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
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!
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:
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 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
