Opponents in High Places Open Thread
Of course, it's possible that Kapoor sees a conspiracy where none truly exists, but I can understand where he might become a bit paranoid after a while. But this story reminded me of something I'm continuously re-learning in the art world, which is that it's important to make as few enemies as you can along the way, because the small fish you dis today might be a power-broker tomorrow. Of course, it's highly unlikely someone you dis today will become the heir to the British Throne, but just in the past week, I've seen two people I've had dealings with get very important positions. And in neither case had I seen such a leap coming. You can draw your own conclusions from that, I'm sure. Consider this an open thread.UK sculptor Anish Kapoor says that Prince Charles is out to thwart some of his most high-profile public projects. Kapoor’s first taste of this supposed royal interference was when the Dean of St Paul’s suddenly abandoned his designs for a new font for the Cathedral. “From what I understand, the palace, in the form of Prince Charles, had a hand in putting the kybosh on it,” Kapoor told reporters. A spokesperson for St Paul’s says, however, that “Anish Kapoor was never commissioned to design a new font for the Cathedral. His submission was rejected at the exploratory stage.” The Prince of Wales then apparently vetoed the artist’s proposal for the Princess Diana memorial in Hyde Park, London which “technically, we were supposed to have won”, gripes Kapoor who lost out to US landscape architect Kathryn Gustafson. The sculptor is now holding his breath for his planned memorial to the 11 September attacks in Hanover Square in Lower Manhattan, which broke ground last May. The piece was commissioned by the British Memorial Garden Trust, the patron of which is none other than Prince Charles. So will the heir to the throne disappoint Kapoor again? A spokesperson for the trust insisted that “the memorial is scheduled for completion in around a year’s time”.
posted by Edward_ at
8:36 AM
30 Comments:
Dear Edward,
Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's.
"Public" art project means funded by the taxpayers. To realize a taxpayer funded "public" art project means that a plethora of elected, appointed and volunteer grant committee bureaucrats will have their collective hands all over the decision to approve or deny a proposal. (I speak from the experience of having served on several such public arts commission committees.)
There is nothing in this world more political than the decision making process that goes into awarding "public" art project grants.
In the old days Caesar simply decreed what artist's proposal would be funded. Today, God (the government) opens the process up to influence peddling and lobbying.
If an artist has a powerful enemy in high places who opposes their "public" art proposal, then that artist had better be prepared to hire Jack Abramoff...as soon as he's released from prison.
James
HRH Charles, Prince of Wales, has a great deal of knowledge and very strong opinions about Architecture... so it isn't entirely unlikely that he makes those views known in circles where his naturally reaching influence has effects on the outcomes of comissions or contracts. So long as he choses to wield the power of his opinions wisely and sparingly, I see no wrong in that. If he were to throw his weight around to foster classical-style architecture at the expense of everything else, however, it would be a different story.
it's important to make as few enemies as you can along the way, because the small fish you dis today might be a power-broker tomorrow
It'd be nice if more of us would try to live by putting a period after "along the way".
Enjoy your weekend E. BTW, saw the Chuck Close exhibit on Monday. Pretty amazing, especially the detail he was able to achieve with watercolor.
Gee, I think I have never seen the word 'kybosh' in print before.
regarding power-brokers, the best security against arbitrary use of power is a strong independent position. If you have to avoid offending anyone then how do you define yourself? (that is not a rhetorical question)
I suppose its about picking your battles, and diplomacy, but someone is always disappointed when a choice is made. The flip side is others gain respect.
I'm all elbows, socially, so I do find myself navigating around the artworld to avoid certain people, past offenses. I try to imagine that time and better behavior will heal, but I also try to build myself a situation that gives me some insulation from attack.
It is far from a completed project.
crionna's right on with the above suggestion. trying not to make enemies on the chance that someone might become powerful later is pretty icky - we should do it because it's the right thing to do. it's still good advice either way, though.
crionna's right on with the above suggestion. trying not to make enemies on the chance that someone might become powerful later is pretty icky - we should do it because it's the right thing to do.
Crionna's usually right. I certainly didn't mean to imply it's ok to be mean to someone if you're certain they'll never be powerful, but we all have our weak moments.
no, i didn't think you meant that - but i did get the feeling from the original post that you were saying to tread lightly just in case. i'm not sure i agree with looking ahead in that way, however practical.
in the long run you catch more flies with honey, but you should only dole it out to people who treat you well in return.
i sound like such a square.
no, you sound like a mensch, which is refreshing.
I certainly didn't mean to imply it's ok to be mean to someone if you're certain they'll never be powerful,
I know that too E, and didn't in any way mean to imply anything untoward. I meant it in a general, ope-Friday-thready sense. I'm in sales too, so I know what the score is...
Crionna's usually right.
Now that makes my weekend! Thanks!
and i'm a mensch, which i found out is good. happy weekend!
and i'm a mensch, which i found out is good.
Yes, it's very good ;-)
...something all people should aspire to IMO.
Uhmmm...
Given HRH's taste, would it be such a bad thing to have him as an "opponent"?
Seems almost like something one should cultivate…
Given HRH's taste,
well, as jfl points out, Bonnie Prince Charlie has been very actively involved in preserving certain standards wrt to architecture in England, so he's far from unbiased. And whereas most artists can tolerate (almost) the idea that someone doesn't like their work, to extend that to a concerted effort to interfer with commissions is a bit much, even when one is a subject of said critic.
Oh, is that a comment re Camilla?
Let me just say I wouldn't trust his judgement regarding aesthetics...
Hmm ... but what if your 'enemies in high places' are self-appointed?
Say, for instance, that someone were to take offense because his girlfriend smiles at you without any provocation on your part? And you've never expressed or even entertained an interest in this guy's girlfriend, but he's so damn insecure that he decides to hate you for it anyway, and then act on it? And that leads to your being bad-mouthed behind your back and damages your professional network because people are afraid of the bad-mouther? Not speaking from any personal experience, just offering a hypothetical 'what-if'.
But I will tell you from personal experience that the art world can be small in a variety of ways.
If you have an opinion and a voice, you're bound to step on some toes along the way, toes that will grow claws along with a taste for your blood.
choose your battles
It begins and ends here, IMO. Decide what's worth the time, energy and risk, go hell-bent for that, and eat the consequences.
Arts endeavours involving gov't or boards or juries are often started by someone who has someone specific he wants to promote. Rather than Let's find the most exciting or most fitting artwork for this space, particularly at the local level it's very often Let's see what schmucks we can line up against my favored artist to make him/her the obvious winner.
We're having an on going discussion here in Baltimore about the Johnathan Borofsky piece Male/Female, that sits in front of the train station. It was paid for with private money, the Municiple Art Society, so there was no public debate. Many feel it was forced on them. The site is very prominent. I've grown to like it, especially at night when it's lit-up. I was waiting in my car at the station one night during a high security alert. One of the guards patrolling came to my window and said, "You can go in side and wait if you want, so you don't have to sit here and look at that eye sore". Critics with guns! http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2006/01/to-be-or-replace-thee.html
"Say, for instance, that someone were to take offense because his girlfriend smiles at you without any provocation on your part? And you've never expressed or even entertained an interest in this guy's girlfriend, but he's so damn insecure that he decides to hate you for it anyway, and then act on it?"
I think the Pai Mei Shaolin Temple Massacre principle applies in such cases...or at least it does in the South! :)
James
Dear Mark,
"It was paid for with private money, the Municiple Art Society, so there was no public debate."
I may be wrong, however...
My understanding is that although the piece did not involve public funding, it sits on land owned by the City of Baltimore. My further understanding is that the Municipal Art Society signed a rent-free lease ($1 per year) for the space in the plaza where the piece was installed. I'm only pointing this out because if I'm correct the City of Baltimore is forgoing lease payments on property that it owns, which is a taxpayer subsidy to the balance sheet benefit of the Municipal Arts Society. Technically, from an IRS perspective, the Municipal Arts Society is able to claim the net asset fair market value of the lease (a lease, again, that I understand is $1 per year) on their books. This is a very common arrangement for "public" works of art. In effect the taxpayers are subsidizing the piece by not receiving fair market lease payments for the space owned by the city.
James
the Pai Mei Shaolin Temple Massacre principle
I had to google it, but yes I agree, it does apply in this case.
When the time is right, inshallah.
; )
True about the city land freebie, but that's too obscure for the general public to see. The piece was bought for about 900,000, so that's a good deal provided a majority like the work.
ummm ... I meant it hypothetically applies in this case ...
Dear Mark,
Just to briefly follow up:
And again, I may be wrong. I live in the D.C. area and don't keep up with the Baltimore media. However, I have several friends in the area that I've spoken to about the subject at hand since the piece was dedicated.
I also understand that the Municipal Arts Society of Baltimore (a private foundation) gifted the Borofsky to the City of Baltimore, thereby transferring title to the work from the MASB to the city.
Among the many non-aesthetic concerns expressed to me about this project was the fact that the MASB, which according to its 2003 IRS return was sitting on close to $1 million dollars in assests(primarily stock), was the fact that the MASB should have (I'm not saying that I believe they should have) retained title to the work and purchased a site that would have been owned by the MASB.
The concern is that if the city or people of Baltimore wake up one day decide they hate this piece so much that they want it removed from the city owned site, then they can probably do so. There are many precedents for this type of action with respect to "public" art.
Some of the people I've talked with in Baltimore feel that a higher level of protection would have been preserved by the MASB retaining title to the work and placing it on land that they (the MASB) own.
At the time I was interested in writing a letter to the editor of the Baltimore Sun about the issue. However, as I recall, I don't believe the MASB maintains an office or paid staff - or least I could never determine that they do. It was my intention to speak directly to them and clarify answers to some of the above issues.
Interestingly, MASB's 2004 and 2005 IRS tax returns are not currently published on Guidestar.org. This would provide more current information about their current assests, including whether or not they are indeed claiming the Borofsky as an asset, which would mean that most likely they still own it.
James
Dear Mark,
Sorry. I'm looking at the post now and realize I wasn't as brief as I should have been! I'm having a boring Saturday evening waiting to go see a movie with a friend - Underworld Revolution. When I think too much about vampires my mind, naturally, starts to deconstruct the legal contracts written by the bloodsuckers in the art world. :)
James
If you have an opinion and a voice, you're bound to step on some toes along the way
Thanks Bill, for the supportive message - I've probably done my share of toe-stepping-on too ...
Dear James, I know several members of the art society board. They're a pretty solid group on a volunteer basis. It was very simple. The space was open, they could fund the project, nothing underhanded.I'm grateful that the group donates their time to the society.Was it the right piece?
On another note, I just got home from a tenth anniversity gala for the American Visionary Art Museum. Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu spoke (and danced!)and Rosie ODonald Emceed, she was a riot. We raised several thousand $'s tonight. Cheers for cultural fund raisers!
Dear Mark,
The American Visionary Art Museum is a wonderful institution. Congratulations on the fund raiser.
Since it's my professional day job - development - I would also say cheers to every not for profit that files their IRS Form 990s in a timely fashion so that they are available on Guidestar.org for public inspection.
James
Follower of the estate: We do the right thing because it is the right thing! How lewd, n' silly (not meaning you are silly, of course!). We do! Things! How we see fit ! And, and, because we are able (often filing, standing in line, endlessly, wishing for spots, avenues of compartments, earnest devoting oneself to the softeners of rights, wrongs, and maybes) [There is a sense in there maybe].
THIS IS THE GARDEN OF EARTHLY DELIGHTS. THE HAVEN FOR POLITICAL WETNESS-agreements that fathom us silly, sillier than simple. We are folk. We do, we do.
And, wile the nilly, pand-gandy, Gill, soothe the Everest of nil with a plug-hole's plumber's delight--what some may call ingenuous, the secret file, admire the smile.
That's what is important 1. a) plea
Sorry nothing intelligent to say on the topic but the fingers were hoppy. But I did read the comments.
Thanks for the chance at the open post.
er...OK. ;-)
Political wetness.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home