I personally know a number of local artists that I would support designing the art piece for the arena location. My daughter would do a good job of designing it. But I doubt any of them could pull it off - they don't have a big enough kiln, they haven't the resources or knowledge to handle big steel or big glass, etc. In this day and age it would take a very wealthy localite or a local corporation to pull off doing this. To be done right big sites like this demand proportionately big art. The final product chosen by any alternative group or process would be "local" only by remote chance.
Poll on proposed "art" piece for the new arena
- Thread starter Warhawk
- Start date
When we're talking about art work that has a price tag in the millions, then that artist is in a special category. He's elite and he's earned that price tag one way or another.
Demanding locals be paid 5 mil for their artwork is like demanding a local basketball player be given a Kings contract because we've invested in the arena and need to keep a local presence. Not gonna happen. Those contracts are for the best of the best.
By the way, if I heard correctly, 1.5 mil that local artists are getting would be single largest amount the city has given.
Demanding locals be paid 5 mil for their artwork is like demanding a local basketball player be given a Kings contract because we've invested in the arena and need to keep a local presence. Not gonna happen. Those contracts are for the best of the best.
By the way, if I heard correctly, 1.5 mil that local artists are getting would be single largest amount the city has given.
They were never given the chance! Did you read what I posted? The proposed art for the facility was supposed to go through a review process and local artists were to be able to submit. That process was scrapped before is ever started and the bulk of the funds are now going for this piece. How can you say "They simply didn't earn it?"
And local artists will never be able to get into that category if the funding for work intended to be sourced locally keeps getting yanked out from under them.
No, nobody is demanding the money, they are furious that they never got the chance to get it at all. There was no opportunity to even show that they could do as good or better. Someone saw a famous art name, started drooling, and yanked the proposed funding before the competition ever began.
And so what if it is still the largest amount ever given? Does that make the committee's actions any more right?
No, nobody is demanding the money, they are furious that they never got the chance to get it at all. There was no opportunity to even show that they could do as good or better. Someone saw a famous art name, started drooling, and yanked the proposed funding before the competition ever began.
And so what if it is still the largest amount ever given? Does that make the committee's actions any more right?
Exactly.
The thing some critics seem to be missing is that the 5 or 8 mil (before added donations) MUST be spend on art, per a city ordinance. However, there are simply no local artists that command that kind of money. So you'd be overpaying market value, and that's just not smart business. It also begins to look like nepotism, and small-town thinking. The whole point of the project is to propel Sacramento into being a global city, but it's been ever so hard to shake the small town thinking.
So Sacramento finally get it's huge downtown economic stimulator development deal that includes ancillary development left and right, high end hotel... a dream come true economically... and we still have some people saying "let's way over pay for an artist or artists nobody outside of Sacramento has heard of". That just looks like a city trying to congratulate itself. This piece, whether you personally like it or not, WILL attract national and international attention. And, it's actually a good thing that it's one of a series of 5, because the other four will help increase the overall visibility of the series, and of our piece.
Now, I actually do happen to like it (the theme/series) a lot. And I think it will capture the spirit of fun and joy that I associate with Sacramento - my childhood home. It's not a "serious" "make you think deeply" type of piece. It's whimsical! The shapes and lines are inspired by Winnie the Pooh! It's supposed to lighten up the mood! Which is why I find it rather hilarious that we're having such a consternated, serious, heavy debate on it.
Lighten up and enjoy it! It's not even your money!
The thing some critics seem to be missing is that the 5 or 8 mil (before added donations) MUST be spend on art, per a city ordinance. However, there are simply no local artists that command that kind of money. So you'd be overpaying market value, and that's just not smart business. It also begins to look like nepotism, and small-town thinking. The whole point of the project is to propel Sacramento into being a global city, but it's been ever so hard to shake the small town thinking.
So Sacramento finally get it's huge downtown economic stimulator development deal that includes ancillary development left and right, high end hotel... a dream come true economically... and we still have some people saying "let's way over pay for an artist or artists nobody outside of Sacramento has heard of". That just looks like a city trying to congratulate itself. This piece, whether you personally like it or not, WILL attract national and international attention. And, it's actually a good thing that it's one of a series of 5, because the other four will help increase the overall visibility of the series, and of our piece.
Now, I actually do happen to like it (the theme/series) a lot. And I think it will capture the spirit of fun and joy that I associate with Sacramento - my childhood home. It's not a "serious" "make you think deeply" type of piece. It's whimsical! The shapes and lines are inspired by Winnie the Pooh! It's supposed to lighten up the mood! Which is why I find it rather hilarious that we're having such a consternated, serious, heavy debate on it.
Lighten up and enjoy it! It's not even your money!
Last edited:
sure, if they believe it's in the best interests of raising the profile of sacramento's downtown revitalization projects. when opportunity knocks, sometimes you must be opportunistic. think of the rudy gay trade. or better yet, think of any effort across the nba to secure a legitimate superstar, and the amount of effort it often takes to secure a legitimate superstar. if a jeff koons piece falls in your lap at a fair price, then it hardly strikes me as unreasonable to pounce on such an opportunity. more importantly, it's not either/or; local art will still be featured at the arena site, and a healthy budget is being allocated specifically for that purpose. it's a bit like acquiring that superstar without having to mortgage all other assets in the process...
Artists from cities like Sacramento do not get famous by earning bloated contracts from their hometowns, they earn it on the national and international market. This isn't a charity.
The nearly unanimous sentiment on the selection committee was that no, there was no competition, because no local artist realistically could have competed with Koons.
The nearly unanimous sentiment on the selection committee was that no, there was no competition, because no local artist realistically could have competed with Koons.
While I disagree with the above statements regarding funding, I think my stance / point has been made. Those funds were intended for local artists to be able to compete (for per the original intent of the $5.5 million budget) which was subsequently pulled and largely (arbitrarily) allocated for another piece.
You know, at one point Koons also had not generated any works worth the millions he gets now, either. Art can inspire no matter what name is attached to it. That is the beauty and magic of it. I think that point is being forgotten. And to think that only Koons can generate something worthy of that honor is, well, just silly to me.
I have shown (and pshn80 has also stated) that local artists can indeed produce designs worthy of these funds (and the article I linked to showed local artists can actually produce these works).
I think it is funny that a "bloated" contract to local artists (and how can we know what is "bloated" if no designs are ever evaluated to begin with!) would be frowned upon while a "bloated" contract to an artist out of state (ahem, "premium" is the word used instead) is highly desirable since obviously the piece proposed would be better than anything produced locally (although nobody else, locally or otherwise, was given a chance to compete). The mental gyrations required to accept this line of thinking!
I think it would be awesome to be able to have everyone compete on artistic talent for these projects (instead of just granting it to someone), as originally intended. If Koons and others were all able to compete and then his piece was selected, well, that would sit easier with me. If proposed pieces were judged blind (without knowing the artist) that would be best. Art is art, no matter the source. I want the best art, not the most well-known name or largest budget, to win. And I don't think we are getting the opportunity for that to happen.
You know, at one point Koons also had not generated any works worth the millions he gets now, either. Art can inspire no matter what name is attached to it. That is the beauty and magic of it. I think that point is being forgotten. And to think that only Koons can generate something worthy of that honor is, well, just silly to me.
I have shown (and pshn80 has also stated) that local artists can indeed produce designs worthy of these funds (and the article I linked to showed local artists can actually produce these works).
I think it is funny that a "bloated" contract to local artists (and how can we know what is "bloated" if no designs are ever evaluated to begin with!) would be frowned upon while a "bloated" contract to an artist out of state (ahem, "premium" is the word used instead) is highly desirable since obviously the piece proposed would be better than anything produced locally (although nobody else, locally or otherwise, was given a chance to compete). The mental gyrations required to accept this line of thinking!
I think it would be awesome to be able to have everyone compete on artistic talent for these projects (instead of just granting it to someone), as originally intended. If Koons and others were all able to compete and then his piece was selected, well, that would sit easier with me. If proposed pieces were judged blind (without knowing the artist) that would be best. Art is art, no matter the source. I want the best art, not the most well-known name or largest budget, to win. And I don't think we are getting the opportunity for that to happen.
By bloated, I mean above market value. You seem to be arguing that there is no such thing as objective market value for art, but there very much is, like all other goods. It's simply how much that piece would fetch on the open market. YOU may think local artists can produce works that are worth 8 million, but the market does not. That's what I mean by bloated.
This Koons piece would have fetched the 8 mil anywhere, hence it's not overpriced, relative to the market. The market determines the value of an item, not one's personal sentiments about it.
There is simply no local artist that produces pieces that command such value on the open market. If we're looking to spend 5-8 mil for that one, large, signature piece for the ESC... it's an indisputable fact that there is no local artist that commands that price. I like Padrino's analogy: do you sign a Sacramento basketball player just cause he's local and you want to support local athletes? No. You look for a top free agent, and you prepare to pay market value.
This Koons piece would have fetched the 8 mil anywhere, hence it's not overpriced, relative to the market. The market determines the value of an item, not one's personal sentiments about it.
There is simply no local artist that produces pieces that command such value on the open market. If we're looking to spend 5-8 mil for that one, large, signature piece for the ESC... it's an indisputable fact that there is no local artist that commands that price. I like Padrino's analogy: do you sign a Sacramento basketball player just cause he's local and you want to support local athletes? No. You look for a top free agent, and you prepare to pay market value.
Last edited:
NOBODY was looking to spend $8 million for a piece. The total budget for all art was $5.5 million. And I have said that I thought using a smaller portion of that and spreading the rest around for all the work to be put in there was a better idea. Hence the call for competition and fury of all the local artists who just got shut out of the race without even seeing the starting line.
Funny part is, Koors doesn't actually do any work for his art himself (according to an article in the Bee). All fabrication, painting, etc., is done by others with a paint-by-numbers system. It truly is a coloring book that he doesn't participate in - one of those coloring books for little kids where they put the numbers on the page for you to fill in. And the shape is the same as all the others, just the paint colors will change a bit. For $8 million. He can't even be bothered to pick up a brush or buffing rag.
This just gets better and better.
Funny part is, Koors doesn't actually do any work for his art himself (according to an article in the Bee). All fabrication, painting, etc., is done by others with a paint-by-numbers system. It truly is a coloring book that he doesn't participate in - one of those coloring books for little kids where they put the numbers on the page for you to fill in. And the shape is the same as all the others, just the paint colors will change a bit. For $8 million. He can't even be bothered to pick up a brush or buffing rag.
This just gets better and better.
Pick up a "buffing rag". You're now complaining because this world renowned artist doesn't appear to be planning on buffing the sculpture himself. You are being exceptionally unreasonable. No problem... it just completely undermines your side of the argument.
Did you you see Anesh Kapoor welding Cloud Gate? No. He designed it. Which is completely the norm for all world class artists in such mediums. There's something about this you really hate, but for the life of me I can't figure out what it is specifically because you are attacking every single aspect of this. Which leads me to think that this whole scenario is simply fulfilling some need you have to be oppositional, complain, and tear something down. You haven't responded well to reason.
You just seem resentful of the man's success, honestly. Like you think you're a hero of the little people, the blue collar artists who buff their own damn sculptures, not these New York fancy pants who command their underlings to slave away in the shadow of their own greatness. You seem to resent his fame, as well. But here's the deal... he achieved his own success. He earned his reputation. His artwork's value is determined by the market.
We get it, you wanted more money to go to local artists (I think?)... but if we did that... again... the piece simply would not attract the international attention that this one will. Care to argue against the points I (and others) are making? Or, you can just continue on with nonsense critiques like Koons is a fraud because he wears taylored clothes or some drivel.
You'd have PREFERRED that the extra donations above the 5.5 mil not come in. So that you could have some kind of excuse to spend money on inferior art?!
Did you you see Anesh Kapoor welding Cloud Gate? No. He designed it. Which is completely the norm for all world class artists in such mediums. There's something about this you really hate, but for the life of me I can't figure out what it is specifically because you are attacking every single aspect of this. Which leads me to think that this whole scenario is simply fulfilling some need you have to be oppositional, complain, and tear something down. You haven't responded well to reason.
You just seem resentful of the man's success, honestly. Like you think you're a hero of the little people, the blue collar artists who buff their own damn sculptures, not these New York fancy pants who command their underlings to slave away in the shadow of their own greatness. You seem to resent his fame, as well. But here's the deal... he achieved his own success. He earned his reputation. His artwork's value is determined by the market.
We get it, you wanted more money to go to local artists (I think?)... but if we did that... again... the piece simply would not attract the international attention that this one will. Care to argue against the points I (and others) are making? Or, you can just continue on with nonsense critiques like Koons is a fraud because he wears taylored clothes or some drivel.
You'd have PREFERRED that the extra donations above the 5.5 mil not come in. So that you could have some kind of excuse to spend money on inferior art?!
This piece is no "Cloud Gate" - it is a painted work on a flat steel mirror. It is ludicrous to compare the two. The surface area of "Coloring Book" is roughly in the same ballpark as a small bedroom if you were to paint one. For $8 million I would assume a "master" would actually, you know, work on the piece since the paint is the only difference from this one and the other 4 he has (well, not physically worked on in person I guess) put the numbers on the computer for others to paint for him.
If I haven't "responded well to reason" it is because no good reason is being given. A $5.5 million art budget geared to local artists to celebrate Sacramento with art at the new facility is hijacked (before any local artists get a shot to even provide an idea what they would make) and given almost entirely to an artist in New York because of his name recognition. His proposed "art" is the fifth in a series of EXACTLY the same physical pieces with slight coloration differences and he doesn't actually do any of the painting himself. Did I miss anything?
You keep stating for a "fact" that no local artists could generate a work good enough for placement at the new site when they were never given the opportunity to even compete! That's like saying you are giving the gold medal in a marathon to someone (not even originally signed up for the event!) when no marathon was actually held. It boggles my mind that with the immense talent of local artists in northern CA we can't even see what COULD have been produced before giving almost the entire budget for a derivative piece (that nobody has heard of the first 4 before).
I don't begrudge anyone what they earn. I get mad when money is wasted that could have been allocated more appropriately. If a competition was held (as originally intended) and Koors won through the strength of his submittal, then that is one thing. But that never occurred once the commission figured they could spend even more money on one piece due to the name attached to it and NOT on the strength of any submittals. And that is just wrong. Wrong for the commission to do, wrong for the local art community, and wrong for Sacramento.
When you actually have submissions for review and can objectively evaluate them for artistic merit, appropriateness, and the overall fit with the proposed location, then we can start discussing "inferior art". But since none of that took place, your statements are empty rhetoric.
If I haven't "responded well to reason" it is because no good reason is being given. A $5.5 million art budget geared to local artists to celebrate Sacramento with art at the new facility is hijacked (before any local artists get a shot to even provide an idea what they would make) and given almost entirely to an artist in New York because of his name recognition. His proposed "art" is the fifth in a series of EXACTLY the same physical pieces with slight coloration differences and he doesn't actually do any of the painting himself. Did I miss anything?
You keep stating for a "fact" that no local artists could generate a work good enough for placement at the new site when they were never given the opportunity to even compete! That's like saying you are giving the gold medal in a marathon to someone (not even originally signed up for the event!) when no marathon was actually held. It boggles my mind that with the immense talent of local artists in northern CA we can't even see what COULD have been produced before giving almost the entire budget for a derivative piece (that nobody has heard of the first 4 before).
I don't begrudge anyone what they earn. I get mad when money is wasted that could have been allocated more appropriately. If a competition was held (as originally intended) and Koors won through the strength of his submittal, then that is one thing. But that never occurred once the commission figured they could spend even more money on one piece due to the name attached to it and NOT on the strength of any submittals. And that is just wrong. Wrong for the commission to do, wrong for the local art community, and wrong for Sacramento.
When you actually have submissions for review and can objectively evaluate them for artistic merit, appropriateness, and the overall fit with the proposed location, then we can start discussing "inferior art". But since none of that took place, your statements are empty rhetoric.
Just to be clear, this is the artist heading up the protest at City Council, right? https://www.artbrokerage.com/David-Garibaldi
He seems to do the same painting over and over, if that is criteria for dismissal.
Besides, I don't think anyone need worry that there would be PLENTY of money still left over for a lot of his paintings to be included.
He seems to do the same painting over and over, if that is criteria for dismissal.
Besides, I don't think anyone need worry that there would be PLENTY of money still left over for a lot of his paintings to be included.
Not dumping on him, but if he wants to protest my city bringing world class art to town because he wants personal gain then he is opening himself up to criticism.
And I don't care if an artist has multiple versions, but some here do.
I am somewhat befuddled that the artists who are protesting can't see how this would bring MORE of a spotlight onto the Sacramento art scene and can't realize that their local charm is not enough.
Edit:
Just read the latest Bee article on it. According to them the city contribution is only $2.5 million bond money. So the City is actually spending $2.5 mill on a world class artist & $1.5 mill on local artists to show next to him. Wth is the problem here? And this next bit speaks SO much. I'm sorry, I wish there were, but there is NO local artist with the fame that the city is trying to count on to anchor the space.
--------------------------
Sobon said that donation is unprecedented in Sacramento. In the last 30 years, he said, only three local artists have received commissions for public art of at least $250,000. He said the most expensive local art work he has auctioned was $25,000 – and it didn’t end up with a buyer.
“There is so much room in that $1.5 million for local artists to get accepted and get their work in a public space,” he said.
For some of the artists who showed up at City Hall on Tuesday, that doesn’t seem to be enough.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/city-beat/article12518678.html#storylink=cpy
And I don't care if an artist has multiple versions, but some here do.
I am somewhat befuddled that the artists who are protesting can't see how this would bring MORE of a spotlight onto the Sacramento art scene and can't realize that their local charm is not enough.
Edit:
Just read the latest Bee article on it. According to them the city contribution is only $2.5 million bond money. So the City is actually spending $2.5 mill on a world class artist & $1.5 mill on local artists to show next to him. Wth is the problem here? And this next bit speaks SO much. I'm sorry, I wish there were, but there is NO local artist with the fame that the city is trying to count on to anchor the space.
--------------------------
Sobon said that donation is unprecedented in Sacramento. In the last 30 years, he said, only three local artists have received commissions for public art of at least $250,000. He said the most expensive local art work he has auctioned was $25,000 – and it didn’t end up with a buyer.
“There is so much room in that $1.5 million for local artists to get accepted and get their work in a public space,” he said.
For some of the artists who showed up at City Hall on Tuesday, that doesn’t seem to be enough.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/city-beat/article12518678.html#storylink=cpy
Last edited:
You are reading into it what you want to see. Thanks uolj for clarifying. Warhawk was one complaining about it being a 5th edition, not I. Warhawk was dismissive because of that, not I.
What I see is local artists who can not be appreciative for an unprecedented $1.5 million gift to local artists, who want more more more.
What I see is local artists who can not be appreciative for an unprecedented $1.5 million gift to local artists, who want more more more.
Last edited:
You guys are way too wrapped up in the name of the artist and not the art itself. The only defense for the selection of the piece and cost so far has been "but, he's a big name" - same thing we told ourselves when we traded for Ralph Sampson and hired Bill Russell as a coach. Why are you all so intent on dumping out the dollars for a big name instead of actually trying to get the best artwork available? It's mind-boggling. Isn't that the object - to get the best pieces available for this location? Or is it just to get the biggest "name", details be damned, and who cares what we actually COULD have gotten instead? Are you more interested in the quality and nature of the work or the fact that choosing a "big name" starts a "conversation"?
You may see people asking for more, I see people asking for the right to COMPETE for what was promised. I guess we all see what we want to see.
You may see people asking for more, I see people asking for the right to COMPETE for what was promised. I guess we all see what we want to see.
But the "best" art is so subjective, it's hardly worth spending any time discussing. I personally think the example shown would be just fine, and probably better than many other choices that could be made. So, I am taking into consideration the art itself. If I thought the piece was ugly or in poor taste I'd say so (once or twice and then not harp on it over and over ).
But since it's not objectionable to me and it fits within a very wide range of acceptable choices, I move on to other considerations. This includes the opportunity for local artists to contribute and the question of whether an open competition is appropriate, but also includes the ancillary benefits of having famous art from a famous name.
).But since it's not objectionable to me and it fits within a very wide range of acceptable choices, I move on to other considerations. This includes the opportunity for local artists to contribute and the question of whether an open competition is appropriate, but also includes the ancillary benefits of having famous art from a famous name.
Seriously? Everybody reads into it what they want to see. I have actually tried to be impartial in all this for the most part because although I have strong feelings I do not live in Sacramento any longer and will, at the most, see whatever art ends up out front of the arena in the rare event I can even afford to attend a game.
I like and respect you. I like and respect Ron (Warhawk). I think both of you have on occasion stepped over the line and made things a lot more contentious than they need to be. But whatever...
I'm outta this.
I like and respect you. I like and respect Ron (Warhawk). I think both of you have on occasion stepped over the line and made things a lot more contentious than they need to be. But whatever...
I'm outta this.
Really no point in discussing any longer, Warhawk. Whether anyone personally likes the piece or not, the guy is a world famous Rockstar in the sculpting world, the likes of which does not exist locally. Not everyone likes the same music though. You clearly think a local piece could have same impact while I do not. We disagree. That's cool.
Last edited:
Did all you Koons detractors get that point that no local art has ever been commissioned for more than 250k?
You all are completely nuts to think that spending 5.5 mil on a local artist's piece even remotely makes sense. You're just flat out nuts.
To top it off... there is still 1.5 mil going to local artists! The largest commission amount for any project in Sacramento ever. To be featured alongside a Koons piece can make someone's career.
All the arguments and points have been laid out. You're entitled to not like the Koons piece... but you're absolutely nuts to not want it here, and to think that any local artists could compete with something in that price range.
This is just grandstanding by some local artists if you ask me.
You all are completely nuts to think that spending 5.5 mil on a local artist's piece even remotely makes sense. You're just flat out nuts.
To top it off... there is still 1.5 mil going to local artists! The largest commission amount for any project in Sacramento ever. To be featured alongside a Koons piece can make someone's career.
All the arguments and points have been laid out. You're entitled to not like the Koons piece... but you're absolutely nuts to not want it here, and to think that any local artists could compete with something in that price range.
This is just grandstanding by some local artists if you ask me.