E-mail in error, please immediately notify me at the number above and destroy the original and any printout thereof.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE. Pursuant to requirements related to practice before the Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of (i) avoiding penalties imposed under the United States Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any tax-related matter.
On October 1, 2018 at 8:00:19 PM, Sallyann Kluz (skluz@pittsburghartscouncil.org) wrote:
Hello PAN listserv:
Has anyone been following this? Apparently, the City of Chicago has decided to sell the painting, commissioned for this branch in 1995 for $10,000 via the Percent for Art program, to create funds to renovate and improve the library branch (much needed), and establish a permanent public art fund for art in low-income communities (the Rahm Emanuel and Amy Rule Public Art Fund, in fact). Article from the Tribune here. It is estimated that the painting will now fetch between $10 - 20 million at auction with Christie's in NYC.
I am very interested in others thoughts on this. I have a pretty strong opinion, but I'll hold off right now.
Sallyann
Sallyann Kluz
Director for the Office of Public Art
GREATER PITTSBURGH ARTS COUNCIL
810 Penn Avenue, 6th Floor
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
tel 412.391.2060 x251 | fax 412.394.4280
Artists: see you on October 14 at the Artist Resource Fair! Free and open to all.To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://archives.simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://archives.simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://archives.simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=tbXEi31yXoLeIKyxuQf3IfRpmOsPYgIK