Poll on proposed "art" piece for the new arena

[Dime Dropper]

This discussion is pointless given that "we" (quotes as I'm an outsider and don't have a rightful opinion in this) have money for both options.

No Sacramento artist is going to command anywhere near that price, no matter what the art piece is (even if it's superior to Koon's, in your respective opinions. It's still not going to command a huge fee on the market). "We" could pay for Koons piece and still have $1.5mil to pay local artists. This is not an either/or. This is the definition of both. It's win/win.

I accept some of Warhawk's arguments, but I think the point he's missing (maybe I'm just wrong) is that even if you did give the opportunity for Sacramento's artists to come up with the best piece, that same best piece (even if "better" than Koon's) would cost nowhere near the same amount. Paying $5 million to a local artist for something that only demands $300K on the open market is silly. Rightly or wrongly, reputation does matter. Yes, Koon at one time did have pieces that were worth s**t money, but that's the whole point. You have to establish yourself long term and come up with piece after piece that art-lovers enjoy. Then your stock rises, you establish yourself (again rightly or wrongly, art is subjective) as someone who is going to go down in history as a truly great artist, and the value of every piece you make rises.

I honestly don't think Sacramento artists are getting the short end of the stick. $1.5 mil is a lot of money for local artists to go wild and do what they want. Their art very well may be better than Koons, we might have the next Di Vinci on our hands. But we don't have to oeverpay for it. Let them come up with their piece for fair value that will make people stand up and say "wow". It's opportunities like this that give artists a chance to have the funds to complete their visions.

Nobody is getting the short end of the stick here. Sacramento gets a piece that will be an attraction world-wide (regardless of whether it's one of five pieces, it will be an attraction to many people) and local artists get a huge sum to complete their best projects. I know not everyone will agree, but as an outside viewer, this really is a win-win for everyone.

 

[Warhawk]

This discussion is pointless given that "we" (quotes as I'm an outsider and don't have a rightful opinion in this) have money for both options.

No Sacramento artist is going to command anywhere near that price, no matter what the art piece is (even if it's superior to Koon's, in your respective opinions. It's still not going to command a huge fee on the market). "We" could pay for Koons piece and still have $1.5mil to pay local artists. This is not an either/or. This is the definition of both. It's win/win.

I accept some of Warhawk's arguments, but I think the point he's missing (maybe I'm just wrong) is that even if you did give the opportunity for Sacramento's artists to come up with the best piece, that same best piece (even if "better" than Koon's) would cost nowhere near the same amount. Paying $5 million to a local artist for something that only demands $300K on the open market is silly. Rightly or wrongly, reputation does matter. Yes, Koon at one time did have pieces that were worth s**t money, but that's the whole point. You have to establish yourself long term and come up with piece after piece that art-lovers enjoy. Then your stock rises, you establish yourself (again rightly or wrongly, art is subjective) as someone who is going to go down in history as a truly great artist, and the value of every piece you make rises.

I honestly don't think Sacramento artists are getting the short end of the stick. $1.5 mil is a lot of money for local artists to go wild and do what they want. Their art very well may be better than Koons, we might have the next Di Vinci on our hands. But we don't have to oeverpay for it. Let them come up with their piece for fair value that will make people stand up and say "wow". It's opportunities like this that give artists a chance to have the funds to complete their visions.

Nobody is getting the short end of the stick here. Sacramento gets a piece that will be an attraction world-wide (regardless of whether it's one of five pieces, it will be an attraction to many people) and local artists get a huge sum to complete their best projects. I know not everyone will agree, but as an outside viewer, this really is a win-win for everyone.

And I will just say this - what all of you keep saying - that there is nobody local that would demand $5 mil on the open market for a piece of art - is the biggest straw man that keeps getting repeated.

Nobody is advocating paying $5 mil for one local work. What has been advocated is making the $5.5 mil originally intended for local artists available to be pursued by local artists for ALL the work at the site. The amount would be split up among several for various pieces and was never intended for ONE work. The problem is now that the centerpiece location and art is now taken up as well as almost all the art budget, so nobody has that option open now. They would be competing for a much smaller exposure and less favorable location with only a fraction of the original budget available.

And if nobody local or nobody can come up with something that is more Sacramento-centric (as originally stated as an art goal), then fine, this overpriced widget is always an option. But how will we ever find the local Di Vinci if they are never given the chance to shine?

This situation is a win-win for Koons only.

 

[Warhawk]

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.

I guess we will continue to disagree that a copy of 4 previous pieces of art which consists of an 18-foot steel mirror cut exactly the same as the previous 4 is worth $8 million. No matter who makes it.

Only people who appreciate names, and not the art itself, care about the name. Art transcends names. Good art is good art, no matter who makes it. I don't see how that is even debatable. Now the cost for good art changes on the name painted in the corner, and that is what you ascribe value to. I do not value the name as much as the art itself.

I see value in getting the best art that we can get for the budget. I don't think paying a "premium" (or "bloat", to use Hammer's term) is the best way to blow the budget. Apparently you disagree. Hope you enjoy our overpriced widget. At least we are buying the cheap widget that he peddles.

 

[LPKingsFan]

I guess we will continue to disagree that a copy of 4 previous pieces of art which consists of an 18-foot steel mirror cut exactly the same as the previous 4 is worth $8 million. No matter who makes it.

An identical copy of previous works , assembled by someone who wasn't even the artist himself? I've must have heard this before, but I'll have to think...

http://legionofhonor.famsf.org/about/thinker

 

[Dime Dropper]

Good art is good art, no matter who makes it. I don't see how that is even debatable.

Nobody's arguing against that though, warhawk. And it's kind of annoying that you keep making that point, given that no one is arguing it. People are talking about market value. I'll make a simple example: You're gonna have a party, and your aim is to draw attention to you and your career. You're trying to get people to notice you and make yourself an attraction in the mainstream. You have an extremely talented friend who writes great music, plays guitar and sings really well. He (or she) has an amazing song that's never gonna make it big (if you're realistic, given that there's thousands of others who can do the same thing), but you love it. Or you can pay substantially more for a Rihanna (or insert whoever) song that's pretty much guaranteed to be a massive hit, thousands will flock to it annually and you'll be known worldwide. Are you gonna pay your friend $5 mill to make the appearance (when you could just throw him a few thousand more than he would otherwise get in order to give him a leg up in the industry, thus helping him), or the worldwide superstar? You only need to pay your friend $5000 regardless of how good his music is, and you would still be overpaying.

I realise this comparison is flawed in many ways, so there's no point picking it apart and saying "ahah!". I already know that. But I think most can get the point.


I think you're much better than talking down to people who don't agree with you, Warhawk. I generally agree with you. But IMO your tone is really disappointing. Your opinion is not disappointing at all, I want to clarify that. I accept your opinion. But your subtle use of language etc is disappointing. I know you probably don't care but that's how I feel.

 

[Warhawk]

An identical copy of previous works , assembled by someone who wasn't even the artist himself? I've must have heard this before, but I'll have to think...

http://legionofhonor.famsf.org/about/thinker

And comparing the proposed work to one of the most famous works of art of all time is quite a stretch, don't you think?

 

[Warhawk]

Nobody's arguing against that though, warhawk. And it's kind of annoying that you keep making that point, given that no one is arguing it. People are talking about market value. I'll make a simple example: You're gonna have a party, and your aim is to draw attention to you and your career. You're trying to get people to notice you and make yourself an attraction in the mainstream. You have an extremely talented friend who writes great music, plays guitar and sings really well. He (or she) has an amazing song that's never gonna make it big (if you're realistic, given that there's thousands of others who can do the same thing), but you love it. Or you can pay substantially more for a Rihanna (or insert whoever) song that's pretty much guaranteed to be a massive hit, thousands will flock to it annually and you'll be known worldwide. Are you gonna pay your friend $5 mill to make the appearance (when you could just throw him a few thousand more than he would otherwise get in order to give him a leg up in the industry, thus helping him), or the worldwide superstar? You only need to pay your friend $5000 regardless of how good his music is, and you would still be overpaying.

I realise this comparison is flawed in many ways, so there's no point picking it apart and saying "ahah!". I already know that. But I think most can get the point.


I think you're much better than talking down to people who don't agree with you, Warhawk. I generally agree with you. But IMO your tone is really disappointing. Your opinion is not disappointing at all, I want to clarify that. I accept your opinion. But your subtle use of language etc is disappointing. I know you probably don't care but that's how I feel.

Oh, I get your point, and apologize for the tone. This topic just riles me in so many ways.

I think the obvious reason this analogy fails is that whatever artwork is chosen it ALREADY HAS has a built in audience. You don't have to draw people to your party. They are already coming not because of your band but because the cast of Avengers (the Kings, the circus, concerts, etc.) will already be there and folks have paid for the tickets to get in to party with them. Whether Rihanna is there on the front porch playing music or not, these folks are coming. So why pay for Rihanna to play her songs at $8.0 million when you can have this friend and several others who also make good music play their best pieces and GET THE SAME EXPOSURE for a total of $5.5 million. Unless you really just want to have Rhianna. But you had promised your musical friends a year ago that they already got to play this gig before Rhianna became a possibility.

 

[Fireplug]

Oh, I get your point, and apologize for the tone. This topic just riles me in so many ways.

I think the obvious reason this analogy fails is that whatever artwork is chosen it ALREADY HAS has a built in audience. You don't have to draw people to your party. They are already coming not because of your band but because the cast of Avengers (the Kings, the circus, concerts, etc.) will already be there and folks have paid for the tickets to get in to party with them. Whether Rihanna is there on the front porch playing music or not, these folks are coming. So why pay for Rihanna to play her songs at $8.0 million when you can have this friend and several others who also make good music play their best pieces and GET THE SAME EXPOSURE for a total of $5.5 million. Unless you really just want to have Rhianna. But you had promised your musical friends a year ago that they already got to play this gig before Rhianna became a possibility.

Your argument here defines exactly what the problem with your argument is. You can not see the value of Art in itself. You don't see art as having intrinsic value. It seems silly to you. And that is OK..... For you. But you aren't everyone.

You see the arena and the events as the valuable entity. Anyone who might not be a fan of the arena and what occurs inside, but might be a fan of the art itself is dismissed. Your assumption that folks would only want to come downtown for the arena and events, and any bauble that might stand outside it is only window decoration, is preposterous and incredibly short sighted. The exact same type of arguments in reverse were proposed by those who didn't think Sacramento needed an ESC at all because downtown already had enough stuff. When you say, "I don't like it or understand the piece" I can respect your opinion, but when you say it has no value to anyone else in the world because they have this other thing that is good enough, you lose me completely.

 

[Warhawk]

I never said art has no value. Please don't ascribe words or intent to me that I don't say. I said that those coming to the arena are coming for the event. We get up to 1.5 - 2 million visitors per year from an arena if I remember the number correctly (due to attendance at events).

The art at the arena was intended to honor Sacramento with art from local sources and have a set funding as a % of the construction cost. I already linked to that earlier. The art selected is the "cherry" on top of the arena sundae. Nobody is buying this sundae to get the cherry. This isn't Crocker. The Crocker, one of the top art museums in California and one of less than 800 nationwide to get AAM accreditation, averages less than 0.25 million visitors per year. And that is a full-blown, famous art museum packed with fabulous works. Been there several times and enjoyed it immensely. I enjoy art. But they have to keep rotating collections in order to draw in that many folks on an annual basis, which the arena won't do.

Realistically, how many folks would you expect per year to come see the piece of art that are NOT attending any events? A few thousand? Heck, let's go crazy and say 10,000? Maybe at most first year? Less after that? That is less than 1 percent of the visitors to the arena site. How many people from Nevada, or Redding, or Modesto, or the Bay Area will make a SPECIAL trip downtown to see the piece of art and NOT attend an event? I bet the number would be very, very few. And would they also come see the special art installed if it was good quality art by someone else instead, selected through a competition for artistic merit and fit at the site? I would bet at least a good portion would.

Think of it this way - I think the lighted tree branch chandelier artwork at SMF is really flipping cool. I think it might be my favorite piece there. I also like the flying bird sculptures outside. I also like the interactive horn.

Do I know what any of them are called or who made them? Do I go to the airport just to see them? Nope. But I enjoy them every time I visit and point them out to visitors we take through there for whatever reason. Good art stands out no matter who the artist is. You don't have to be wowed by the name to enjoy it.

 

[Fireplug]

I changed my mind. I had a huge rebuttal write up here with math and crap but ultimately, it doesn't matter what you or I argue.

I am just glad that the people making this decision are art experts put in place specifically to make decisions like this and I hope the council heeds their advice .

 

[Livinthedream]

City council passed the project tonight. We'll get to debate the piece for years on end now. The controversy of it is a good thing.

 

[upinsmoke]

 

[Dreadnought]

This is so stupid.

 

[Larry David]

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/personal-finance/claudia-buck/article20050527.html

Vivek say the Coloring Book was his idea, he's wanted it for years, and wanted it in front of the Warriors new arena. The man sure has a Midas touch and had a great 14-15 season.

 

[Warhawk]

So....anyone seen those throngs of thousands of art aficionados making a pilgrimage to our humble city to see this overpriced kitsch?

Yeah, me neither. I would have sworn we would become the talk of the international art world given the lavish praise heaped upon this fine, mass-produced mirror (based on all the posters in this thread).

By now, it’s clear many Sacramentans are pretty “meh” about the Piglet-inspired sculpture by Jeff Koons installed in the arena plaza. The craftsmanship of “Coloring Book” is certainly notable, especially the way its multicolored materials glow when the light hits it.

But for the $8 million price tag, the 16-foot sculpture strikes as somewhat underwhelming in relation to the mighty Golden 1 Center that looms in the background. Still, the Koons piece has rejuvenated conversations about local public art. At its best, public art truly defines a space by inviting a heightened experience, on that provokes thought from passers-by.

That sort of work can be found in local artist Gale Hart’s “Missing the Mark,” a kind of darts game gone awry. It’s a block-long installation that sprawls along the arena’s L Street side and up the plaza pathway on Fifth. The work includes a series of 12-foot darts that have already become a popular selfie spot – not to mention a makeshift bike rack at times. “Missing the Mark” also includes disembodied hands and a number-less dartboard. Though it stands alone as a visually playful work, “Missing the Mark” also makes a cheeky point about gamesmanship, the big money of the sports world and the civic debates surrounding Golden 1 Center’s construction.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article110854667.html#storylink=cpy

It's pretty sad that the best thing that can be said for this whole travesty is that it "sparked a conversation about art" - we didn't need to throw away $8 million to do that. I've seen a lot of playful interaction with "Missing the Mark" before and after games, and I have seen much better visitor reactions from "Missing the Mark", the floating blue globes over the escalator, and the neon signs inside the arena than "Coloring Book" in the 8-10 or so times I have been to the arena so far. More often than not I see folks sitting on the bench around "Coloring Book" but they are looking at their phones or taking pictures of the arena, not looking at "Coloring Book".

I did a google search and did not find any evidence of any significant number of visitors, art tours, notable artists, celebrities, or other groups coming to see it once the unveiling was done. None. At all. The following appears to be the only significant coverage of the piece, and it is pretty sad that the only real discussion on it is from a local paper considering how "game-changing" this was supposed to be:

http://www.sactownmag.com/October-November-2016/Coloring-Outside-the-Lines/

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/personal-finance/claudia-buck/article20050527.html

Vivek say the Coloring Book was his idea, he's wanted it for years, and wanted it in front of the Warriors new arena. The man sure has a Midas touch and had a great 14-15 season.

Larry, read the article above from Sactown Magazine - this is also more in line with the history of the purchase that I heard. I think Vivek is just jumping on the bandwagon.

 

[Bricklayer]

gah.

somebody still needs to bring a large brick and solve that fugly


Alternatively, does Sac still have that Fairy Tale Town thing downtown near the Zoo? If so, that's where they should move the Piglet. Put something more appropriate in its spot in front of Golden One. Maybe an iconic giant bronze of Mikki Moore, Predator-hair flying.

 

[John Galt]

I loved telling my family visitors from SD "that thing was $8M". It's fun. They say "gosh, I thought it would be bigger" lol

Anyway wasn't it some eccentric rich art weirdo who earmarked their donation for Piglet? If so, who am I to quarrel even thought I'd rather see a Garibaldi mural of WCS dunking the ball than the little plexiglass thing.

 

[VF21]

For Warhawk: