Poll on proposed "art" piece for the new arena
- Thread starter Warhawk
- Start date
You know I love you, VF21, but when you told me I am no better than then a basher when I tried to address a specific point, you "stepped over the line" as you put it. 
Attack the message, not the messenger, as they say.
Attack the message, not the messenger, as they say.
I also think the people who didn't want the ESC were nuts.
Their views don't make sense. I can understand people not liking the piece. But I don't see any valid reasons for not wanting it here. Or, at least none have been presented yet. People opposing it are mostly just arguing from emotion. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just that nothing anyone has said has made any sense. To me that = nuts.
And I call people nuts for not presenting any solid reasoning. Yet you go and like a post that completely insults a world class artist.
Their views don't make sense. I can understand people not liking the piece. But I don't see any valid reasons for not wanting it here. Or, at least none have been presented yet. People opposing it are mostly just arguing from emotion. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just that nothing anyone has said has made any sense. To me that = nuts.
And I call people nuts for not presenting any solid reasoning. Yet you go and like a post that completely insults a world class artist.
Did you not read where I said at some point Koons never was paid more than $250 k for a piece, either? And nobody is saying that the whole amount had to go to one piece, it could be split up with multiple pieces going in at much less than the whole $5.5 mil. Nobody is advocating what you are suggesting.
I get it. You like the piece and think that his name alone is worth any amount thrown at it. Just write the check for the exact same piece of steel he has had others paint 4 times before and shut up and be happy when we get one with blue where red used to be, right?
Just realize there are a lot of folks who think an open competition as originally promised wouldn't be a bad idea. It fosters imagination and brings out the best in everyone involved. It also gives the city the best result as far as choices to choose from and final product.
Slashing proposed funding for local arts by 73% for this project doesn't help any local artist further their career, contrary to your opinion. Art will stand or fail on it's own, and not based on who's name is scrawled on the side of it.
I get it. You like the piece and think that his name alone is worth any amount thrown at it. Just write the check for the exact same piece of steel he has had others paint 4 times before and shut up and be happy when we get one with blue where red used to be, right?
Just realize there are a lot of folks who think an open competition as originally promised wouldn't be a bad idea. It fosters imagination and brings out the best in everyone involved. It also gives the city the best result as far as choices to choose from and final product.
Slashing proposed funding for local arts by 73% for this project doesn't help any local artist further their career, contrary to your opinion. Art will stand or fail on it's own, and not based on who's name is scrawled on the side of it.
I would really like to see them spend that kind of money on local artists. Plus, after seeing a few Koons' pieces on real life, I have found that I'm not all that fond of them. On the contrary, My wife, who is against the arena but a big art lover, said that having a Koons art work on the site would attract folks from around the world.
We all interpret art different ways, but I don't Koon is a real artists. All the guy does is design things and hire people to put it together for him... Do you know who Thierry Guetta is? Aka Mr. Brainwash? You should watch his documentary "Exit through the gift shop". I believe him and Koon are no different.. They basically come up with "original" ideas and pay people to make it. Not sure how Koon is a real artist.. does he actually work on the art pieces himself? no. He hires people. That is just MY personal view on art. Wasting money on a crappy "artist". We all have our own definitions of what art is...and I don't think what Koon does is art.
You keep bringing up the fact that local artists shouldn't be given the opportunity to put their art in front of the ESC...why is this?
You keep bringing up the fact that local artists shouldn't be given the opportunity to put their art in front of the ESC...why is this?
Ok, well then how does such a piece get constructed? You'd require the actual designer to build it himself?
Is an architect not an artist unless he pours the foundation, and frames it out himself? Do fashion designers who don't sew the clothes themselves... the clothes are not art?
It's a very limited understanding of art that you're presenting. Did Kapoor buff the Cloud Gate?
Artists are still artists if they are designers.
I feel like I'm arguing with kindergartners.
Is an architect not an artist unless he pours the foundation, and frames it out himself? Do fashion designers who don't sew the clothes themselves... the clothes are not art?
It's a very limited understanding of art that you're presenting. Did Kapoor buff the Cloud Gate?
Artists are still artists if they are designers.
I feel like I'm arguing with kindergartners.
Last edited:
No, not everyone who disagrees with me. I tell people who present an argument that doesn't make sense that they are yes, wrong, but also nonsensical/nuts.
Of course I grant people the right to have their own tastes in art. What I dont' accept is faulty resoning as to why this is a bad purchase for the City of Sacramento, or why local artists even remotely stood a chance. Because they didn't. It's an economic issue. It's math.
Art is subjective. Math is not.
I just refuted your point about designers not being artists... would you care to address that or cede the point? Or would that hurt your feelings to much to do so?
Of course I grant people the right to have their own tastes in art. What I dont' accept is faulty resoning as to why this is a bad purchase for the City of Sacramento, or why local artists even remotely stood a chance. Because they didn't. It's an economic issue. It's math.
Art is subjective. Math is not.
I just refuted your point about designers not being artists... would you care to address that or cede the point? Or would that hurt your feelings to much to do so?
You did get the point that no local artist has ever been commissioned more than 250k right? So let's say we had 5.5 mil that we had to spend... Even if we found ten local artists... TEN... and gave them 500k to make something... then we're forced to put up ten smaller things around the grounds?? It makes no sense! They wanted one large iconic piece... of course. The ESC requires something like that. So, that leaves you with 5.5 to spend one one piece, donors came in and made up the difference for a world renowned artist that had a something up for sale. And they also chipped in ANOTHER 1.5 mil to HELP local artists.
Local artists are WINNING here... they not "losing out" on 5.5 million for the local art economy... because that was never going to happen in the first place. FOR ECONOMIC REASONS.
Local artists are WINNING here... they not "losing out" on 5.5 million for the local art economy... because that was never going to happen in the first place. FOR ECONOMIC REASONS.
I've been trying hard to stay out of this debate as it is obviously pointless and nobody is going to change their minds, but I still want to make a few points.
This isn't necessarily a problem. You're essentially saying that no local artist has "earned" the name to commission expensive art but Koons has "earned" that name. You believe that it's worth paying (as a wild guess in the case of Coloring Book 5) about $6-7M on top of the materials/labor cost to make the piece to get Koons' name attached to it. I don't think it's worth that kind of money just to have a name attached to a piece - particularly one that does not appear to have resale value.
No local artist has commissioned above $250K? Cool! With the original (pre-gift-to-get-Koons) budget of $5.5M you could ask local (or, alternatively not-local-but-smaller-name) artists to go crazy with their proposals. You could aim for two pieces that each had a $2M material/labor cost, give a $250K commission to each, and still have $1M left over for smaller pieces. For $2M smaller-name artists could go huge and daring and could use expensive materials or create intricate works that couldn't be done on a smaller material/labor budget.
Bottom line - we had a big budget. I'd like to have seen that budget go primarily towards the art. You seem to prefer to have that budget go primarily towards the name attached to the art.
I don't follow this line of argument at all. I thought we had established that the primary cost of Coloring Book 5 is that fact that it is a "Koons" piece with his name attached. Is it true that no local artist could make a large mirrored-and-pastel steel piece of the same quality as Koons, for $8M? Is it true that no local artist with a $250K commission could make a better piece of art with up to $7.75M in materials/labor to play with? That seems unlikely. Or is it rather the case that no local artist has a big enough name to attach to the piece to compete with a Koons commission?
I'm not an artist. I can guarantee you that Warhawk isn't an artist. Warhawk and I once had a "who can draw the best stick-figure" contest and we both had to forfeit.
But it does sound as if some local artists are upset that they didn't get a chance to make a proposal. I don't blame them for it. I would have preferred they were given a chance to make proposals the audaciousness of which they may never, ever have a chance to even propose again because of the big budget. That didn't happen.
This isn't necessarily a problem. You're essentially saying that no local artist has "earned" the name to commission expensive art but Koons has "earned" that name. You believe that it's worth paying (as a wild guess in the case of Coloring Book 5) about $6-7M on top of the materials/labor cost to make the piece to get Koons' name attached to it. I don't think it's worth that kind of money just to have a name attached to a piece - particularly one that does not appear to have resale value.
No local artist has commissioned above $250K? Cool! With the original (pre-gift-to-get-Koons) budget of $5.5M you could ask local (or, alternatively not-local-but-smaller-name) artists to go crazy with their proposals. You could aim for two pieces that each had a $2M material/labor cost, give a $250K commission to each, and still have $1M left over for smaller pieces. For $2M smaller-name artists could go huge and daring and could use expensive materials or create intricate works that couldn't be done on a smaller material/labor budget.
Bottom line - we had a big budget. I'd like to have seen that budget go primarily towards the art. You seem to prefer to have that budget go primarily towards the name attached to the art.
I don't follow this line of argument at all. I thought we had established that the primary cost of Coloring Book 5 is that fact that it is a "Koons" piece with his name attached. Is it true that no local artist could make a large mirrored-and-pastel steel piece of the same quality as Koons, for $8M? Is it true that no local artist with a $250K commission could make a better piece of art with up to $7.75M in materials/labor to play with? That seems unlikely. Or is it rather the case that no local artist has a big enough name to attach to the piece to compete with a Koons commission?
I'm not an artist. I can guarantee you that Warhawk isn't an artist. Warhawk and I once had a "who can draw the best stick-figure" contest and we both had to forfeit.
But it does sound as if some local artists are upset that they didn't get a chance to make a proposal. I don't blame them for it. I would have preferred they were given a chance to make proposals the audaciousness of which they may never, ever have a chance to even propose again because of the big budget. That didn't happen.
Why would I do that? You'll just completely dodge all of my answers and claim that you're arguing with a kindergartener. Plus, I actually did respond. I said we all perceive art differently. Just because I don't see the stuff Koon designs as "art" doesn't make reasoning invalid. Why would I go further to clarify that when you've already wrote me off? Genuine responses will receive crickets from you. You use a ton of personal attacks in your arguments.
Can we not have an adult discussion without name calling?
Can we not have an adult discussion without name calling?
Sorry, but I disagree with this whole argument. It's essentially based on material costs and what your opinion of value is for art. That has nothing to do with what an art piece gets in the open market.
The name behind the art is EXACTLY what makes it have value. An artist could spend $100 on his art, but it doesn't mean it's worth that to the public.
If I take a beautiful photograph that people love and try to sell it for $1,000 due to material and labor costs, it won't get sold. Might not be able to sell it for $10. If Ansel Adams takes a picture of the same scene, that picture has infinitely more intrinsic value.
So giving locals the same money to make an art piece will not necessarily produce the same or better quality and value.
We're not producing widgets. It's art.
The name behind the art is EXACTLY what makes it have value. An artist could spend $100 on his art, but it doesn't mean it's worth that to the public.
If I take a beautiful photograph that people love and try to sell it for $1,000 due to material and labor costs, it won't get sold. Might not be able to sell it for $10. If Ansel Adams takes a picture of the same scene, that picture has infinitely more intrinsic value.
So giving locals the same money to make an art piece will not necessarily produce the same or better quality and value.
We're not producing widgets. It's art.
Despite Cap'ns very good and coherent argument (finally we're getting somewhere with genuine debating), I side with Livin here. The last line sums it up.
Too often people try to reduce art to a commodity, and apply industrial-era thinking to art production. My grandfather did it to an extent, and I love and respected the man, but I think it was more an aspect of his generation and the economy of the time.
But I can see both sides. However, what I think essentially happened here was that some decision makers got wind that a Koons piece would be available and they jumped on it... really as was their full right. As pshn80 indicates, they were selected to perform such tasks for the city. There was nothing backroom or shady about this. Unusual, yes. But unusual does not equal immoral or wrong. The piece was so captivating to the selection committee and others close to it with money that extra funds were raised, plus gravy on top for local artists. Again, it is not taxpayer money, and the proper folks made the decision, in the right way. But even if it was taxpayer money, it was still all done above board. Yes, local artists were shut out. Not against the rules. All are entitled to disagree with any part of that.
But, great art often provokes controversy and strong feelings. This piece seems to be getting off to a great start!
I remember my grandfather heartily criticizing a blasphemous "pee Christ" photo... hoo boy did he have some words for that. A piece that absolutely was meant to incite controversy if not outright enrage and offend. But, my views on art differ slightly. I prefer to protect the artist from cultural expectations and mores. I believe that it's only with such freedom can we expect there to be genuine creativity. Industrial age thinking, group thinking, reductionist thinking... these things have value... but when you impose ANY confining set of values on the definition of "art", it's exactly at that point that the art loses it's power. This is not to say every piece of art needs to be revolutionary or inciteful, but the space from which all art comes must absolutely remain free of all culturally imposed values and limitations. From there, it may end up expressing cultural values, teasing cultural values, mocking them, celebrating them, or having no relevance to them at all. But art must remain free.
A true artist has great discipline, but it's not the discipline to stay "on message" per cultural values. It's discipline to follow the thread of their own creative process, which, in my opinion is a sacred endeavor. None of this is to say that art is beyond criticism, but I generally mistrust criticism unless the critic understands this point.
Too often people try to reduce art to a commodity, and apply industrial-era thinking to art production. My grandfather did it to an extent, and I love and respected the man, but I think it was more an aspect of his generation and the economy of the time.
But I can see both sides. However, what I think essentially happened here was that some decision makers got wind that a Koons piece would be available and they jumped on it... really as was their full right. As pshn80 indicates, they were selected to perform such tasks for the city. There was nothing backroom or shady about this. Unusual, yes. But unusual does not equal immoral or wrong. The piece was so captivating to the selection committee and others close to it with money that extra funds were raised, plus gravy on top for local artists. Again, it is not taxpayer money, and the proper folks made the decision, in the right way. But even if it was taxpayer money, it was still all done above board. Yes, local artists were shut out. Not against the rules. All are entitled to disagree with any part of that.
But, great art often provokes controversy and strong feelings. This piece seems to be getting off to a great start!
I remember my grandfather heartily criticizing a blasphemous "pee Christ" photo... hoo boy did he have some words for that. A piece that absolutely was meant to incite controversy if not outright enrage and offend. But, my views on art differ slightly. I prefer to protect the artist from cultural expectations and mores. I believe that it's only with such freedom can we expect there to be genuine creativity. Industrial age thinking, group thinking, reductionist thinking... these things have value... but when you impose ANY confining set of values on the definition of "art", it's exactly at that point that the art loses it's power. This is not to say every piece of art needs to be revolutionary or inciteful, but the space from which all art comes must absolutely remain free of all culturally imposed values and limitations. From there, it may end up expressing cultural values, teasing cultural values, mocking them, celebrating them, or having no relevance to them at all. But art must remain free.
A true artist has great discipline, but it's not the discipline to stay "on message" per cultural values. It's discipline to follow the thread of their own creative process, which, in my opinion is a sacred endeavor. None of this is to say that art is beyond criticism, but I generally mistrust criticism unless the critic understands this point.
Last edited:
But see, that's where you are confusing the issues. If you are trying to sell it, yes. But the City isn't trying to "sell" anything. They are in it for the art, not resale value. There is no resale value for a permanently-mounted work like this. There is, however, direct cost and opportunity cost. The direct cost of this is about 85% of the total art budget for one piece that is not original, but the fifth identical piece with some different paint. Reach for the stars, Sacramento! We are exactly like four other places now!!!
Do you think the public gives a flying rip if an awesome 30-foot tall metallic tree with twinkle lights on it is made by Fred or made by Joe? It is conspicuously placed art for all to enjoy NO MATTER WHO MAKES IT. I don't see how such an obvious point is lost on intelligent people. Nobody (99% of the general public) knew who Koors was before this dust-up and nobody (99% of the general public) will care if his work is installed or not. Unless you are one of a very few folks who, if they are really that into his stuff, have already seen one the first 4 anyways. Are you really going to trek to Sacramento to see copy #5 of something?
The opportunity cost is the loss of funding for local artists by the tune of $4 million from what was originally intended. And those are real costs to the locals who could use this type of exposure and help boost their careers above the $250 k limit.
You can't have better quality if you don't fund it. And you are supposing that having a 5th copy of a piece of art is better quality than a well financed original work. Which can't be assumed.
And yes, we are producing widgets. Well, at least if you are Koors. This is his fifth "Coloring Book" widget. He also has inflatable dog widgets for a much higher price. We are just getting his cheap widget.
Do you think the public gives a flying rip if an awesome 30-foot tall metallic tree with twinkle lights on it is made by Fred or made by Joe? It is conspicuously placed art for all to enjoy NO MATTER WHO MAKES IT. I don't see how such an obvious point is lost on intelligent people. Nobody (99% of the general public) knew who Koors was before this dust-up and nobody (99% of the general public) will care if his work is installed or not. Unless you are one of a very few folks who, if they are really that into his stuff, have already seen one the first 4 anyways. Are you really going to trek to Sacramento to see copy #5 of something?
The opportunity cost is the loss of funding for local artists by the tune of $4 million from what was originally intended. And those are real costs to the locals who could use this type of exposure and help boost their careers above the $250 k limit.
You can't have better quality if you don't fund it. And you are supposing that having a 5th copy of a piece of art is better quality than a well financed original work. Which can't be assumed.
And yes, we are producing widgets. Well, at least if you are Koors. This is his fifth "Coloring Book" widget. He also has inflatable dog widgets for a much higher price. We are just getting his cheap widget.
OH, THE IRONY HERE. We are buying his fifth "Coloring Book" widget and you are complaining about lack of originality.
You can't see that we are buying a widget from Koors? That's what he makes. From identical inflatable dogs to colored IDENTICAL pieces (with the colors changed a bit - just like they do in a factory). And like a real widget maker, he just assigns a factory to construct them for him, not doing any of the work himself.
You can't see that we are buying a widget from Koors? That's what he makes. From identical inflatable dogs to colored IDENTICAL pieces (with the colors changed a bit - just like they do in a factory). And like a real widget maker, he just assigns a factory to construct them for him, not doing any of the work himself.
If the city is buying something, then knowing the proper value of it is important. Hoping that someone local can come up with something worth 5 mil is not. It's not charity. If there was a local artist that was producing art that our committee thought was up to the task, we'd already know about it.
To your other point, people do care who makes the art or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
As far as your insistence of this "copy" talk, there wouldn't be a series of 5 if there wasn't demand for this 7-8 Mil piece of art.
I'll leave you with the last word because I don't think anyones minds will be changed. You see value in giving money to local artists so hopefully someone will recognize them. I see value in bringing in a recognizable name and art work that would attract national/international attention.
To your other point, people do care who makes the art or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
As far as your insistence of this "copy" talk, there wouldn't be a series of 5 if there wasn't demand for this 7-8 Mil piece of art.
I'll leave you with the last word because I don't think anyones minds will be changed. You see value in giving money to local artists so hopefully someone will recognize them. I see value in bringing in a recognizable name and art work that would attract national/international attention.