The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Wow, our City Councilors are more well-rounded than I imagined!  I had no idea that they were such Art Aficianados!  

"This is probably the ugliest thing I've ever seen in my life." - Henderson

"I like Councilor Henderson's ability to cut to the chase, and I completely agree with him." - Mautino

"I think it's great that we have the 1 percent for art. But maybe there are other options, like a statue or a painting or something else." - Barnes

"In these tight times, with city employees being laid off, can we afford to do this right now? I don't think so." - Turner

What's all the hubaloo about?  Bringing an internationally recognized artist to Tulsa to create public art on the exterior of the Convention Center.  (Maybe THAT was what Henderson was referring to...the original architecture?)

The artist, Sarah Morris has developed site-specific projects for institutions internationally over the past 10 years, including commissions at K20 Kunstsammlung Nordrhein-Westfalen Museum, Düsseldorf (2010), Gateway School of Science, New York (2010), Museum für Moderne Kunst, Frankfurt (2009), Museo d’Arte Moderna, Bologna (2009), Fondation Beyeler, Riehen/Basel (2008), Public Art Fund/Lever House (2006), Key Biscayne, Miami (2005), Palais de Tokyo (2005), UBS Zurich Headquarters (2001) and ICA Boston (1999).

She has exhibited widely—at Museum für Moderne Kunst, Frankfurt (2009), Museo d’Arte Moderna, Bologna (2009), Fondation Beyeler, Riehan/Basel (2008), Städtische Galerie im Lenbachhaus, Munich (2008), Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, Rotterdam (2006), Moderna Museet, Stockholm (2005), Palais de Tokyo, Paris (2005), Kestner Gesellschaft, Hannover (2005), Kunstforeningen, Copenhagen (2004), Miami MOCA (2002), Hirshhorn Museum, Washington, D.C. (2002), and Nationalgalerie im Hamburger Bahnhof, Berlin (2001), among others.

Here are some images that give an idea of her work...

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&oq=&q=Sarah+Morris&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=UaVsS97tBZHcNsSKrNkE&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CCAQsAQwAw (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&oq=&q=Sarah+Morris&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=UaVsS97tBZHcNsSKrNkE&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CCAQsAQwAw)

Oh, and a great interview with Ken Busby of the Arts and Humanities Council on KWGS "Studio Tulsa."
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kwgs/news.newsmain/article/0/1/1607334/StudioTulsa/Public.Art.in.Tulsa.A.New.Controversy (http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kwgs/news.newsmain/article/0/1/1607334/StudioTulsa/Public.Art.in.Tulsa.A.New.Controversy)

If this constitutes "controversial" art in Tulsa, I am scared.  Very scared!  No wonder our public art is typically so stodgy and boring!

I was very pleased that the councilors spoke up. I don't think anyone is more qualified to speak about art anymore than anyone else, but part of the reason we need art in our life is to spur strong feelings and conversations about art. The pictures they were shown couldn't possibly have truly captured the artist's image nor the final product, but were enough to begin the talking.

Ken did a great job restraining himself while talking to the councilors at their Tuesday meeting as well.
 

Pictures on Google are OK but nothing that really grabs me and screams yes I gotta have this. 

My first reaction was.... Yikes! thats a lot of money for something that looks like that!  But then after seeing some of her other work in prominent places and museums, I started to get some "context" and began looking at this project in another light.

  When your not in the art world or familiar with an artist and their works, at first glance a lot of art may appear like... "soooo what!? I could do that!"  Heck, even some of the most revered artists of the past Michelangelo, werent the best artists of their day. There were undoubtedly plenty of artists who were much better. They just didnt get the big jobs, the famous jobs, and or not enough of their works survived, they didnt get the "name".  Its not just about quality or likability, or the ability to do something (any artist worth their salt could now paint in the style of Michelangelo, no big deal, easy breezy....I could do that. )  But for an artist to BOTH have an accomplished style that is "theirs" AND to have it be well known, Thats one facet of what can give a piece of art its worth.

Another thing about the "language and reading of art" is context.... I am sure you have all seen art that is basically a sculptural "blob".  The first time one sees this form your likely to go... "What!? I dont get it!?"  

 You can get the most from art, a particular form of art, when you see it in the context of others of its kind.  It speaks to you more clearly when you can compare and contrast it to similar works.  A Madonna and Child painting may be pretty, but you can really get what the artist is saying, the history and time of when the artist lived, their view of the world and so much more when you look at lots of them side by side.  For then the DIFFERENCES become apparent, differences you would not see if you did not have the others to compare to, and its these differences that say something. You notice the clothing is different,,,why? The child looking to or away, the hand held this way or that, why did the artist put this or that object in the background, this one is light and airy, this one dark, this one partly nude, etc. etc.  

You get far more of what the artist is saying, what history is saying, by noticing the similarities and differences by comparing and contrasting similar works.  Without this kind of context, you have to understand that your viewpoint is going to be much more shallow and limited.

Back to the "blobs"... There is infinity in what the artist can say, even within the most simple of forms.  This blob is carved out of black granite and is low and very solid looking. Another is light colored and flowing, perhaps with a little blob broken off and sliding away.  And so on. Today we see lots of shiny, silvery, blobs lol. Your more likely to "get it" to get these shapes meanings, emotions, time and place, when you know how to read the language of its contexts.   And the more you learn, the more you can understand and see the different meanings, what it is the artist and history is saying, etc.  And all of this will of course be affected by the viewer and his or her own history and context.

Looking at that rendering of the tiled wall wont tell you as much as it would if you had the artists other works to compare it to,  similar works by other artists in different times and places, etc.  

Art can also be like learning to read works of writing.  First its the languages alphabet, then individual words, then perhaps learning a cute rhyming poem, then growing to understand the complexities and multiple meanings of each word and line in a shakespearean sonnet, or perhaps the joy of the many meanings found in a simple haikou... You cant understand or appreciate any of the latter if you didnt first learn the languages alphabet.  The different; types, forms, languages of art in sculpture and painting, can also be that way.  There are many languages, a line written in Chinese or Sanskrit may look like unintelligible chicken scratch, but we cant get its meaning unless we learn to read it,,, or we can take the word of someone else who has studied the language and let them tell us us what they think the meaning is or whether its good art or bad.

One person may look at a piece of art and not know its alphabet or language and see nothing and judge it to be gibberish, while someone who has studied that particular art forms language may see a LOT.  Not all art can or should be of the same kind, or at the same "grade level".  And even like written stories or poems, nor will we all agree about what its saying or whether we like it.

(http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/4015/t066769.jpg)

(http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/4533/showpopupimage.jpg)

(http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/1788/motherandchildmarble20x.jpg)

(http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/1916/2006at8379.jpg)

I am willing to bet, that if more people were to take the time to learn the "language" history and context of this particular piece of art, they would find much to appreciate.  They would see more than gibberish and find their lives richer for having done so.

I have to disagree with you RM. Why bring art appreciation down to the level of a city councilor or a plumber or a creatively challenged businessman? It is tantamount to saying that anyone is no more qualified to discuss engineering and physics than anyone else.

It is a discipline that suffers from a lack of respect simply because it is so visible and seemingly easy. In fact, we often see untrained artists and entertainers do spectacular work and think it must be some genetic gift or spiritual gift. It is in fact usually the result of focus, enlightenment and very hard, disciplined work ethics. Artist has expressed that understanding very well.

I would trust my home to be designed and built by architects and engineers. I would trust my banker to help me figure out the best financing methods. I would trust my councilors to make sure my neighborhood is well protected. But I wouldn't dare let them aid me in the choice of my artwork.

At first I found her work reminiscent of the geodesic designs we scratched on to our notebooks when I was in high school. Kind of mod?? But as I perused the other pages I started to see them differently. I would be interested to see what Hometown has to say as well.

Henderson wasn't referring to the original architecture, he was referring what she wants to do with the new ballroom of the convention center:

(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2009/20091023_convart1023.jpg)

While I'm all for bringing in cool, recognized artists, this looks like a patio table from home depot.

Agreed....iconography can really ad to a city's public building area....don't tell Buzz bee. Apparently, he has no clue regarding iconography.

I will admit to being artistically challenged.  I can look at something and say so what.  Doesn't mean it's bad art but I still don't appreciate it.

I am a mechanical engineer.  Pretty much anyone who ever made anything mechanical thinks they can be a mechanical engineer.  They are usually wrong. How many people could look at something that I made .100" thick instead of .125" thick and appreciate the difference?  How many people are willing to get the education to know the difference.  Who cares? 

I know I am not an artist.  I have (to me) more important things to do than learn to appreciate (to me) obscure art.  If you enjoy it fine.

Speaking of engineering and art... I am sure most of us have seen the robotic fish, but have you seen these?

First videos are of flying, robot penguins. They are not on strings or controlled by a person, and fly totally autonimously.  They can sense and learn their environment .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPGgl5VH5go&feature=related

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff9F0qzxUtg

Flying, robotic, air jellyfish....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_citFkSNtk&feature=related

aqua and air jellies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSTJVnf5nyA&feature=related

Pretty slick.  Even I can appreciate that.

This one reminds me very much of a sculpture done by one of my sister's ex-boyfriends. He was obsessed with male genitalia. I could go on, but I doubt anybody is much interested in his nutty linoleum carvings, no matter how 5th grade snickery I make it.

I was impressed by the artist's comments about Tulsa's Civic Center when I read an interview with her in the Tulsa World a couple of months back.  Her first comments focused on paying homage to the architect of the Convention Center.  She said that architect was seeing a revival of interest in his buildings and that among other buildings he had created the Kennedy Center.  I thought, why do I have to leave town to find someone that appreciates our classic Mid-Century Modern Convention Center?
 
Apparently there were professionals involved in selecting her work because her work does reflect currents in contemporary art.   She's the kind of artist you might find in an art history book and you would certainly find her in mainstream art periodicals of our day.  

I can reconcile myself to a lot of things I'm not crazy about in Tulsa but I'll never reconcile myself to the amateur animal decorations I see all around town.  The councilors probably would have taken a liking to depictions of animals.

I don't think our City Council should be involved in deciding what constitutes "good" art.  For one, they weren't even judging an actual work of art...just a computer generated mock up.  They didn't see the actual installation with the real materials...not fair.  (I didn't like the BOK Center until I saw it in real life.  So different from the little models and photos that were shown in the paper.)

We know that they hate abstract art, but I think they might discover controversy wherever they look.  Imagine them travelling around Italy.  They'd have to remove all the public art b/c of nudity and offensiveness.  "The Rape of the Sabine Women," for instance...totally inappropriate!  (nudity!  violence!!)  All those gods and goddesses!  (False dieties AND nudity!)  The statue of David needs a fig leaf!  Sensual swans!  Half men, half goats, oh my!  NatureWorks to the rescue!  (Art by committee: bland, unimaginative and lacking originality, but inoffensive to sleepwalkers.)

I don't love Jackson Pollock, but I wouldn't mind having one of his famous paintings in Tulsa.  Same thing for Piet Mondrian.  Why not be open to diversity?  A little something for everyone.  (Right now, when it comes to public art, we have an artistic monoculture--Natureworks!--sort of like driving through hundreds of miles of wheat fields: boring and appealling only to a limited audience!)

Let's be open-minded enough to offer something for everyone.  (A diverse, well-rounded city is economically more viable than a one-trick horse.)

Oh, by the way...although many people are not fans of modern/abstract art, many others are.  A study was conducted to estimate the economic impact of The Museum of Modern art on NYC's economy.  From 2004-2007, the economic impact was estimated to be $2 billion.

That's billion with a B.  Not bad for a museum that shows all that "ugly" art. 

Granted, none of our councilors is known as an avid art collector or credible critic.

It might be simply the councilors polled are concerned about how it looks spending a chunk of money on an outside artist during a budget crunch, right after 131 or how many ever cops were just laid off.  The four councilors quoted represent districts with some sketchy areas in terms of crime.  I don't think Henderson is the sharpest knife in the drawer, and I consider Roscoe to be a friend but he's not as sharp as he used to be. 

Art doesn't seem like much of a priority to a lot of citizens when we are cutting on public safety.  Besides, I happen to know a very good local muralist who could use the income right now.  ;)

Just to be clear:  you can't use the "1% for art" money for anything but public art. 
The “one percent for art” ordinance stipulates that one percent of all construction costs for a public facility be dedicated to the purchase of art for that building. 

I suppose you could fail to collect it and, thus, NOT use it for art... but you couldn't collect it and use it to fund something else.  It's completely irrelevent to Tulsa's budget woes...except that high quality public art can be an asset to a city that wants to improve its quality of life, increase tourism, and be more appealing to people considering moving here.

Tulsa was one of the first cities in the nation to implement the "one percent for art" concept (back in 1969).  Since then, our ordinance has been used as a model for countless other cities throughout the nation.

Ponder, I'm quite well aware of that fact.

It simply becomes a bad PR issue with people who don't understand how our laws and ordinances work, especially when they can't get anyone to respond to the crack house down the street because the street crimes unit has been hog-tied due to lack of funding for public safety. 

I'm sure in a weird you've read the reader comments section of the Tulsa World on any number of wide-ranging issues.  That's the kind of mentality we are dealing with here.  I think the councilors are worried it's sending the wrong message about our fiscal priorities to their constituents, full well knowing about the 1% ordinance.  That's all I'm saying.

The city has a serious PR problem right now, no one can deny that.

Off on a tangent...

I rarely read the TW online comments section.  Doesn't seem like a valid source of useful information.  Plus, it's too depressing, and you start to get a really twisted view of our citizenry.  There are just too many unhappy drunks sitting around in skid-marked underwear whipping off their incoherent "comments."    Unfortunately, when you make it too easy to comment, especially anonymously, the quality of the debate goes down the tube.  (Much like some of the threads on the TN Forum...which is too bad b/c there are many smart, rational people who would participate, but they get turned off by the crapola...)

I think that "in the good old days" before the TW had an online comments section, drunk and frenzied people probably started writing letters to the editor, but didn't have the persistance to actually type it, look up the address, find an envelope, buy the stamp, and put it in the mail.  The process itself was a filter.  It wasn't a 30 second endeavor; it took time.  By the time they had something ready to mail, the wackos had either sobered up or cooled off.  But in the instantaneous, knee-jerk reaction world of the internet, you don't get that much time to put things in perspective.

I hope our elected officials don't waste too much energy reacting to the TW comments section.  I think that (with a few exceptions) it offers a view of the fringes, the overly hysterical and the drunks, but often fails to represent the majority of Tulsans.  Most of the time, I read the TW online comments to discover how the facts are being twisted, warped and misunderstood by a certain segment of the population.  But that's about it.

If I want to see a (somewhat) rational debate, I'll read the TN Forum...and then I mainly read the comments of rational people whose opinion I value.  I skim and/or skip the rest.

(I always read Conan...)  ;)

I think that in order for something to be called art it is has to look like it take actual talent to make it. Some crap that looks like a 3 year old made it should not be considered. Nor should some crap that look like some drunk idiot welded together should be considered art(like that piece of crap at that new parking garage near the BOK center) be considered art.Tax payers shouldn't be footing the bill for any artwork regardless if it some piece of crap that looks like some little kid did it or something that actually looks like it took real talent to make, art is not a necessity.

Do you speak from experience?  :D

WHAT!?  What do you mean taxpayers shouldnt be footing the bill for art?  It was the damned taxpayers who voted and said they wanted to do just that.  Why is it when people vote for something YOU dont want, somehow, magically, in your mind, everyone else doesnt or shouldnt want it either? Thats friggin odd lol.  I dont think you have a clue as to how democracy and republicanism works or something?  We cant possibly all get everything we want all the time.  Its the governments job to do what WE, the voters, tell it to do. Is there some clause in our constitution, state, city, federal,,, that says the government is only supposed to do things that are considered a "necessity"?  I aint seen it.  I thought it was there to do what we wanted it to do, necessity or not.  If we (the voters ) say we want every taxpayer funded building to be covered in cream puffs and glitter, it had danged well better do that lol. And in this instance, WE told it WE wanted art lol.  

Sic 'em Artist!

It is a unnecessary expense.


 

I do not remember voting for the city to buy art,especially garbage under the guise of art..



Are you one of those frauds posing as a artist whom the city buys your garbage from?

Are you one of those teenagers posing as an adult whom spews your garbage here?

  OH!  Ya got me!  My cover is blown.  Whateeeever will I do!  

At any moment all those hundreds and hundreds of clients, over two decades worth, will realize they have been had!  They will realize that I have been a "poser" all this time.  All talk and no talent of any sort.  They didnt actually like my stuff, it was just me pulling the wool over their eyes, making them belieeeeeve they liked it.  Mwuhaaahaaahaaaa!  How foolishly all those people parted with their hard earned money.  I should be ashamed  :'(.  Oh and those poor Mayfest people sayin my posters sold the next highest number of anyone and were surprised because I wasnt "well known or famous".  Silly people, they only sold that many because it was a heist, a carefully crafted flamboozle in which I POSED as an artist and thus THAT was the only reason people bought them.  Oh, and all those repeat clients and "word of mouth" clients.... suckers all, got em wrapped around my Pooosing little finger.  Them having me work for them and paying me isnt in the least an indication of any artistic talent whatsoever, no no no noooooo its puuuurely my ability to sweet talk and swindle them into the whoooole thing. Poooosing is my game, Artist was just a name.  Yep, ya got me.  Not a lick of talent. I might as well pack it up and move on to the next town. Nobody will buy any of my stuff now that you have revealed my secret.  Sorry folks, nothing to see here, not an artist at all, was just "posing".   ;)
  

Hey, to pull the wool over the eyes of that many people for that many years takes talent.  Don't sell yourself short.  Good Luck in the next town.   ;D

Seems kind of funny how you would get your panties in a bunch over someone saying that tax payer funds should not be used to buy frivolous things are art especially garbage under the guise of art.Are you one of those frauds posing as artist whom the city buys garbage from or at least one of those artist whom the city buys art from?

Get a repairman, Jamesrage is stuck on repeat.

(http://www.memphismemories.org/Topics/Radio_TV/1960s_Network_TV/Linkletter.jpg)

"Why do the Tulsa City Councilors hate me so?"

Maybe I'm being provincial, but I like the Nature Works sculptures.  Would somebody clue me in as to why they're so derided?

As for the work in discussion, any well-done art is far better than a blank wall.

I think the picture grizzle posted looks awful on a building.  Just have TheArtist do something on the whole building.  There, problem solved.

Lets say your being "provincial"... so what?   The city should have art for all kinds of people.  Rich, poor, young, old, provincial or "central" all kinds of people live in and contribute to the city.  Whether you swig a beer and drive a Harley, or sip lattes and drive a Vespa, nobody's "culture" should be seen as either better or above someone else's.  They are just different, and each can and should be able to enjoy their own thing without the scorn of the other.  "No one can make you feel inferior unless you give them permission to."  Sure we all occasionally poke fun at the other, but when it goes to the point of scorn or derision, or "I am better than you because of what I like. " I think that's crossing the line and untrue.

Some don't like that a few of the animals may not be native or appropriate for the area. Whether or not that's so, or whether that even matters or is intended, is another subject however.  

Does this mean I can get a discount on a really cool sci fi piece?

He was pointing out that the art cost was part of the bill that was voted on by tax payers.  You are saying, we don't have any money so lets not spend money on art that we don't need.  Something tells me that if they didn't spend the 1% it wouldn't go back into any budget we could use for anything anyway.  Of course, our Mayor wouldn't understand that.

The first thing I could think of was this:

http://www.museumofbadart.org/

;)

But certainly nobody should be made to feel bad for the art they enjoy (except professional wrestling fans).

The nature works stuff strikes me as well-executed and very accessible.  Perhaps those are solely its good qualities, but I was surprised to see such negative opinions of them here and there.  Very nice to have them here - even if Moose don't roam Pawhuska.  And I agree that ideally every audience would find selected works to their liking.

Buck, love the link.  The comments are pretty damn funny:

"UNSEEN FORCES #9
Circus of Despair
Oil on canvas by Unknown
18"x24"
Acquired by Scott Wilson from trash in Boston

This joyous, frightful circus romp is emblematic of, and yet somehow transcends, Unknown's entire body of work."

Tells you what I know though, I kind of enjoyed this abstract piece  ;)

Absolutely, recession pricing is all the rage these days.  :P