"Art" in front of the arena?

Padrino · Feb 28, 2015

this is misrepresentative of the work that major art installations require. most require a number of collaborators to complete. some require small armies to complete...

beyond that, collaboration is hardly the enemy of creativity or artistry. nobody thinks any less of prince because of the presence of the revolution. point is, you may not have an appreciation for koons' work or his method, but that neither disqualifies the quality of the work nor invalidates the market price...

206Fan · Feb 28, 2015

LPKingsFan said:

So the Kings are funding the entire art piece? I read the Sac Bee where it said money was coming from both sides.

whozit · Feb 28, 2015

LPKingsFan said:

Semantics. Does "taxpayer money" mean money that a taxpayer has paid such as property or income tax? Or could it mean, government funds so it is the people's money and any money taken from the pool has to be accounted for. Parking fees went into the general fund and part is now going to go to the arena. Taxpayer money also goes into the general fund. Parking fees and taxpayer money go into the same pool.

The rule is a certain percentage of major projects goes to the arts or something like that. That is part of the cost of the arena. The money has to be spent but is this the best value and return for the money that has to be spent on the art portion of the project? An argument could be made both ways that the people should have a say in what art the art portion should buy.

Warhawk · Feb 28, 2015

Padrino said:

I don't happen to think it is very creative to take a photograph of a balloon dog and give said photo to some unemployed metalworkers and say "Make me one of these that is 10 feet tall. Then paint it metallic blue, the same color as the dog in the photo but more shiny."

Really, that's all he did for $58 million.

This isn't Prince and the Revolution stuff. It's 2 year old banging on a plastic drum stuff.

LPKingsFan · Feb 28, 2015

206Fan said:

Here's what was in the press release, which I linked to earlier:

Now, where is that $5.5 million coming from? This link (again, a press release) makes it sound like it's all coming from the Kings: http://www.nba.com/kings/news/sacra...omote-public-art-new-entertainment-and-sports

Now, you could argue that this $5.5 million is being offset by some publicly-funded subsidy for the ESC. But then the issue is the subsidy, not the art budget, and we've already decided that the subsidy shouldn't be subject to a public vote. Otherwise, you can argue that any major expenditure by the Kings should be subject to a public vote, since it's somehow offset by the public subsidy for the ESC.

206Fan · Feb 28, 2015

LPKingsFan said:

I understood this very well. It was just a rhetorical question because that 5.5 million IS coming from subsidy money. If tax payers could vote on something like this, it would most likely not pass.

We all know tax payers have little to no say in what their money goes into lol. I think 8million for A single art piece is too much. I believe Sacramento is an artistic city. There's art all over downtown, and this would be something special for art fanatics. I think adding multiple pieces around the city triumphs one. Hefty pricetag.

Capt. Factorial · Feb 28, 2015

Padrino said:

OK, so a huge piece can't be completed without assistance. But let me ask you three questions:

1) If the city where you pay taxes decided to buy Capt. Factorial's "Undercooked Romance", constructed by a team of highly skilled craftsmen, what would you consider a fair market price?

2) If the city where you pay taxes decided to buy Jeff Koons' "Undercooked Romance", constructed by a team of highly skilled craftsmen, what would you consider a fair market price?

3) If the answer to questions 1 and 2 is different, why is the answer different?

Dime Dropper · Feb 28, 2015

Capt. Factorial said:

Would you pay more for a quick sketch done by me, or more for one done by Da Vinci? The sketches are identical.

I think that's the general premise here.

PurpleHaze · Feb 28, 2015

Maybe latest Bee article clarifies a bit who is paying for what for this "art."

"...the Kings, the city and three team owners will pay $8 million for the art." "The city council will vote on whether to approve the contract with Koons at its March 10 meeting."

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/city-beat/article11253440.html

chief bromden · Feb 28, 2015

Keep the art local so that the money stays local. If people will travel to sacramento just to see this piece, then get it...if not, buy local art.

Capt. Factorial · Feb 28, 2015

Dime Dropper said:

And that's the premise I'm questioning. Why does the name attached cost so much money?

As for the sketch: Under the assumption that I liked the sketch and wanted to put it up in my house, and your sketch and Da Vinci's sketch were side by side, I'd buy your sketch. It would be much cheaper, and I would be just as happy. Now, part of the reason why the Da Vinci sketch would cost a lot more is because it has a resale market. If I had the Da Vinci sketch I could hope to resell it at a profit, while that would not be likely for the Dime Dropper. The Da Vinci sketch is more expensive because there is an actual, literal market for it, there would be competitive bids for it (at an auction or the like), and it would have resale value. I am unconvinced that these conditions hold for Coloring Book. I am almost 100% convinced that it has no resale value at all. Sacramento will never sell the piece. It will be displayed until the ravages of time diminish it, and then it will be scrapped. And I don't see any reason to believe that there is a competitive market for it. If Sacramento turns it down and some other city of gallery buys it for a similar price, I will eat my words. But what is the probability that if Sacramento turns it down, it ends up in a warehouse unsold because nobody is willing to meet the asking price?

And while I'm at it, here's another scenario: Let's imagine the city buys Coloring Book and puts it outside of the arena. Everybody loves it, it's great, it's a city icon, people flock from distant lands to come see it. But, it wears down over time. It rusts out and cannot be repaired, and in say 30 years it is dismantled. But the city is happy, and feels that it got its money worth. Then, five years after the piece has been scrapped, a court case is brought against Jeff Koons and it is proven that the entire Coloring Book series was never produced by Jeff Koons in the first place. The Coloring Book series was in fact conceived and produced by an unknown artist named Capt. Factorial, who approached Koons because of his name and asked Koons to sell the series under Koons' name in order to inflate the sale price, which they shared. Does the city now feel that they were ripped off? They got a piece of art that they loved for 30 years, which was its useful lifespan. Does the fact that Koons lied about it being his change that after the fact?

Dime Dropper · Feb 28, 2015

Capt. Factorial said:

How very dare you! I'm highly insulted.

But seriously, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, was just pointing out where the disconnect is in terms of value (and by the way I completely agree on this aspect, the price is a joke, as is the artist coming up with an idea and having other people make it).

All that said, the piece is growing on me. I saw it initially and thought "meh". But in the ocntext of the arena and the fact that this piece will be there for many, many years, it's making more sense. It's "modern" for better or for worse, it's colourful, it's eye-catching. It's unlikely to really look dated at any point in the next few decades.

The price is crazy. I agree with this much. I don't hate the piece and I don't love it, but it is growing on me. I detest the fact that the guy can make $8 million because of a pretty simple, basic idea that he doesn't even execute himself. It's completely pretentious. I accept modern art, some of it is absolute nonsense (IMO) and some of it is well thought out and valuable. I don't think this piece is worthless, I think it's good. Just not for the price.

But if we're discarding the price, I kind of like it. I agree with some of what Warhawk has been saying, but not all. I do think this piece is better than some of the images he posted which, while no doubt very good, already look dated and uninspirational.

But then again, I don't live in the US. I'll probably see whatever art piece they choose a few times in my life as I intend to see multiple Kings games in my life, but it's not something I'll have to see regularly. That's why I don't feel strongly one way or another. This is just an "outsider" opinion.

The Hammer · Feb 28, 2015

PurpleHaze said:

Big problem I have with this proposed "art" (besides being butt ugly blob stupidly misspent $8M) is likelihood it will fade, deteriorate in various ways over time. It might look bright, shiny, slick to some for few years or even decade or so, but what will it look like when new arena is no long new? Take Chicago's famous " The Picasso" iconic sculpture that went up in heart of their downtown late 1960s. Today, it still has look of new, modern, well constructed art even with bad weather that lashes Windy City almost year round. This particular Sacramento downtown "art" joke needs to go away to never see the light of day. We can do better and especially for helluva lot less $$. The Chicago Picasso was commissioned for around $350K and in todays dollars that would be about $2.5M. Get serious Sacramento, dump it, start over, and protect taxpayer dollars instead of thinking its free money just growing on trees for lazy easy pickings. View attachment 5215

Once again, there is NO taxpayer money going to this art piece.

Warhawk · Feb 28, 2015

Dime Dropper said:

Thanks. I stated that the few images I threw up were just some ideas to get folks talking reasons and concepts, not an example of a final product I wanted. I would hope someone could do better than that for this location!

Also, here is a snippet of what one of our local artists had to say on the issue and is somewhat how I feel (not so sure about the amazing and historic part, although seeing the video gives me a better idea on what the final product actually looks like instead of the first few ugly images):

https://www.facebook.com/garibaldiarts/posts/10153084848451271?fref=nf

The Hammer · Feb 28, 2015

PurpleHaze said:

The "city" contribution is coming from what they contribute from the original budget, which was already budgeted into the 447 mil, and all the city's part of that is being generated by the project itself due to parking proceeds created by the ESC itself.

This is the same issue we argued till we were blue in the face getting the arena passed. It is not "taxpayer" money.

swisshh · Feb 28, 2015

This is sort of pop-art and there's a history of that in the greater Sacramento area with Thiebaud and some of the local guys, but I'm not exactly sure this piece fits the ESC complex.

PurpleHaze · Feb 28, 2015

Because it is out of established fund for the arts it is taxpayer money - at least city portion. This ugly stainless steel coloring book design standing relatively small 18 ft is nothing but MAJOR $8 MILLOIN HEIST. The city council should go back to drawing board to look at much better artistic options for much less money to construct, display, maintain. Set up commission of local artists to come up with Sacramento theme artistic design that won't look so crayon silly and won't potentially end up a scrap heap aging eye-sore downtown decades from now.

pshn80 · Feb 28, 2015

Always happy to see art included as part of a major project like our new arena. Who did it , how they did it, how much it cost, who paid for it, all might be interesting but the art being there is the important thing. Good for the Kings and the developers. When you go by it smile and tip your hat.

206Fan · Feb 28, 2015

The Hammer said:

So the 447million itself is not tax payer money?
This whole art thing is like saying we have $1million. We might as well just buy this one Lamborghini because what else could it go towards? 500 Fords or Hondas? I THINK NOT!

Tetsujin · Feb 28, 2015

Warhawk said:

From the comments of Garibaldi's post.

And I think that that is the major sticking point for me.

I like art, even modern art, and live in a country that is probably an art lover's paradise, but my main concern is that nothing about buying a Koons piece for 8 million dollars says "This is Sacramento" unless we're talking about the traditional little brother wanting to be like his big brother cities in the most superficial way possible mindset that I had thought had largely died out when things started finally happening at Downtown Plaza.

Then again, I haven't lived in Sacramento for over a year now so what do I know.

Capt. Factorial · Feb 28, 2015

Dime Dropper said:

But seriously, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, was just pointing out where the disconnect is in terms of value (and by the way I completely agree on this aspect, the price is a joke, as is the artist coming up with an idea and having other people make it).

All that said, the piece is growing on me. I saw it initially and thought "meh". But in the ocntext of the arena and the fact that this piece will be there for many, many years, it's making more sense. It's "modern" for better or for worse, it's colourful, it's eye-catching. It's unlikely to really look dated at any point in the next few decades.

The price is crazy. I agree with this much. I don't hate the piece and I don't love it, but it is growing on me. I detest the fact that the guy can make $8 million because of a pretty simple, basic idea that he doesn't even execute himself. It's completely pretentious. I accept modern art, some of it is absolute nonsense (IMO) and some of it is well thought out and valuable. I don't think this piece is worthless, I think it's good. Just not for the price.

But if we're discarding the price, I kind of like it.

I agree with basically all of this. It's growing on me (slightly) and while I'm not yet ready to say "kind of like it", I don't hate it.

I just thought it was worth having a bit of a discussion on the price and why it's so high.

The Hammer · Feb 28, 2015

206Fan said:

No, the 447 million does not come from tax revenue.

Of the 230 mil whatever that the city is contributing... it is being funded by leasing future revenue from parking, parking that will be generated by traffic that the ESC itself is generating.

NONE of the money being spent on this art is from tax revenue. Do you still think it should be up for a public vote?

Padrino · Feb 28, 2015

Warhawk said:

it really isn't, no matter how many times you keep saying it. a 2-year old bangs on the drum to experience a sound. an artist is most often attempting to represent an experience with an act of creation...

a lot of koons' work, for example, is interested in the nostalgic, in the space between childlike wonder and our culture of consumption. it's the marriage of what we think of as "high art" and "low culture," and is criticized in the same ways that andy warhol--perhaps the most well-known of "pop artists"--was criticized in his time. now warhol has been canonized as a visual artist of note. that koons is working as a contemporary artist at a time when it's an absolute bull market for all desirable visual art should not be held against him...

regardless of koons' standing, there is a tremendous market for nostalgia in a broad spectrum of disciplines, from fashion to film to music to visual art to pop culture. walt disney, for example, believed in capturing that kind of magic, and disney has made an entire business model out of engaging people with the nostalgic. it's why adults are able to enjoy disneyland, despite the much younger audience it's obviously aimed at. for many, disneyland transports them back to a time in their lives that wasn't so suspicious and cynical. why shouldn't koons attempt to create works that evoke a similar response? why should that be considered an unworthy pursuit for an artist?

in a culture where we take little issue with the gross monetization of sport, and spend countless hours debating the intricacies of multi-millionaires who bounce a ball to "earn" those millions, i am continually amazed by the nature of our discourse surrounding art. the most banal of pop stars will rake in millions with their acts, but an artist who may actually be attempting to say something worthwhile in his or her chosen medium if people were only willing to listen is considered a "hack," and his or her discipline is thought of as a "racket"...

you don't have to like it. i don't care if you like it, and i imagine koons doesn't, either. but to dismiss it out of hand as the noise a 2-year old could make is ignorant at absolute best...

PurpleHaze · Feb 28, 2015

The Sacramento Metropolitan Arts Commission is a public agency for Sacramento City and County of Sacramento FUNDED BY TAXPAYERS living in those jurisdictions. The funds being allocated for this "art" project are in the range of $8-9.5 million total, with $5.5 million coming from TAXPAYERS and the Kings in roughly 50-50 split. Thus claiming none of funds being used are from taxpayers is simply false. One might naturally ask what exactly is city council deciding on March 10. Answer: After getting detail of Koons contract heist at March 3rd council meeting they will vote one week later to decide if to fund their portion of public money for the ugly multi- million dollar blob with guarantees that private funds are in place. That's the story as it stands coming to a head and here's more proof who pays what and for what part.

http://portal.cityofsacramento.org/...nation-received-to-secure-ESC-Plaza-Sculpture

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramen...ture-selected-for-plaza-outside.html?page=all

Padrino · Feb 28, 2015

Capt. Factorial said:

for the same reason that any individual or group or company is able to add value to its product via name recognition in a free market place. within his discipline, koons' is considered a master. within that same discipline, capt. factorial is not. if "Undercooked Romance" earns capt. factorial a reputation and a following, and if capt. factorial follows it up with similarly well-received pieces, then he's well on his way to a "fair market price" closer to koons' works than the works of an unknown...

i'm an art lover, though i'm not an art expert. i can't explain the bizarre tendencies of the "high art" market place. i do know that it's a bull market for desirable visual art, and that koons' work fetches it's asking prices on the regular. we can debate all day about whether or not an entity such as the cooperation between the city and the kings should pay such a price for a piece of art, but as i mentioned in my response to warhawk above, we might as well debate the merits of paying professional athletes obscene amounts of money for the "service" they provide...

206Fan · Feb 28, 2015

The Hammer said:

This money is coming from somewhere, not thin air. Everything goes back to tax money. If you're telling me that the city of Sacramento has 200million stored up in their own personal bank somewhere outside of this country, then sure. It's really puzzling that you're claiming the money to fund the arena does not come from taxes.

Livinthedream · Feb 28, 2015

The more I read, the more I see the same old argument that was used against building an arena in the first place.

I'm sorry, but having a art piece that symbolizes the Sacramento region is boring, hackneyed and trite. I love the region and have grown to love the city. But having another California Bear statue or Pony Express sculpture will not do anything for the city. It's insignificant. In fact, the polarizing nature of this Koon piece is EXACTLY what the city needs. This ESC is a place unto itself. It has it's on rules that go outside of the normal city business, including lights and signage. I would argue that a Koon piece would represent a rebirth of the city and that arena is ground zero for a new Sacramento.

The Hammer · Mar 1, 2015

Livinthedream said:

The more I read, the more I see the same old argument that was used against building an arena in the first place.

I'm sorry, but having a art piece that symbolizes the Sacramento region is boring, hackneyed and trite. I love the region and have grown to love the city. But having another California Bear statue or Pony Express sculpture will not do anything for the city. It's insignificant. In fact, the polarizing nature of this Koon piece is EXACTLY what the city needs. This ESC is a place unto itself. It has it's on rules that go outside of the normal city business, including lights and signage. I would argue that a Koon piece would represent a rebirth of the city and that arena is ground zero for a new Sacramento.

THANK YOU!

Couldn't have said it better myself.

The Hammer · Mar 1, 2015

206Fan said:

Wow. Ok, you must not have been here for the years and years of arena debates, the months and months and months of arena funding debates that preceded the exact plan that we have now, or heard Kevin Johnson explain this ad nauseum, in ever smaller and simpler soundbites. I'll try again, and I'm willing to address your points of confusion after you read this post.

The actual cash the city is contributing to the this project (not the land donation -- which is not taxpayer money), but the actual cash, comes from the sale of bonds that are backed not by tax revenue, but by future parking revenue. That future parking revenue is being generated by traffic to the ESC itself, therefore, the funds do not exist without the building. There is literally zero impact or draw from tax revenue or the general fund whatsoever. It is bonds that are backed by future parking revenue, financed through a company that actually specializes in doing this type of funding. The value of this "future parking revenue" was assessed by a third party, again, one that specializes in appraising the value of future parking revenue. This sounds a bit "inside baseball", but it's a fairly common practice for municipalities as a way to monetize an asset such as parking.

So again, ZERO cash (other than the cost of paying city staff to work on this plan, etc) from the general fund, and zero actual cash from taxes, is being used for this project. It's monetizing an asset (parking) that is created by the ESC itself.

The Hammer · Mar 1, 2015

206Fan said:

And the money is required to be spent, by city ordinance, on public art. 2% of publicly owned projects' budget must be spent of public art on the grounds.

If you don't like the piece fine, but you're arguing against every facet of this thing, which suggests to me that you're simply afraid of new things.

"Art" in front of the arena?

All-Star

All-Star

Starter

Give blood and save a life!

All-Star

All-Star

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est

All-Star

All-Star

Starter

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est

All-Star

All-Star

Give blood and save a life!

All-Star

Starter

All-Star

Starter

All-Star

The Game Thread Dude

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est

All-Star

All-Star

All-Star

All-Star

All-Star

All-Star

All-Star

All-Star

All-Star