“Art should be used to sell cars.”
Okay, it’s been awhile since I have gone off, just kidding, but after reading this article I literally want to bang my head against the wall;
Airport officials have teamed with the Sioux Falls Arts Council to create a long-range master plan for the purchase and display of art highlighting the city and region to visitors.
One idea is a rotating display that features the work of local artists.
Hey! That sounds like a great idea that is waaaayyyy past due. But it gets better . . .
“We’d like to have something with an aviation theme but also focus on the attributes of the area and the heritage of the area,” airport executive director Dan Letellier said.
Huh? I don’t even get his logic. Dan, when people fly into an airport and get off an AIRPLANE they understand the concept of what an airport is, so why would we bombard them with more pictures of airplanes? I have a better idea, art that is representative of our community. The last thing I want to think about when I get off an airplane is being on an airplane.
Board member Hal Wick suggested talking with Avera and Sanford health systems, which have emphasized incorporating art into their new interior building designs.
Yeah, just walk around the hospital, there are tons of paintings of people getting Cancer treatments and open heart surgery . . .
Wick’s goal is to use artwork to sell the area to visitors and also show potential businesses and employees the depth of the community.
Why is it when a Republican talks about art they can only do so if it has capital value? Wick’s view of art is that it has to have monetary value, or it is not art. Hal, what you are looking for is large format advertising at the airport, not art. Your suggestion only devalues the emotional affect art has on people. Trust me, I have worked 18 years in the graphic art industry, and have been an artist my entire life. There is a difference. Art should give visitors an emotional feeling as to why we have a great community. We shouldn’t be trying to sell them something with a painting of a buffalo. And why are we letting a guy who thinks everyone in SD should carry a gun decide on what art is acceptable? That is a travesty in itself.
My suggestion? Bring me on as a volunteer consultant.
I’ve seen several travel and aviation themed pieces of art in airports and they actually can be quite good/interesting.
The airport in Sacramento has a few really cool stacks of old suitcases that wrap around some columns… they look like massive piles of lost luggage that could topple over at any second although obviously they are all fastened securely. It makes a nice effect and is something to look at while waiting for your baggage.
Denver also has several different aircraft and replicas throughout their terminals, and you could say this is more representative of a museum, but in many respects it is artwork as well since it really doesn’t serve any other purpose.
The problem with showcasing local artists is that the powers that be won’t want anything unconventional or anything which could be construed as offensive or controversial in even the slightest way. So that leaves you with run of the mill photography of local sights, paintings of the falls or of flowers, and many of the same pieces as you would find hanging in the halls of our local hospitals (think Paul Schiller or Mary Selvig).
You may think emotion is a good thing and that might be the case in an actual studio or gallery, but I doubt that would be the intent within the airport. Anytime the art is secondary in purpose to the primary reason someone visits a location makes it somewhat questionable how much time, energy, and resources will be devoted to it.
How about $50,000 on a sculpture that dispenses decent coffee?
Costner – I guess I wasn’t expecting anything ‘unconventional’ quite the opposite. I just think the art should be representative of our community. That’s it.
So a bunch of Terry Redlin prints then? lol
Are Terry Redlin prints representative of our community? LOL! I was think more along the lines of paintings and photos of people and places in our community.
Visual imagery that reflects an administrators agenda is visual clutter. Art deepens our connection to a place, but it may also ask us to rethink those connections. The reason DIA has great art is over 7 million was invested in public art. SD has no public art program.
“Are Terry Redlin prints representative of our community?”
Well considering they are in more homes in our city than any other single artist including Thomas Kinkade, and considering he is from the region (specifically Watertown) and considering the Sioux Falls airport doesn’t only serve Sioux Falls but is rather a hub for the entire region including Watertown, and considering anytime it is put to a vote he is at the top of the list of “favorite local / regional artist”… then yea I guess they do represent our community.
Add in the fact that many of his prints showcase the Midwest including our lovely state bird the Pheasant, and the fact that several of his prints feature country churches that appeal to the good bible-toting sect of our community… well that is about as representative as you can get.
Ok, ok… mix in a few John Green prints too for good measure… especially the one of the Cathedral.
I wouldn’t have a Terry Redlin in my home if it was given to me by Mr. Redlin himself.
Costner – I really don’t want to get into a long debate about Redlin, but I will say this, what art people choose to hang in their homes about a long gone ideallic society in SD is NOT representative of SD.
I’m not asking this exhibit be edgy or controversial. Just representative of our community. That could be everything from photos of Hispanic Americans going to church in the Whittier neighborhood, to paintings of people enjoying a cocktail downtown. I just think the exhibit should be a snapshot of Sioux Falls, not selling piece, not some bullshit prairie fantasy, just plain old art showing off our plain old city.
Scott – Do you still teach here in SF? If so, you should get involved with the project. BTW? What is DIA?
Oh, DIA, Denver International Airport. Yes, investing money is important, but remember, in SD the GOP want artists to do things for free, and on top of that be greatful to the people who are ALLOWING them to give up their talents for FREE. It is fucked. The Republican Ratfinks in this community look at artists as 2nd class citizens which is unfortunate.
You mean they’re not?
Shelly, I agree with you. I think the Redlin paintings are too dark. There is another painter in Watertown that good. His last name is Spies and I think the first name might be Josh.
Just be glad the airport is actually entertaining the idea of actually looking and feeling more like a modern, urban facility than a quonset hut hanger at the end of a flattened cornfield lit up with tiki torches.
A few years back we were involved in the moving of the Joe Foss statue and its granite base. It was painfully slow, took a ton of labor, and we got Mr. Foss placed squarely in the center of the lobby facing east. We got a call a week later to come back out and move him to the entry way corner, facing west. While we were on the job site our foreman asked the GC’s super why we had to move him again, and the answer was: “One of the airport board members didn’t want visitors to our City to come down the escalator and the first thing they see is Joe Foss’ ass.” True story and one that cost the taxpayers several thousand dollars per move. You’ll notice today, he’s moved back to the center. Someone must have figured out that most people fly here from larger Cities where art can be embraced without having to immediately & sophomorically ponder the nether-regions.
Anyway, I also think you could put some Native American art work out there as well…which would fit Lewis’ description as true to the region without looking like every single unused living room in those 500K houses south of 57th street.
The problem is that the people in power in SF have no clue about art. That doesn’t make them bad or ignorant people, but they shouldn’t think they can make decisions on art, they should ask for help.
Joan: I think the Redlin paintings are too dark.
Joan, if you ever have a chance to go through that Redlin museum in Watertown please do. You might find that Redlin has a lot more diversity than you are led to believe based upon what pieces you find for sale in stores.
I thought the same thing as you, but as it turns out he has went through different phases and he has quite a bit of “bright” artwork – and some that is quite different than we are used to seeing.
I don’t personally own any of his work, but when I went through his museum I was pleasantly surprised at some of it… and I would have no shame in displaying several of those pieces on my walls.
Redlin catches a lot of heat, but his goal was never to be popular or cliche… he just painted what he liked and people bought it. Good for him. I also have to admire that the guy donated that entire museum and its contents to the city of Watertown without asking for anything in return. I believe there were some other parties involved and some fundraising, but the bulk of it came from him. That doesn’t make him a better artist of course… but it does say a lot about him as a person.
l3wis: The problem is that the people in power in SF have no clue about art.
That is a pretty broad brush you’re painting with there (pardon the pun). I dare say at least some of the “people in power” know quite a bit… but maybe their ideas of art don’t align with yours.
Whoever picks the art for sculpture walk (or whoever decided who was on the committee to do so) seems to have a clue, and whoever decides which installations get to be seen at the Pavilion must know a thing or two as well since they have had some pretty good stuff there in the past. I think people deserve a tad more credit than you are giving them on this one.
I was talking more specifically about the airport, not SW and the Pavilion.
“I also have to admire that the guy donated that entire museum and its contents to the city of Watertown without asking for anything in return.”
Whoopee shit, a museum in honor of himself. I think what would make the museum better is if they had a wing where other SD artists could display. Seems I am the only other SD artist with work in the building besides Terry Redlin.
We have dozens of museums or facilities in our state where other artists can be displayed. Why would they add space in a Terry Redlin museum to show other artists? That is idiotic.
I suppose we should have a room in the Clinton Presidential Library to talk about George W. Bush and we should add a wing to the Smithsonian that will display items of historical significance to France.
“Why would they add space in a Terry Redlin museum to show other artists? That is idiotic.”
And once again, you proved you know very little about art and artists.
Merely because I disagree with you? Your opinion on my knowledge is meaningless and doesn’t change anything. I probably know a lot more about art and artists than you could imagine, but I’m not about to get into a debate about it since there is no way to prove it either way.
The Redlin museum was never meant to act as a museum to display multiple artists, it was merely a gift from Redlin to the city so there would be a place to display the original paintings. On top of that a big part of it was the surrounding land that acts as a nature preserve which is open to the public 365 days a year.
That said, I suppose you could say they do feature other artists, but they tend to be musical acts. I know the have a festival every summer at at least a few outdoor concerts and I believe they have featured some string instruments inside as well.
There is a difference between disagreement and ignorance. While artists are very critical of each other, they are also very encouraging and helpful. Everything I have learned as an artist was from other artists who are critical of my work. My point is, if Redlin was a true patron of the arts in SD, he would help a brother out. Instead he has built a palace to himself and has put any other SD artist critical of him on display, just to show, he is king shit.
He is no different then that hack, Rockwell.
No disrespect though, we all know he is sick and dying from breathing to many fumes, and probably has no clue this discussion is going on. I do know his major success came after his son took over marketing him.
Well technically it was his son who wanted the place built in the first place. Up until that point, Redlin was selling his originals – and it was his son who came up with the idea of storing them and retaining them for public view.
Is it a bit conceded to have a museum named after you that only holds your artwork? Sure. Is it even worse that you built it with your own money? You bet… but it is much like celebrities in Hollwood getting their own “star” on the walk of fame. They actually pay dearly to have that ‘honor’.
However I still think it was a very generous act even if you never set foot in the museum. The wildlife preserve alone is pretty significant, and the fact that he donated everything rather than offering to sell it to the city at a reduced price says quite a bit.
Doesn’t mean the man isn’t a very talented artist however. You may not like his work… and I actually see that same viewpoint held by many non-mainstream artists and people who like to consider themselves artists, but I have to wonder at what point someone crosses the line from being an artist, to being a ‘hack’ who sells out for a little coin.
Ask yourself this… is it really money who makes someone a hack or is it talent? Because if money is the determining factor people like Warhol and Pollock were probably also hacks along with people like Annie Leibovitz (although maybe she isn’t such a hack anymore since she is broke). However if it is based upon talent it is more than obvious that Pollock was the biggest hack of them all.
But what do I know… I’m just ignorant of art and artists.
Pollock is still alive? Who knew?
Notice where I said “Warhol and Pollock were probably also hacks”.
I later said “Pollock was the biggest hack of them all”.
Were and was are the important terms used here. Both indicate past-tense. I’m well aware the man has been dead for over 50 years…. but that doesn’t make him any less of a hack.
Yes, Andy made money in his time, good for him. He produced garbage for art and suckered people in to buying it. The difference though is that Andy made those prints, while Redlin had some machine poop out his reproductions.
And yet Pollock probably spent less time producing his originals and the prints combined than Redlin did producing the one original.
I know with your printing background you will likely disagree, but I don’t find much artistry in the printing side of the issue, so I’m not about to hold that against him. Just like a great photographer might take a beautiful photo and then edit it slightly within photoshop… once they send it to a print shop and/or an in-house printer I think the creative process has ended. They can print off a few at home or outsource to someone who can print 100,000 copies… doesn’t really change the content itself.
Glad to see we agree on Pollock work though. At least there is a starting point.
Have you even seen a Pollock in a museum. They are hard to appreciate unless you see them up close.
Have not seen them in person… I’ll admit that. Have seen closeups of the work and watched a video showing him in action which was enough to tell me he was quite a good salesman, because there was nothing being done there that I couldn’t do myself.
I’m not going to claim it isn’t art… because it is. I’m just saying it isn’t good art and surely not worth the money that people put on to it. Then again it is all based upon a free market so not much I can say about it.
I misread your previous message because I thought you were talking about Pollock but you were actually talking about Warhol. That shocks me because I would have thought you would find more about Warhol that you would appreciate than Pollock. At least with Warhol you could see there was some level of artistic talent – but he chose to do simple things that perhaps others would have overlooked.
Pollock on the otherhand… well let’s be honest. He took cans of automotive paint and dribbled them on canvas. Many of his pieces could have been painted by a blind person or a six year old and most people probably couldn’t tell the difference. Abstract is fine, but I like to see some level of talent under it. With Pollock you just never knew… was he even capable of producing real art or was this all some big sham. He wasn’t the first one to do it and wasn’t the last, so to some degree his popularity came down to his marketing and hipster name (which wasn’t even his real first name, but Paul doesn’t sound nearly as exciting or trend-setting).
Then again maybe Pollock had to do that type of art because he hands shook so bad from the DTs that he couldn’t actually hold a brush – who knows. I just think it was and is crap and I think those who bought it were fools. But we can’t all agree, and I suppose in the end those people who did buy it came out ahead because the value skyrocketed after his death.
Art is a little like food. Think hard about that analogy and you will have a better understanding. Anyone can make toast, but can you make toast really fucking good?
That is my point l3wis… I can dribble paint on canvas and it will look just as good as anything Pollock ever did. In fact, you may have seen the videos of where people took abstract art and hung it in gallaries to gather public input from people who thought they knew what they were talking about… only later to find out the art was produced by children and in one case a monkey.
There are things I can’t do – I can’t paint as well as Monet or Van Gohg, I can’t illustrate like Escher, I probably can’t even take a photograph like Ansel Adams… but I sure as hell can drip some paint on canvas just as well as Pollock because Newton and PPG (gravity and automotive paint) had just as much to do with it than Pollock.
That is the difference between what Pollock did and what Redlin did… because I could sit in front of a canvas for the next decade and never come close to painting anything as well as what Redlin did, so I can see the talent. I’ve never been able to see anything that even resembles talent with Pollock.
I know you would still like to beleive I’m ignorant of art (why is it that ‘artists’ always seem to look down upon anyone they don’t think is a artist?) but I’ll let you in on a little secret. I actually have produced quite a bit of art in my time, and even took college coursework in art where I was actually honored to have one professor specifically request two of my mixed media pieces for her collection to display for future classes. I have also had a professor from USD ask if I would be willing to submit my work for publication because she felt it was more than worthy. So although I have never made income from my creative works, I have produced quite a bit and am more than comfortable with my knowledge of the subject.
Monet was blind as a bat. Ever seen his originals? What a mess.
I actually have seen a couple, but that is sort of what impressed me. Up close they look like he was painting during a seizure… but step back and you can actually see the result. I just know I couldn’t do it, but as far as impressionism goes that is pretty much par for the course.
You could do it. Eat a bunch of cabbage and BBQ. Squirt paint up your ass. Wait 3 hours.
Monet!