Poll on proposed "art" piece for the new arena

[The Hammer]

Look, I get it. You and I are not going to see eye to eye on this. I just think it is the epitome of shallowness to say "the guy is a famous artist so let's buy something he made". We can do SO much better than what is proposed.

You've completely misread me.

In actual fact I had no idea who Jeff Koons was when I first laid eyes on the proposal. But I loved the piece instantly. Only then did I look into who he was.

So that proves I'm not advocating for getting a piece based on the name.

But again... this is just an elaborate way of saying you don't really like the piece, and your using some weird logic to argue against it. You just don't like it. But again, you're getting kinda mean and nasty...

About having some, yes.

and insulting other people who do like it. Not a classy look.

 

[kennadog]

I could pick out a bunch of pieces I might like better, but that's pointless. Whatever I might pick out or you might pick out would end up being criticized soundly by many. You think this piece is tasteless, but I'll guarantee some of the pieces you posted above would be criticized as tasteless by some people. Same with anything I might pick.

Personally, I feel comfortable going with the almost unanimous vote of the selection panel, which definitely includes some people that know a whole lot more about art than I do or likely ever will.

 

[John Galt]

I would feel better about this piece - even at this price or higher - if it was "one of a kind". But somebody has already "been there done this" and that is a turn-off for a megabucks centerpiece. I wish to God they would do something different. OK, spend a vulgar amount of money on an art piece that isn't my cup of tea - but do it for something that is unique - not a signed and numbered sculpture (I know that isn't exactly what this is, but isn't it like #8 in a series or something?).

 

[kennadog]

I would feel better about this piece - even at this price or higher - if it was "one of a kind". But somebody has already "been there done this" and that is a turn-off for a megabucks centerpiece. I wish to God they would do something different. OK, spend a vulgar amount of money on an art piece that isn't my cup of tea - but do it for something that is unique - not a signed and numbered sculpture (I know that isn't exactly what this is, but isn't it like #8 in a series or something?).

It will be #5 and the last in the series. Doing a series based on a theme is extremely common in the world of art. Countless artists throughout history have done this. It does not mean this piece won't be unique.

 

[Warhawk]

You don't know where the money will end up. There are the suppliers of the material, the shipping costs and the installation costs, among other things. A local providing a piece might Durand a significant shared on similar costs outside of Sacramento.

It's not a matter of thinking local all artists unworthy. That's a cheap shot.

Would you reject I M Pei as an architect for a public building in Sacramento in favor of keeping to a local architect? Would you reject Yoyo Ma as a solo performer with the philharmonic in favor of a local cellist? If Meryl Streep wanted to perform in a theater production in Sacramento, would you say no, it should be a local actor?

As to comparing produce to art, I don't even know how to answer that.

You know how I support local artists? I buy their art, just like my mother before me.

I can't afford a piece by a major local artist and I can't afford originals often, so I buy prints, although I do have a few limited edition prints and i do have some originals by minor artists.

But I'll tell you what. If I could afford an original Rembrandt or a lot of pieces by local artists, I'd take the Rembrandt most of the time.

I can't help but wonder how many of the people complaining about the artist not being local have actually shelled out their own hard-earned money for local art. I wonder how many of them could name some of the most famous Sacramento artists.

Other cities go after great artists and architects. I think Sacramento ought to go for great at every opportunity.

No we'll not agree and people won't agree about at. But he's an internationally recognized artist for a reason. Its no more shallow to acknowledge that than to acknowledge that Yoyo Ma is a great cellist, Meryl Streep is a great actress or I M Pei is a great architect.

As to saying we could do so much better, that is only an opinion, not a fact. And some very fine artistic people, who joined in selecting Koons, likely know better than most of us whether we can do better. I certainly trust their opinion in artistic matters more than the average person off the street. Although you'll never get artistic people to agree 100% of the time.

I guess we disagree first of all on the merits of Koons as "great" - if you look at a toaster on a wall or an inflatable lobster standing on his head and think that is the work of a great master, then I don't know we will have any common ground on the relative merits of his work as a whole. He is no Yoyo Ma.

Apparently the folks making the decisions came to the conclusion that the local artists are unworthy, otherwise they would obviously be considered instead. Not a cheap shot at all. Unless you aren't after the best art and just the biggest name.

He is giving us an 18 foot tall steel mirror with paint splatters. That's it. Whether the "very fine artistic people" think it is awesome or not is irrelevant to me, as I make my own decisions on what I think is good. I don't think it is worth $8 million and think we can do better, artistically and financially. I think we could get something from local artists or, at a minimum, something that better represents our city. Apparently getting something resembling a children's crayon scrawl on sheet metal is as good as it gets for Sacramento and we will blow almost our entire budget buying it. And that is a shame.

 

[Warhawk]

It will be #5 and the last in the series. Doing a series based on a theme is extremely common in the world of art. Countless artists throughout history have done this. It does not mean this piece won't be unique.

It will be the fifth version of essentially the same artwork, except one corner might be pink instead of yellow or it might be 18 feet tall instead of 17 feet tall. It's not "original" at this point. It's basically the fourth copy of something that was original at one time. Yay, Sacramento, reach for the stars!!!

Lynne, I am not picking on you or making it personal. You obviously feel very strongly in favor of this. Some feel exactly the opposite. I am not one of them, as this piece, as a smaller part of the art at the arena, for a reasonable price, would be fine with me. But making this the centerpiece and using almost the entire budget to do so, is just ..... very disappointing.

 

[kennadog]

And everything in your statement is opinion, not fact. Yoyo Ma's is great, because its the opinion of a lot of people, especially knowledgeable people. A lot of people, especially knowlegeable people, are of the opinion Koons a great artist.

So you disagree with them. I have no problem with people not liking the piece. I might very well have picked a different piece. But I can respect that some of the people on the selection panel have devoted their life to art and know a hell of a lot more about art than I do. I think to say they picked this piece and this artist only because he's famous is really insulting to these very knowledgeable, art-loving people. Marcy Friedman is a benefactor of the arts and an artist in her own right.

 

[kennadog]

It will be the fifth version of essentially the same artwork, except one corner might be pink instead of yellow or it might be 18 feet tall instead of 17 feet tall. It's not "original" at this point. It's basically the fourth copy of something that was original at one time. Yay, Sacramento, reach for the stars!!!

Lynne, I am not picking on you or making it personal. You obviously feel very strongly in favor of this. Some feel exactly the opposite. I am not one of them, as this piece, as a smaller part of the art at the arena, for a reasonable price, would be fine with me. But making this the centerpiece and using almost the entire budget to do so, is just ..... very disappointing.

No, it's more than just a change in colors and saying it's just a copy of an original idea cheapens the work of countless artist throughout history who have done a series of works based on a theme.

I do understand you don't like it and are disappointed. I have no problem with that. It could just as easily be me hating the selected piece and feeling really disappointed.

The difference for me is that I wouldn't be calling it trash or garbage or not art or worse. I would say I don't like it at all and I'm disappointed, but I would accept that is just a difference in taste or sensibility.

There's loads of art I don't like or even find repellant, but I don't dismiss it as trash. It's just art I don't like. Actually, I really, really don't care for some of Koons' work. I can thank my lucky stars we're not getting one of his balloon animals.

I love a lot of Monet's work and really dislike some of it, but I would never say the ones I don't like are trash or not art. I don't like much of the work of Miro or Modigliani, but that doesn't mean it's trash or that they don't desreve their fame or artistic reputation.

I'm not trying to convince anybody to like the Koon's piece. You either do or you don't. But a lot of our public art wouldn't exist, if the general public had its way.

I remember when the adults reviled rock and roll and said it was just noise, not music. You just never know.

 

[Warhawk]

No, it's more than just a change in colors and saying it's just a copy of an original idea cheapens the work of countless artist throughout history who have done a series of works based on a theme.

I do understand you don't like it and are disappointed. I have no problem with that. It could just as easily be me hating the selected piece and feeling really disappointed.

The difference for me is that I wouldn't be calling it trash or garbage or not art or worse. I would say I don't like it at all and I'm disappointed, but I would accept that is just a difference in taste or sensibility.

There's loads of art I don't like or even find repellant, but I don't dismiss it as trash. It's just art I don't like. Actually, I really, really don't care for some of Koons' work. I can thank my lucky stars we're not getting one of his balloon animals.

I love a lot of Monet's work and really dislike some of it, but I would never say the ones I don't like are trash or not art. I don't like much of the work of Miro or Modigliani, but that doesn't mean it's trash or that they don't desreve their fame or artistic reputation.

I'm not trying to convince anybody to like the Koon's piece. You either do or you don't. But a lot of our public art wouldn't exist, if the general public had its way.

I remember when the adults reviled rock and roll and said it was just noise, not music. You just never know.

I don't think I have called any of it trash or garbage. I just don't think what is being proposed is worth blowing almost our entire art budget for. Like I said, as a reasonably-priced side piece, a colored mirror is OK. Whatever. I am disappointed that the commission thinks that this is the best we can do with our funds when so much talent is out there that we could tap into, especially something that puts Sacramento on the map. Putting the 5th iteration of an art piece out there isn't what I would propose for our artistic cherry on top of the arena sundae. But maybe I expect too much.

 

[Warhawk]

And everything in your statement is opinion, not fact. Yoyo Ma's is great, because its the opinion of a lot of people, especially knowledgeable people. A lot of people, especially knowlegeable people, are of the opinion Koons a great artist.

So you disagree with them. I have no problem with people not liking the piece. I might very well have picked a different piece. But I can respect that some of the people on the selection panel have devoted their life to art and know a hell of a lot more about art than I do. I think to say they picked this piece and this artist only because he's famous is really insulting to these very knowledgeable, art-loving people. Marcy Friedman is a benefactor of the arts and an artist in her own right.

I think Yoyo Ma is great because of how I think he sounds, not because of what others say about him.

 

[Padrino]

I don't think I have called any of it trash or garbage. I just don't think what is being proposed is worth blowing almost our entire art budget for. Like I said, as a reasonably-priced side piece, a colored mirror is OK. Whatever. I am disappointed that the commission thinks that this is the best we can do with our funds when so much talent is out there that we could tap into, especially something that puts Sacramento on the map. Putting the 5th iteration of an art piece out there isn't what I would propose for our artistic cherry on top of the arena sundae. But maybe I expect too much.

well, in one of your responses in the other thread dedicated to this subject, you referred to koons' "Coloring Book" first as a "piece of ****," and secondly as "garbage":

Agreed. While I personally would prefer something more traditional in front of a sports facility (see the statues around the SF Giants ballpark, for example) I could get my head around something more modern if it had some sort of relationship to Sacramento. This piece of **** - no way.

When they hold the All-Star game here and people are taking pictures of everything around the area, what about this garbage screams "Sacramento"???

what's so surprising is that i've largely found you to be an extremely reasonable member of kf.com in the decade that i've been posting here. you've never struck me as a reactionary of any kind, but yours has been one helluva visceral reaction to the simple idea of a piece of art you're unable to engage with on an individual level. that you leave no room for the possibility that "Coloring Book" could, in fact, put Sacramento on the map is rather telling, in my opinion...

beyond that, the sticking point for you seems to be the cost of the piece, which i find curious. you seem to have no issue with the idea of a well-regarded outsider contributing a $23 million bean-shaped mirror to the city of chicago, oft-considered to be one of america's greatest cities, yet you balk at the mere notion of a well-regarded outsider contributing an $8 million "colored mirror" to the city of sacramento, oft-considered to be one of america's less desirable major cities...

whether you're aware of it or not, anish kapoor was deeply interested in the space between the limited and the limitless. "Cloud Gate" was actually one in a series of such sculptures that kapoor constructed in an effort to distort public perceptions of a given space. it was certainly the most substantial of kapoor's mirrored works when it was constructed in 2006, but it followed in the tradition of his 2001 piece "Sky Mirror", which was similarly interested in the blurring of the lines between limit and limitless. "Cloud Gate" was an iteration of a theme, one in a long line of them, much like "Coloring Book" is an iteration of a theme, one in a long line of them...

that said, you don't seem put off by the exorbitant cost of a work like "Cloud Gate," nor is "Cloud Gate" in any way a unique instance of kapoor's mirroring techniques, nor is kapoor in any way local to the city of chicago. but none of that stops "Cloud Gate" from being a truly iconic feature of chicago. that you like "Cloud Gate" and dislike "Coloring Book" is then much more relevant to the argument you want to make than any other attempt at undercutting the notion that "Coloring Book" should be a feature at the new arena. jeff koons is a master of his artistic medium, and i can assure you, $8 million is a "fair price" for his work (as far as "fair prices" go in the current bull market for distinctive "high art"). sacramento isn't being duped. it's a big investment, but if sacramento wants to join other major cities that display the works of contemporary masters, then it's a worthy investment...

however, if sacramento wants to remain as insular as its been for the last several decades, then it's not a worthy investment. but the entire idea behind building the downtown arena in the first place is to catapult sacramento into the modern era, to make it less insular, to help the city enter into a more global conversation. a piece like "Cloud Gate" was funded by individual and corporate donations, but unfortunately, there are no big donors here that are likely to foot the bill for a distinctive work by any contemporary master of the visual arts, at least, not until the arena is actually built and the downtown area is actually thriving. so the cooperation between the city and the kings is doing what they can with a modest budget (again, as far as "fair prices" go in the current bull market for distinctive "high art"), and a striking piece by koons is an excellent find for the price...

as far as local art is concerned, there aren't many sacramento-area artists in any medium who command the global respect of a figure like koons. this is not a city that places great emphasis on the arts. artists do not flock to sacramento to create, display, or sell their work. the work of sacramento-area artists will not come anywhere near the premium of a koons piece, and so $1.5 million is more than enough funding to acquire work from those artists and to display them proudly as part of the new downtown plaza. you may not like that koons' "Coloring Book" would be treated as an artistic centerpiece at the new plaza, but you're really not crafting a convincing argument that it shouldn't be treated as an artistic centerpiece at the new plaza. the cost is appropriate, the selection is appropriate, and the leftover funding for local artists is appropriate. as always, there's no accounting for taste, but i guarantee that "Coloring Book" was not selected haphazardly...

 

[macadocious]

I feel like I have seen this before:

 

[Warhawk]

well, in one of your responses in the other thread dedicated to this subject, you referred to koons' "Coloring Book" first as a "piece of ****," and secondly as "garbage":



what's so surprising is that i've largely found you to be an extremely reasonable member of kf.com in the decade that i've been posting here. you've never struck me as a reactionary of any kind, but yours has been one helluva visceral reaction to the simple idea of a piece of art you're unable to engage with on an individual level. that you leave no room for the possibility that "Coloring Book" could, in fact, put Sacramento on the map is rather telling, in my opinion...

beyond that, the sticking point for you seems to be the cost of the piece, which i find curious. you seem to have no issue with the idea of a well-regarded outsider contributing a $23 million bean-shaped mirror to the city of chicago, oft-considered to be one of america's greatest cities, yet you balk at the mere notion of a well-regarded outsider contributing an $8 million "colored mirror" to the city of sacramento, oft-considered to be one of america's less desirable major cities...

whether you're aware of it or not, anish kapoor was deeply interested in the space between the limited and the limitless. "Cloud Gate" was actually one in a series of such sculptures that kapoor constructed in an effort to distort public perceptions of a given space. it was certainly the most substantial of kapoor's mirrored works when it was constructed in 2006, but it followed in the tradition of his 2001 piece "Sky Mirror", which was similarly interested in the blurring of the lines between limit and limitless. "Cloud Gate" was an iteration of a theme, one in a long line of them, much like "Coloring Book" is an iteration of a theme, one in a long line of them...

that said, you don't seem put off by the exorbitant cost of a work like "Cloud Gate," nor is "Cloud Gate" in any way a unique instance of kapoor's mirroring techniques, nor is kapoor in any way local to the city of chicago. but none of that stops "Cloud Gate" from being a truly iconic feature of chicago. that you like "Cloud Gate" and dislike "Coloring Book" is then much more relevant to the argument you want to make than any other attempt at undercutting the notion that "Coloring Book" should be a feature at the new arena. jeff koons is a master of his artistic medium, and i can assure you, $8 million is a "fair price" for his work (as far as "fair prices" go in the current bull market for distinctive "high art"). sacramento isn't being duped. it's a big investment, but if sacramento wants to join other major cities that display the works of contemporary masters, then it's a worthy investment...

however, if sacramento wants to remain as insular as its been for the last several decades, then it's not a worthy investment. but the entire idea behind building the downtown arena in the first place is to catapult sacramento into the modern era, to make it less insular, to help the city enter into a more global conversation. a piece like "Cloud Gate" was funded by individual and corporate donations, but unfortunately, there are no big donors here that are likely to foot the bill for a distinctive work by any contemporary master of the visual arts, at least, not until the arena is actually built and the downtown area is actually thriving. so the cooperation between the city and the kings is doing what they can with a modest budget (again, as far as "fair prices" go in the current bull market for distinctive "high art"), and a striking piece by koons is an excellent find for the price...

as far as local art is concerned, there aren't many sacramento-area artists in any medium who command the global respect of a figure like koons. this is not a city that places great emphasis on the arts. artists do not flock to sacramento to create, display, or sell their work. the work of sacramento-area artists will not come anywhere near the premium of a koons piece, and so $1.5 million is more than enough funding to acquire work from those artists and to display them proudly as part of the new downtown plaza. you may not like that koons' "Coloring Book" would be treated as an artistic centerpiece at the new plaza, but you're really not crafting a convincing argument that it shouldn't be treated as an artistic centerpiece at the new plaza. the cost is appropriate, the selection is appropriate, and the leftover funding for local artists is appropriate. as always, there's no accounting for taste, but i guarantee that "Coloring Book" was not selected haphazardly...

In all my posts on this subject I forgot I did indeed use that language. Again, my apologies. I didn't go back and check them.

Sky Mirror and Cloud Gate are not essentially the same pieces with minor variations, which is what appears to be proposed for Coloring Book. They are completely different works. Variations on a theme (curved mirror in some manner), perhaps, but completely different in size, shape, complexity, and impact. Unless you are thinking that a 30±foot diameter satellite dish and a 66-foot long elliptical, flowing, mercury-like bean shaped with a concave surface underneath are essentially identical. Coloring Book appears to be #5 in a series of the same thing over and over based on the photos provided so far.

I am not put off by the cost of Cloud Gate - given it's immense size, shape/complexity (originally thought by some to not be constructible!), likely construction cost (constructed on site over the course of 2 YEARS), and societal impact for the city. That is an art piece that you look at and say, wow, that is pretty f'n cool. You may not know the artist but EVERYONE knows the piece. You can walk under it, touch it, interact with it (funhouse mirror effects underneath, curves reflecting and distorting the cityscape reflection on the outside, etc.) in a way not feasible with Coloring Book.

We are proposing to buy something small (18 feet by 9 feet) and constructed off-site and trucked to the location for installation. The installation cost is less than $400,000 (compare that cost to two YEARS of onsite construction with engineers, welders, metalworkers, etc., for Cloud Gate). He's already made 4 of them, so he has the construction process down flat and there is really no technical difficulty to it at all (flat metal surfaces with a curved edge/border - simple to construct). While 4 of these already exist, (likely) nobody here had heard or seen anything about them at all until the news broke about it being selected. It's a flat mirrored surface with a colorized surface. What kind of societal impact/recognition have the first 4 Coloring Book pieces made to anyone in Sacramento before last week or so? Was anyone even aware that 4 of these had already been constructed? For what we are getting, the cost seems incredibly out of the bounds of reasonableness. To me, anyways.

You state that Sacramento has no history of world-famous artists that can command the premium of a Koons piece. I don't see that changing by continuing to have almost all the art budget spent on pieces from across the country. I don't know what kind of outreach or competition was conducted for this, but it seems that nothing was done to engage local artists for this honor (nothing publicized, anyways) and the remaining budget after this piece is being thrown into an ESC APP regional art fund. Imagine what they could have done with another $8 million.....maybe actually inspired the careers of locals to become a much bigger "name" in the art world.

For some reason this particular topic has me just frustrated as all get-out. I just look at this as our chance to put an artistic, Sacramento-centric stamp on this facility and we have a budget to do so. I am so damn proud of what we have accomplished to keep the team and finally get a crown jewel arena constructed. And then the choice of art is a piece that has essentially been done 4 times before, with crumbs being thrown to local artists (or even artists outside the area that could produce something truly honoring Sacramento).

Again, my apologies to any who were put off by my ranting. I'm done.

 

[Fireplug]

I posted this on Twitter for Laura Braden who does business PR for Kings and ESC and am just going to repost here. I am sorry if some of it rehashes things already said here:


I have become increasingly annoyed by folks saying the art budget which is part of the downtown ESC should only be being spent on local artists. That only a local artist could produce something uniquely "Sacramento." A prominent local artist sort of lamented to this effect recently. While I understand where he is coming from as a local artist, and I hope and believe his work will be included as well, I cannot agree with his reasoning that an outsider could not produce something that could come to represent Sacramento.

What would anyone say is perhaps the most famous outdoor piece of art in America? How about the one designed and created in France depicting a Roman goddess?

Nothing says "New York" more than a French made Roman Goddess, right? Yet millions of people make a trek each year to visit the icon of New York, Lady Liberty. And believe me, there were folks then saying it should be designed by an American.

Need another? How about a statue in South Dakota designed by brothers born in Idaho and Connecticut? The statue is of four men, none of whom were born or raised in South Dakota. Yet two million people visit Mt. Rushmore every year.

Perhaps some of those people don't visit strictly for those art pieces, but they are a huge part of those locations. And the people who visit those places help, with their tourist money, to fund tons of local stuff for local folks. Sacramentans need to be willing to think outside our own backyard in order to REALLY help Sacramentans. If there was a local artist of such renown who ALSO was able to make a huge centerpiece as an anchor, they would use him. Hell, if Wayne Thiebaud had made a 20 foot stack of donuts, I would want that.

Saying Sacramento should not be interested in an artist from New York is saying our live theaters should only show plays and musicals by local artists. No more of those Broadway shows. Let's stop playing those Grammy award winning artists on our radios, too.

This sculpture by Jeff Koons, arguably the most famous living American artist right now, was chosen by the Sacramento Arts Commission. These folks who make it their life work to know art, say it is an absolute no brainier steal and will bring people to our city. It is also being specifically commissioned for our city. It is not a finished piece and the artist is being asked to make it what he feels represents Sacramento.

It is big, bright, colorful, whimsical and highly reflective. The pieces in this series are intended to "capture a child's ecstatic enjoyment of the world."

Do we want something to represent Sacramento? I WANT something that expresses how our city is one of the most colorful (racially diverse) in the world. I want something that says this City is one of the best in the world to raise a child. That we can take "ecstatic enjoyment" in life. I want a piece that is so world renowned that it will bring in art critics and writers and promoters specifically to see this piece who will then get to experience and enjoy other artists of local origin next to it. Let's think outside our backyard. - Dave

 

[Tetsujin]

I posted this on Twitter for Laura Braden who does business PR for Kings and ESC and am just going to repost here. I am sorry if some of it rehashes things already said here:


I have become increasingly annoyed by folks saying the art budget which is part of the downtown ESC should only be being spent on local artists. That only a local artist could produce something uniquely "Sacramento." A prominent local artist sort of lamented to this effect recently. While I understand where he is coming from as a local artist, and I hope and believe his work will be included as well, I cannot agree with his reasoning that an outsider could not produce something that could come to represent Sacramento.

What would anyone say is perhaps the most famous outdoor piece of art in America? How about the one designed and created in France depicting a Roman goddess?

Nothing says "New York" more than a French made Roman Goddess, right? Yet millions of people make a trek each year to visit the icon of New York, Lady Liberty. And believe me, there were folks then saying it should be designed by an American.

Need another? How about a statue in South Dakota designed by brothers born in Idaho and Connecticut? The statue is of four men, none of whom were born or raised in South Dakota. Yet two million people visit Mt. Rushmore every year.

Perhaps some of those people don't visit strictly for those art pieces, but they are a huge part of those locations. And the people who visit those places help, with their tourist money, to fund tons of local stuff for local folks. Sacramentans need to be willing to think outside our own backyard in order to REALLY help Sacramentans. If there was a local artist of such renown who ALSO was able to make a huge centerpiece as an anchor, they would use him. Hell, if Wayne Thiebaud had made a 20 foot stack of donuts, I would want that.

Saying Sacramento should not be interested in an artist from New York is saying our live theaters should only show plays and musicals by local artists. No more of those Broadway shows. Let's stop playing those Grammy award winning artists on our radios, too.

This sculpture by Jeff Koons, arguably the most famous living American artist right now, was chosen by the Sacramento Arts Commission. These folks who make it their life work to know art, say it is an absolute no brainier steal and will bring people to our city. It is also being specifically commissioned for our city. It is not a finished piece and the artist is being asked to make it what he feels represents Sacramento.

It is big, bright, colorful, whimsical and highly reflective. The pieces in this series are intended to "capture a child's ecstatic enjoyment of the world."

Do we want something to represent Sacramento? I WANT something that expresses how our city is one of the most colorful (racially diverse) in the world. I want something that says this City is one of the best in the world to raise a child. That we can take "ecstatic enjoyment" in life. I want a piece that is so world renowned that it will bring in art critics and writers and promoters specifically to see this piece who will then get to experience and enjoy other artists of local origin next to it. Let's think outside our backyard. - Dave

Nothing represents the uniqueness of Sacramento better than piece number 5 in a series by a dude living in New York.

Personally I'm rather ambivalent about the piece but I would certainly prefer that some of the money being spent on this single piece of art were spent on boosting the efforts of local artists instead of a guy raking in millions on the other side of the continent. Now, as a guy who has worked in media, I obviously understand the inherent power of name-recognition but you can't tell me that a piece by a comparatively unknown artist from the area (hell, I'd settle for an artist from the same state as Sacramento) can't be half as striking at less of a cost if placed in the same position of prominence as Koons' work (i.e. directly in front of the arena in the middle of a gigantic plaza). And ultimately, I feel, the appearances of that alternative piece on national television broadcasts and similar media could make a bigger impact than the potential of some tastemaker for a relatively niche audience talking about Koons #5 on some NPR station in Florida.

But I'm not going to cry about it either way.

 

[VF21]

I posted this on Twitter for Laura Braden who does business PR for Kings and ESC and am just going to repost here. I am sorry if some of it rehashes things already said here:


I have become increasingly annoyed by folks saying the art budget which is part of the downtown ESC should only be being spent on local artists. That only a local artist could produce something uniquely "Sacramento." A prominent local artist sort of lamented to this effect recently. While I understand where he is coming from as a local artist, and I hope and believe his work will be included as well, I cannot agree with his reasoning that an outsider could not produce something that could come to represent Sacramento.

What would anyone say is perhaps the most famous outdoor piece of art in America? How about the one designed and created in France depicting a Roman goddess?

Nothing says "New York" more than a French made Roman Goddess, right? Yet millions of people make a trek each year to visit the icon of New York, Lady Liberty. And believe me, there were folks then saying it should be designed by an American.

Need another? How about a statue in South Dakota designed by brothers born in Idaho and Connecticut? The statue is of four men, none of whom were born or raised in South Dakota. Yet two million people visit Mt. Rushmore every year.

Perhaps some of those people don't visit strictly for those art pieces, but they are a huge part of those locations. And the people who visit those places help, with their tourist money, to fund tons of local stuff for local folks. Sacramentans need to be willing to think outside our own backyard in order to REALLY help Sacramentans. If there was a local artist of such renown who ALSO was able to make a huge centerpiece as an anchor, they would use him. Hell, if Wayne Thiebaud had made a 20 foot stack of donuts, I would want that.

Saying Sacramento should not be interested in an artist from New York is saying our live theaters should only show plays and musicals by local artists. No more of those Broadway shows. Let's stop playing those Grammy award winning artists on our radios, too.

This sculpture by Jeff Koons, arguably the most famous living American artist right now, was chosen by the Sacramento Arts Commission. These folks who make it their life work to know art, say it is an absolute no brainier steal and will bring people to our city. It is also being specifically commissioned for our city. It is not a finished piece and the artist is being asked to make it what he feels represents Sacramento.

It is big, bright, colorful, whimsical and highly reflective. The pieces in this series are intended to "capture a child's ecstatic enjoyment of the world."

Do we want something to represent Sacramento? I WANT something that expresses how our city is one of the most colorful (racially diverse) in the world. I want something that says this City is one of the best in the world to raise a child. That we can take "ecstatic enjoyment" in life. I want a piece that is so world renowned that it will bring in art critics and writers and promoters specifically to see this piece who will then get to experience and enjoy other artists of local origin next to it. Let's think outside our backyard. - Dave

You make good points but please do not make the mistake of assuming you have the only valid view.

You're honestly comparing the impact of Koons' piece to the Statue of Liberty or Mt. Rushmore? Seriously?

What most people are trying to say, based on my perception of their comments, is that we'll never know if there is a budding Sacramento artist whose work could be every bit as good as Koons' is judged to be if people making decisions on important art pieces don't reach out to them.

I know of a couple of sculptors in the Sacramento area who are incredibly talented and might have come up with something just as vibrant as the 5th -piece in the Coloring Book series if they'd been given the chance.

The art work should stand on its own, regardless of the name of the artist. In this case, I get the feeling a lot of the critics are concerned because the price tag seems based too much on the name and not enough on the piece.

You talk about the "meaning" of the piece. I don't think the "child's ecstatic enjoyment of the world" is obvious to anyone unless they know Koons' work and buy into what he says it means. If you need a plaque on the piece to explain its relevance, is it really that clear what the intentions are?

Bottom line? I think I'm asking for people to stop being annoyed at the fact someone disagrees with them and accept the fact that art is totally subjective. There is no way to measure good art or quantify the relevance. It's truly in the eye of the beholder. Whether that beholder really sees something of beauty or is just admiring the emperor's new clothes is unknown.

 

[Warhawk]

I posted this on Twitter for Laura Braden who does business PR for Kings and ESC and am just going to repost here. I am sorry if some of it rehashes things already said here:


I have become increasingly annoyed by folks saying the art budget which is part of the downtown ESC should only be being spent on local artists. That only a local artist could produce something uniquely "Sacramento." A prominent local artist sort of lamented to this effect recently. While I understand where he is coming from as a local artist, and I hope and believe his work will be included as well, I cannot agree with his reasoning that an outsider could not produce something that could come to represent Sacramento.

What would anyone say is perhaps the most famous outdoor piece of art in America? How about the one designed and created in France depicting a Roman goddess?

Nothing says "New York" more than a French made Roman Goddess, right? Yet millions of people make a trek each year to visit the icon of New York, Lady Liberty. And believe me, there were folks then saying it should be designed by an American.

Need another? How about a statue in South Dakota designed by brothers born in Idaho and Connecticut? The statue is of four men, none of whom were born or raised in South Dakota. Yet two million people visit Mt. Rushmore every year.

Perhaps some of those people don't visit strictly for those art pieces, but they are a huge part of those locations. And the people who visit those places help, with their tourist money, to fund tons of local stuff for local folks. Sacramentans need to be willing to think outside our own backyard in order to REALLY help Sacramentans. If there was a local artist of such renown who ALSO was able to make a huge centerpiece as an anchor, they would use him. Hell, if Wayne Thiebaud had made a 20 foot stack of donuts, I would want that.

Saying Sacramento should not be interested in an artist from New York is saying our live theaters should only show plays and musicals by local artists. No more of those Broadway shows. Let's stop playing those Grammy award winning artists on our radios, too.

This sculpture by Jeff Koons, arguably the most famous living American artist right now, was chosen by the Sacramento Arts Commission. These folks who make it their life work to know art, say it is an absolute no brainier steal and will bring people to our city. It is also being specifically commissioned for our city. It is not a finished piece and the artist is being asked to make it what he feels represents Sacramento.

It is big, bright, colorful, whimsical and highly reflective. The pieces in this series are intended to "capture a child's ecstatic enjoyment of the world."

Do we want something to represent Sacramento? I WANT something that expresses how our city is one of the most colorful (racially diverse) in the world. I want something that says this City is one of the best in the world to raise a child. That we can take "ecstatic enjoyment" in life. I want a piece that is so world renowned that it will bring in art critics and writers and promoters specifically to see this piece who will then get to experience and enjoy other artists of local origin next to it. Let's think outside our backyard. - Dave

Well....

The works she cites are all unique, one-of-a-kind MONUMENTS for the USA. We are talking an 18-foot tall and 9-foot wide mirror, a fifth copy of which nobody had even heard of the first 4 before now. Not exactly in the same city, never mind ballpark.

If she wants a copy of something world renowned, let's just use a copy of one of her examples instead! We can have a copy of Lady Liberty just like Las Vegas does. It can be #2 in a series instead of #5. There we go, a truly world famous work by an even more well known artist than Koons.

Again, the art selection is not that big a deal in the overall scheme of things. We got the arena, we are revitalizing downtown, we have new hotels and buildings springing up, and we kept our team. I had just hoped for so much more instead of this selection.

Edit - and I see that while I was typing VF21 beat me to some of it.

 

[Livinthedream]

Well....

The works she cites are all unique, one-of-a-kind MONUMENTS for the USA. We are talking an 18-foot tall and 9-foot wide mirror, a fifth copy of which nobody had even heard of the first 4 before now. Not exactly in the same city, never mind ballpark.

If she wants a copy of something world renowned, let's just use a copy of one of her examples instead! We can have a copy of Lady Liberty just like Las Vegas does. It can be #2 in a series instead of #5. There we go, a truly world famous work by an even more well known artist than Koons.

Again, the art selection is not that big a deal in the overall scheme of things. We got the arena, we are revitalizing downtown, we have new hotels and buildings springing up, and we kept our team. I had just hoped for so much more instead of this selection.

Edit - and I see that while I was typing VF21 beat me to some of it.

You're interchanging the words 'series' and 'copy' even though it's not the same thing. Perhaps to make your point stronger or degrade the piece. I don't know. Part of Fireplugs post also states that Koon is specifically commissioning a version for Sacramento. That should put a stop to some of the arguments about it not being unique.

I'm not clear on the financial arguments that folks are making either. The whole local angle is not being explained well in my opinion. Is there artwork from local artists worth the 5.5 mil budget? If not, should we overpay in order to meet the art requirements? That doesn't sound like good business. Why do we get angry at Koon because his art work demands a premium price? Should we let another city have it because it's too fancy for our government town or because he's not from CA? Would NY or LA or Chicago, etc ever turn down art simply because the artist isn't local or because they think artist don't deserve to make so much money? No chance.

The way I see it is that we as a city are being gifted over $5 mil for Koons work to be brought here. I feel like I'm being given something, not cheated.

 

[Fireplug]

Well....

The works she cites are all unique, one-of-a-kind MONUMENTS for the USA. We are talking an 18-foot tall and 9-foot wide mirror, a fifth copy of which nobody had even heard of the first 4 before now. Not exactly in the same city, never mind ballpark.

If she wants a copy of something world renowned, let's just use a copy of one of her examples instead! We can have a copy of Lady Liberty just like Las Vegas does. It can be #2 in a series instead of #5. There we go, a truly world famous work by an even more well known artist than Koons.

Again, the art selection is not that big a deal in the overall scheme of things. We got the arena, we are revitalizing downtown, we have new hotels and buildings springing up, and we kept our team. I had just hoped for so much more instead of this selection.

Edit - and I see that while I was typing VF21 beat me to some of it.

Warhawk, just want to clarify that you are mistaking those words for Laura's when they were mine.

 

[Warhawk]

Warhawk, just want to clarify that you are mistaking those words for Laura's when they were mine.

Sorry, my mistake. I read your post wrong.

 

[Warhawk]

You're interchanging the words 'series' and 'copy' even though it's not the same thing. Perhaps to make your point stronger or degrade the piece. I don't know. Part of Fireplugs post also states that Koon is specifically commissioning a version for Sacramento. That should put a stop to some of the arguments about it not being unique.

I'm not clear on the financial arguments that folks are making either. The whole local angle is not being explained well in my opinion. Is there artwork from local artists worth the 5.5 mil budget? If not, should we overpay in order to meet the art requirements? That doesn't sound like good business. Why do we get angry at Koon because his art work demands a premium price? Should we let another city have it because it's too fancy for our government town or because he's not from CA? Would NY or LA or Chicago, etc ever turn down art simply because the artist isn't local or because they think artist don't deserve to make so much money? No chance.

The way I see it is that we as a city are being gifted over $5 mil for Koons work to be brought here. I feel like I'm being given something, not cheated.

It is a version for Sacramento of a piece that is a flat steel mirror with random swirls of pastel colors on it. Do you think he will be putting a recognizable picture on it (say, a person or a tree or something, unlike anything he has done before) or do you think the color swirls will be moved around and the mirrored surface cut in a slightly different pattern? Will it be *exactly* like the previous 4? No. But that doesn't make it entirely unique as a piece of art, either, does it? For instance, what is the real difference between blue-pink-yellow hues and green-yellow-blue hues in random combinations on an 18-foot steel mirror?

From the financial side, the issue is we will never know if a local artist can come up with something worthwhile if they are never given the chance. And overpaying ("premium") for a work because of the name attached to it is not my idea of well spent dollars. Perhaps we don't NEED one piece that costs $8 million. Maybe we could have one centerpiece produced locally that is just as grand (without the "name") for $3 million, and then have $6.5 million to fill in around the edges (with more/better works than what we can get for the $1.5 million currently proposed).

Just a thought.

 

[Warhawk]

In reality, do we REALLY know what the final piece will look like at this time? No. But we have seen his previous Coloring Book and can make an educated guess on what we will be getting. Only time will tell what it will eventually look like and we will never know what will have influenced his final result (as far as being Sacramento-centric).

 

[Padrino]

You talk about the "meaning" of the piece. I don't think the "child's ecstatic enjoyment of the world" is obvious to anyone unless they know Koons' work and buy into what he says it means. If you need a plaque on the piece to explain its relevance, is it really that clear what the intentions are?

why should its intentions be clear, with a plaque or without one? why should the viewer not be trusted to exercise interpretive muscle? great art doesn't necessitate overwrought explanation, but neither does it necessitate an obviously-rendered meaning, particularly when we're talking about a public installation that will be revisited time and again. great art often leaves space for the reader/viewer/listener to wrestle with the notion of meaning. if everybody approaches the same piece and says, "oh, i see, it means 'x'," if the piece funnels everybody to the same exact place, well, then it's providing the same kind of experience you can get in a classroom or in a boardroom, where imagination goes to die and consensus reigns supreme...

if, like many in this thread, the viewer is unable to discern "meaning" from "Coloring Book," then perhaps koons' piece illustrates very well the importance of reacquiring our connection to the childlike sense of wonder that gets beaten out of us by the homogeneity of formal education, careerism, and our culture of consensus. perhaps there is value in a work of art that doesn't deliver a pre-packaged message for the viewer to "get." if, as horace claimed, art is meant to "instruct and delight," then perhaps the viewer can find delight in the brightness of "Coloring Book," where koons may be implicitly instructing the viewer to reconsider the boundaries of their imaginations. hell, the title of the piece is just about as instructional as it gets. do children always color the sky "blue" and the grass "green"? do children always "stay inside the lines"? no, they don't, and perhaps there's value in remembering why it's important to promote creativity in our straight-off-the-assembly-line society...

now, do you have to buy everything i've just written? of course not. but i think i've fairly demonstrated that, without "a plaque on the piece to explain its relevance," its entirely possible to render intention from a work of art whose "meaning" may not be as obvious as some may prefer...

 

[VF21]

why should its intentions be clear, with a plaque or without one? why should the viewer not be trusted to exercise interpretive muscle? great art doesn't necessitate overwrought explanation, but neither does it necessitate an obviously-rendered meaning, particularly when we're talking about a public installation that will be revisited time and again. great art often leaves space for the reader/viewer/listener to wrestle with the notion of meaning. if everybody approaches the same piece and says, "oh, i see, it means 'x'," if the piece funnels everybody to the same exact place, well, then it's providing the same kind of experience you can get in a classroom or in a boardroom, where imagination goes to die and consensus reigns supreme...

if, like many in this thread, the viewer is unable to discern "meaning" from "Coloring Book," then perhaps koons' piece illustrates very well the importance of reacquiring our connection to the childlike sense of wonder that gets beaten out of us by the homogeneity of formal education, careerism, and our culture of consensus. perhaps there is value in a work of art that doesn't deliver a pre-packaged message for the viewer to "get." if, as horace claimed, art is meant to "instruct and delight," then perhaps the viewer can find delight in the brightness of "Coloring Book," where koons may be implicitly instructing the viewer to reconsider the boundaries of their imaginations. hell, the title of the piece is just about as instructional as it gets. do children always color the sky "blue" and the grass "green"? do children always "stay inside the lines"? no, they don't, and perhaps there's value in remembering why it's important to promote creativity in our straight-off-the-assembly-line society...

now, do you have to buy everything i've just written? of course not. but i think i've fairly demonstrated that, without "a plaque on the piece to explain its relevance," its entirely possible to render intention from a work of art whose "meaning" may not be as obvious as some may prefer...

Sorry, not only don't I buy everything you've just written, I didn't really read it. My only purpose in that post was an attempt to calm the waters a little bit.

 

[Padrino]

Sorry, not only don't I buy everything you've just written, I didn't really read it. My only purpose in that post was an attempt to calm the waters a little bit.

you claim not to buy what i wrote, but you also say you didn't really read it... and that kinda proves the point i was trying to make, that people are hurling outrage in the direction of a piece of art they seem uninterested in even trying to engage with. if you had taken the time to consider my argument, then i'd feel compelled to simply let it lie. but to say that you don't buy anything i wrote despite the fact that you didn't actually engage with my argument is no stronger a position than someone who offers blanket criticism of an entire genre of music without ever actually listening to any of it. i'm reminded of my father's early "rap is crap" stance. it took a decade before he was willing to listen to some quality hip hop with an active ear, at which time he admitted, "ya know, some of that is pretty good."

mostly, i'm just a bit surprised that a rather thoughtful online community like kf.com would be so utterly dismissive without first taking the time to consider the merits of the koons' piece in question, to think on it actively, the way art often requires, to put a bit of effort into it. it's one thing if spirited discussion on the subject of the art itself leads somebody to reaffirm their opinion that the piece isn't suited to their tastes, but it's largely just been snap judgments and poor assumptions on this subject, and little in the way of discussion of the art itself, why the commission might have chosen it, or why it might be a compelling feature of the new downtown plaza. i see a whole lotta shoving-fingers-in-ears gestures and "get off my lawn"-styled proclamations, and in my mind, that's evidence of why an art commission was chosen to select an appropriate piece, rather than a crowd-sourced group of individuals...

 

[uolj]

mostly, i'm just a bit surprised that a rather thoughtful online community like kf.com would be so utterly dismissive without first taking the time to consider the merits of the koons' piece in question, to think on it actively, the way art often requires, to put a bit of effort into it. it's one thing if spirited discussion on the subject of the art itself leads somebody to reaffirm their opinion that the piece isn't suited to their tastes, but it's largely just been snap judgments and poor assumptions on this subject, and little in the way of discussion of the art itself, why the commission might have chosen it, or why it might be a compelling feature of the new downtown plaza. i see a whole lotta shoving-fingers-in-ears gestures and "get off my lawn"-styled proclamations, and in my mind, that's evidence of why an art commission was chosen to select an appropriate piece, rather than a crowd-sourced group of individuals...

To be fair, even given the fact that this is a relatively thoughtful online community, it's still just a forum. And the initial "headline" ($8 million being spent on single sculpture for the new arena) really lends itself to snap judgments. I mean, you have to admit that to people not super familiar with art and the art world, it would seem like a crazy amount of money for a single sculpture from someone they've never heard of that doesn't immediately strike everyone as obviously great.

I was actually pleasantly surprised by how much people have softened their stance after those initial reactions, especially after more information about how much money was required to be spent and the context of the piece itself. I don't mind if people don't like the piece (or rather, the other pieces in the series), or if they'd prefer the money all go to local artists. Those seem to be reasonable stances rather than the knee-jerk "no way jose" thinking that could have persisted.

 

[Padrino]

To be fair, even given the fact that this is a relatively thoughtful online community, it's still just a forum. And the initial "headline" ($8 million being spent on single sculpture for the new arena) really lends itself to snap judgments. I mean, you have to admit that to people not super familiar with art and the art world, it would seem like a crazy amount of money for a single sculpture from someone they've never heard of that doesn't immediately strike everyone as obviously great.

I was actually pleasantly surprised by how much people have softened their stance after those initial reactions, especially after more information about how much money was required to be spent and the context of the piece itself. I don't mind if people don't like the piece (or rather, the other pieces in the series), or if they'd prefer the money all go to local artists. Those seem to be reasonable stances rather than the knee-jerk "no way jose" thinking that could have persisted.

when it comes to that argument, i would only offer that spending $9.5 million exclusively or even primarily on local art would be a gross waste of the funds; in such an instance, you're either massively overpaying for local works or you're buying much more than you could reasonably display without cluttering the site. there are simply no artists in the sacramento area working in sculpture that will command a particularly steep price for their art. i suppose you could purchase an entire gallery's worth of local art for $9.5 million, but... that's what local art galleries are for, and this is not an art gallery that we're talking about. public installations at a site like the new downtown plaza shouldn't be so insular in nature, not when downtown revitalization is focused on placing sacramento in a global context and catapulting the city into the modern era; the art commission's decision should be about drawing people to the site, locals and visitors alike. reputation matters, and koons' work is known to draw a crowd...

as far as i'm able to gather with the limited knowledge i have about the "high art" market place, $8 million is an incredibly fair price for the koons piece in question (some consider it a steal), and $1.5 million is certainly more than enough to feature outstanding work form local artists, as well. beyond that, the hefty price tag associated with the koons piece doesn't mean that one should feel compelled to like it more than the less expensive local art that will be featured. i understand that it may not seem "fair" to some, that an "outsider" should be paid so much while local artists will be paid considerably less, but we are talking about a market place here. whether one approves or not, this is capitalism in action. koons is regarded as a master, and his work will be valued accordingly. placing "Coloring Book" at the new downtown plaza may actually aid in improving sacramento's standing as a city for the arts, and it could even help to boost the profiles (and future paydays) of local artists if sacramento is able to establish a truly vibrant culture of the arts...

that said, i don't blame people for their negative reactions to "Coloring Book"; i've already said my piece on our country's unfortunate lack of emphasis on the arts, and it's to be expected that most people won't have much familiarity with the bizarre ins-and-outs of the art world. all i'm asking is that they put a bit of effort into understanding the scope of this issue. historically, art is migratory. it is not static. it travels. it moves from city to city, state to state, nation to nation. but it crosses those often arbitrary boundaries in order to bring people together, because great art achieves universality; it needn't be "for" anyone in particular, nor "from" anyone (or anywhere) in particular...

 

[NoBonus]

My two cents (not that anyone anywhere cares):

1. A giant piece of public art like that will cost a fortune in materials, the artists time, payroll costs, healthcare for everyone and their cousin's aunt's friend, and inspections, so the price, though high, it not THAT out of control. Plus you have to consider you are not hiring me with a pile of bricks, but an internationally famous artist.
2. Art is subjective. If you ignore the price tag (which you should) it is not a bad piece of art... it's colorful, it not a mural on a wall, it's interesting and it sparks discussion which is one of the purposes of art.
3. If the new Kings arena is supposed to be the best in the world, it stands to reason that you would bring in one of the world's best and most well known artists. For those who don't follow art too much, one of his sculptures was in the movie Night at the Museum 2... that should tell you something.

 

[uolj]

when it comes to that argument, i would only offer that spending $9.5 million exclusively or even primarily on local art would be a gross waste of the funds

I don't disagree. But at least an argument can be made in the other direction. I actually think that's an interesting topic.

If they wanted to spend $9.5 million on local artists, maybe they could have actually made room for a gallery of local art at the site. I'm not sure if that would count toward the requirement or not, but it's an idea. Or, they could have spent 50% of the funds on a major piece instead of 84%.

Personally, I like this idea given my limited knowledge of the options available. A major centerpiece that doesn't bother me with money left over for additional works. I'll give that a thumbs up.

 

[Warhawk]

Regarding price, I don't see how it can't be a factor in any decision made on art. What if this piece cost the full $9.5 million (and still considered a "steal" by some) and no money was left to locals at all? Would that still be OK? Just curious.

One thing that I would like to mention regarding cost is that the original art budget was $5.5 million. There was to be a "competition" (for lack of a better word) in order to get the funds and provide art to the new facility. When this piece became available/a possibility, that competition was scrapped and this piece slated for purchase. I think that is one reason why so many local folks are upset; they are now trying to get their art into the site for $1.5 mil instead of $5.5 mil worth of pieces. From almost a year ago:

http://www.nba.com/kings/news/sacra...omote-public-art-new-entertainment-and-sports

"SMAC will administer the program and oversee key activities that include artist research, outreach and selection; artwork design development; design approval; and fabrication and installation of artwork. Funds will be used both to install new public art and safely remove and transfer notable artwork currently at the site.

In addition, the Kings and SMAC placed strong emphasis on identifying panelists with an exceptional track record of support for local art, and specifically the diverse community of artists emerging across the Sacramento region."

Please re-read that last sentence.

The additional $4 mil ($9.5 mil - $5.5 mil) came from private donations (Vivek, Oats, Nagle, Friedman) to allow for purchase of this piece and still have a little left over for additional art. Local artists just lost out on $4 mil of funding ($5.5 mil - $1.5 mil) that was established for this area because this piece was chosen. And a chunk of the $1.5 mil left will go to removing, refurbishing, and re-installing some of the art already at the mall location, NOT to purchasing new art.

Now I know it doesn't say that all the money was to be spent locally, but it sure seems like the intent was to engage the local artists in order to place art in the arena site from the "diverse community of artists emerging across the Sacramento region".

From the Sacramento Bee article a week or so ago:

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

“I interact with artists, and I just felt I couldn’t face them without saying you will have an opportunity to have role in the project,” Friedman said. “This is your community, you love it like I do.”

Basically he is just throwing them a bone (his $1 mil contribution) since they used up almost all the proposed budget (>$5.5 mil) for this one piece (they kept $500 k of the original budget for locals).

And you know what is funny - take a look at this article:

http://www.sacmetroarts.org/News/McKinley Village

Sacramento Sculptor's Artwork Selected for Award Winning Neighborhood entrance

"La Feuille", an abstract sculpture featuring two large leaves in mirror-polished stainless steel by Marc Foster has been selected to sit at the main entrance into McKinley Village....

Conceived as an homage to trees, the design draws inspiration from Sacramento’s status as the City of Trees as well as the shape of the neighborhood itself, which—defined by the Capital City Freeway to the North and the railroad tracks to the south—looks like a leaf. In addition to the two large leaves, the artwork will include stylized branches weaving in and out of the ground and a smaller horizontal leaf, all of which could be used as benches."

Look at the renderings in the linked article and tell me that there are not talented local artists that, if given the funds, could put high-quality art there. This art actually interacts with those viewing it (can touch, sit on it, etc.) unlike "Coloring Book" which according to the maintenance requirements "should not be touched in the regular course of display" and requires $15,000-$25,000 of maintenance a year. La Feuille is at least as big as "Coloring Book" (vertically, and has horizontal components that are cool as well) and I like this a lot more - and again, I know, that is just my opinion. But beautiful art can be made locally that also honors and enshrines what makes Sacramento special. Local artists just need to be given more of a chance.