Sharon Louden at Yahoo Headquarters: New Lawn and Louden’s grasses
In the last month, the arts blogasphere including Artsjournal.com has been buzzing with the damage and lawsuits regarding two landscapes: “Wildflower Works” by Chapman Kelley in Chicago and “Reflecting Tips” by Sharon Louden in Sunnyvale, California. The basic information and newsclippings are at Edward Winkleman’s Blog. The best articles are by John Auturo at CAC Discussion (Kelley) and by Kelly Crow at the Wall Street Journal (Louden).
In both cases, practical fuzzy rationale by the landowners, City of Chicago and Yahoo, led to the modifications in the works. The owners implied that Chicago needed a place for Frank Gehry’s pedestrian bridge to terminate and Yahoo needed to comply with the “cut lawn” ordinances on Sunnyvale. – Both are untrue, but sound accurate. When you look a little farther, the situation returns to one powerful person that doesn’t “like” the art or sees no reason why it can’t be modified to meet current needs. Or frequently does not recognize the plants as art or part of the artwork. The room of assistants and project manager’s are usually silent. Calling the artist is usually considered a big public relations’ risk. Better to deal with the situation later.
Well, 75 year-old Chapman Kelley took the City of Chicago to court and won under the Federal VARA (Visual Artists Rights Act) statue. Destruction of an artwork requires consideration and is not an absolute right of ownership. This is huge step for VARA as the previous VARA lawsuit regarding site design failed in Boston. In 2003, artist David Phillips sued Fidelity Investments for modifying his site design for Eastport Park on the south Boston Waterfront. Phillips’ bronze and stone sculptural elements were preserved, but not the site relationships. The judge held that only the indepentent sculptures were protected by VARA. (See below for links). Loudon has not taken legal action.
In addition to the legal issues, the situations interest me due to the common artistic sensibilities of Kelley and Louden, the common city “Green” building ambitions and the failure to recognize site -but especially plants – as integral to the artwork.
Kelley and Louden could be father and daughter ( 75 and around 40) working in the materials of their respective times. They seem born with the same sensibility for standing on the edge between delicate and permanent and the flucuating and stable. The Chicago and Yahoo works are their only outdoor commissions as Kelley is an oil painter and Louden an installation and video artist. When creating, they both relied on plants for the fragility of the present, the messily of the order and the energy of annual rebirth.
Louden and Kelley: Daughter and Father????
Louden and Kelley: Daughter and Father????
Louden and Kelley: Daughter and Father????
The city government of Chicago touts itself as the number one major “Green” city in America and Sunnyvale has begun to incorporate green attributes into its civic efforts. Yet in both works, the cities destroyed drought tolerate landscapes and replaced them with thirtsy lawns. In the comparitive pictures of Kelley sketch and a tower photo of the new Frank Gehry theater and pedestrian bridge, the city replaced the wildflowers with lawn and manicured flowers. Sunnyvale’s muncipal code requires “water conserving plants shall be installed in 70% of all landscaped areas” and the drought tolerate grass are in front of the Yahoo sign. But still our culture inside the cities or suburbs cannot accept the “look” of the native landscape of messy grass or flowers from the hills above Silicon Valley or the prairies of Illinois. The lawn remains the dignified vision for civic spaces and corporate headquarters.
Drought tolerant plants at Yahoo sign and native landscape grasses.
After so many years and an assumed understanding within the museum artworld, landscape and site is still not part of the common perception of art. The “object” rules the preconception as can seen in Yahoo’s protection of Louden’s reflectors and Fidelity’s respect for Phillips’ objects. Honoring a site requires a sensibility from an owner of property that even architects and landscape architects rarely see and that almost never transfers to a new owner. At least one judge – David H. Coar – respected the landscape as art. But I don’t know he felt the space with its order and objects introduced by the artist. This may be a futile dream in a world of that eliminates more public ownership everyday and solidifies land as personal property, no matter how public.
Chapman Kelley Watercolor of 1984 Concept for Wildflower
Recent photo with Gehry theater and bridge. Note the continued ovals.
LINKS FOR DAVID PHILLIPS VARA LAWSUIT
Start with Holtz-Kay essay.
Jane Holtz Kay Essay
US Curcuit Court of Appeal Opinion
Mass Court Opinion
Halvorson Design, Landscape Design
David Phillips
Pembroke Real Estate
Boston University Arts Administration Newsletter
Phillips Photograph of Orginal Work
Digg it…Del.icio.us …Technorati…Stumble Upon..Reddit
Maybe I am missing the whole issue but my question goes to how and where do you draw the line? Unless one wants to use a strictly formal method to define a work of “art” such as “Paid for by an Arts Budget” I don’t see how we would define either an “artist” or a “work of art.”
Suppose a “certified artist” creates a landscape and it thus qualifies as a “work of art.” But it’s not really very popular nor in the opinion of most people, including the landscape’s owner, not a very good work. What then? Just because it is created by an “artist” could hardly mean that it cannot be changed, modified, sold etc etc — at least in my view it seems impractical and wrong. How one deals with acknowledged “classics” I don’t know because I agree that there is a social claim on a work by El Greco or Monet etc. which should preclude destroying or modifying it. And yes, certain landscapes are of such great value that it is OK by me to prevent people from destroying them.
But stepping back from the extremes, I just don’t see how we distinguish between “art” and “landscape.”