• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • About
    • Real Clear Arts
    • Judith H. Dobrzynski
    • Contact
  • ArtsJournal
  • AJBlogs

Real Clear Arts

Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture

Arts Funding: A Millage Isn’t The Answer

In August, when the Detroit Institute of Arts won support in its three surrounding counties for a tiny property tax — called a millage — to support its operations for 10 years, a lot of people hailed it as the start of a new funding model for the arts.

It wasn’t and it won’t be, imho. I thought then, and now, that the DIA/Detroit was a special case. Nearby in Ann Arbor, residents agreed with me on election day last week: they voted down a millage to fund a comprehensive public art program.

True, public art is not the same as any museum, let alone the glorious DIA. But I doubt many museums could duplicate the special circumstances the DIA found itself in — which was all part of the winning rationale among voters.

As the Michigan Daily reports with respect to Ann Arbor:

The millage was an alternative to the current public arts funding program Percent for Art, which has encountered difficulty in providing public arts projects under heavy restrictions that limit displays to permanent art installations on specified government properties….

The tax would have cost the average homeowner about $11 a month and was expected to bring in about $450,000 annually. The new model for funding included a mill tax model for funding public arts in Ann Arbor. Instead of the current system, which takes the funds from different departments in the city, the funding for projects would come directly from the residents.

In late August, the Ann Arbor City Council decided to put the millage on the November ballot, undoubtedly eyeing the success in Detroit. Ann Arbor residents had apparently complained about the percent-for-art model, enacted in 2007, which stipulates that any capital project for the city must set aside one percent of its funding for public art — much like other cities.

I can’t say I’m happy about any of this — except that it reinstates a little reality in the discussions about arts funding. Personally, I don’t think the public will support a direct tax for the arts in anything but unusual circumstances.

 

 

 

“Bronze” At The Royal Academy: Unconventional And Winning

Necessity, we know, is the mother of invention — and that is surely the case with Bronze, on view at the Royal Academy in London until Dec. 9. This exhibit wasn’t “planned” and wasn’t scheduled far in advance, the way most exhibitions are. It happened when another show fell through, the RA had a hole in its schedule, and it called on a professor (and independent curator), David Ekserdjian, to fill it — he’d been thinking about the idea for years, and now he had a chance to make it a reality.

So, as the story goes, he had about 18 months to pull together what ended up being about 150 bronzes from all over the world and dating from 5,000 years ago to now. Fortunately, he knew where things were, and the Royal Academy many many requests. Ekserdjian ignored traditional art historical themes, chronologies and cultures, instead choosing to display these treasures in groups — the human figure, animals, groups, objects, reliefs, gods, heads and busts.

The first piece — the show stopper, in a way — is The Dancing Satyr, the ancient Greek torso discovered off the shore of Sicily in 1998, all cleaned up and tantalizing, because it makes you wonder what else is down in the sea. Some visitors will find the figure’s stance to be awkward, and it is a little, but what a body.

In the galleries, most of the big names are there: Ghiberti, Donatello, Cellini, Giambologna, De Vries, Rodin, Boccioni, Picasso, Brancusi, Johns, Moore, Beuys and Bourgeois, among them. But the most interesting works, to me, were unfamiliar ones. Nigeria contributed several objects —  not just the Ife heads we know, but wonderful other figures like a Bowman from the 14th or 15th Century (above left). And there’s an elongated Etruscan piece that Giacometti must have channeled, if he didn’t see it.

Another less known piece is the Chariot of the Sun (above right),  which dates to Denmark’s Bronze Age, the 14th century BC. It was discovered in 1902 in a peat bog, and the experts postulate that it was part of a religious ceremony connected to worship of the sun. A more recent discovery, from Bulgaria, is a bust of a king (below right) — he dates to the 4th Century B.C. In the gods section, I was startled by an emaciated Buddha, which I’d never seen, though others in the room had.

I write this post not just to praise this exhibition, which is well-executed even though many loans were denied and others, given the weight of bronze and the fragility of some pieces, were not available. I write to praise the idea — looking at art over the centuries through the medium of bronze constitutes a new window on these works. And I’m not sure it would have happened in the past.

I’m not sure it would work in other mediums, though clearly Bernini: Sculpting in Clay at the Metropolitan Museum is a more conventional variation on this theme. Coming in December at the Indianapolis Museum of Art will be Graphite, which is billed as the first major museum exhibition to explore graphite beyond drawings. The billing says the show “brings together recent artworks that reveal the material’s potential to take a variety of forms while also yielding a wide range of visual effects. Carvings, powder, liquid, lumps, sticks and pencils are just a few ways the material can be presented.”

And adds: “Graphite includes sculpture, drawing, and installation works created over the past decade—including several newly commissioned works—by emerging and established contemporary artists.” Read more in the press release.

Many ideas for exhibitions aimed at making art more “accessible” are floating around, not all good — but Bronze is one I really like. I wish it could travel, but I’m afraid it can’t.

Here’s a link to some critical judgments.

Photo Credits: Courtesy of the Royal Academy 

“Vote For Art” Winners At the Mint: Odd Experiment?

Remember back to early September, when the presidential election was just heating up, and the Democrats were holding their convention in Charlotte, N.C.? The Mint Museum there tried to capitalize on the connection with, as I related here, a crowd-curated project allowing residents and visitors to vote for three of six art works chosen by curators as candidates for acquisitions to the permanent collection.

Voting concluded last Friday, drawing nearly 20,000 votes in all. I’d have thought the number would have been higher — considering that each person could make three choices.

So what did they choose? A photograph called The Birth of Venus, after Botticelli (Pictures of Junk), by Vic Muniz (at right); a sculpture called Before Midnight by Mattia Biagi (at left); and Slice Chair Paper by Mathias Bengtsson — in that order.

You can see all six candidates here. Or, you can simply look at the three winners here.

What did we, and the Mint, learn from this experiment? I’m not sure, other than the aforementioned smallish number of votes. Further, it seems to me that the Mint undercut the whole process with this announcement:

And the Mint’s efforts to acquire works by the world’s best-known contemporary artists have not ended – the museum is committed to continuing to raise funds from the community to potentially acquire the three remaining “Vote for Art” candidates, works by NachoDoesn’t that negate the idea of involving the public in these choices?

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Mint Museum

Is This Moore Being Sold On A False Premise?

I’m back from a trip to the UK — where I saw much that I hope to write about, some here — and one sad story I learned of while there concerns the east London town of Tower Hamlets, which has voted to sell off a Henry Moore sculpture, Draped Seated Woman. The town, quite poor, is facing budget cuts and wants to use the proceeds to make up the cuts. Christie’s got the consignment and will sell the work in February.

The town council is expecting to raise some $30 million from it, but as The Telegraph points out, the expectation may be built on a lack of understanding of the art market. The “comparable” example that whetted the town’s appetite occurred last February for about that amount, but “the estimate on that sculpture was only 3.5 million to 4.5 million pounds, and the eventual sale was driven by competition between two bidders, the winner being a dealer who represents Russian collectors. If that collector was not bidding, it would have sold for less than half the eventual price, and they[sic], presumably, are now out of the equation.”

Furthermore, the Telegraph notes, the previous comparable, a sculpture called Draped Reclining Woman, fetched the equivalent of about $6 to $7 million in 2008.

It’s reasonable to question whether the town council would sell the piece for that price — which is not enough to cover it projected lost funds.

Moore sold his piece to the city for a price below market value in the 1960s. Artists, Moore’s daughter, Sir Nicholas Serota and other have protested the sale, but to no avail. Part of the problem, however, may be that the work has been on loan to the Yorkshire Scultpure Park, not on view in Tower Hamlets. According to the BBC, “the sculpture was moved after the Tower Hamlets housing estate in which it was housed was demolished in the late 1990s.”

Sadly, this is not a separate case. As previous Telegraph article related:

The sculpture is the latest in a burgeoning list of sales of public artworks by councils. Last year, Bolton Council sold seven works of art, including a painting by John Everett Millais, while Newcastle City Council put £270,000 of publicly funded artwork for sale on eBay, and Gloucester city council approved plans to sell 14 works of art valued at £381,000.

But I wonder if these public sales are built on false hopes.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Press Association via The Telegraph

Away For A Few Days

Dear Reader,

I’m traveling, and unable to post regularly for the next few days. Please check back…if I have a few spare moments, I will post.

JHD

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

About Judith H. Dobrzynski

Now an independent journalist, I've worked as a reporter in the culture and business sections of The New York Times, and been the editor of the Sunday business section and deputy business editor there as well as a senior editor of Business Week and the managing editor of CNBC, the cable TV

About Real Clear Arts

This blog is about culture in America as seen through my lens, which is informed and colored by years of reporting not only on the arts and humanities, but also on business, philanthropy, science, government and other subjects. I may break news, but more likely I will comment, provide

Archives