University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Exploring best practices for building a university's public art collection

(USC Thesis Other)

Exploring best practices for building a university's public art collection

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

EXPLORING BEST PRACTICES FOR BUILDING

A UNIVERSITY’S PUBLIC ART COLLECTION

by

Sandra Dyer Liljenwall

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC, ROSKI SCHOOL OF FINE ARTS
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF PUBLIC ART STUDIES

May 2008

Copyright 2008 Sandra Dyer Liljenwall

ii

Acknowledgements

The impression that there is only one author who is responsible for writing
a thesis is inaccurate. In reality, it takes many people to write a thesis. No
author can perform this task alone, and certainly not without the support of
faculty, friends, and family. For myself, I was very lucky in having an
excellent thesis committee to guide me along my way. I would like to extend
my sincere appreciation to Susan Gray, Caryl Christian Levy, Janet Owen
Driggs, and Joshua Decter, Director of the University of Southern California
(USC) Public Art Studies program, for guiding my efforts throughout the
process of producing this document. I would also like to thank Ruth Wallach,
who deserves an honorable mention for her patience and understanding in
assisting me with my research needs.
I want to acknowledge the people who so graciously submitted to be
interviewed about their roles and accomplishments in the public art field.
These interviews served as the primary research for this thesis, and I found
them extremely enjoyable. Each individual interviewed provided a warm,
genuine, informative, and at times very humorous commentary on life and
working in the public art world.

iii

I wish to extend my gratitude to the following individuals: Dianne Cripe,
Arizona State University; Bruce Hartman, Johnson County Community
College; Jane Farver, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; David Weinrib,
Pratt Institute; Jack Becker, Public Art Review; Cecilia Carter Browne, Texas
Tech University; Mary Beebe, University of California, San Diego; Craig
Amundson, University of Minnesota; Vincent Ahern, University of South
Florida; Sarah Clark-Langager, Western Washington University; and Kent
Williams, Wichita State University.
I would also like to mention my family and friends for their continual
support and enthusiasm. Their confidence in never doubting I would achieve
the goals I had set made this journey a much easier one. To them, a well
deserved thank you.

iv

Table of Contents

Page
Acknowledgements ii

List of Tables vi

List of Figures vii

Abstract x

Preface xi

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Chapter 2: Definitions 9
Public Art 9
Collection Building 11
The University as a “Mini-City” 14
Public Art Collections 16
Best Practices 17

Chapter 3: Interviews 19
Questions/Answers 21
Role of Public Art within a University 28
Artist Selection 30
Funding 33
Measurement of Success 41

Chapter 4: Analysis of Acquisition Strategies 47
Best Practices 48
Artist Selection 48
Artist Relationships 49
Artist Contracts 51
Buy-In 51

v

Collaborative Process 52
Educational Value 53
Funding 54
Procedures Made into Policy 55
University Administrative Support 56

Chapter 5: Conclusion 57

Bibliography 60

Appendices
Appendix A: Massachusetts Institute of Technology 64
Appendix B: Pratt Institute 78
Appendix C: Western Washington University 90
Appendix D: Wichita State University 106
Appendix E: University of South Florida 115
Appendix F: Johnson County Community College 133
Appendix G: University of California, San Diego 170
Appendix H: Arizona State University 185
Appendix I: University of Minnesota 210
Appendix J: Texas Tech University 221
Appendix K: Public Art Review 235

vi

List of Tables

Table 1: Public Art Collections 25

Table 2: Public Art Practices 29

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Henry Moore. Three-Piece Reclining Figure, Draped, 1976. 65
Bronze.
Gift of the Eugene McDermott Family and Other
Friends of MIT. Photo by Regis de Silva.
Source: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Figure 2: Sol LeWitt. Bars of Colors within Squares, 2007. 66
Colored Terrazzo, approximately 5,500 sq. ft.
Source: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Figure 3: Jack Youngerman. 79
Pratt Institute Sculpture Park
Source: Pratt Institute

Figure 4: David Ireland. Bigger Big Chair, 2004-07. 91
Painted steel plate.
Source: Western Washington University.

Figure 5: Robert Maki. Curve/Diagonal, 1979. 91
Painted Cor-ten Steel.
Source: Western Washington University.

Figure 6: Isamu Noguchi. Skyviewing Sculpture. 1969. 92
Source: Western Washington University.

Figure 7: Alice Aycock. Maze, 2000. 116
Sand-blasted Aluminum.
Source: University of South Florida.

Figure 8: Nancy Holt. Solar Rotary, 1995. 116
Aluminum (painted semi-gloss black); bronze;
concrete; electric lights; plants.
Source: University of South Florida.

viii

Figure 9: Barry Flanagan. Hare and Bell, 1988. 134
Bronze.
Nerman Museum of Contemporary Art Collection, JCCC,
gift of Marti and Tony Oppenheimer and the Oppenheimer
Brothers Foundation.
Source: Johnson County Community College.

Figure 10: Jonathan Borofsky. Walking Man (On The Edge), 1995. 135
Fiberglas and steel.
Nerman Museum of Contemporary Art Collection, JCCC,
gift of Marti and Tony Oppenheimer
and the Oppenheimer Brothers Foundation.
Source: Johnson County Community College.

Figure 11: Alexis Smith. Snake Path, 1992. 171
Stuart Collection.
Source: University of California, San Diego.

Figure 12: Tim Hawkinson. Bear, 2005. 171
Stuart Collection.
Source: University of California, San Diego.

Figure 13: Niki de Saint Phalle. Sun God, 1983. 172
Stuart Collection.
Source: University of California, San Diego.

Figure 14: Jean Charlot. Man’s Wisdom Subdues the 186
Aggressive Forces of Nature, 1951.
Mural.
Source: Arizona State University.

Figure 15: Jerry Peart. Celebration, 1984. 187
Sculpture.
Source: Arizona State University.

Figure 16: Fletcher Benton. Double Column Ring Triangle, 1994. 187
Sculpture. Source: Arizona State University

ix

Figure 17: Athena Tacha. Rhythmics, 1997. 211
Concrete; sedum; juniper; coreopsis.
Source: University of Minnesota.

Figure 18: Stewart Luckman. Rokker V, 1981. 212
Stainless steel.
Source: University of Minnesota.

Figure 19: Peter Woytuk. Bulls, 2004. 222
Bronze.
Animal and Food Sciences Building.
Source: Texas Tech University.

Figure 20: Larry Kirkland. Headwaters, 2002. 223
Granite.
English/Philosophy Education Complex.
Source: Texas Tech University.

Figure 21: Po Shu Wang. Comma, 2007. 222
Stainless steel; bronze; granite.
Student Union Building Courtyard.
Source: Texas Tech University.

x

Abstract

The purpose of this thesis is to identify the best practices used to facilitate
on-campus collection building that consistently produce exceptional public art
collections at universities in the United States. Research methodology
explores how these best practices contribute to effective on-campus
collection building and, ultimately, enhance a university’s identity. This thesis
raises five important issues: (1) What is public art? (2) What does it mean to
build a public art collection? (3) How does public art contribute to the
university’s identity building? (4) How does public art contribute to the
relationship between the university and its public space? (5) What are the
best practices for forging this relationship through a public art collection?
The research for this thesis is based on the results of an informal survey
conducted by Public Art Review 2006 which selected 10 of the top
universities and colleges in the United States considered to have the best on-
campus public art collections. Evaluations of each of the 10 universities are
discussed, and research materials are examined. Criteria that provide a
better understanding of what “best practices” are, and what role they serve
the university in acquiring, increasing, and/or maintaining a successful public
art collection, are documented.

xi

Preface
I love the creative field and the world of art. As a returning student
pursuing a masters in Public Art Studies, I was struck by the contrast
between the rigid bureaucratic system’s policies, and guidelines established
to enable the creation of public art, and the high level of excellence in public
art that can be achieved in spite of the complicated bureaucratic system
necessary to commission major installations.
It is intriguing that even though the development of public art projects
must, understandably, follow certain routine policies and guidelines, which
have been established either by public or private entities, some institutions
are better able to produce exceptional public art collections than others, even
though they act under the direction of similar established policies and
guidelines. What leads to this success? Did these public art projects stress
one process more than others to achieve it? What “best practices” might have
been used?
Concerned about the lack of art education in our schools, I became
interested in the on-campus public art collections that are being developed
by universities throughout the United States. This led to my interest of what
“best practices” establish value when implementing collection building on

xii

university campuses and served as the basis for the development of this
thesis.
1

Chapter 1: Introduction

As prominent facilitators of public art in the United States, many universities
have created significant on-campus, public art collections for their students,
faculty, and local community, as well as for the general public. As places of
learning, social activity, and cultural exchange, universities pursue collection
building both to beautify their campus and to offer physical embodiments of the
university’s philosophy and beliefs.
Public art collections provide a complement to the campus and
architecture of a university. As stated by Kurt Kiefer in his article “Art on
Campus” (Public Art Review, 2006), “The role of an art collection on a
campus is subtle: it exists to depict the university as an open-minded,
comfortable-with-abstraction, respectful-of-its-history, center-of-the-
community kind of place.”
1

Public art influences institutional identity in several ways. An established
collection on campus represents a historical perspective and thus “works as
a symbol of the history of thought”
2
that is created over time to become as
much a part of the university as its built environment. In collection building,

1
Kurt Kiefer, “Art on Campus 101: Aesthetics, Identity and Lessons Learned,” Public Art Review 34
(2006): 17.

2
Ibid., 19.

2

the success of a new addition to an existing public art collection on campus is
predicated on how well it reflects the university’s mission statement by its
“usefulness in maintaining and developing the campus symbolically.”
3
It is the
visual expression of the university provided for both the campus public and
the greater community which ultimately, by its very existence, contributes to
the identity of the university.
Universities are beginning to acknowledge that an important factor of
successful collection building on campus is the contribution such collections
provide to their institution’s identity.
4
Collection building is representative of
the time in which it is created, and this, in turn, reflects how the criteria
unique to the university are applied with regard to the selection and
implementation of new art acquisitions.
In discussing the mission statements with several representatives of the
universities interviewed for this thesis, it was indicated that, although each
university stressed the pursuit of excellence in its scientific and research
efforts, the respective universities also emphasized that this pursuit of

3
Ibid.

4
Ibid., 17.

3

excellence must be applied equally in creating the best “leading edge”
contemporary art possible.
5

Why is building an identity important to a university? A university
represents a place of learning within a community. It must establish the
highest standards of academic excellence that can be offered to the general
public. It provides a context for public interaction that enhances the creative
atmosphere for students, professors and staff, as well as the general public.
A university has the responsibility to fulfill many needs when building its
identity. It must support the academic mission, commemorate people and
events, symbolize the changing face of the campus community, serve as a
symbolic center of the larger community, honor supporters, and make the
campus a productive and inviting place to study, work, and visit. Accordingly,
the university must publicly acknowledge these obligations through its identity
program.
6

A public art collection is a way of preserving history, of pinning down and
crystallizing memory, and of providing a record of the natural world.
7
The

5
University of California, San Diego, Appendix G.

6
Kurt Kiefer, “Art on Campus 101: Aesthetics, Identity and Lessons Learned,” Public Art Review 34
(2006): 17.

7
Suzanne Keene, Managing Conservation in Museums, (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2002),
40.
4

purpose of a collection may change with the passage of time, but a public art
collection provides a permanent record of our culture.
The central question posed by this thesis–“What are the best practices for
building a public art collection within a university context?”–raises five
important issues: (1) What is public art? (2) What does it mean to build a public
art collection? (3) How does public art contribute to the university’s identity-
building? (4) What can a public art collection mean to the university public, and
what are the possible relationships between the university and its public
space? 5) What are the best practices for forging these relationships through a
public art collection?

What is on-campus public art?
Public art on campus is best described as art that is situated in a public
space and that is completely accessible by the campus public. Public art can
be permanent or temporary. It can be a site-specific, stand-alone piece or an
integrated work. It can be created by a sole author with a unique voice, or by
many collaborators that offer multiple viewpoints. Public art can be housed

5

indoors, or it may be a work intended to be placed outside to weather the
elements.
8

What does it mean to build a public art collection?
Building an on-campus, public art collection is a continuing process in
which individual artworks are commissioned or donated and then sited
appropriately for viewers’ enjoyment.

How does public art contribute to the university’s identity-building?
A public art collection adds value to the identity of the institution in
communicating the university’s beliefs and philosophy to students, faculty, and
the general public.
9
Universities in the United States are concentrating on
expanding their on-campus, public art collections in an effort to enhance their
reputations while simultaneously contributing to the building of their
institutional identities.

What can a public art collection mean to the university public?

8
“Design and Review Criteria for Public Art,” Project for Public Spaces,
http://www.pps.org/info/pub_art/pubart_design (accessed December 29, 2007).

9
Kurt Kiefer, “Art on Campus 101: Aesthetics, Identity and Lessons Learned,” Public Art Review 34
(2006): 24.
6

The purpose of public art is: (a) to tell a story through artistic endeavor; (b)
to build collective memories reflective of the time in which the work was
created; (c) to document public history; and (d) to educate.

What are possible relationships between the university and its public space?
A university creates public art to transform a public space into a defined
“place” and thereby reinforce the university’s mission. The cultural theorist
Michel de Certeau suggests that a “place” is an order in which elements are
distributed in relationships “A place is thus an instantaneous configuration of
positions. It implies an indication of stability.”
10
According to de Certeau, “Unlike place, space is unstable and not
governed by the ‘law’ of the proper.”
11
To put it another way, de Certeau
suggests that a “place” is an order in which elements are distributed in
relationships, which implies an indication of stability.
As an example of an element that is thoughtfully considered as a form
that exists in spatial, formal, and symbolic relation to its locale, a work of
pubic art is capable of implying an indication of stability. A work of public art,

10
Michel de Certeau, Practice of Everyday Life, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988),
117.

11
Ibid.
7

therefore, can transform a space, or multiple campus spaces, into places
where the “law of the proper” applies.
Are there best practices for forging these relationships [between the
university public and its public space] through a public art collection?

This thesis will give evidence of studies by documenting these criteria to
provide a better understanding of what “best practices” represent and what
role they serve the university in acquiring, increasing, or maintaining a
successful public art collection. A desired effect of this study is that an
exchange of information of best-practices methodologies might be
established between institutions that would contribute to the successful
development of on-campus, public art collections.
The task of establishing the role of public art within a university context,
and for determining best practices for collection-building, is based on the
research of the 10 American universities and colleges featured in the article
“Big Ten” (2006) in Public Art Review. This article was founded on an
informal survey, conducted by Public Art Review, of 300 members of the
Public Art Network (PAN) list-serve. The PAN list-serve is composed of
public art professionals, including administrators, artists, and educators. The
question asked was: “Where are the best on-campus, public art collections in
8

America?” The results were compiled based on how frequently a university or
college was referenced.
12

Chapter 2 will address how the role of a public art collection contributes
to a university’s growing identity and sense of place. The role of an on-
campus, public art collection will be evaluated as to how well it supports the
university as a major component in establishing its identity.
To further understand and define best practices, Chapter 3 examines
case studies of the universities and their programs. In addition to the
research performed, interviews with each university’s public art professional
were conducted. From their interviews, the basic criteria used by these
institutions to achieve their goals in collection building have been assembled,
and a comparison of best practices of collection building for those universities
will be addressed.
Chapter 4 evaluates the interviews and research material, as well as case
studies on selected artworks where applicable.

12
Public Art Review, Appendix K.
9

Chapter 2: Definitions

In order to better understand the contemporary issues that affect the
management of public art and collection building within a university, we must
put forward definitions of the terms “public art,” “collection-building,” the
university as a “mini-city,” and “best practices.”

Public Art
All art is thought of as a product of human activity meant to stimulate the
mind and senses by transmitting emotions and ideas. Beyond this
description, there is no generally agreed-upon definition of art.
13
To define public art, the term “public” needs to be clearly defined. Public
art is art in a public place that is generally accessible at specified hours each
day, seven days a week, subject to the dictates of security policy for each
campus. All publics must have access to it: students, faculty members,
children, seniors, handicapped individuals, visitors and tourists as well as
local residents.

13
”Art for Art's Sake," Encyclopædia Britannica Online, http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-
9125149 (accessed March 8, 2008).
10

Public art and public art collections are owned either by the public or an
institution. The funding resource for the artwork is a public resource fee that
can be on a percent-for-art basis, from fundraising or a donation. Once the
funding resource is spent, it is considered for the public good. Consequently,
the funding for public art is perceived as a public resource, because the fees
are regulated by a public entity, even though the fees themselves are often
paid by a private institution or corporation. Public art can be owned by a
private institution even though it is attached as a part of a “public access”
space within a building’s footprint.
The term “public art,” then, refers to works of art in any medium that are
planned and executed with the specific intention of being sited or staged in a
public place. The term is especially significant within the art world–namely,
commissioning bodies and practitioners–to whom it signifies the practice of
using a public selection-process that includes publicly accountable policy and
access, site specificity, community involvement and/or collaboration, public
funding, and public ownership.
Public art serves to enrich civic culture and helps people understand one
another better by residing in the public realm for the public interest. Public art
is capable of eliciting many different emotional reactions and responses. It
thereby helps one to realize the importance of the artistic message being
11

expressed through the visual appreciation of one’s surroundings.
14
Such
experiences are not limited to visual sensations but can also be associated
with sound or smell, touch or taste, all of which ultimately draw the individual
into the pleasurable experience for which public art was created: personal
enrichment and enjoyment.
15

Public art is becoming more readily available and includes, but is not
limited to: statues; murals; ceramic tiles; plays and performances; temporary
projects; artist-in-resident programs; music; open gallery space; sculpture
gardens; and land art.
16

Collection Building
The art of collection building is universal and has been a cultural
enterprise for thousands of years. Collections of objects have been found in
Paleolithic burials sites,
17
and archeologists have found that most prehistoric
tribes collected beads and various objects that provided them visual pleasure
and enjoyment. In the Hellenistic Age (fourth to first centuries B.C.E.), the

14
Channel 4 Big Art Project UK, http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/ B/bigart/index.html
(accessed December 29, 2007).

15
Ibid.
16
Encyclopædia Britannica Online, http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9009658/art-collection. .
17
Ibid.
12

Greeks appear to have been the first to develop an interest in collecting art
as they came to value art for its own sake, rather than for its religious or civic
significance.
18
As Rome rose to power late in the third century B.C.E., Greek
art became extremely popular. Wealthy Romans sought collections of Greek
sculptures and paintings and commissioned copies to be made if the original
artworks were unavailable.
19

During the Middle Ages, interest in art-collecting was at a minimum in
Europe, and the responsibility for maintaining collections was left to
monasteries. During the Renaissance, interest in art-collecting resumed and
was actively pursued by royalty, religious institutions, and the ruling
aristocratic families.
20

With the establishment of museums in the late-18
th
and 19
th
centuries,
institutions were designed in Europe and throughout the United States to
house the vast art collections donated by monarchs and aristocratic collectors.
The museums became a source for informing and educating the public.
21

18
Ibid.
19
Ibid.
20
Ibid.
21
Ibid.
13

Throughout Europe and America, in the 18
th
and 19
th
centuries, whenever
art was referenced, it was generally acknowledged by the public that exclusive
museums and galleries catered to extreme “elitist” crowds in which little or no
room for the average individual existed. Today, the development process of,
and the attitude toward, public art in America are completely different from
what they had been in the 19
th
century. The United States was a young
country suffering from an “artistic inferiority complex,” and Americans sought
“to emulate the European paradigms of the past.”
22
Beginning in 1783, when
Congress voted to honor George Washington with a statue, depicting him
astride his horse, to celebrate the end of the American Revolution, public art
became associated primarily with civic memorials and monuments.
.23

For most visitors to art museums and galleries, the impetus is to view
either a permanent collection or a special featured exhibition. Memorials are
experienced in a different way because they bring a sense of history. The

22
Harriet F. Senie, Contemporary Public Sculpture, (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1992), 3.
23
Nicolaus Mills, Their Last Battle: The Fight for a National World War II Memorial, (New York:
Basic Books, 2004), 46.
14

memorial leads one mentally back in time to the person or events it
commemorates.
24

The University as a “Mini-City”
While clear differences exist between universities and colleges, for the
purposes of this thesis, we will look at universities as institutions of higher
education and include colleges under the definition of universities.
Universities may serve as “mini-cities” or gated communities for their
student bodies and faculty. They offer many amenities to their student public,
including places to eat, banks, bookshops and printing facilities, on-campus
housing, as well as security and student protection services. They also
provide a range of facilities such as libraries, sports centers, student unions,
computer labs, and research laboratories. Additionally, most major
universities have their own botanical gardens, astronomical observatories,
and hospitals.
25
Functioning as mini-cities, universities share with proper cities a structure
of civic process which includes the need to develop their identity-building
through promotion of their cultural programs. The leadership of a city has a

24
Ibid., 3.
25
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University.
15

platform which initiates cultural activities that benefit its citizens. Universities
similarly do–or should–have policies as a platform for campus leaders to
initiate cultural activities that benefit not only students and faculty, but
campus visitors as well.
Development of on-campus, public art collections by a university should
be subject to the same “striving for excellence” as city public art programs,
particularly in terms of acquisition and implementation of public art projects
based on funding availability. MIT’s policy of Collections Management, now
considered instituted policy for the university’s public art program, is a strong
example of a university serving as a mini-city and striving for excellence in its
public art.
With cities striving to maintain the integrity of their public art projects, as
designated by their guidelines and policies, universities, too, should receive
the same aesthetic quality of public art. This would allow them to enjoy the
same standard of excellence through their collection building.
In a review of seven major governmental and non-governmental
agencies
26
at the local, state, and national levels, it was ascertained that,
while cities follow similar guidelines and policies, all indicate that certain

26
http://www.cac.ca.gov/programs/cpv200708.php, State of California, California Arts Council
16

criteria are required for building a civic collection. The main goals of the
collection, reflecting civic commitments, may best be explained by the
mission statement of the San Francisco Arts Commission:
27

Promote a rich, diverse and stimulating cultural environment
to enhance the City’s image both nationally and internationally.

Commitment to acquiring works of art that meet the highest
aesthetic standards.

Commitment to the preservation, protection and display of the
artwork for the public benefit.
28

Public Art Collections
Developing a university’s public art collection is no easy task. It is
essential, first of all, that one have an understanding of the university’s
physical environment. Universities tend to be extremely protective of their
buildings, landscape, and existing public art, as each of these components
represents its own special meaning to the campus and is an integral part of

27
http://www.sfartscommission.org/pubart/aboutus/policiesguidelines/index; Project for Public
Spaces, http://www.pps.org/info/pub_art/pubart_design; City of Oregon City, Oregon,
http://www.orcity.org/meetings-agendas-calendars/documents; San Francisco Arts Commission;
http://www.sfartscommission.org/pubart/aboutus/policiesguidelines/index; City of Boston,
http://www.cityofboston.gov/arts/visual/Perm_PublicArt.asp; New York City,
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcla/html/panyc/panyc.shtml.
28
San Francisco Arts Commission,
http://www.sfartscommission.org/pubart/aboutus/policiesguidelines/index.

17

the university.
29
New additions to the public art collection must complement
not only the existing structures and public art collections on campus, but
must also contribute to the development and improvement of the university’s
overall institutional identity.
What makes an addition to the public art collection not only special but a
contribution to the success of the overall collection? As Kurt Kiefer states,
“Aesthetic and academic judgments can be only part of the process for
reviewing additions to our collection. Ultimately, it is the quality of the story
embodied by the work of art that really matters.”
30

Best Practices
“Best practices”
31
can be described as a method of improving upon a task
that is based on an established process. It is a variation of a procedure that
has proven itself to be an efficient and effective way of accomplishing a task.
With the success of its continued application, a “best practice” can ultimately

29
Kurt Kiefer, “Art on Campus 101: Aesthetics, Identity and Lessons Learned,” Public Art Review
34 (2006): 17.
30
Kurt Kiefer, “Art on Campus 101: Aesthetics, Identity and Lessons Learned,” Public Art Review
34 (2006): 17.
31
Reference.com, http://www.reference.com/search?q=best%20practices (accessed March 8,
2008).

18

be incorporated into the established process and thus improve the
effectiveness of the entire established procedure. Best practices do not commit
people or universities to inflexible, unchanging processes. Instead, the best-
practices approach is based on continual learning and improvement of
established procedures to achieve an initial plan or goal. Some of the key
issues to be addressed on the effectiveness of best practices include: Artist
Selection, Artist Relationships, Buy-In, Collaborative Process, Educational
Value, Funding, and Procedures Made into Policy. These issues are discussed
in Chapter 4, “Analysis of Acquisition Strategies.”
19

Chapter 3: Interviews

The administrators of the 10 universities and colleges interviewed for this
thesis represent a cross-section of university public art collections in the
United States. These contemporary campus collections all originated
between 1951 and 2000, even though the universities themselves reflect a
variety of historical beginnings, from the establishment of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology in 1865 to the establishment of Johnson County
Community College in 1969.
The diversity of these collections reflects the shared goals of the
interviewed public art professionals, each of whom is uniquely devoted to the
“pursuit of excellence.”
In the period spanning the 1880s to the 1950s, the erection of historical
monuments and memorials on American university campuses was a
common practice. During the early stages of the first public art program in the
1960s, the field was dominated by architects using public art to enhance their
work by attaching such art to their buildings. Throughout the 1970s and
1980s, attitudes changed from site-specific and site-generated work to the
realized importance of engaging the best, most innovative artists
20

representing the current state-of-the-art of their field.
32 33
Today, focus is
devoted to providing public art that is reflective of its time. Universities
choose qualified artists capable of communicating the artistic needs of the
campus. They are guided by committees of public art professionals and
supported by established policies.
Interviews for this study were conducted with the following public art
professionals of 10 American universities featured in Public Art Review,
2006:
34

1. Arizona State University, Tempe
Dianne Cripe, former Director of Public Art
2. Johnson County Community College
Bruce Hartman, Director, Nerman Museum
3. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Jane Farver, Director of Public Art
4. Pratt Institute of Design
David Weinrib, Professor of Sculpture

32
Texas Tech University, Appendix J.
33
University of California, San Diego, Appendix G.
34
Public Art Review, Appendix K.

21

5. Western Washington University
Sarah Clark-Langager, Director of Public Art
6. Wichita State University
Kent Williams, Public Art Consultant
7. Texas Tech University
Cecilia Carter Browne, former Director of Public Art
8. University of California, San Diego
Mary Beebe, Director, Stuart Collection
9. University of Minnesota
Craig Amundson, Public Art Curator and Program Director
10. University of South Florida
Vincent Ahern, Director of Public Art

An additional interview was conducted with the following:

11. Public Art Review
Jack Becker, Editor

Questions and Answers
The interviews provided research based on a series of standardized
questions according to the following outline:
22

I. Role of the Public Art Collection within a University
A. How long has your public art collection been in existence?
B. Does the collection reflect the mission of the university?
1. If so, how does it influence the practices of the Public Art
Committee?
2. If not, what guides the collection’s goals and strategies?

II. Role of the Public Art Collection On Campus
A. Is it an integral part of the campus?
B. What role do art administrators play?

III. Best Practices
A. What best practices are used in the selection of public
art that are unique to the university?
B. Do you have a Master Art Plan?
C. With what primary issues or challenges pertaining to
collection building are you most concerned?

IV. Artist Selection
A. Is an artist(s) selection process used? If yes, would you
23

describe the process?
B. Who is involved in the selection? Who has final authority for
the selection?

V. Funding
A. How is your collection funded, and which funding resource
does the University encourage?
1. University
2. Grants
3. Percent-for-Art Program (mandated or not?)
4. Donor
5. Collaboration
B. Does funding include cost of fabrication, installation, and
maintenance, in addition to the artist’s fee?

VI. Current Acquisition Practices and Strategies
A. Have there been any significant changes to your collection-
building during the past five years? If so, how have these
changes influenced your program?
B. What would you do to improve your collection-building program?
24

VII. Best Descriptions of Public Art Collections

VIII. Measuring the Success of Collection Building Programs

IX. Admiration for Other University On-Campus Public Art
Comparisons of comments from each interviewee in response
to questions asked during the interviews are discussed in the following
commentary.
(Please see “Table 1: Collections,” page 25.)

25

Table 1: Public Art Collections
26

Question:
What is the best description of your public art collection?
Answer:
Contemporary
- Arizona State University
- Johnson County Community College
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- Pratt Institute
- Texas Tech University
- University of California, San Diego
- University of Minnesota
- University of South Florida
- Wichita State University
- Western Washington University

Answer:
Land Art
- Western Washington University

27

Answer:
Minimalist
- Western Washington University

Answer:
Postmodern
- Wichita State University

Question:
How long has your public art collection been in existence?
Answer:
The range spanned from 1951 (MIT)
35
to 2002 (Pratt Institute).
36

To date, of the 10 administrators interviewed, one identified a slow but
steady increase in the creation of on-campus, public art collections
throughout each decade since 1951. Western Washington University’s
program began in 1960,
37
with Wichita State University following in 1960 and

35
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Appendix A.
36
Pratt Institute of Design, Appendix B.
37
Western Washington University, Appendix C.
28

University of South Florida in 1979.
38
Johnson County Community College
started in 1980,
39
while University of California, San Diego’s collection began
in 1981.
40
Arizona State University started in 1985,
41
and University of
Minnesota began in 1988.
42
Texas Tech University began in 2000.
43

(Please see “Table 2: Public Art Practices,” page 29.)

Role of the Public Art Collection within a University

Although the universities interviewed represent both public and private
institutions, research indicated that all share a common bond. Their project
and funding difficulties, frustrations, and successes appear to be quite
similar.

38
University of South Florida, Appendix E.
39
Johnson County Community College, Appendix F.
40
University of California, San Diego, Appendix G.
41
Arizona State University, Appendix H.
42
University of Minnesota, Appendix I.
43
Texas Tech University, Appendix J.

29

Table 2: Public Art Practice
30

Artist Selection
Question:
Is an artist-selection process used? If yes, please describe.
Answer:
There are two similar, basic processes used for artist selection throughout
the universities: a Request for Qualification (RFQ)/Call for Artists and an
“Invitational.” Most of the universities that use the percent-for-art method use
either process indiscriminately.
In the first method–the Request for Qualification (RFQ)/Call for Artists–an
open call is sent out for artists either nationally or locally. From there, a short
list is selected from the artist responses and submitted to the Public Art
Committee for review. The committee then chooses approximately three from
the short list and each of these three artists is asked to submit a Request for
Proposal (RFP), to the committee. Afterward, the committee votes, and a
single artist is selected for the project.
The second process, an “Invitational,” does not involve sending out an
RFQ/Call for Artists. Instead, several artists whose qualifications merit
consideration for the project are directly contacted. The recommended artists
are reviewed, as in the first process, and then voted upon by the committee.
31

The remainder of this process is identical to the first. The University of South
Florida
44
is the only one of the 10 universities that adheres to this process on
a routine basis.
MIT
45
utilizes a variation of this process whereby only one artist at a time
whose qualifications meet their criteria is chosen. The Public Art Director
recommends 3 artists from a list of 10 to the on-campus committee in charge
of the project and asks that the committee select one artist for consideration
while keeping the remaining two in reserve. Should the artist selected decline
the commission, a second artist is selected from the approved list. The
exception to the RFQ/Call for Artists process is Pratt Institute.
46
Because of
its rotating art collection where artworks are kept for a period of 1-2 years
only, Pratt Institute does not require this type of process
Western Washington University
47
is subject to the dictates of Washington
State’s Art Commission, which maintains the Art Bank. The Art Bank is a
database for artists created by the Commission to use to fill requests for
artists. Problems can result, however, when a successful artist receives the

44
University of South Florida, Appendix E.
45
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Appendix A.
46
Pratt Institute of Design, Appendix B.
47
Western Washington University, Appendix C.
32

Commission’s invitation to participate in a project, because the artist usually
disregards it. Consequently, the university has managed, based on years of
experience in the public art field, to win the right to contact the artist of its
choice as long as the artist’s name is added to the Commission’s Art Bank.
The Stuart Collection, UCSD,
48
relies on an Art Advisory Committee to submit
a list of recommended artists who can be selected for the new public art
project. The selected artist then submits a proposal to the Committee. Once
approved, the director takes the proposal through a university process for on-
campus site location approval.
Upon reflection of what constitutes the best practice for artist selection, in a
comparison of the RFQ and the invitational selection process, the preferred
method of selection is the invitational. It allows for the choice of an artist based
on the merit of their qualifications and experience while also matching the
artist’s abilities to the project. When sending out an RFQ, large quantities of
artist applications are received, such that artists’ qualifications may or may not
match the requirements for the project. As a result, qualified artists usually do

48
University of California, San Diego, Appendix G.
33

not like to respond to a public call. University of South Florida has found the
invitational selection process the most effective for their public art projects.
49

Funding Question:
How is the public art collection funded, and which funding resource
does the university encourage: percent-for-art; grants; donor;
university; or collaboration?

Answer:
Funding sources for the universities are diverse. Depending upon the funding
there are different practices. The two primary funding sources are percent-
for-art programs and fundraising. The first covers both state mandated and
private percent-for-art programs, and the second covers fundraising utilized
in collaboration with other funding processes of a university or as a stand-
alone source. Other funding sources, such as donor, foundation, gifts,
sponsorships, and grants, are used by universities as their project needs
dictate.

49
University of South Florida, Appendix E.
34

Funding for the public art projects are driven by campus building and
renovation projects which provide a “percent for art” funding allotment. This
funding is mandated by either the Board of Regents of the university, as is
the case with Texas Tech University,
50
or by the state, as is the case with
University of South Florida,
51
which only allows for one-half of one-percent
for each art project. The University of Minnesota
52
has a one-percent-for-art
allotment, which is state mandated.
In addition, a private university can fund its own percent-for-art programs.
MIT
53
is an example of private funding. Its funding comes from new or
renovated building projects on campus, not from any city or state government
source. In addition, there are donors to the school that the public art program
is allowed to utilize for special projects.
Wichita State University
54
has an endowment that grants an annual fee
for its sculpture program. The university seeks out the artists whose work is
most appropriate for its collection and solicit as prominent an artist as

50
Texas Tech University, Appendix J.
51
Vincent Ahern, University of South Florida, Appendix E.
52
University of Minnesota, Appendix I.
53
Jane Farver, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Appendix A.
54
Wichita State University, Appendix D.
35

possible for a particular project. Curator choices are subject to committee
approval.
Western Washington University
55
is dependent upon funding from two
sources: a state-mandated percent-for-art program and independent donors.
Fundraising represents a small part of its funding. Collaboration occurs only
occasionally. Gifting, as with donations, cannot be accepted until it is
established that the artwork in question can be sited on campus.
Of the universities interviewed, five function under a combination of state-
mandated percent-for-art programs and decisions driven by public art
committees. These include Arizona State University,
56
Texas Tech
University,
57
University of Minnesota,
58
University of South Florida,
59
and
Western Washington University.
60
The public art projects of MIT
61
and
Johnson County Community College
62
are privately funded by the institution

55
Sarah Clark-Langager. Western Washington University, Appendix C.
56
Arizona State University, Appendix H.
57
Texas Tech University, Appendix J.
58
University of Minnesota, Appendix I.
59
University of South Florida, Appendix E.
60
Western Washington University, Appendix C.
61
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Appendix A.
62
Johnson County Community College, Appendix F.
36

using a one-percent-for-art allotment of all construction costs on campus,
which allows flexibility when managing on-campus, public art acquisitions.
University of California at San Diego
63
has no ties with percent-for-art
funding, whether state or university mandated. UCSD relies on fundraising
efforts and donations. Wichita State University,
64
a public university, is
curatorial driven, funded by endowments which provide annual budgets for
the university’s sculpture collection building. Also in this category is Pratt
Institute of Design,
65
a private institution.

Question:
Does funding include cost of fabrication, installation, and
maintenance, in addition to artist’s fee?
Answer:
University contracts with artists include fabrication and installation but
do not always provide for maintenance. Maintenance poses a serious issue.
The University of Minnesota
66
recently instituted a maintenance program,

63
University of California, San Diego, Appendix G.
64
Wichita State University, Appendix D.
65
Pratt Institute, Appendix B.
66
University of Minnesota, Appendix I.
37

while Texas Tech
67
has an endowment that covers the maintenance of the
existing collection, with maintenance fees included in contracts for all new
artworks. At Pratt Institute,
68
maintenance is provided by the curator’s
assistant. Currently, MIT
69
is working on creating a better maintenance
program and is promoting an adoptive sculpture program in which a person
can endow the maintenance of any sculpture of their choosing.
Western Washington’s
70
main concern today is conservation. Its
sculptures require continuing maintenance, and the university is slowly
running out of space. This presents another issue, namely, that of “de-
accessioning.” The university is considering expanding its campus to include
a waterfront area as well as utilization of additional grounds behind the
university. Until a decision is reached, maintenance and conservation of the
collection will remain primary issues of concern.

Question:
Does the collection reflect the mission of the university?

67
Texas Tech University, Appendix J.
68
Pratt Institute, Appendix B.
69
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Appendix A.
70
Western Washington University, Appendix C.
38

Answer:
Mission statements of the universities interviewed reflected similar goals.
They stressed excellence, diversity, and commitment to leading-edge
research and science and to promote civic culture and the arts. With the
mission focusing on these fields, there is the expectation by these
universities to have leading-edge art for their campuses as well.
MIT’s List Visual Arts Center mission statement places emphasis on using
“contemporary art as the vehicle of presentation and analysis to reflect and
enhance MIT’s position on the leading edge of investigation into the world.”
71

The standard of excellence for UCSD’s Stuart collection involves
acquiring cutting-edge art and the best of “what’s happening right now”
72
in
today’s art world which serves to compliment UCSD’s mission statement to
maintain cutting-edge research in all of their other fields as well.
The mission statement of the University of South Florida (USF) calls
for the university to conduct research and scientific discovery in order to
strengthen the economy also promoting expansion of the arts.
73
The USF

71
MIT List Visual Art Center Collections Management Policy.

72
University of California, San Diego, Appendix G.
73
University of South Florida, Appendix E.
39

public art program is continually developing new projects that involve
significant amounts of research incorporating experimental, techniques and
approaches.
In summary, the universities interviewed felt their public art collections
effectively communicated their mission statements by promoting civic culture
and the arts while simultaneously adding to the overall educational
environment.
Question:
What role does the public art collection play on campus?
Is it an integral part of the campus?
Answer:
Public art is sited throughout each of the 10 campuses. Public-art projects
are created with the intent of adding value, both to the university’s collection
and to the student’s on-campus educational environment. In particular, the
public-art collections define on-campus spaces in ways that encourage
students to both locate themselves and interact with one another. At Texas
Tech University, for example, Cecilia Carter Browne related that the
40

“development of campus social space with public art created areas for the
student way-finder to navigate the enormous campus at TTU.”
74

In addition to letting students and campus visitors know where they are,
the public art works also create spaces that encourage students to act,
whether in terms of activating or of interacting. For as de Certeau states,
“space is composed of intersections of mobile elements. It is in a sense,
actuated by the ensemble of movements deployed within it.”
75

Professor David Weinrib, curator of the sculpture garden at Pratt Institute,
indicated that, each time a new sculpture is installed or removed, it creates
“an active dialog on campus which has become an integral part of campus
life.”
76

At University of South Florida, Vincent Ahern remarked, “There is just the
flat-out use of the public art projects by the students. Many of our public-art
projects have been developed as gathering places, so they do include
seating elements. To walk out to the Nancy Holt sculpture and find some 300

74
Texas Tech University, Appendix J.
75
Michel de Certeau, Ibid., 117.
76
David Weinrib, Pratt Institute, Appendix B.
41

students gathered there, or hurry over to get a seat at the Doug Hollis, that’s
a measure of success.”
77

Measurement of Success

Question:
How would you measure the success of your collection building
program?

Answer:
Success, although impossible to measure by a standard criterion, can be
measured in a variety of ways based on the criteria of the project itself. An
explanation of what each individual feels in response to a given artwork is a
true measurement of the success of a university’s collection building
program, as is best summarized in some of the following comments.
Cecilia Carter Browne, of Texas Tech University, evaluates success by
asking the question, “Is the collection cohesive, and does it provide a
valuable educational environment?” She states, “Public art can be a mirror of
the community; it reflects its values and history and, ultimately, also provides

77
Vincent Ahern, University of South Florida, Appendix E.
42

a window beyond its boundaries.”
78
This, in Carter Browne’s estimation,
holds true not only for the community but for students and faculty as well.
Vincent Ahern, Public Art Director of the University of South Florida,

feels
there are several ways to gauge success, because there are “different
audiences for the projects.”
79

Some of the measurement examples given are:
• University publications featuring the university’s public art collection
• Independent publications featuring the university’s public art collection
• Support of local artists
• Faculty and students, representing the intellectual property of
the university, contributing their expertise to the collection effort
• Actual use of the public art collection by students

Jane Farver, MIT’s Director of Public Art Program, feels the measurement of
success is entailed in the recognition of how an artwork is received publicly.
As Farver states, “Such success rests on how people receive things, how

78
Texas Tech University, Appendix J.
79
University of South Florida, Appendix E.
43

they feel about things, and how attached they are to them.”
80
The continuing
growth of the MIT collection appears, according to Farver, to be “very well
received by the general public as well as people from within the art world
itself.”
81

Craig Amundson, of the University of Minnesota,
82
feels his institution
presently lacks a good way of measuring the success of the collection. He is
currently working on a master planning-process for new buildings, new public
spaces and other space between buildings, and master transportation
systems. He is well aware of the need to include the development of criteria
for evaluating and measuring success of collection building.
David Weinrib, Professor of Sculpture at Pratt Institute, is a “one-man-
show” when it comes to collection building.
83
He is solely responsible for
Pratt’s sculpture garden, which features a rotating exhibition. At the invitation
of Professor Weinrib, artists donate an artwork from their collection to the
sculpture garden. It stays in the garden for one year, at a minimum, to at
most three years (unless Professor Weinrib decides to keep the artwork
longer). Pratt funds only the shipping and installation of the artwork, in

80
Jane Farver, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Appendix A.
81
Jane Farver, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Appendix A.
82
Craig Amundson, University of Minnesota, Appendix I.
83
David Weinrib, Pratt Institute, Appendix B.
44

addition to the cost of returning the artwork to the artist. Professor Weinrib
has the approval of the president to choose whatever contemporary pieces
he feels are appropriate and timely for inclusion in the collection. The
sculpture garden consists of approximately 40 artworks and has achieved an
excellent public reputation in the five years it has been in existence. The
sculpture garden has become a major focal point of the Pratt campus for
students as well as faculty, and success can be measured by the amount of
general interest in the latest additions to the garden and by the increase in
the amount of students wishing to attend Pratt Institute.
According to Sarah Clark-Langager, Director of Public Art at Western
Washington University (Bellingham), measurement of success comes
primarily from the outside, namely, the general public.
84
This is similar to the
comments of Jane Farver of MIT.
85
In addition, Western Washington’s public
art collection has been given excellent quality ratings by the press. The
artists represented in the collection are pleased to be associated with WWU
and vocally compliment the collection’s overall quality. More and more
frequently, Western Washington University is being mentioned in articles and
publications in the art field.

84
Sarah Clark-Langager, Western Washington University, Appendix C.
85
Jane Farver, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Appendix A.
45

Kent Williams, a public art consultant and member of an outdoor sculpture
committee which works in conjunction with the Sculpture Acquisition
Committee at Wichita State University,
86
indicated that the growth of the on-
campus sculpture and outdoor sculpture collections is curatorial driven,
funded by an annual allowance from a major endowment to the university.
While the curatorial position at Wichita State University is currently vacant,
the former curator stressed investing larger segments of the budget in better-
known artists for the outdoor sculpture, while leaving the smaller budget
segments for lesser-known works. This plan proved to be quite successful.
Kent Williams indicates that, currently, the community, students, and faculty
are very “devoted to their sculpture garden as well as on-campus sculpture.

It
serves as a regular part of their campus life and activity.”
87

Question:
Which universities do you most admire for their on-campus public
art?

86
Kent Williams, Wichita State University, Appendix D, 3.
87
Kent Williams, Wichita State University, Appendix D.
46

Answer:
Of the respondents, five
88
indicated admiration of the University of
California at San Diego’s Stuart Collection for its outstanding artwork and
successful methods of artist selection and artwork acquisition. The
respondent from the University of Minnesota
89
indicated Western Washington
University for its outstanding public art collection and campus, while those
from Pratt Institute
90
and Johnson County Community College
91
indicated
Cranbrook School of Art and Design for its excellent sculptures. The
respondent from University of California at San Diego
92
voiced admiration of
UCLA’s Franklin Sculpture Garden, while the respondent and Wichita State
University
93
selected University of Minnesota and the Stanford Sculpture
Garden for the quality and beauty of their collections.

88
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Texas Tech University, University of South Florida,
University of Wichita, Western Washington University.
89
University of Minnesota, Appendix I.
90
Pratt Institute, Appendix B.
91
Johnson County Community College, Appendix F.
92
University of California, San Diego, Appendix G.
93
Wichita State University, Appendix D.

47

Chapter 4: Analysis of Acquisition Strategies

In today’s changing environment, everyone participates in the world of
technology. Our lives are continually being shaped and reshaped by the
world of digital and visual communications. We are losing the balance
between technology and what the visual arts bring to us as human beings.
We are aware that this technology is essential to our existence, in that it
allows us to deal with new types of data which are generated by new devices
and which may be used in new ways to enable interpersonal connections
and provide knowledge for businesses, communities, and individuals.
However, to seek a counterbalance to the ever-expanding field of
technology, we need to focus on educating and inspiring students, the public,
and the community through the diversity of the public art field.
Universities have the ability to commission notable artists and to make art
available publicly, either for permanent or temporary display on campus.
These universities have the flexibility to avail themselves of both renowned
and less well-known artists, as well as art historians, students, and
community supporters within the “mini-city” of the campus.

48

Comparison of Styles of Universities
The main focus of many university public art programs is to procure and
promote the best art obtainable. In seeking to accomplish this task, public art
administrators face a variety of funding challenges, namely, raising the
necessary dollars for building a collection or for the installation of a special
artwork. The best practices currently being utilized by these “Top Ten”
universities to achieve their goals are discussed in this chapter.

Best Practices

What “best practices” are used in the selection of public art?
Artist Selection
The Stuart Collection at University of California, San Diego,
94
has
established a format whereby an art advisory board, composed of prominent
professional artists from across the United States, generates a list of
recommended artists. From this list, an artist is selected and invited to submit
a project proposal which is then handled administratively by the university.

94
University of California, San Diego, Appendix G.
49

This practice helps concentrate the decision-making process of artist
selection in the hands of experienced art professionals.
This best practice helps ensure that “cutting edge” creativity, as well as
artistic integrity, is provided for in the installation of a new, on-campus
artwork. This enhances the overall value of the university’s public art
collection.

Artist Relationships
Vincent Ahern, of South Florida University, feels that establishing a
rapport between the public art director and the artist during the first
introductory telephone call “is key to the success of the project.”
95
“You must
know your artist and have a bond,” says Ahern, “Otherwise, the project can
become extremely difficult to manage as it progresses.”
96

Ahern stresses that “the public art director is also key to the program’s
success or failure.”
97
This is primarily because the director has the greatest
amount of information, experience, and professionalism that can be brought
to the project.

95
Vincent Ahern, University of South Florida, Appendix E.
96
Vincent Ahern, University of South Florida, Appendix E.
97
Vincent Ahern, University of South Florida, Appendix E.
50

However, it is the “public” part of public art that intrigues Ahern. As he
describes it, “The public art director shares this information with the
committee and community which creates the dialog, and it is this dialog
between committee, community, and the public art director that actually
enriches the public art process.”
98

According to its administrators, MIT
99
also has an investment in
establishing a close relationship between director and artist. Many artists
have agreed to work for smaller fees than usual when accepting a
commission from MIT. Much of this is based on the bond established
between artist and director.
Sarah Clark-Langager, of Western Washington University, believes in
“going for the best artist possible for a project” and in “letting the artist choose
the site for their artwork, and then allowing the artist to do what he or she
wants to do.” Clark-Langager stresses the need “to be innovative, to let them
be the artist.” “We try to give each work its own unique space,” she says.
100

98
Vincent Ahern, University of South Florida, Appendix E.
99
Jane Farver, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Appendix A.
100
Sarah Clark-Langager, Western Washington University, Appendix C.
51

Artist Contracts
The artist contract should include a reference to the Visual Artists Rights
Act
101
to protect the artists. Students and faculty members may request that
an artwork be removed or sited at another location based on personal
preference, and the artist’s work requires that the university provide this
protection.

Buy-In
“Buy-in” is considered a very important best practice. Another way of
describing what is meant by buy-in is “support.” Senior management within
the university must support the project, either actively or more indirectly.
Without this type of support, the program risks being cancelled without
warning, for example, if misunderstandings should arise among the
university’s senior management, faculty and students, or members of the
community. The downside to buy-in is compromise. The collaboration
process must deal with compromise as an influencing factor when it comes to
final decisions on the direction of a project. Including local artists in the
decision-making behind some public art projects is also considered an

101
Cecilia Carter Browne, Texas Tech University, Appendix J.
52

important factor, because it contributes to buy-in and can prove helpful when
faced with compromise.

Collaborative Process
One of the best practices necessary for a successful public art program is
the collaborative process. This process is described by Cecilia Carter Browne
as contributing to the effectiveness of her public art projects during her
tenure at Texas Tech University.
102
The first component of this process
involves a public art committee, normally set up by the university chancellor
and composed of students, faculty, and staff, as well as community leaders.
This is important because it immediately establishes the working environment
as a collaborative process when dealing with a percent-for-art public art
project.
103

The next important step involves insuring that the committee works in
conjunction with the users of the building and individuals funding the project
to establish committee membership based on active participation. This not
only serves to educate the committee on how an acquisition for public art

102
Cecilia Carter Browne, Texas Tech University, Appendix J.
103
Cecilia Carter Browne, Texas Tech University, Appendix J.
53

occurs, but it also provides them with a sense of ownership of the overall
public art project.
104

MIT
105
follows a method similar to the one employed by Texas Tech
University
106
in utilizing the collaborative process which creates a committee
composed of an architect, users of the building, faculty, and students. MIT is
a private institution where percent-for-art is driven by construction projects
funded by the university.

Educational Value
University students can experience the quality of public art while on
campus daily. This experience has the potential of permeating aspects of
their lives and may enrich their studies. The enjoyment of a creative public art
collection on campus may be remembered long after graduation has passed.
Another aspect of public art collections on campus is their use as a
teaching tool. A common learning exercise at UCSD
107
and Johnson County

104
Cecilia Carter Browne, Texas Tech University, Appendix J.
105
Jane Farver, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Appendix A.
106
Cecilia Carter Browne, Texas Tech University, Appendix J.
107
University of California, San Diego, Appendix G.
54

Community College,
108
for example, involves students in identifying or writing
about various artworks.

Funding
Funding is the main issue for any pubic art project. There seems,
however, to be a division between a one-percent-for-art approach and
approaches based on fundraising and collection-building. With a one-
percent-for-art project, decisions pertaining to artists and types of public art
acquisitions are tied to construction projects. This means that final selections
are decided upon by committee, with the final approval usually made by the
chancellor or vice president of the university. This type of collaboration
process is very effective in promoting awareness and understanding of the
public art acquisition process. However, it can also create issues of
compromise in quality or integrity of the collection building practice because
of diversity of opinion within the committee.
Curatorial collection building, whether public or private, is funded either by
endowments or fundraising efforts. It is usually designated for a specific artist
or site by the curator or group of curators working in conjunction with the

108
Johnson County Community College, Appendix F.
55

university. This allows for greater flexibility in choice of artist, location, and
funding for the project.

Procedures Made into Policy
MIT
109
has created three documents, outlined below, that have been
approved by the academic counsel and are now considered instituted policy
for the university’s public art program.
• The Collections Management Policy (outlines established procedures)
• Art on Campus Policy (outlines the percent-for-art program)
• Best Practices Addendum (part of the “Art on Campus Policy”)
Having these documents in place prevents the public art program from being
subjected to the institutional politics that can result from projected changes,
such as turnover in management, in which an individual leaves a position for
a newer one, or an individual comes into a new position without the
knowledge and experience of the institution’s public art program and
functions. It allows the focus to be on the collection building issues of what
the project will be, where it will be sited, and who the artist will be.

109
Jane Farver, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Appendix A.
56

University Administrative Support
Support of the head administrative office of the university is one of the
major issues that can make or break a given project. Communication
between the chancellor or representative committee and the public art
director regarding the anticipated growth of the university is essential to
effective collection building. Without such support, collection building is highly
vulnerable to budget cuts, changes in artist-acquisition policies, and even
cancellation of the entire public art project.
57

Chapter 5: Conclusion

College and universities provide a venue both to exemplify the basic
values of public art to and also to inform and communicate known successful
practices for building and maintaining a public art collection in educational
settings. This thesis discusses basic questions and assumptions about public
art and suggests best practices a public art committee in a university setting
might use to successfully establish and grow such a program at its own
school.
As revealed through the survey results of 10 recognized public art
collections in a university setting nationwide, public art exists in a public
outdoor or indoor space that is accessible daily. Flexibility of the works is
crucial: they can be collaborative or singular, site-specific or integrated,
temporary or permanent. According to survey respondents, building a public
art collection on campus entails a continuing process of commissioning and
placing artworks for the sole purpose of viewer enjoyment.
Also understood by the majority of those interviewed, public art collections
contribute to building a university’s identity by communicating to students,
faculty, and the general public, the institution’s beliefs and philosophy.
Additionally, the artwork purposefully builds and documents collective
58

memories. Finally, the relationship between the university and its public
space connects the school’s public space with its mission.
Public art directors interviewed for this thesis nearly uniformly agree on
the elements that facilitate a program’s success. Most respondents
mentioned that a collaborative process–that is, establishing a diverse
committee of students, faculty, staff, and community–was one of the key
factors in a successful public art program. Further, it is important that the
committee work closely with the individuals funding the project. Next, senior
management support for the project, and a willingness to compromise, helps
ensure senior management “buy-in” for the project. A strong contract
protecting the artist, as well as a working relationship between the artist and
art director, can mean the difference between success and failure of the
project. On the business side, written procedures and policies protect the
public art program itself from changes in university management or politics.
Finally, leadership and relationship skills displayed by the public art director
help bring each project to a successful conclusion.
Public art collections on a college campus can be an effective
communicator of that institution’s identity, philosophy, and beliefs. Among the
positive builders of effective programs most mentioned by the public art
59

directors in this study were public arts works as vehicles of communication,
educational exposure to contemporary, cutting-edge art, engaging and
empowering artists able to envision and produce extraordinary art works.
Additionally, there was widespread agreement among directors regarding the
need for support from the school administration, their flexibility, approval, and
“buy-in” for the project. One of the best suggestions took this support a step
further, suggesting formalized institutional policies and procedures governing
public arts collections on campus.
The public art directors also weighed in on impediments to success in
creating public art collections: budget cuts; arbitrary or capricious decisions
by school administration; minimizing maintenance and conservation; and
sub-optimizing the director’s decision making in such areas as artist, site, and
artwork selection.
A public art collection on a university campus can reach out and touch the
soul. It enriches students, faculty, and the general public, and it
communicates to those who view it an acknowledgement and appreciation of
the school environment, as well as a sense the university’s beliefs and
philosophy.
60

Bibliography

Altshuler, Bruce. Collecting the New: Museums and Contemporary Art.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.

Americans for the Arts, Public Art Network. “Call for Artists Resource Guide.”
(2003). Accessed 9/20/2007 at
http://www.artsusa.org/pdf/services/pan/CallforArtistsResourceGuide.p
df.

———. “Artists Selection.” (March 2004). Accessed 9/20/2007 at
http://www.americansforthearts.org/pdf/services/pan/issue_paper.pdf.

———. Hickey, Dave, speaker. “Innovator Series.” June 1, 2007. Accessed
12/29/2007 at
http://www.artsusa.org/events/2007/convention/program/001.asp.

———. Savinar, Tad, speaker. “Fresh Perspectives.” Public Art Conference
Archive 2002. Accessed at
http://arts.americansforthearts.org/services/public_art_network/confere
nce_archive.

Beebe, Mary Livingstone. Landmarks. New York: Rizzoli, 2001.

Bennett, Tony. The Birth of the Museum. London:
Routledge Press, 1995.

Benjamin, Walter. Reflections, “The Author as Producer.” In Reflections:
Essays, Aphorisms, Autobiographical Writings, edited by Peter
Demetz. New York:
Schocken Books, 1986.

Bock, Amanda. “On Again, Off Again: Campus-Community Relations.” Public
Art Review Magazine 34 (2006).

61

Burlingham, Cynthia. In the Sculptor’s Landscape: Celebrating Twenty-Ffive
Years of the Franklin D. Murphy Sculpture Garden. Los Angeles:
Wight Art Gallery, Grunwald Center for the Graphic Arts, UCLA, 1993.

Channel 4 Big Art Project UK. Accessed 12/29/2007 at
http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/B/bigart/index.html.

City of Boston. “Permanent Public Art.” Accessed 12/29/2007 at
http://www.cityofboston.gov/arts/visual/Perm_PublicArt.asp.

City of Los Angeles. Department of Cultural Affairs Public Art Division. “What
is Los Angeles’ Public Percent for Art Program?” Accessed
12/28/2007 at http://www.culturela.org/publicart/publicpercent.html.

City of New York, Department of Cultural Affairs Percent for Art Program.
“Percent for Art.” Accessed 12/28/2007 at
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcla/html/panyc/panyc.shtml.

City of Oregon City, Oregon. Accessed 12/28/2007 at
http://www.orcity.org/meetings-agendas-calendars/documents.

De Certeau, Michel. “Spatial Stories: Spaces and Places” In The Practice of
Everyday Life. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California
Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1988.

———. “Spatial Stories: Spaces and Places.” In The Practice of Everyday
Life. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1988.

Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Accessed 11/11/2007 at
http://www.britannica.com.

______. Accessed 3/8/2008 at
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-

Fahy, Anne. Collections Management. New York: Routledge, 1995.

Foucault, Michel. “What is an Author?” In Language, Counter-Memory,
Practice. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1977.

62

Goldstein, Barbara. Public Art by the Book. Seattle, WA: University of
Washington Press, 2005.

Jones, Richard. Building on the Past. Stanford, California: The Center, 1999.

Keene, Suzanne. Fragments of the World: Uses of Museum Collections.
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2005.

———. Managing Conservation in Museums. Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann, 2002.

Kiefer, Kurt. “Art on Campus 101: Aesthetics, Identity and Lessons Learned.”
Public Art Review Magazine 34 (2006).

Lefebvre, Henri. The Production of Space. Boston: Blackwell Publishing,
1991.

Mills, Nicolaus. Their Last Battle: The Fight for a National World War II
Memorial. New York: Basic Books, 2004.

Moore, Kevin. Museum Management. New York: Routledge, 1994.

National Endowment for the Arts. “Lessons Learned: A Planning Toolsite.”
Accessed 9/21/2007 at
http://arts.endow.gov/resources/Lessons/index.html.

Nickels, Bradley J. “A Professor’s Notes on Public Art.” Public Art Review
Magazine 34 (2006).

Project for Public Spaces, New York. “Design and Review Criteria for Public
Art.” Accessed 12/29/2007 at
http://www.pps.org/info/pub_art/pubart_design.

Reference.com. “Best Practices.” Accessed 03/08/08 at
http://www.reference.com/search?q=best%20practices
63

San Francisco Arts Commission. “Public Art Policies & Guidelines.”
Accessed 12/29/2007 at
http://www.sfartscommission.org/pubart/aboutus/policiesguidelines/ind
ex.

Senie, Harriet F. Contemporary Public Sculpture. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1992.

State of California, California Arts Council. “Creating Public Value.” Accessed
12/28/2007 at http://www.cac.ca.gov/programs/cpv200708.php.

Simpson, Fronia W. Stanford Museum Centennial Handbook: 100 Works of
Art. Stanford, CA: Stanford Centennial Publication, 1991.

University of Southern California. Public Art Collection: Self-Guided Art Walk
Brochure. (2007).

64

Appendix A

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Cambridge, Massachusetts

MIT is considered to be a world-class educational institution. Teaching
and research—with relevance to the practical world as a guiding principle—
continue to be its primary purpose. MIT is independent, coeducational, and
privately endowed. The Institute is committed to generating, disseminating,
and preserving knowledge, and to working with others to bring this
knowledge to bear on the world's great challenges. MIT’s List Visual Arts
Center’s is committed to the principles of artistic and intellectual freedom to
enhance MIT’s position on leading edge of investigation into the world using
contemporary art as the vehicle of presentation.

65

Images from the Public Art Collection of
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Figure 1: Henry Moore.Three-Piece Reclining Figure, Draped, 1976.
Bronze. Gift of the Eugene McDermott Family and Other
Friends of MIT. Photo by Regis de Silva.
Source: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

66

Images from the Public Art Collection of
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Figure 2: Sol LeWitt. Bars of Colors within Squares. 2007.
Colored Terrazzo, approximately 5,500 sq.
Source: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
67

Profile
Jane Farver

Jane Farver is director of the List Visual Arts Center at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Farver has previously
held a number of prestigious positions such as Director of Exhibitions at the
Queens Museum of Art in New York; director of the Lehman College Art
Gallery, City University of New York, Bronx; assistant director of the
Alternative Museum in New York; and director of Spaces, an artist-run
institution in Cleveland, Ohio. Farver was one of six curators for 2000
Biennial, Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, and was co-
commissioner for American representative Paul Pfeiffer for the Ninth Cairo
Biennial, Cairo, Egypt, an exhibition that traveled to Athens for the 2004
Olympic Games. Farver holds a Master of Arts in Art History from Kent State
University in Ohio and a Bachelor of Arts in English from Seton Hill College in
Greensburg, Pennsylvania.
68

Interview with Jane Farver
Director, Public Art Program
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
December 5, 2007

SANDRA: Under the role of the public art collection within a university,
how long has your public art collection been in existence?

JANE: I believe it started–I think it was 1951, with a gift from Standard
Oil of a number of paintings that were given to the university.

SANDRA: Does the collection reflect the mission of the university?

JANE: Yes, because it is almost all contemporary. Or, it’s contemporary
to its time. It’s been going on for some 60 years. Yes, we are very much
about what is going on in the world right now.

SANDRA: And as the collection grows, you base it on what is currently
going on at that time?

JANE: Yes.

SANDRA: I would assume that–I’m sorry, I have to go through these
things.

JANE: No, that is fine.

SANDRA: Do you have a public art committee?

JANE: We have a single public art committee. We have a process that
involved the users of the building. I’m going to back up a minute. There is a
building committee which oversees architecture and space and things like
that on the campus which is made up of upper-level administration. So,
when we want to put something in a public place, it is usually run past the
building committee. Because many of these are shared spaces and you’ve
got a lot of parties involved. But for our percent for art program, which is the
basis for most of our public art, each building has a separate user-group
that make decisions. And ultimately, everything does eventually go to the
69

upper administration for they have the contract signed and things like that.
But we try to as much as possible to have a lot of involvement from the
people who are actually using the building.

SANDRA: I see. Whatever building it is, what would that be like,
science?

JANE: Whenever there is a new building or renovation of an old building,
as long as it’s $3 million or above, we get a percentage of that. It is capped
at $250,000. MIT actually has its own percent program. They supply the
funds. It is not from any city or state or government source.

SANDRA: I see.

JANE: It is literally MIT’s money. That decision, whatever is built, project
will have a percent for art allotment comes from the building committee. At
the very beginning process, we meet with the architects (and some facilities
people who are going to be managing the project) and get a sense of what
spaces are available with the program, what the building is, that kind of
thing. And then we put together a committee that, depending on the building
and its use, will vary from a small committee to a much larger one. Like
working with a dorm, we always have quite a large student committee that is
involved in the selection of the artist. If it’s a smaller, departmental thing,
sometimes it will be the head of the department, the architect, facility people
and one or two other faculty–something like that. But in the dorm there are a
lot of students.

SANDRA: So, you involve the students when it is appropriate?

JANE: We kind of leave a lot of this up to the department heads–and
because each building carries its only culture, in a way. So, whoever gets
included on those lists, we rely very much on that group that has been
working with the architects to determine the program of the building, and
sometimes department heads want staff or students involved and
sometimes they don’t. So we kind of go with the culture for them.

SANDRA: Who has the final decision on that? Is it the directors and
such? How are the committee people chosen? How are they selected?

70

JANE: There is usually, by the time we are brought on, there has usually
been money raised and a lot of thinking about what the building should be.
We are brought in early in the design stage before the architects have been
chosen. So there is already a core committee of people who are working
steadily on this building. They are usually drawn from that. And we might
add some people.

SANDRA: Once it is all done, who makes the final decision?

JANE: Ultimately, the final decision, of course, remains with who signs
the contract of the artist. So, that would be the vice president or the
president in the long run. But the actual process begins much earlier and,
according to our policy–actually the director–the List Center has this kind of
final decision on which an artist is chosen, but it’s something I have not yet
exercised because I really want buy-in from the people who are going to use
it.… So, once we have met with the architects, we put together a list of
artists who we think would be good to work with, at different sites that are
available. We don’t pre-select a site, but if there are people interested in
someone who can create a social space, we look for artists that can work
with that.… If there is somebody more formidable we will look at that. So, if
we are looking for somebody that is good with outside pieces, we’ll look for
that. We have a long list of artists that we are very interested in.

SANDRA: I’m sure. You have a lovely collection.

JANE: What we try to do is to go into the meetings with a list of no more
than 10 artists, any one of whom we would be delighted to have to add to
the collection. What we hope will come out of there is a win-win situation.

SANDRA: Then the artist selects the site that would be most
appropriate?

JANE: We have just begun to work with Martin Boyce, who is an artist
from Glasgow, on a new cancer building. And they want somebody who can
deal with social spaces. I don’t know if you saw his beautiful outdoor plaza.

SANDRA: I have not.

71

JANE: They are very conscientious. Once we make the presentation to
the committee of the artist that we think would be appropriate, we ask them
to select only one. And to make two other choices. We only ask one artist at
a time to compete.

SANDRA: That sounds like to me it would be considered one of the best
practices.

JANE: We like it. Sometimes it runs into problems. But essentially, then
the artist comes to the campus. Martin Boyce was just here for two days last
week. He met with all of the committee. He gets that kind of intense
introduction into MIT’s culture first. And then he meets with the committee,
and this is a purely informative situation. He doesn’t have to present his
work. We’ve expected the committee members to do their homework, and
I’m always so amazed and so kind of humbled of how well these
committees do this. And how well they can discuss the real principles of the
art–not the marketing of it, but it really is what the artist is all about.

SANDRA: Which is so nice because it really puts the artist at ease.

JANE: It’s exciting. If the artist wants to do it, they get a proposal letter
from us which includes about half the proposal fee, or anywhere from
$5,000 to $10,000. Generally, it’s about $5,000 for an introductory proposal,
which is just a concept proposal. The artist has a couple of months to send
that back to us. And then the committee meets again. If the artist has just
completely missed the point, or there has been some change in building
development that just isn’t going to let this happen, the committee can ask
the artist to amend it, or they can accept it outright, or they can reject it, and
then we would move on to the second artist.… That almost never happens.
Because by that time, people are pretty much comfortable with one another
and know what is going on. If it is a dorm, like the one we are working on
with Lawrence Weiner, we also put an open call in the student newspaper to
anyone who would like to meet with him. And we have done dinners with
students where 30 to 40 people show up. They get to talk to him and tell him
what is going on.

SANDRA: What kind of role do you play? I realize you are the director of
the Public Art Program.

72

JANE: Yes, I am. I have one other curator who works with me, Patricia
Fuller. And the two of us do this program. It’s huge. When I took this job, I
think there were only one or two in 10 years. And since we have begun, we
have done a swimming pool with Matthew Ritchie, a dorm with Dan
Graham, a dorm with Jorge Pardo, and a dome with Sarah Sze.… We’ve
also done a Candida Höfer, we have a business school going on with Cai
Guo Qiang. We are working with Anish Kapoor. We have Martin Boyce, we
have some Lawrence Weiner, and we have Richard Fleischner. And there
are two or three more coming down the road. It’s huge. It’s an enormous
program. We are really kind of understaffed for this, to be honest. We just
did a beautiful new floor with Sol LeWit this summer. It was one of Sol’s last
major projects.

SANDRA: I was trying to establish best practices

JANE: I can actually send you our best-practices documents. We have a
collections management policy, and attached to that is what we call our art
on campus policy that outlines this whole process and outlines percent for
art program. Attached to that is another addendum, because we needed to
establish real best practices, so we worked with all of the project managers
on campus, and they helped us to develop a timeline, i.e., at what point is
[it] best for the artist to be brought in, etc. And what we try to do is, if an
artist we are working with has an idea, like the Sol LeWitt floor, (because we
were going to do a floor anyway), we combined forces and got this
unbelievable piece for $250,000. So we captured that money and did a
terrazzo floor that is gorgeous. And we add in building money, floors,
ceilings, walls, tiles, whatever they were going to use. We can usually, if we
get in touch with them early enough, get them to convert that budget.

SANDRA: I keep thinking that I know there have got to be certain things–
we all know how to acquire art, we all know how to do the basics, but what
is it that really makes it special, and why does it really come out so well?

JANE: It’s the process, and I think it’s knowing that you’re not just taking
art, you are really building a collection. So, it comes from both of those.

SANDRA: And I also think working with the artist, like you do, I think
makes a tremendous difference.

73

JANE: Well, the artists are willing to do these things here for less money
than they are elsewhere because we are building a good collection, and
they are in good company here. The other thing is that we have had all of
these policies and things passed by academic counsel. So, there is actually
institute policy. This is good because, otherwise, you are kind of subject to
people changing: individuals are new, somebody is leaving, somebody
coming in or starting all over again. We went to the academic counsel,
which is faculty-run. And this policy is actually institute policy. It is just not
something I made up. And I have to give a great deal of credit to Patricia
Fuller, who was head of the Public Art at the NEA in the 1970s and was in
charge of Miami Dade County’s art.

SANDRA: Do you have a master plan? Do you think those are really of
value?

JANE: We have been trying to work on this. For instance, the university
doesn’t actually have a master plan, if you can believe it. They brought in
Laurie Owen a few years ago to do a master plan, but somehow it got
downgraded to a campus framework and seems to be kind of shelved, I
think. So, every time we try to do that, it is very difficult.… The last vice
president here at MIT was an art lover, and I could spent a couple of hours
with him every six months or so, and he would bring me up to date on what
was coming down the pike so we would be fed into that. We have had an
entire change of administration since then. We are just now getting to the
point where the president wants me to come to the building committee
meetings to know what is being planned. Those things don’t come easy.
They don’t necessarily want the gallery director in on their planning. It’s
about trust over time.

SANDRA: I think “trust over time” is a good way of putting it.

JANE: I must say, people care very much about these things. And I think
the real key to it is, for example, when Martin Boyce was here the other day,
he was talking about his process and how, the more he looks at something
and the more abstract it becomes, the more he sees in it and the more
systems he reads. The Cancer Center people were so excited because they
were saying, “That’s exactly the way they work. This is what they do.” …
There was a match of sensibility and ideas in the same manner with Sol
LeWitt. He did this building for theoretical physics, and they are convinced
74

that he had to have studied optical physics at some point. But I think if you
can get that kind of match between people, it’s going to be good. If the
match is not there, it’s always going to be tough.

SANDRA: You are right, and if you can hit that match, it is wonderful.

JANE: We’ve had a few projects canceled. Artists have withdrawn. The
other thing that’s difficult is the contract process, because Massachusetts
has a law–this is a very important part–Massachusetts has a state law that
protects public art. It’s a weak law. It’s not very good. It has been challenged
in recent years. But it became a stumbling block, and I could not understand
because, in our contract, one artist wanted us to promise to maintain and
keep his artwork in perpetuity. And the legal department said, “No, we have
never done that.” And it was such a stumbling block. So I sat down with the
head attorney, and I asked him to tell me why. And it’s because they could
never put anything in front of the mission of museum. So, a piece of art can
never stop the mission. So, if they need to build there, and something needs
to be moved or torn down; they need that flexibility. I asked them to help me
think of some way around this. What they came up with was actually very
generous and most artists are very happy with it. If MIT cannot maintain or
properly care for or needs to move this piece up to 75 years after the artist’s
death, the artist has a right to get the artwork back at our expense or to (I’m
pretty sure it’s at our expense) disown it or whatever. We have given them a
lot of other means of taking care of it. They know there is a possibility of this
and, if so, they have a right to the work.

SANDRA: I’m certain you have a wonderful maintenance program.

JANE: We don’t have the best maintenance program. We are building
that. And my new provost is working with me on the Council of the Arts on
an adoptive sculpture project where people could endow the maintenance of
a particular artwork. We have a couple of these like that. We put the pieces
on contract with conservators, and anything that is left over we can then
apply to other things. We have a triage assessment from the ILMS, and we
have done almost all of the things we set out to do. Some things are
incredibly expensive, like the Victoria Altarpiece in the chapel, which was
$80,000. MIT is good. They let us have access to the major donors.
Somebody who got married in that chapel remembered it from 50 years ago
and was dismayed at the condition and gave us $85,000 on the spot to fix it.
75

SANDRA: It’s funny. We create all this art and then we don’t think about
how we are going to take care of it. I just want to clarify a little bit more on
how the funding goes. I know you said it is all MIT’s money through their
building fund, and they grant that percent. Do you have donors as well?

JANE: We do. That money can be, if for some reason we have a little
money left over, or, in case, which was a construction kind of project,
everybody really decided that it didn’t make sense to put the art there, we
can pull the money. Sometimes we can put several together. One reason to
get out ahead and know what’s coming is because if there is going to be
four projects along one corridor, it may be better to wait and do something
that is much larger, more creative, or grander. We also have donors, for the
Kapoor for instance, an anonymous donor has given us $600,000 for that.

SANDRA: So, MIT has control of the money?

JANE: Yes. It is coming from the university itself. We run it through
facilities.

SANDRA: What I mean is–that you have that money set aside?

JANE: Yes, and we can pool it or hold onto it.

SANDRA: When you do your actual, I’m sure it will be in the contract,
does the funding include the cost of fabrication and installation?

JANE: Yes. The $250,000 is everything. If we can, again, we try to
double that budget by using things that were going to be built into the
building anyway, when appropriate. Or we may have to try to raise
additional money.

SANDRA: What would be the best description of the public art
collection? I think it would be “contemporary.”

JANE: It is post-war and contemporary. Because they really didn’t start
dealing with art here until the 1960s, and then it came on amazingly strong.
There was a combination of an extremely wise president, Jerome Weisner,
and people like Jerry Kepish were here at the Center for Advanced Visual
76

Studies. There was a man named Wayne Anderson running things then.
There has been a very good alumni group. Kathy Halbreich was here in the
early 1970s and 1980s. This building that we are in, which is an I.M. Pei
building, has a Kenneth Noland wall, Scott Burton benches and railings, and
Fleischner did the whole plaza. Kathy was in her 20s at that time had the
vision to put the artist and the architects together and work in a way that is
really integral for the building. It became a model for public art across the
country. We have been following that lead ever since.

SANDRA: Is there any change that you would make in the collection
building, or has there been in, say, over the last five years? Or is there
anything you might do a little differently?

JANE: We have no endowments to just go buy things. So we add to the
collections one or two ways. We have endowments for something called a
student-loan program, which are prints and photographs that students can
borrow for up to a year for their apartments or their dorm. That’s fun
because we buy young and a lot of those things have appreciated a great
deal in value, and then they become part of our permanent collection, which
is about 3,000 works total. Any faculty member can borrow works. Any staff
member can borrow works. They’re all over the country. What I would love
to have is a good acquisitions fund in the middle to buy work that’s not
necessarily going to be attached to a building, or just to buy painting,
sculptures, and videos, whatever. And I would love to have better
maintenance on them.

SANDRA: How would you measure the success of your collection
program?

JANE: It’s very well received by people from the outside, people from the
art world. To me, the measure of success is how people receive things, how
they feel about things, how attached they are to them. There used to be a
great deal of resentment when a new piece came in. They seem to be
welcomed at this point. And we have, knock on wood, very little or no
problem with vandalism or skateboarders from outside. I just know that
people care a great deal about it. [And] the artists are eager to participate
and are very generous about what goes into the collection here on campus.

77

SANDRA: Is there any other university you most admire?

JANE: USC San Diego’s Stuart Collection and the one in Kansas,
Johnson County Community College.

[End of interview]
78

Appendix B

Pratt Institute
New York City, N.Y.

Pratt Institute is one of the largest independent colleges of art and design
in the United States, offering undergraduate and graduate degree programs
in the schools of architecture, art and design, information and library science,
and liberal arts and sciences.
The school features a Sculpture Park, founded in 2003 by Pratt President
Thomas F. Schutte and Professor David Weinrib of the Foundation Art
Department. It is the largest contemporary sculpture park in New York City.
At any given time, the park includes more than 50 artworks by both
established and emerging artist that are installed across the 25-acre Brooklyn
campus. The Sculpture Park exhibitions are forever revolving and evolving
and remain on the Brooklyn campus for several years.
Pratt Institute is located in the Clinton Hill Historic District of Brooklyn,
one of New York’s premier landmark neighborhoods, featuring a diversity of
architectural styles and beautiful churches.

79

A Selection from the Sculpture Garden of
Pratt Institute

Figure 3. Jack Youngerman,
Source: Pratt Institute.

80

Profile
David Weinrib

David Weinrib is a Professor of Sculpture at Pratt Institute in New York
where he has taught for nearly 20 years. He is currently the curator of the
Pratt Sculpture Park, which he helped to established in 2003. The Pratt
Institute’s Sculpture Park is the largest in New York City, stretching across
the 25-acre Brooklyn campus. The Institute’s green lawns and historical
buildings provide an excellent backdrop for the fifty sculptures that fill the
park each year. The exhibition is a revolving one with most of the work
remaining on the campus for several years and features well-known and
emerging artists, faculty and graduates who loan their work to the exhibit.
Weinrib was the former head of the sculpture department at the School of
Visual Arts, and taught previously at SUNY Purchase and Hunter College.
He is a full-time sculptor and painter and has exhibited in a number of
museums and private collections. He has studios in Amagansett and
Garnerville, New York.
Weinrib and his wife are currently working on a book about the Sculpture
Park, entitled A Curator’s Journal.

81

Interview with David Weinrib
Professor of Sculpture
Pratt Institute
December 8, 2007

DAVID: First of all, we don’t have a collection. We keep pieces for one,
two, or three years only. We don’t have the budget to buy things. The
collection is from a lot of people whose work I know, and we have a lot of
famous people. The work just stays for a year. We had a Louise Bourgeois
show, she was only there six months. It is a circulating situation, and that’s
what I am interested in. I’m not interested in the idea of having permanent
pieces on the campus. It is a whole different philosophy.

SANDRA: The reason why I had selected you for an interview was you
were part of Public Art Review that took place about a year ago, where they
chose 10 of the best public art-on-campus collections, and Pratt was one of
them.

DAVID: What were the others? I don’t know how we quite got in there. Of
course, our president was very proud. I think there was a Serra and a few
others. I don’t know how they chose it. I’m glad I clued into something.

SANDRA: I interviewed Jack Becker the editor of the magazine.

DAVID: Yes, I think that’s how we got in. I think that somebody on our
faculty who has worked with him mentioned our place to him. But of course,
as you know, that’s the way a lot of things happen in this world.

SANDRA: Of course that is true. So you have basically a rotating art
exhibit.

DAVID: True. We have 50 sculptures. I was just at the campus today. We
are putting in another one. And we are putting in another one Tuesday, but
yes–it’s rotating.

SANDRA: How do you choose how who you would like to have there?

DAVID: Me.

82

SANDRA: You–you only?

DAVID: Yes. No committees, nothing.

SANDRA: I see.

DAVID: It all started a number of years ago. My mate and I did a show
called “Sculptors and their Environments.” She’s a photographer, and we
went to the shops of 19 well-known sculptors, and we did a whole, big photo-
journalist show. And we did it at the college, and then we did it at the facility
in Manhattan and it toured a bit. At that time, they wanted to have an outdoor
sculpture show. At the same time. Of course there was no sculpture on the
campus. So we met with a committee of five; then there was a committee of
six, and I walked out of the meeting ’cause I knew that if, in forming a
sculpture park, you had to go through a committee of six, that was not what I
was going to do. It wasn’t my career and it wouldn’t work. So we dropped it.
Then somebody, one of board of trustees who does some work with Indiana,
suggested we have “Love”. He had “Love,” this sculpture of love, available. I
almost hit the ceiling. Because I thought, “Hey, you are going to start some
kind of sculpture park and “Love” was just okay– that’s going to be the first
piece of sculpture?” Crazy. So that is how I got involved.
I got involved, not with the committee, but with the president and the
provost, and they gave me a hard time, too. So then finally the president of
the school, he says, “David, it’s you and me.” So, I am the only person of the
whole 250-person faculty, that doesn’t go through bureaucracy. I go through
a little bureaucracy with our grounds-guy who would be very happy if we put
nothing on the campus. And if he makes a fuss, then I go to the president.
He is very supportive of it. It gets us some small funds for it. That is how we
came to the point of where we are at. It’s a feather in his hat. To hear him
talk, you’d think he’s putting in the sculpture, but I’m doing all the work. But,
he is completely supportive. And he is good.

SANDRA: Well, sounds good.

DAVID: I am a sculptor, so I can do this. I don’t have ambitions to be a
curator. And people always think it’s the end of my engine, but it’s not. This is
quite a bit more work than I expected. I was out there today working with my
assistant.

83

SANDRA: What I wanted to know was, first of all, when you do have this
rotating collection, how do you fund this type of thing? What are the
resources? And maintenance issues: are they included in the funding?

DAVID: On maintenance, I have an assistant who works on this. We have
a small budget that the school provides. They’ve been trying to raise funds
but they haven’t, so the budget covers basically shipping. I have a preparator
who has a trucking business. He moves sculpture all over the country. He
has a crane and a truck. It costs about $1,000 to pick up the artwork and
install it. That’s basically what the budget covers: the shipping, and my
assistant gets a small amount–he’s part-time. So, that’s the basic funding for
it. I haven’t sent you a brochure yet from Pratt?. Have you got one?
SANDRA: No, I don’t.

DAVID: I’ll send you one–because we did a wonderful brochure this year. I
decided to record every piece. So, we have this really handsome foldout of
50 pieces. The school is going crazy with it. They send it to everybody. They
are very proud of it.

SANDRA: How do you decide what you want or you don’t want? Or, do
you give a time-limit on these pieces?

DAVID: No. They just sign a contract, and some people don’t care.
Famous sculptors always have a few sculptures in the barn. That is how we
get them. So, they sign a contract for a year or two years. Sometimes, if I like
the piece, I keep it longer. Sometimes, like with Bourgeois, she had to send it
out to another show, and it was sold. And we just had a Richard Serra there
for a little while.

SANDRA: Well, I would imagine the artist feels it’s very prestigious, too,
for them to have something at Pratt.

DAVID: Maybe. But some of them–I have one or two artists I’ve really
been after–and they don’t see it that way. They really want to have sales,
and there is a certain prestige. But we haven’t gotten good enough publicity.
Now they are working on it. We’ve been doing it for about five years, and we
still haven’t gotten a full-run in Sculpture Magazine. They are very flaccid.
They will get it together, maybe. But, that’s, again, that’s the funding. We
have one or two foundations that give us a little money. But basically, they
84

haven’t gotten large enough funds, so it goes to the school. For them, they
are getting a great deal, because they are sending this brochure all over and
it seems everybody wants to go to art school nowadays.

SANDRA: What are the issues you are most concerned about with this
kind of rotating collection? Do you have any issues with it?

DAVID: None. People think that, stylistically, there is quite a bit of variety.
So they think I am aiming for variety. Some realism, some abstraction. It is
not that way. Basically, what happens is, when I see work that interests me, I
go after it. That’s all.

SANDRA: So, if you think it’s contemporary or timely or you genuinely like
it.

DAVID: I’m an abstract sculptor. I’m mostly interested in abstract work. But
we have few–we just had two Phillip Grausman heads there, those big
portrait-heads he does. There are people saying, “Why don’t we have more
realism?” It’s just my curatorial broad-view of what’s happening in modern
sculpture.

SANDRA: Do the students really interact with the collection?

DAVID: Yes. The Art History department uses it a lot. People use it as
assignments. I take my classes on tours of it. But it has just changed the
whole complexity of the place. People are so excited about it. We had to take
one of the Grausman heads out–Omi bought one–somebody said, “Why did
you take that head out? I liked that so much.” And we just put in a Hans Van
de Bovenkamp: “Oh, I like that new piece. That’s very good. We should have
that there forever.” For the students, their main remark is, “God, it looks like
an art school now.” Where before, we just had a lot of lawns and all. The
president is really hot on landscaping. So they have a lot of nice flowers,
bushes, and trees. And then we have all this sculpture there.

SANDRA: So, you can just pick your own site where you would like to
place this?

85

DAVID: Oh, not that easy. When they designed the Sculpture Park, 10
sites were designated. But that was absurd. What we do is, often, the
sculptors come out to the campus and choose a site with me.

SANDRA: I see. So the artist does a selection of the site, which makes
sense.

DAVID: Yes. Then the person who’s head of building grounds–who should
be working in a garbage dump or something–has no feeling for the work we
are doing. The other guy who had it before was very nice. He said to me,
“David, you know when you were putting in the sculpture, it just made a lot of
work for me–extra work. And after three years of your doing it, I’ve come to
love the work you are doing.” The guy who is the head of the building
grounds now, we will never win him over. All he ever says is, when I’m going
to install, is, “Well, you’ll be taking part of the grass.” He has no love. But the
president is very supportive and a lot of the students are.

SANDRA: Well, he does at least enhance it and makes it look nice,
whether he likes the selection or not.

DAVID: He doesn’t like nothing. He would just like to have grass. But I
have heard of other curators having the same problem.

SANDRA: Do they? Because they are in conflict with the people who take
care of the landscaping?

DAVID: Exactly. I thought I was unique, but I talked to other curators and
they said, no, they have had the same problem.

SANDRA: You said that you started doing this about five years ago?

DAVID: I had three sculptures the first year. I’ve got ambitious.

SANDRA: Prior to that, you didn’t have anything?

DAVID: Nothing.

SANDRA: That’s interesting, especially for an art school like Pratt.

86

DAVID: Every now and then there was one, maybe little piece here
and there. But they never had anything.

SANDRA: How would you best describe the revolving collection?

DAVID: It’s all contemporary. Everybody is living. Well, George Sugarman
died. But in general it’s just people who are working now.

SANDRA: You’ve been in charge of the Sculpture Park for the last five
years, so, basically, any of the problems and frustrations you’ve had, you
make sure it doesn’t happen again.

DAVID: Yes. We have a hanging piece by Marcia Pels, and it was hanging
there and it came down. But we brought it down, and then we put it up again.
And then the guy from Buildings and Grounds took it down. He was not told
to. It became a big brouhaha with engineering reports and all. And he lost in
the end. And we are putting it back up on Tuesday.

SANDRA: If you had a perfect world in the collection program, is there
anything special you would do to improve what you are doing–in other words,
would you get rid of the landscape guy?

DAVID: No. Part of it is equipment. I have Harry Gordon who has his truck.
There are a lot of things that could be moved locally. So, we have a forklift
truck or a cherry-picker on the campus, but it’s very hard to get their
assistance, because they’re very busy and, again, they are not interested in
what we are doing. They have to repair toilets. But we do have one or two of
the crew, the ground crew there, who love working with us. And they say,
“This is a lot more interesting than repairing toilets.” We do have people there
who are supportive.

SANDRA: It sounds like you are getting a lot of good support, and the
success of it is that everyone loves it.

DAVID: No. Some of the faculty are hostile. They say, “Do you realize you
put in that steel piece and it’s got jagged edges?” This guy never said
anything–the head of the Sculpture Department. Some people on the faculty
are very supportive. They keep saying this is the best thing that has ever
happened to Pratt. I get a lot of positive input. But there are some quirky
87

people there. Some of it’s lively: “God, you put in the new piece, that looks
wonderful!” Or, “Why did you put in that piece?” So, we do get quite a bit of
dialog about it. It is an integral part of the campus life.

SANDRA: If you had your choice of any university, is there anyone you
admire for their on-campus public art?

DAVID: I don’t know about it. You see, in the New York area, we have 25
acres. Nobody has that kind of acres. Columbia does. But that whole idea of
the “open campus” is not to germane. In California, a lot of the campuses are
quite open, you know, but we don’t have that here.

SANDRA: But 25 acres seems like quite a large chunk.

DAVID: Yes. That’s why we have all this sculpture all around. It’s not just a
big quadrangle. But it’s indeed, yes, it’s just fine to put work on.

SANDRA: When you have this rotating collection, they are usually there
around two or three years–sort of an average. What a wonderful thing to
have. Can anyone come in on campus and look at it?

DAVID: Yes, it’s open. We just had an ad in Art and American a few
months ago. You can look it up. Yes, I think in there they say it’s open. It’s for
the students but also for the public. And they envision it–they haven’t done it
yet–of having a bus come from New York and bring people down, but it’s
pretty important. The alumni always get a big tour when they come. It’s an
integral part of what is happening.
To answer your question on other universities and their public art, I don’t
know too many universities. And most universities I know, like Harvard and
all, they have a few pieces here and there on the campus that are things they
have purchased.

SANDRA: So, in the Sculpture Park, these are strictly things that the artist
installed for you and you paid for the installation, correct?

DAVID: Yes. We pay for bringing it in and then returning it to them.

SANDRA: And also you pay for maintenance or having it maintained?

88

DAVID: Yes.

SANDRA: Are most of the pieces pretty large?

DAVID: Yes. We have a big 25-foot Marc di Suvero and the Grausman
heads were 20-25 feet tall.

SANDRA: And you do keep it strictly contemporary?

DAVID: Yes.

SANDRA: I’m just trying to get all the points in here very quickly. Well, I
really appreciate you taking the time. It’s been fun talking to you.

DAVID: I’ll send you a few brochures. I don’t have any documents. I can
send you the loan form [that] we give to each sculpture. Do you know about
Black Mountain College? Before your time. I was just down there. It was one
of the big experimental colleges in the South. About 25 years ago, Albers
was the provost and a lot of the Bauhaus people came over and taught there.
Anyhow, they’re trying to revive interest in the school. I was just down in
Nashville giving a lecture there. So, I suppose that’s why you’re getting a
fairly good interview. I was just lecturing. Cranbrook has some interesting
stuff. I think they would have some work there.

SANDRA: With people that are successful, how do they do it?

DAVID: Everybody has a different turn. MIT has a lot more money. They’re
ready to spend it on that. My school is one of the oldest art schools there is,
but they’re rather conservative, and I would say most schools don’t do it quite
in the way we do. And we are doing it this way, and it sort of works for us.

SANDRA: That’s the point–it works for you.

DAVID: If I wasn’t there, they wouldn’t have it. I just happened to have the
contacts and the passion for it. But a lot of people say, “God, David, if you
weren’t doing this, I don’t know who else would do it.”

SANDRA: Hopefully, you will stick with it, and, if you decided to leave, you
will find someone that will do something.
89

DAVID: I can’t. I ran a foundation right outside of New York City, and we
had a gallery in a big church and performances, etc. We put on 30
performances a year, seven art shows, all of our origination. I did it with a
nun, actually, who worked with me, and we had facilities. We felt that after we
had done it for 10 to 12 years it was time to stop, but nobody picked it up at
the time. There are just moments in life where you get people who are
interested and ready to do it for the “not-for-profit” kind of situation. It’s very
hard to pass it on.

SANDRA: I know–I can agree with that.

[End of interview]

90

Appendix C

Western Washington University
Bellingham, Washington

Western Washington University’s scenic location in Bellingham overlooks
Bellingham Bay and Puget Sound’s San Juan Islands and is the site of the
Western’s Outdoor Sculpture collection. Western Washington University has
repeatedly been ranked as one of the United State’s best college because of
its unique scholastic disciplines. The University offers bachelor’s degrees and
Masters degrees in Art, Teaching, Business Administration, and Music.

91

Images from the Outdoor Sculpture Collection of
Western Washington University

Figure 4. David Ireland, Bigger Big Chair, 2004-07, painted steel plate.
Source: Western Washington University.

Figure 5. Robert Maki. Curve/Diagonal, 1979. Painted Cor-ten Steel.
Source: Western Washington University.

92

Images from the Outdoor Sculpture Collection of
Western Washington University

Figure 6. Isamu Noguchi. Skyviewing Sculpture, 1969.
Source: Western Washington University.
93

Profile
Sarah Clark-Langager

Sarah Clark-Langager has served as curator of the Outdoor
Sculpture Collection and director of the Western Gallery at Western
Washington University in Bellingham, Washington, since 1988.
Previously, Clark-Langager held educational and curatorial roles at
the Yale University Art Gallery in New Haven, Connecticut, the
Albright-Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo, New York, the Seattle Art Museum,
and the Munson-Williams-Proctor Institute in Utica, New York. Specializing
in 20
th
-century and contemporary art, she acts as an advisor to many
institutions initiating public art collections.
Clark-Langager holds a doctorate in Art History with a specialization in
20
th
-century art from the Graduate Center, City University of New York.

94

Interview with Sarah Clark-Langager
Curator, Outdoor Sculpture Garden
and Director of Western Gallery
Western Washington University
December 11, 2007

SANDRA: How long has your public-art collection been in existence?

SARAH: The Board of Trustees, in 1957, basically established a policy
that there should be art on campus. The work that came into the public-art
collection was a James Fitzgerald fountain. James Fitzgerald is a Northwest
artist that is considered the father of sculpture in the Northwest. So, that
particular fountain was created in 1959 and installed in 1960. I think you
could easily say that our collection has been in existence certainly with the
first work of art since 1960.

SANDRA: Do you feel that the art collection reflects the mission of the
university?

SARAH: That is a very interesting question, because, as you well know,
missions change. This university’s mission has changed in the sense that the
school was created in the 1890s to educate teachers or to create teachers.
And it had that history for a very long time.
But now, basically, our mission–we have a phrase that we call “engaged
excellence,” which means that we are still educating teachers or creating
teachers, but we are engaged in many fields. We want to be excellent in all
those fields and incorporate diversity and collaboration among disciplines. I
think, certainly, that art being placed on campus is there for an education
purpose, but I feel that it most certainly reflects the engaged excellence of
our mission today. Public art is engaging the public, period. The more I
thought about the question–and we have certainly been talking about this,
most recently, about how public art does engage, does use the strategy of
engagement–I think it is a perfect match.

SANDRA: Let’s see–I’m looking at the question regarding what the role of
public art plays on campus. Is it an integral part of your campus?

95

SARAH: Let me just say that, in the question that asks, “How does it the
mission influence the practices of the public art committee?” I will have to tell
you that, when the board established their policy, they basically said, “We are
choosing the best architects to create the campus in the 1960s and,
therefore, we should be choosing good art as well.” And that’s the only word
of advice they gave. And in the early practices of the public-art program, it
was the architects who ruled, and this was typical of public art across the
nation, as you well know.
And in the early 1970s, there was an outcry from the Department of Art
here, and other people on campus, saying that the architects had the firm
hand, and they felt that there should be a broader representation on the
public art committee.
Since our public art committee has changed its name a hundred times, we
will just say “public art committee.” Basically, a committee was reestablished
where a strong emphasis was placed on the committee to include members
who were from the Art Department. They provided a strong hold on shaping
policy and establishing a requirement for, not only the best artists, but the
most innovative artists that exemplified the current state of the art in terms of
their field. Because, obviously, the architects were choosing their best friends
or works, that really amplified the building.
I would say over the years, the public art committee has very much stuck
to their goals of innovative artists, what is happening in the field today, and
striving for engaged excellence. When it comes to public art and “What role
does it play on campus?”–it obviously is very strong because it is sited
across our entire campus.
When on campus for a tour, many people indicate they would like to visit
our “sculpture garden.” And I say it is not a garden, it is work that is
interrelated into the landscape and the buildings across campus, so
obviously the sites vary. But there is a underlying strong theme of the
environment. The best collections can create multiple themes, and certainly I
do that, for educational purposes, in introducing the sculpture collection to
any university class on campus or to any school group. But in general, I
would say the underlying theme has to do with art in nature or the
environment.

SANDRA: Tell me a little bit about yourself. What role do you play?

96

SARAH: I come from a museum background and have been at this
university for 18 years. I chose this university because of the fabulous
sculpture collection. I had been in Seattle at the Seattle Art Museum,
went to New York, and decided to come back to the Northwest because
of the university’s sculpture collection, and liked the idea that I could be the
director of what you would call a “first wheel” university gallery–and then
curator of that sculpture collection. So, the sculpture collection brought me to
Western.
I feel that I am a pure curator, which means that I literally take care of
the outdoor sculpture collection, and I facilitate anything that happens with
collection in terms of maintenance, conservation, education, etc.

SANDRA: Is maintenance included, in addition to fabrication and
installation, in the overall fee for the artist? Do you have an actual
maintenance program?

SARAH: We do. I feel that this is probably–one of the questions you said,
“What are the primary issues that you are most concerned with?” And I would
say: conservation, conservation, conservation. It’s because no one,
absolutely no one, has been paying attention to it. It is very difficult to find
foundations that are interested in conservation, because it is not glamorous.
They would much rather fund a new sculpture. They would much rather have
their name on something that has a great presence. They do not want to fund
maintenance. That is the most unglamorous word used in the dictionary. I
would say that is my biggest challenge, and certainly has been for the past
couple of years.
When I got here, I realized that mostly what had been done, in terms of
maintenance, was removal of graffiti. And there was a small budget set aside
for that. Over the years, the art has aged, just like we all do. I often talk in the
most simplistic terms to people. I say, “You know we maintain our hair, we
maintain our skin, etc., but we do not take care of our public art collections.”
And that is the only way that they sort of clue in to what I am concerned
about.
What I did was that I got one of the map grants and called in a
conservator. The conservator came and surveyed the sculpture collection.
Together, we set up an annual maintenance policy, or annual maintenance
program, where certain things had to be done absolutely every year. So
finally, two years ago, the university, for the first time in the history of the
97

outdoor sculpture collection, almost 50 years, put a line-item into the
university budget for annual maintenance of the outdoor sculpture collection.
But that only covers literally the annual maintenance of what I call “dusting
and washing.” It does not cover any major conservation. And we have four
sculptures right now that need major conservation, and it is very difficult to
find foundations that are interested.
I have complained and complained to the Washington State Art
Commission for the past 18 years about, “Stop creating all these new works if
you cannot take care of them!” And so, finally, they have put into their
program conservation: a certain amount of money to go into conservation.
But we are stuck, because only five of our 28 works in the collection have
been funded from their program. We can only apply for conservation funds
for five works, and the five that we have are the relatively new ones. It is our
older works that need the conservation. The government funding does not
help us at all.
I would say that conservation is my primary issue. And the other issue that
I have is: integrity of art work. Because the campus is changing. We have a
small campus, and we literally are sitting on a ledge. If you could imagine
this, we have mountains behind us, and we have water in front of us, and we
are sitting on a ledge between the mountains and the water. We can only
expand in a horizontal line along that ledge. And we can only go so far, and
our campus ends. Our campus is becoming more compact, because the
state is saying that “You have to take more students,” etc., and we have to
build more buildings. The older works that were created with a specific-site
stipulation, like the Nancy Holt “Rock Rings” that was out in a lovely field,
now is being crowded by buildings that are being constructed, etc. The
second of my concerns is trying to keep to the integrity of the work–although
the site specifications are shrinking–still trying to uphold that.

SANDRA: Well, when you do go about selecting an artist, is that through
the committee? Or do you let the artist pick the site? How do you decide?

SARAH: It’s been a long history. Because in the past we had a lovely open
campus, when we were interviewing and commissioning an artist and that
artist came to campus, the artist could choose any site that he wanted.
I mean, for example, the “Richard Serra.” Richard Serra wanted to build his
piece in a certain place on campus, and the campus architect said, “If you put
it there you are going to spend all your money on foundation, because that is
98

marshland.” In the past, they could go anywhere they wanted to. But that
has been changing the more compact the campus has gotten. Our last
commission of David Ireland–it took us three years to select a site, because
the artist was interested in a couple of sites. The facilities-management
people [and] the master plan kept throwing up “Stop” signs. The president
was interested in certain sites, etc., etc., so it changed dramatically within the
last five years as to who gets to say what the site is going to be.
I, of course, am the go-between or mediator for all of this. That is my other
role. I have to do that. I am obviously for the artist and where he or she would
like to place the work. But there is a lot of back tracking that I have to do.

SANDRA: What are the “best practices,” do you think, that are used? Are
there some that you think are a little unique? Everybody can select can an
artist I’m looking for the little nuances or the special thing that you might do
that is out of the ordinary? Is there something that you feel contributes to
getting some best practices out of the selection of public art?

SARAH: This is a long story. Our funding comes from three or four areas.
Depending upon the funding, there are different practices. The university has
a very distinct history in the sense that, when the board of trustees, in the late
1950s, said we should have some good art, they said every time we build a
building, we should have some art for that building, which became a model
for the percent of our program in Washington State. So, the art allowance,
the first funding unit–it really was the architects who chose.

SANDRA: Was that just with the university, or did that actually become a
law?

SARAH: That actually became a law. The board of trustees and the
percent-for-art program in Washington State started in the mid 1970s–I think,
like 1974 or 1975. All during that time, we had either our own art allowance,
or we applied to any “A” grants. Or, we worked with a particular donor.
Working with the art allowance fund, Western’s own internal art fund, the
architects were in charge. Their practice was to choose the artist that they
knew, the ones that would amplify their buildings.
In the 1970s, when the public art committee membership changed and
there were more artists or more art-oriented people on the committee, the
practice was to choose innovative, the best, artists in the field. That was in
99

the late 1960s or early 1970s, when we were oriented to this new idea of site.
I would say that concentration on site and choosing the best sites in
cooperation with the artists was probably the best practice of that particular
era.
In terms of a donor, we have been very lucky to work with the Virginia
Wright Fund in Seattle, and Virginia Wright had their own private collection.
The Virginia Wright Fund probably mirrored–one of the reasons she chose
Western was because she liked our particular policy of going after the best,
allowing the artist to do what he or she wanted to do: to be innovative, to let
them be the artist.
But when it comes to the Washington State Art Commission, that is where
we really have to follow many rules and regulations. And the selection of the
artist becomes very detailed. The percent-for-art program in Washington
State has what is known as an “art bank.” It means that, every two years, the
commission sends out a notice that says, “Come one, come all. Artists, if you
are interested in getting our commission, you have to have slides in this art
bank.” They jury the slides that come in and select who they think are the
best and put them into the art bank.
Therefore, if we have a percent-for-art commission stemming from a new
building, we have to go first to that art bank. Because of Western’s history, I
have argued that we will certainly follow the rules and regulations of the
percent-for-art program. But remember, we have been doing this for a very
long time and know what we are doing. So, we have won the right to
nominate artists that we think ought to be put in the art bank for our particular
selection.
The problem that exists is that the commission says “Fine, you can do
that, you can nominate your artists.” Sometimes, they allow us to nominate
50 artists, and sometimes they only allow us to nominate 10. However, the
commission states they will still send out the letter inviting the artists to
submit slides to this particular art-bank competition.
Well, as you know, the artists that we are interested in are in the top of the
field. They pick up the envelope on their desk that says “Washington State
Arts Commission Competition.” They are not interested in a competition. We
have finally won the right that, once the letters go out on the Commission
stationary, we can call up the artist’s gallery, or the artist, and say, “We
nominate you, we are interested in your work, please submit this to the
competition.”

100

SANDRA: Basically, what you are saying is that…

SARAH: [interrupts] We have to set up our own strategies to get the best
artist.

SANDRA: Who has the final authority?

SARAH: If the money is coming from the percent-for-art, we look at the
artist, and we pray that the 10 artists submitted slides–some do, some don’t–
and then we look and choose a commission artist. Well, we choose an artist.
Then that recommendation goes to the Washington State Arts Commission,
and they approve it.
Then, in the meantime, we have what is known as the “Outdoor Sculpture
Advisory Board”: that is what the public art committee is called now. We also
won the right for committee members on the Outdoor Sculpture Advisory
Board to be on the percent-for-art jury. We found that what was happening
was that jury members from across the U.S. that would fly into Western had
no clue what the sculpture collection looked like or what its history was. They
would be rushed into a room, choose an artist, an artist that they liked, even
though the artist might or might not fit the collection.
In our best practices, we acquired the right to put committee members on
the percent-for-art jury so that the board approves the recommendation, and
then I take that recommendation to the president’s council and defend what
we would like to do on campus. When we get approval of the council, then
the president takes it to the board of trustees, and the board gives the final
“Okay.”
When I first arrived at Western, I had to constantly remind people how
important this sculpture collection was. And by building argument upon
argument, talking about it in numerous ways, the president, along with the
board of trustees, finally came on board. Yes, they knew the sculpture
collection was important, but they didn’t lock into it like they were supposed
to. So that is, again, another one of my roles.

SANDRA: On the funding, you said you usually use four different types of
funding?

SARAH: As I say, in the past there have been art allowances. That now is
the percent-for-art program. The other method was “A” grants. When we
used to get NEA grants, we got matches from private parties. Now, our
101

funding comes from only two sources: one, the percent-for-art program; and
two, if there is a donor. If there is a donor who says–as an example, the
Wright’s, who recently gave us seven new works: “I have some money I
would like to give to Western for a sculpture; who are you interested in these
days?” I would work with Virginia Wright as to who the choices of good artists
would be, or several artists that she might consider. We got Bruce Nauman
that way. Bruce Nauman was on our list for the percent-for-art program
commission, and I think he was second in the running, in one particular
commission. I keep a list of what artists we’ve been interested in. So, when
Virginia Wright indicated she had some money, I indicated Bruce Nauman,
who we’ve always been interested in, and he happened to be on her list also.
It was a perfect match.
The next step is to present to the Outdoor Sculpture Advisory Committee
that the donor, the Virginia Wright Fund, would like to propose a commission
for Bruce Nauman. We then go through the same routine, from the Advisory
Board to the president’s council, for the final approval.
With a gift, we go through the same approval system. I had to find the
sites for the works before we would accept the gifts. We had to make sure
that we, indeed, could site them properly and had funding to site them
properly before acceptance.

SANDRA: Did that funding come from the donors?

SARAH: It was a match between the donors and a private party here at
the university.

SANDRA: Do you do fundraising as well?

SARAH: Yes, I do.

SANDRA: And what about collaboration?

SARAH: Fundraising would apply. The other situation–we are sort of
running out of sites for large-scale sculpture. One of the collaborations that
I’m looking at is that, when I said the university is on a ledge and there are
mountains behind, also literally behind the university is an arboretum which is
on a big hill. It is the small mountain. I’m thinking that the arboretum might be
an interesting place for sculpture, which means that I will have to collaborate
102

with the City of Bellingham, because the university and City of Bellingham
maintain the arboretum together.

SANDRA: Normally you don’t do collaboration?

SARAH: Exactly. The other thing is that, because our campus is shrinking,
the university is thinking about going down to the waterfront. There is a
general area at the waterfront that was, in past times, devoted to industry.
The city is interested in building up a waterfront and interested in the
possibility that the university might go down to the waterfront, particularly its
College of Environmental Sciences. There is a possibility, if we expand at the
waterfront, there might be, again, another park-like setting where we can
have outdoor sculpture. Again, we would be collaborating with the city.

SANDRA: You talk about running out of room. How large is the campus?

SARAH: 180 acres. A good size. We don’t want to become the graveyard
for sculpture, so we are very particular. That goes back to one of our goals,
and that is: to always maintain the integrity of the artwork. We try to give
each work its own unique space.

SANDRA: Do you have a master plan, or is it really necessary?

SARAH: The university has a master plan. I sit on the Master Plan
Committee for the university, which means, “How is the university going to
grow, where are the new buildings going to go, what needs to be changed in
terms of pathways, landscaping, etc.” The Master Plan Committee would
really like for me to go to the master plan and say, “Here is a sculpture site,
and here is a sculpture site, and here is a sculpture site, etc.” Because what
they are envisioning are these little concrete pads that could be placed in
various places on campus, and whenever we get a new sculpture, we plop it
down there. I resist that. I refuse to do that. I say, “Remember the artist has
the right to select his own site.” Yes, we have had a problem, in that we know
that a new building is going to go on that site, or the president doesn’t like
that site, or whatever. But the artist still has the right. As I said, art changes. It
could be that the artist literally wants to put his work inside a tunnel, for all I
know.

103

SANDRA: I just want to clarify one thing: you do have a maintenance
program? Does funding include the fabrication, installation, in addition to the
artist fee?

SARAH: It just depends upon the donor. For example, with the Bruce
Nauman commission, it included fabrication and installation, but it did not
include maintenance. We pay for that. And Virginia Wright also paid for the
artist’s fee.
When it comes to the percent-for-art program, we had to pay for the
installation of David Ireland. And we will have to pay for the maintenance,
even though, supposedly, the Washington State Art Commission says that,
because it is “three sculptures,” they will fund maintenance. They have to do
that for so many million pieces of public art across the State of Washington.
You can imagine we will get about 80 cents.

SANDRA: What best describes your public-art collection?

SARAH: With the exception of the first few pieces that the architects
chose, I would say that the best pieces stem from the late-1960s through
1970s: the height of abstraction, the minimalist movement. But then also,
looking at that, we have taken the branches, or the conceptual side, of the
minimalism and branched that into what we call “land art,” or architecturally-
scaled work, or conceptual format. A broad branch has been minimalism and
how that has changed over the years, in terms of contemporary itself.

SANDRA: How would you measure the success of the collection-building?
I think we pretty much covered all these points, but in a few words?

SARAH: The success has been in the general interest that comes, first,
from the outside. In other words, if you sit in my office during the summer,
visitors from all over parade through the buildings and are looking for
information on the outdoor sculpture collection. And they, say, go to the
Western Gallery. So, people from all over come to look at the collection. I
base the success on the fact that we have visitors from everywhere.
Secondly, I do a lot of outside touring for groups. Whether it is the board of
trustees from Los Angeles Museum that wants to revamp their sculpture
collection, or it’s the lady’s group, or guild from a museum, I do a lot of
outside tours.
104

I gauge it also, certainly, from what is in print and the fact that other people
begin to rate us. There are articles written. The strength that I get from the
feeling that the collection is successful is the fact that artists, individual artists
who are in our collection, speak about our collection. And that catalogs and
books that are written about the particular artists in our collection: you will
always find a reference to Western’s work.

SANDRA: And they want to be a part of it.

SARAH: Absolutely.

SANDRA: Is there any other university that you do admire for their on-
campus public art?

SARAH: UC San Diego. They seem to have incredible flexibility. They
have their own board that works side-by-side with the university. As far as I
can tell, Mary Beebe does not have to say “Yes” to the president. I love their
flexibility. I love their selection. They have plenty of funding. They have a very
innovative collection.

SANDRA: One thing I’m assuming is, you are a public university?

SARAH: Correct.

SANDRA: Do you ever have any temporary art on campus?

SARAH: Only students do temporary work. Students who are in the Art
Department have permission to do temporary work. But here is another
kicker: because we are running out of space, we are trying to decide what to
do with our percent-for-art funding. Will we go into the arboretum? Will we go
inside buildings? Sculpture comes in many different formats. Or, can we use
the fund with temporary work and have a catalog and the temporary work
remains for five to six years, or two months, or whatever we designate. And
the catalog acts as the permanent record of the piece. The Washington State
Arts Commission absolutely will not allow that.
In 1987, we got an NEA grant to do a symposium on site-specific work.
Part of the funding came from the percent-for-art program. We chose three
artists, and one of those artists would be funded by the percent-for-art
105

program. We chose Alice Aycock, George Trakas, and a Northwest artist
named Mike McCafferty. The Alice Aycock piece was funded. It is a
permanent work, which meant that the GeorgeTrakas and the Mike
McCafferty works were “temporary.” Mike’s piece, because people loved it,
lasted 15 years. And George’s piece, because people loved it, also lasted 15
years, until finally George said, “Time is up–I’m going to take it away,” and
we had a huge fight.
A donor stepped forward and offered to make the piece permanent. The
problem was that these two artists, when they did their temporary work, they
created it as if it were a permanent piece, so that people said it is already
permanent. It was difficult for the university to understand why they had to
pay George a fee again to make it a permanent piece.

SANDRA: Do you have a de-accessioning program in place?

SARAH: That is my biggest challenge, and that is my next step in
improving the collection. De-accessioning is my next topic of interest.

SANDRA: That would come under, “What would you do to improve your
collection-building process?”

SARAH: Exactly. The first big essay that I wrote was when the university
was celebrating its hundredth birthday, and the provost wanted a history of
the sculpture collection. I wrote it from a university viewpoint, just as we’ve
been talking, “Where’s the funding coming from?” problems, etc. I will send
you that. I will also send you the book that talks about the art and the sites.

[End of interview]
106

Appendix D

Wichita State University
Wichita, Kansas

Kansas’ only urban-serving state university, Wichita State University features
the only comprehensive college of fine arts in Kansas in addition to its five
other schools. The campus also has one of the largest outdoor sculpture
collections of any U.S. university. The Martin H. Bush Outdoor Sculpture
Collection, has more than 70 statues spread across the Wichita State
University's campus.

107

Profile
Kent Williams
Studio Artist and Public Art Consultant.

Information Not Submitted

108

Interview with Kent Williams
Wichita State University
December 7, 2007

SANDRA: How long has your public-art collection been in existence?

KENT: The university collection began, I think, in 1972. So, it’s in the
neighborhood of 35 years ago.

SANDRA: How large a collection is it?

KENT: All together? Let me think. It is in the neighborhood of 75 pieces. I
think that is pretty close. The collection overall is several thousand pieces.
And they sometimes delineate between the whole collection and the outdoor
collection. The permanent collection is about 7,500 objects.

SANDRA: Is that including gallery?

KENT: Yes.

SANDRA: So, primarily, what would be under the classification of the
public art–the 75 pieces outdoors?

KENT: Outdoor collection–I’m looking at a fairly recent article–it’s in the
neighborhood of 75.

SANDRA: I understand. On the collection and its growth: does it really
reflect the mission of the university?

KENT: I think it does. The university’s mission is quite general. But, I think,
in essence, it does it better than most other aspects of the university,
in terms of maintaining the commitment to a true university pursuit. I think this
is just coming from what I’m seeing in colleges and universities around the
Midwest. Many of them do a great job of preparing students to enter the
workplace, in terms of the industrial workplace and in terms of the high-tech
workplace, but that falls short of what I see as the real liberal arts mission,
which is the pursuit of universal knowledge and the universal experience.
And in that sense, I think the outdoor sculpture nails it and has some
foresight into building up that mission–and that aspect of the collegiate
109

community experience. I think the university had the foresight to, encourage
some of those endeavors even before universities started getting a little
diluted.

SANDRA: Yes, which is nice. What role do you play? Are you the public-
art director?

KENT: No, I’m a studio artist and a public-art consultant. And I am on the
Outdoor Sculpture Committee, public servant. And I work with the other
sculpture committee that makes recommendations to the curator and the
director, along with the Acquisitions Committee, once they have their agenda
somewhat developed in terms of what they are seriously considering to add
to the collection.

SANDRA: So, the school has a public-art committee that handles the
acquisitions? How does that work?

KENT: It’s interesting because they rarely used the term “public art.” They
typically call it “outdoor sculpture,” which has been a little confusing for me,
because I come at it from the other direction, where it’s more municipal
endeavor as opposed to private.
So, the curator and their support staff basically lead the process, and they
have the authority to propose what pieces they want to add to the collection
and what artist they feel is a nice complement to the other artists that are
already in the collection.
Then there are two committees that review and recommend. One is the
Outdoor Sculpture Committee and the other is the Acquisitions Committee.

SANDRA: Okay, so you have two that relate. Who is in charge of the other
or are they both on a par with each other? Who makes the final decision?

KENT: I think the Acquisitions Committee ultimately has a little bit more
teeth in their influence than the Outdoor Sculpture Committee. They look at
everything.

SANDRA: So, the Acquisitions Committee does all the basics as to costs
and maintenance and placement and such, and then the other committee,
which would be the Sculpture Committee, would be more on the creative
side?
110

KENT: Right. The Sculpture Committee is a little bit more on the aesthetic
side. We would perhaps comment on how it works in the collection. But we
would also make recommendations as to its actual location on campus.

SANDRA: When the Sculpture Committee makes their recommendation,
how to they go about choosing something? How does that come about? Do
you have any idea?

KENT: I think a lot of that is in response to whatever inertia is in place
thanks to the curator and their supporters and their bosses. And also–I
should mention this–the collection is pretty beloved by the key players at the
university.

SANDRA: So, they are very proud of their collection?

KENT: Yes, and in addition, the university president has had a passion for
it. I remember when the university president came along a few years ago,
and the directors of the departments–the director of the museum, the
patrons, etc.–all worked to ensure that he understood the value of this and
make sure the new president was motivated to continue giving the sculpture
garden the priority it deserved.
The curator has a huge influence in terms of what is available in the
market, and they have to be so frugal with the money that they spend. They
might often adjust their agenda just based on what sort of deals are out
there.

SANDRA: What is the name of your curator?

KENT: Katy Gahaa has been the curator until just the last couple of
weeks. The new curator isn’t on campus yet, and I don’t know her name. I
haven’t met her. She came from Spencer, which is another university
museum at KU in Lawrence. I will follow up with that.

SANDRA: In other words, your sculpture collections on campus and in the
actual garden are curatorial-driven? Is that correct?

KENT: That’s correct.

111

SANDRA: As opposed to a public-art acquisition process? If it is more
curatorial-driven it’s a little bit different. Does the community get involved in
any of the acquisitions, as far as the sculpture is concerned, or is it primarily
just the university?

KENT: Primarily the university.

SANDRA: Yes. So, that would basically follow with a curatorial
background. Do you know how the pieces are funded? Do you have any idea
of what the process is on that?

KENT: There is an endowment that has been in place since the beginning
of the collection. That is the Martin H. Bush Outdoor Sculpture Collection.
And there is also the Edwin A.Ulrich Museum of Art which is a component in
that foundation. And they are fortunate to have–for a Midwestern university–a
pretty nice base that gives them an annual collections budget. And then on
top of that, of course, they are always beating the drum for more money.

SANDRA: Do you do fundraising and such or is that part of the program?
Do you do any kind of collaboration or is it donor-and-endowment? In other
words, do you have any idea of how funding does come in?

KENT: I am familiar with some fundraisers that are both project-specific
and in general. Again, they’re kind of tailored to the existing base of patrons
and the group of citizens that are on the verge of becoming patrons.

SANDRA: When you do the funding, does it include the cost of fabrication,
installation, and maintenance, in addition to the artist fee?

KENT: I think the maintenance is typically separate. Fabrication and artist
fee–I think that is all the same contract. And of course, there are cases where
there is a ready-made piece that can be purchased. Then it’s up to the
physical plant to handle the installation. And I think that is a little bit built into
their budget as well.

SANDRA: If you have 300 acres there, that is a pretty good size. Is it
slowly being developed in the various areas throughout the entire campus for
some type of a public-art piece we can say or a sculpture piece? Or do they
have a master plan?
112

KENT: I don’t sense that there is a pure master plan in place. It’s worked
so far because I think there has been pretty clean communication between
the museum, the physical plant that does the installation, and the university
architect that takes into account this sort of bonus component of having art to
work with as buildings develop.

SANDRA: It sounds like an ideal situation in many ways, because the
need for approval by a committee is eliminated. Because it is curatorial in
background, you have an endowment, you know what you can spend, you
have the committee to make recommendations, and then you have a second
committee that does the particulars as to how it is to happen. Is that kind of
the way it works?

KENT: Yes, it is like that. It’s a little bit less red tape, or maybe a lot less
red tape.

SANDRA: Sounds like it. It must be kind of nice.

KENT: It is. I’ve spent a lot of work in the public realm through municipal
projects, and when I first started volunteering at the university, witnessing
how it happened, I was a bit shocked that it was so effective and more
casual.

SANDRA: Are you from Kansas?

KENT: Yes, I am.

SANDRA: What is the best description that you could give for this public-
art collection? Is it contemporary or historical? Is it mixed? Is there a general
description you can apply to it? I’m not going to quote you like this; I just
need to have sort of this basic information.

KENT: I really think it’s a mix of post-modern and contemporary works that
have had the liberty to try and get the best work in the moment that is
available that works with that particular year’s budget.

113

SANDRA: Do they go and solicit the artists? Are you that familiar with the
process? Do they say, “Gee, we would really like to have a certain well-
known artist do a piece for us in a certain area,” and then let the artist choose
that area?

KENT: Yes, in fact that is happening right now with a Tom Otterness.

SANDRA: Do you have any information, brochures that you could send
me?

KENT: Sure.

SANDRA: I would love to get some information on more of the art pieces,
anything you have. I don’t know how it works, but basically, with getting a
new curator, I’m sure it’s kind of awkward–everything is on hold right now–
but it would help me put it all together, and I could see what you are doing.

KENT: I would be happy to.

SANDRA: How long have you been working with the school?

KENT: I think it’s approximately four years now, maybe five.

SANDRA: Have you seen any significant changes to this collection during
the past five years? Have you seen any changes in acquisition process? Are
they getting bigger and better artists–in other words, more well-known artists
- although I think local artists can be equally as good?

KENT: I think it has worked out that, in the last few years, they have gotten
a couple of big names, and that seems to be a choice in terms of the
permanent collection, to go for more emerging artists.
Let’s say purchases more in the range of $10,000, $20,000, or $30,000
were being made for a little bit more avant-garde–more unknown work for
indoor, while at the same time, bigger names with bigger budgets were being
brought on for the outdoor collection. And part of that just was a fortunate
timing situation in that negotiations for site–for outdoor work takes longer–
you need site visits, you need to let the process gestate. And when they
started talking to Andy Goldsworthy about doing a piece, he wasn’t quite
114

the giant name that he is now. And fortunately, he honored the terms of their
original deal. So, they got a piece from him at a real great price that works.

SANDRA: Sometimes the artist will forego a fairly large fee just to be
associated with the school, knowing full well that they will get much publicity
from this.

KENT: Yes. Hopefully, it’s great for them too.

SANDRA: It seems to be going that way. Do you have any other university
you admire for their on-campus public art?

KENT: Well, there is certainly a sculpture garden at Stanford that I have
admired. I have spent some time at UC Berkeley as well, and they have
some beautiful things. I have also remembered things at the University of
Minnesota. They have the Walker Museum there that is great.
But in general, I think I can only evaluate in sort of the reductive way.
I took for granted this collection, growing up in this community, and just
assumed that all universities had an abundance of outdoor work–that, as
a young person, it really does define sort of this beautiful capability of the
human endeavor. I just assumed it was normal. And then, as I grew and
started traveling around, I noticed that there might be a beautiful building,
but there was just a sort of vacancy in the atmosphere of other universities.

SANDRA: If you have the artistic merit there, it makes everything
worthwhile.

[End of interview]

115

Appendix E

University of South Florida
Tampa, Florida

The University of South Florida is a public university that takes pride in
advancing its position as a research university. Established in 1956, USF
emerged as a major research institution during the 1980s. In addition to its
public art program, USF's Contemporary Art Museum features regular
exhibitions of contemporary art, including a show of faculty work every three
years and exhibitions of student work .

116

Images from the Public Art Collection of
University of South Florida

Figure 7. Alice Aycock. Maze, 2000. Sand blasted aluminum.
Source: University of Southern Florida.

Figure 8. Nancy Holt. Solar Rotary, 1995. Aluminum (painted semi-gloss black), bronze,
concrete, electric lights, plants.
Source: University of Southern Florida.

117

Profile
Vincent Ahern

Vincent Ahern, as director of Public Art at the Contemporary Art Museum,
leads one of the top ten university public art programs in the country. Ahern
coordinated over 100 public arts projects located on University of South
Florida campuses, highlighting the site-responsive works of premier artists.
Ahern has written, directed, and produced Public Art: Process and Product, a
video for the State of Florida that details the process for realizing site-specific
public art works. He is a member of the Florida Association of Public Art
Administrators and the International Association of Professional Art Advisors.
Ahern holds a Bachelor of Science in History/Speech from Appalachian
State University, and a Bachelor of Arts in Fine Arts and a Master of Fine
Arts in Sculpture from the University of South Florida.

118

Interview with Vincent Ahern
Public Art Director
University of South Florida
December 5, 2007

SANDRA: How long has your public art been in existence?

VINCENT: It was founded through state legislation in 1979. The program
is part of the Florida Art and State Buildings Program. The legislative
founding of the program was in 1979. It required that the Florida Arts Council,
a group of individuals appointed by the government, develop guidelines
which are mandates that govern our selection process and other details of
the program. That took about 6 years. So, really we got started around 1986,
with the first major project on Tampa campus being completed in 1991.

SANDRA: So, you’ve been in business for quite a while?

VINCENT: Yes.

SANDRA: How does that collection reflect on the mission of the
university?

VINCENT: Mission statements are broad in general, and in the mission
statement of the university, that was one of the things that was handy to have
your questions ahead of time. Calls for the university to conduct research and
scientific discovery were meant to strengthen the economy and to promote
civic culture and arts. Clearly, there is a way that we directly contribute to that
aspect of the mission statement. I must say that it is not necessarily in the
minds of the committee or myself, as we go about developing a project, that
we think of what the mission of the university is vis-à-vis the arts, but it does
in fact fit the profile of a Research One institution, of which USF is in, as
much as we bring in.
As you know, some of the leading contributors to the field and any project
is a product of research. They don’t come out of a manual, they don’t come
out of a can. They are made to order for a specific site. And oftentimes, they
are incorporating techniques or approaches that the artist has never used
before, or that we haven’t dealt with before. And so, the notion of developing
new projects that involve a significant amount of research is very much part
of what we do.
119

SANDRA: How do you come up with your ideas? Is it something that the
committee has felt that this particular type of collection should be put
together, based on whatever is going on at that time? In other words, is it an
overall master plan that you have, or is it just that, as you grow, you make
certain development changes?

VINCENT: Well, you’ve kind of asked two questions, and let me address
them in the order that you sort of asked. “How does the committee approach
developing a project?” and, “Do we have a master plan?” would be the
second question.
In terms of developing a project, the committee meets initially to look at
opportunities that might be available to us. Since our program, as developed,
is a set-aside for new construction on campus, it involves the architect for
that facility. It involves the chief administrative officer associated with the new
facility. It involves three art experts, myself included, as well as voting
members. Ex-officio members include the university architect, as well as the
director of physical planning. Often times a member of the provost’s office is
also involved in the selection process. So, that is the group of people that is
gathered together.
Some of them–the chief administrative officer, sometimes the architect–
are coming to the public art process for the very first time. So, we begin by
taking a look at what has happened in the field. Oftentimes, we do this with
the focus on USF, clearly, because this is where the project is going to be
built. I do a sort of general overview of the contemporary circumstances of
public art for that committee. I then ask the committee to develop a program
for the project, a brief description of what we are going to try to do. By this
time, they have looked at those opportunities through the eyes of the
architect. I actually should have thrown that in before we start writing the
program, because that’s in fact what happens.
We do the overview, and then ask the architect to take a look at what kind
of opportunities he thinks the footprint of the building and its surrounding
areas might offer to an artist. Sometimes there are preliminary discussions
along this line where we formally get together as a group. I often sit down
with the architect and university architect and just look at what I think are
opportunities, what they think are opportunities, and then that is presented
for the committee to consider. And, as I say, as a third step in that first
meeting, we write the program. That ends up being a key element in how we
will conduct the search process.
120

We have tried to do projects that related to the site, and that can be done
in a number of ways. It can be very specific in terms of the discipline. It can,
in general in terms of where we are here in central Florida. The West Coast
has certain geographical–certain kinds of qualities–obviously to this
condition: sunlight, wind, rain, and a need for shade. So, these are some
general qualities of the environment that could be addressed in terms of the
artist being site-sensitive or site-responsive.
On the other hand, it could be very specific. An example of that: Tim
Rollins and KOS doing a project for the College of Education where, clearly,
Tim’s track record–as in, Tim and KOS–coming from the field of education
itself. And so, obviously, a tight connection is there. So, at any rate, a
description of what it is we are going to try to do. And that usually is a
sentence or two, which then determines what artist–that, in combination with
budget and sometimes timeframe–determines what artist we will seek out for
the project. We don’t do a general call. We invite artists to submit slides and
resume and other materials for the committee’s consideration. And the
reason why we don’t do a general call is that it has been my experience of
what happens is that you get an awful lot of submissions, sometimes in the
hundreds. Many of them have little or nothing to do with the program that is
outlined and many of whom are not qualified for the kind of project we are
doing. And it tends to confuse the committee, waste an awful lot of time,
cause the artist a great deal of expense–they are always doing FedEx, for
example–they put a great effort to put these things together.

SANDRA: Do you make the overall recommendation to the committee?

VINCENT: I ask that the architect and the other two art experts to
contribute to that. What, in fact, tends to happen is that the art experts and I
come up with a list. I ask that whoever has been put forth for consideration,
that their name and contact information be sent to me. I call each of the
artists and have an initial conversation with them to inform them–in terms of
what this particular project is, to get a sense of what they’re doing–what their
schedule looks like, and to give them a general overview of what the program
has been. I consider that–you had asked the other day, “Are there any
special things we do that may give us an edge?”–I think that initial formation
of a relationship happens in that phone conversation. They are not five-
minute calls. If, in fact, the artist is interested, it’s not unusual that we will talk
a half-hour to 45 minutes. They may be people that we have known.
121

Oftentimes they are. But whether or not I know them, I try to get a full sense
of what’s going on: what the momentum is, what the particulars of this project
might be. Establishing that rapport between me and the artist, I think–initially
before they have even submitted–is absolutely…it’s a key. Typically, what we
are looking at is to get 10 to 15 artists who submit for a project. And the
process–would you like me to go on talking about the process?

SANDRA: Yes, I do. But before we go on any further, I want to ask–so,
you really are kind of the driving force of this whole process? You are the
director, I believe, aren’t you?

VINCENT: I am the director, and I think–yes, you are accurate in saying
that. I am certainly the director.

SANDRA: Because without you, they wouldn’t be having all this coming
together, and they wouldn’t be having this all work. You are kind of the one
that makes it happen.

VINCENT: I think that is true in any circumstances.

SANDRA: I’m not trying to put you on the spot.

VINCENT: I think that is absolutely true. But I think it is true in any
circumstance that the public-art professional, the person running the program
or administrating is going to be, whether they know it or not, key to that
program’s success or failure. Because, it’s that person’s full-time job. They
have the greatest amount of information, the greatest amount of experience
and professionalism that can be brought to the circumstance. One has to
keep in mind that it is public, and I think that public part of it is really
intriguing. I think it feeds what can happen in way that makes public art not
only interesting but vital to the community. I make a point of emphasizing that
while, yes, the public art director or administrator has all the strings in his or
her hands, among those things that are flowing through his hands is the
infusion of what the committee and community will bring to the dialog. And
I think it is that dialog that actually enriches the public-art process.

SANDRA: Just one quick question before we go on to the process as you
were describing: how is the public-art committee chosen?

122

VINCENT: Some of it is by mandate. The architect for the facility is a
voting member. The chief administrative officer for the facility is a member.
And then my membership is also included as a user-agency representative,
that is to say, the representative for the university. I then appoint the two art
professionals. Obviously, I take some care in doing this. One of the factors
that I want to consider, always, is, “Where is the project being done?” We
have a number of branch campuses: one in St. Petersburg, one in Sarasota,
and one in Lakeland, in addition to the Tampa campus. If I’m doing a project
in Sarasota, I want professionals in the Sarasota area. I want people that are
part of that community. Because the community beyond the university–there
is a university community–but then there is a greater metropolitan community
that ends up having a role in this whole thing. I want experts who know the
turf and will appoint them accordingly. I have heads-up information as to what
the project is, what opportunities might be available–or rather, not what the
project is, but what the project budget is, what kinds of sites might be
available to us. So, I have a kind of sense going into this where the project
might go. And sometimes my selection of experts is influenced by that, and
sometimes it is not.

SANDRA: When all is said and done, and you have pretty much decided
on whom you are going to use as an artist, who makes the final selection? Is
it voted on by the committee?

VINCENT: It is. You have a question about what has changed in the last
five years, and I will address more of this at that point in time. But, up until
the last few years, the committee made the decision, and that decision was
submitted, as is required to by statute, to the Division of Cultural Affairs in
Tallahassee and presented to the Florida Arts Council, who has–as long as
we have followed all the area of the guidelines required, they have approved
it. What has changed recently–and this is just within the last couple of years–
is that, partly because of the success of the program, partly it is an
administrative kind of perspective, but the president and the president’s
cabinet has asked to have a review of what decisions we make as a
committee and providing that final approval. That’s created an awkward
situation and, as I say, I’d be happy to address that and what has changed
recently.

123

SANDRA: Do you have a master plan? Do you consider that really
necessary, in a way? Sometimes they are very effective, other times they
may be effective one time and not another.

VINCENT: When I began the management of this program back in 1989 or
1990, I sat down by myself without input from others and wrote a rather
detailed master plan for what a public-art collection ought to address for the
University of South Florida. I spent, maybe, the better part of a month, off and
on, working on that document, which I immediately filed and haven’t looked
at since. However, it was an exercise. It was a means by which I could
consider, “If I’m going to do this for a bit, how should this unfold?”
What opportunities are unique to the University of South Florida? We are
the thirteenth largest university. We occupy 785 acres. And when I walked
onto this campus for the first time as an art student, I looked at all of the
landscape and area available and said, “Hmm. Where is the sculpture park?”
Little did I know that I would help answer that question later. So, there was
that in front of me, this wonderful canvas: the campus acreage, wonderful
trees, and large spaces between buildings. It’s a hike, believe me, from one
end of the campus to the other. You are probably talking at a brisk pace–35
minutes–to cross the campus. A mile in one direction, a mile-and-a-half in the
other direction. A big area to deal with.
The university was founded in 1956; the first buildings were under
construction in 1960: a very contemporary kind of circumstance, built on a
suburban scale because there was so much land. And built within the state
budget, which limits any niceties that might be included in the building: things
like lobbies, places for people to be, with the adjacent spaces addressed in
terms of landscape but not in terms of infrastructure. So, when I started here
as a student there was literally one bench on campus with lots and lots of
parking lots. There was a desire on the part of the university for this to be
other than just a drive-through kind of circumstance, which it very much was
at that time: students from the surrounding area coming to classes and then
leaving because, in part, there was no place to be.
The master plan that I described certainly wanted to address those
circumstances. But it has not in any formal sense, nor do we have any other
formal effort to do a master plan. On the other hand, I’ve certainly always
kept it in mind. Do I think a master plan could be useful? You know, I don’t
think master plans dance very well. And I think when you are dealing with the
arts and you are dealing with a public institution that is involved, necessarily,
124

with the politics of a state, that ability to dance, that ability to move based on
circumstances, is pretty darn important.

SANDRA: I was going to say you more or less it takes away your flexibility.

VINCENT: Yes. They, master plans, can be tools. If you are talking about
an urban program, a metropolitan program, I think they can be tools to help
leverage the position of the program vis-à-vis the city council or whatever. On
the other hand, I think they can be anchors. I think each program has to
consider that on an individual basis: how you can bring great experts in. On
the other hand, you can, as I just said, lock yourself in and limit your ability to
be flexible.

SANDRA: Well, you’ve certainly given me lots of wonderful information. In
getting back to the artist selection process– once you make a decision, you
vote on it?

VINCENT: Let’s get back to the decision, because I think that is an
important element. So, we write the program first. We have a sense of what
site might be the best prime opportunity: where we’d like the project built,
pending input by the artist that we select. I try to get myself up to speed as
best as possible with the vocabulary of the artists, their working instinct and
major projects. Then, by next committee meeting, I present any materials
from the artists that they feel best represents them to the committee
members. The committee then selects three finalists, and we invite them to
our next series of meetings. We don’t invite them all at once, but we have
them come in one-at-a-time, each having the opportunity to address the
committee for a full one-hour meeting. And they are asked simply to present
their work. What’s clearly vital for the committee’s information is that they get
an understanding from the artist as to his or her own particular aesthetic way
of working, of communicating, and way of being–all of those things being
very important to the final decision. Who are these people? How do we relate
to them? What are their instincts? Did they have a response to the
university? By the way, they come from New York, California, whatever, and
for the first time are walking on the campus. When they come, the reason I
set up these separate meetings is because, again, that idea of developing a
relationship with the artist is to me very vital as it pertains to how the whole
process is going to unfold, and so I spend an entire day with them.
125

When I take them around campus, they have a chance to see the other
projects that have been done, to get a sense of what the campus is and what
the environment is. It’s an opportunity to get an understanding of what the
larger community is, so that they are really getting their full-scale exposure to
whom and what we are, and we in turn are getting the same from them.
Then, once all three presentations have occurred, we meet again to have a
full discussion of what we saw, how we felt about them, and so forth. And we
select the artist. Notice that nowhere in this process have we asked for a
proposal from them. In fact, I ask the artist not to make much of an effort,
other than–if they decided they want to give a verbal description of what their
initial gestalt is, fine, but don’t try to give a proposal on a day’s visit. Spend
some time. Once you are selected, I’ll supply you with whatever you need in
terms of specific information about the architecture and what’s happening
with that–the video of the site, if that is what they need. Whatever they need
to get thoroughly grounded in who and what we are before they attempt to
generate a proposal.

SANDRA: But you usually have your budget in advance, as to what you
are going to submit?

VINCENT: Yes, and that is presented to the artist in the very first
conversation. When I contact them to see if they are interested, we have the
one-half of one-percent–people always get that wrong–but it is one-half of
one-percent. Tiny. These are not big budgets. A huge budget for us is
$80,000. Oftentimes it is not enough, and we discuss that straight upfront.
Actually, I have that discussion with the committee when we are writing the
program: “Look guys, what we are going to try to do is reasonably ambitious.
Understand, both in terms of the artist that we are going to go after and in
terms of the kind of project we are going to do, we are going to have to do
some fundraising.” I require that I have a commitment from the dean–
specifically a dean for whom the building is being built–that they will do that
fundraising. That they will work with me, but it is their development office that
is going to go out and beat the bushes. We have a target figure in mind. If we
are doing fundraising, we kind of know what we are going after in terms of
added dollars.

SANDRA: When you do need additional dollars, is it primarily through
fundraising? Or do you do a whole variety of things, for example, grants,
donations, collaborations?
126

VINCENT: The collaboration aspect of it is–certainly it is something that
we have done and have done effectively. One shouldn’t forget that this is the
university, and its treasure is in its intellectual properties, available
professionalism from those various faculty members, students, and graduate
students. So, we very much tap that. We have used in-kind donations from
faculty and students as a significant component of a project in the past. We
don’t always do that, but there have been places where we simply would not
have gotten done without our collaboration from particular faculty. So that is
an element of it. Sometimes there are line-item funds. Generally these aren’t
large, but there are some line-item funds that can be tapped from the
construction project. If the artist is doing lighting, or if they are dealing with a
hard surface, dealing with the floor of a building, sometimes we can capture
some of those construction funds and add it to the project.
The primary source of funding has been sponsorship from individuals and
corporations: in one case, in the form of a memorial. More typically, we have
found corporate sponsors. We do not generally write grants for projects. The
problem with that is timeline. By the time you write a grant and find out so-on
and so-forth, it may be a year that has passed. There is a sunset for
accounts. One of the things in our initial conversation that I talked to you
about was, the key to all of this running of programs is: what are
infrastructure circumstances for the institution that you are working with?
How are things done there? One of the ways things are done in Florida is
that an account set up for a building is to be closed out 18 months after
substantial completion. So, there is a kind of timeline involved. I don’t like
time to crunch a project. I’d rather take the time it requires to get a project
done right than to get it done on time and not have it be completed. So, a key
to those 18 months is that we get the artist under agreement during those 18
months, then we can do the carryover. It drives people nuts, but so what?
The project is going to be around for years. But when you start writing grants
and you can’t write an agreement because you don’t have the bottom-line
dollars, then you could easily exceed that.
The same thing occurs with fundraising. When I say we do fundraising, a
lot of times we will select the artist knowing that we need a budget larger than
what we have, pending fundraising. That is a little bit of a scary situation,
because we have to go out and raise those dollars. My ability to kind of read
the client, if you will–the dean or the administrative officer and how likely they
are to actually produce–is sort of pivotal in terms of, “Who are we going to go
127

after, and how are we going to frame this thing?” I don’t want to be out there
hanging in the breeze.

SANDRA: Does the funding include the cost of fabrication, installation, and
maintenance, in addition to the artist’s fee?

VINCENT: When we read the budget, the agreement–and that is
something, by the way, that has also been key to the program. The
agreement I think is a reasonably well-developed document, and it is
something that I have worked on over the course of 20 years. I’m not an
attorney, but I have influence in written language that is incorporated in our
agreement, that is then reviewed and approved by general counsel for the
university. But that agreement is divided by two components: a design
component, followed by a fabrication installation. The entire budget amount
is fixed and is inclusive of all costs, travel, insurance, engineering,
application, and installation, etc.

SANDRA: That is good. When the artist is subject to having to pick up a lot
of his expense, it gets really difficult.

VINCENT: Well, the artist is expected to work within that budget. But they
know, going in, that’s it: these are the dollars that we have, and work it out.
Obviously, you have to run your cost of materials, shipping, and insurance,
etc.

SANDRA: In other words, it’s better if it’s established from the get-go than
leaving it up to the artist.

VINCENT: Well, what is established at the beginning is the entire amount,
whatever that might be. Let’s use the figure of $160,000, which was the cost
of the Alice Aycock [piece we commissioned]. Alice knew going into the
project that that she would have to build the piece: design, build the piece,
install it with all of the associated costs, including her travel to and from
meetings for presentations, within the given budget of $160,000. Now, the
artist fee comes out of that amount.
I started to talk about the agreement, and it may sound like dull territory in
one sense, but this sets that process up. And that agreement, as I say,
divided into two phases: one is design, followed by fabrication and
128

installation. The way the design process works is that the artist is required to
present to the committee an initial concept, based on the program that we’ve
given that artist, of what the project will be–i.e. drawing, models, manipulative
photographs, whatever–and a written description of what it is they would like
to try to do. The committee responds to that. That same committee that
selected the artist now says, “Oh gee, we had thought you were going to add
seating as an element to this, because we really need that,” and then the
artist adjusts, responds to that committee input, and comes back and makes
the final presentation. The presentation is then either approved or rejected by
the committee. If it is rejected the artist is asked to go back and make
whatever modifications that the committee desires. This whole design-
process is a dialog back-and-forth between the artist and the committee.
Now, in between committee presentations, the artist and I are in direct
contact. That relationship that I described to you continues throughout the
entire process. And then, beyond the completion of the project, I’m in touch
with the artist. So, it a sort of lifetime commitment, if you will, because there
are maintenance issues that come up. There’s a need to be as informed as
one can about the continuing career of the artist, and also just to stay in
touch, in terms of what are their desires. Two artists–same materials–might
have entirely different desires. Keeping track of that, and recording all of that
information while they are still around, is real important because that is the
record that sort of dictates the handling of that piece.
But at any rate, to go back to the process: eventually, the artist wins a
100% approval of the design. The next step is fabrication. The first step is the
construction documents that include an engineering document signed in-field
by an engineer registered in the State of Florida. And there is also the
requirement that that same engineer will go back to the project as its being
fabricated and installed, inspecting to make sure it meets the documents that
they required, signed, and sealed. That is a–kind of a–pivotal moment as
well, as I say, have particular conditions and Florida sunlight, rain, hurricane–
we have projects like the Rosenquist that are seven stories up that the large,
sort of bandage structure for the pediatrics research center, seven stories up,
half a block from the gulf that can experience winds of up to 150 mph. We
need to know it’s not going to blow over.

SANDRA: Is there anything you might do to improve your collection-
building program? It sounds like you have it very well under control.

129

VINCENT: The recent change–whereby the president and the president’s
cabinet is reviewing the decision made by a committee that is completely
invested in the project–. They have spent, by the time we have selected an
artist, a considerable amount of time, and even more time by the time a
project design has been approved. Typically, that committee process
stretches out to at least a year of their involvement. Even though there may
be three or four hours of meeting time, there is lots of dialog that happens in-
between. And so, these people are well informed by the time we go through
the process. What’s happened with the review by the president and the
president’s cabinet is that, while I welcome their interest in the program, I
wish there was actually more of it: i.e., one of the cabinet members, or the
president herself, made the decision to join the committee and thus benefit
from the kind of engagement that we have with the initial program, and on
through understanding who the various artists are, what the artists are trying
to do, and what our input has been to those artists.
Instead, what is happening, by way of review, is that a presentation is
being made, not even by myself or the artist, but by the dean. And that
presentation is limited to five minutes. The PowerPoint presentation that I
generally put together for the dean is no reflection of their abilities, but they
are simply not the people who have the background or information or
understand fully the process. So, they do this five-minute presentation, and I
keep it really simple so that a lot of miscommunication doesn’t happen.
That’s not a healthy process for them to reject the decision that the
committee has made. And that has happened. Then nothing written by them,
in terms of what their opinion is, but instead a kind of verbal that is translated
back to me and, through me, to the artist.

SANDRA: That is terribly awkward.

VINCENT: Yes, you could say that. We’ve got a program that’s had a lot of
success. Now, look. Things happen. As I said, we are a public institution and
subject to lots of things, including politics, and you know universities have
their own sort of political structure, agenda, etc., that evolve and change. The
way I look at this is: here is a moment of interest. A window has opened. And
instead of looking at it as an obtrusive and obnoxious kind of imposition, I’m
trying to look at it as an opportunity to engage the hierarchy, which–-
essentially we are a city, we are 43,000 students here, so it is a city. So, the

130

mayor is not interested, if you will, and the city council. So, I am trying to look
at this as an opportunity to bring them into the process more fully, that may
evolve over the course of years. One has to be somewhat patient with this
stuff.

SANDRA: Hopefully you will be able to finesse your way out of it.

VINCENT: Educate our way out of it. Throughout this whole process, that
business of education, that’s the key. The best educators are the artists and
the projects they produce.

SANDRA: I agree with you 100 percent. Tell me something, how would
you best describe your public collection: contemporary, a mixture, historical?

VINCENT: It is very much a contemporary collection. And it’s a collection
of site which is about gathering places, because the university is so large.

SANDRA: How many sections do you have of the university? Locations?

VINCENT: The main campus in Tampa and three branch campuses: total
of four.

SANDRA: Do you have public art on all four?

VINCENT: It is concentrated on the Tampa campus. The Lakeland
campus currently does not have a public-art project, but they are about to get
a slew of them, because they are building a brand-new campus over there.
Therefore, they will have lots of new buildings. This will be over the course of
10 years or so, acquiring quite a few public-art projects.

SANDRA: I know that you are successful and that, obviously, you were
chosen as one of the 10 in the United States as being one of the best
collections on campus, but how would you measure the success of your
collection? It sounds like to me you are doing extraordinarily well, especially
over these last 20 years.

131

VINCENT: There are a couple of ways that you measure that. There are
different audiences for the projects. There is a national and international
audience of people involved in the arts, particularly in public art, that have an
engagement with the program. There are scholars that come to do research,
here on the campus, on public art, that do papers on projects. There are
publications that contact us that are interested in including our collection in
recent surveys of public art, or whatever. So, there is that measure, that kind
of thing, like being nominated as one of the top university-based public-art
programs in the country that certainly are a measure.
There is then the response of the local art professionals, people living in
the city campus: St. Petersburg, Sarasota, the faculty of the university, the
students that are involved in the arts, and we do very much try to incorporate
those students in this process. It is not always possible, but many times,
students have worked with me in a directed study with the artists working on
elements of the project. So, when it is possible to structure the actual
construction and fabrication of the project in a fashion that allows students to
be involved, we have done that.
I have mentioned the kind of resource that students and faculty represent.
That has been a very real part, and it hasn’t been limited to just the art
segment. It also has included people from engineering, from arch-astronomy,
from mathematics, from history, literature, etc. So, that engagement of the
university committee in our process and their response to our process is
certainly a measure.
And then there is just the flat-out use of the project by the students. Many
of our projects have been developed as gathering places, so they do include
seating elements. And to walk out to Nancy Holt and find some 300 students
gathered there, which I have done on occasion, being a lecture or simple to
walk over to Doug Hollis and find that there is 18 seats that can
accommodate two people each and you need to get one of them–that is a
measure. Finally, response is based on the appearance of our works in
university publications. We have the right to reproduce the work for
educational purposes. I ask that I be contacted. More times than not, I’m not.
Again, it’s a city. Then I’ll end up getting the university phone book with a
public-art project on the front of it, or the university strategic plan comes out
and a public-art project is documented in the very center of it. That measure,
of finding the university projects woven into the very fabric of the university, is
in fact another indication of, well, obviously we are on the right track. The
university embraces it in that way. That it is there, period, no questions
asked. Yes, that’s right.
132

SANDRA: One last question. What other university do you admire for their
on-campus public art?

VINCENT: When I wrote that little master plan of many years ago, the very
first program that I looked at with awe was the Stuart Collection at the
University of California at San Diego, and Mary Beebe and what she has
done down there. I think that while our program–we have similar kinds of
campuses. And maybe, if you just took sort of a bird’s-eye view and looked at
the project, you would say, “Yeah, they are similar kinds of programs.” Well, I
know that Mary was developing her project very differently than we do, or at
least did, or we may have closer together in recent years, but I have great
admiration for that program.
MIT, in terms of one of those programs that has the grand sweep of what
happened in public art–again, a program that has my admiration and
sometimes my envy because of those budgets. You do what you can. Your
projects and your collection end up benefiting both from the generosity of the
artist and community, and are different because you don’t have those kinds
of resources. They get woven of a different cloth, and that becomes the very
character that the program is. While I envy having that kind of budget, and
I’m sure that brings, again, that kind of fabricate, a character to it that I
couldn’t possibly have. Each one has its benefits. I don’t think that holds us
back.

SANDRA: One last thing–are there any materials that you might be able to
send me?

VINCENT: There are the Florida State guidelines that were written. I
adjusted mid-course. I was actually asked to come up and contribute in
Tallahassee as they rewrote them a little bit and make them a bit more
flexible. But that exists. There are a couple of video tapes that I have
produced. One called “Public Art Process and Product” that I think may be of
particular use. Give me a couple of days to work on that.

[End of interview]

133

Appendix F

Johnson County Community College
Overland Park, Kansas

Johnson County Community College (JCCC) was established in 1969.
One of the largest community colleges in the midwest, it houses a suburban
campus and provides excellent facilities for its students. Newest additions to
the JCCC campus include the Regnier Center for Technology and Business
and the Nerman Museum of Contemporary Art.

134

Images from the Public Art Collection of
Johnson County Community College

Figure 9. Barry Flanagan, Hare and Bell, 1988. Bronze. Nerman Museum of
Contemporary Art Collection, JCCC, gift of Marti and Tony Oppenheimer
and the Oppenheimer Brothers Foundation.
Source: Johnson County Community College.

135

Images from the Public Art Collection of
Johnson County Community College

Figure 10. Jonathan Borofsky, Walking Man (On The Edge), 1995. Fiberglass and steel.
Nerman Museum of Contemporary Art Collection, JCCC, gift of Marti and Tony
Oppenheimer and the Oppenheimer Brothers Foundation.
Source: Johnson County Community College.

136

Profile
Bruce Hartman

Bruce Hartman serves as Director of the new Nerman Museum of
Contemporary Art at Johnson County Community College. His curatorial
experience is extensive, and as Director he oversees all exhibition
programming, curates and develops the college’s permanent art collection,
and oversees museum operations. Before returning to his native Kansas
City, Hartman served as chief curator at Cranbrook Academy of Art Museum
in Detroit, Michigan. In 1990 he joined the Johnson County Community
College’s Gallery of Art as it first director.
Hartman currently serves on the Sprint Corporation Arts Council, the
Charlotte Street Foundation, the Exhibition Committee of the Kansas City
Jewish Museum, the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation Art Council, and
the Arts Council of Johnson County. Additionally, he has served on
numerous art panels in the Kansas City area, as well as the Avenue of the
Arts selection committee.
Like his parents, Hartman is an avid and passionate collector of historic
American Indian art. In 1997, he was featured in ARTnews as one of the
nation’s leading young collectors of contemporary and American Indian art.
Hartman received his Bachelor of Fine Arts from the University of
Central Missouri and his Master of Fine Arts from Washington University in
St. Louis.

137

Interview with Bruce Hartman
Director of the Nerman Museum
Johnson County Community College
February 12, 2008

SANDRA: Well, I’m happy to finally get a hold of you.

BRUCE: Well, you know, we just opened our museum at the end of
October.

SANDRA: No, I didn’t know that.

BRUCE: We opened the largest contemporary art museum in the four-
state region.

SANDRA: That’s great.

BRUCE: And so, Kansas City has kind of had an unbelievable year, in the
sense that The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art opened their huge Stephen Hall
expansion June, and then, a few months later, we opened the new Nerman
Museum of Contemporary Art, designed by Kyu Sung Woo, an architect
based out of Cambridge, Massachusetts–originally from South Korea–which
is a 41,600 square-foot contemporary art museum here on campus.

SANDRA: Pretty impressive.

BRUCE: And so, we have just been running ahead of the avalanche, so to
speak.

SANDRA: I can imagine.

BRUCE: And the museum is just a smashing success. But we were just
counting up, and we’ve hosted over 60 events in three months.

SANDRA: That quite a record. Have you been there from the very
beginning?

138

BRUCE: To kind of get to your question, the collection here, at Johnson
County Community College, began in 1980. I arrived here ten years later in
1990. Now, the college was actually founded in 1969, so, we’re a relatively
young institution, like a lot of community colleges. And I don’t know if you’ve
read anything about the college, but it’s a very large community college.

SANDRA: Yes.

BRUCE: Okay.

SANDRA: As I said, the reason why I was interviewing you was because
my thesis is about the “best practices” for collection-building of public art
collections on campuses, and you were part of the “Top Ten” selected by
Public Art Review.

BRUCE: Right. I think we were the only community college in that top ten.

SANDRA: You were, and I’ve heard some favorable things about you.

BRUCE: Oh, great.

SANDRA: During the interview with MIT, one question that is always
asked is, “What other university’s public art on-campus collection do you
admire most?” And the response was, “Well, I’d really like to see what the
Johnson Community College has.”

BRUCE: I love that.

SANDRA: And I said, “Well, me too,” because I didn’t know anything about
Johnson County Community College.

BRUCE: Well, Johnson County Community College is in the suburbs of
Kansas City, and there is over 500,000 in population in the county. The
enrollment here is generally between 34,000 and 36,000 students.

SANDRA: I see.

139

BRUCE: So, it’s a huge campus: 20 major buildings; 240 acres. Johnson
County was also just ranked by–I think it was Forbes magazine–they ranked
the 100 most affluent counties in America, and we were number 39. So, that
has something to do with this, obviously.

SANDRA: That has a lot. I know.

BRUCE: And I’ll share with you that I hosted–just two weeks before we
opened the new Nerman Museum of Contemporary Art–I hosted the Orange
County Contemporary Art Collectors Group. I can’t think of the woman’s
name that was here. She had lived here in Kansas City, back in 1950s or
1960s, and she and her husband moved out to California. And she ran, I
think it was Laguna Beach Community College or Long Beach Community
College.

SANDRA: Long Beach Community College, probably.

BRUCE: Their gallery and that sort of thing.

SANDRA: Yes.

BRUCE: And she said, “I’ll finally get to see the Wayne Tibo we donated in
1962 to the Nelson-Atkins.”

SANDRA: Oh, really? That’s funny.

BRUCE: I said I bet she wishes she had that back.

SANDRA: I bet she does, too.

BRUCE: Well, so–so our collection really started in 1989. We’ll share with
you that the collection began through the work of the Dean of Arts and
Humanities, here on campus, Sandra. And he felt very strongly that students
who were coming here, many of whom did not have much familiarity with
going to art museums or galleries, that they should have exposure to original
works of art.

SANDRA: I agree.

140

BRUCE: And they felt that this was not to be a decorative collection–
meaning that it was not to decorate the hallways, that it was not to be used in
faculty or administrative offices–but rather, that it was to be a serious
collection for the study of art. And they also looked towards what areas of
strength there were on campus in the studio program here. So, because we
have a strong photography department, painting and drawing, a strong
ceramics department, those areas are emphasized in our collection.

SANDRA: I see.

BRUCE: As opposed to the fact that we don’t have a textile department;
we don’t emphasize that. Metal-smithing is not emphasized in the collection,
etc.

SANDRA: Right.

BRUCE: And then, when they started acquiring work, right from the outset,
they formed a collection committee, but it was based on people who had
expertise on campus, as well as area arts professionals, collectors in the
community.

SANDRA: So, you have a separate committee by itself?

BRUCE: We do have an Art Acquisition Committee that consists of 8
members–I chair that–and we review works. You know, a variety of members
of that committee can present works for possible acquisition. We also have
an annual acquisitions budget, and that is only $25,000 a year. But that really
is what started the collection, and we continue to have that budget. It started
out, you know, at $10,000 in 1980. But we also have a percent-for-art
program for new construction on campus.

SANDRA: Okay.

BRUCE: And, oftentimes, that’s two-percent of the construction cost. So,
for the construction of the new Nerman Museum–and there’s an adjacent
building called the Regnier Center that’s adjacent to the museum–the
combined cost of the two buildings was roughly $60 million.

SANDRA: That’s pretty good.
141

BRUCE: And so, we had $1.2 million generated from that to acquire
works for the two buildings. Now, we’ve done that with other areas on
campus as well. And then we’ve had the good fortune to have, as really our
most major patrons on campus, Marti and Tony Oppenheimer. And Tony
Oppenheimer actually has a very strong connection to Los Angeles because
his grandparents were Jules and Doris Stein.

SANDRA: Oh, okay.

BRUCE: [Jules and Doris Stein,] who founded Universal Studios, later to
be MCA, etc. Well, he is one of their grandsons. Now, he grew up here in
Kansas City, so he has a strong connection to our area.

SANDRA: Right.

BRUCE: And then his wife, Marti Oppenheimer: her parents are big
developers out here in Johnson County. And Johnson County is a bit like
Orange County, you know, in terms of the development, the growth, the
proliferation of everything.

SANDRA: Yes, that’s good.

BRUCE: And so, as a consequence, they–Toni was, at one time, funding
much of the contemporary-art program, the exhibition program at the Nelson-
Atkins here. And the Nelson made the decision, back in the early 1990s, that
they were going to discontinue that program.

SANDRA: Oh.

BRUCE: They felt that the space they had–they were showing contemporary
works of art down in a basement hallway, Sandra. Not a great location.

SANDRA: Not a great place.

BRUCE: And after Julian Schnabel came in before a packed-house
auditorium, lambasted the museum for sending the message to the populace
that that’s all contemporary artists deserved.
142

SANDRA: Oh. That got their attention.

BRUCE: And referring to the curator as a pig.

SANDRA: Oh, my.

BRUCE: They decided to shut that program down. I missed that lecture,
darn it [laughs].

SANDRA: Yes, I imagine that would have been a very interesting lecture.

BRUCE: And Toni, then, was looking for another institution to be involved
with. And at that time their funding was through the Jules and Doris Stein
Foundation in Los Angeles. That subsequently was split up into several
different foundations, one of which is the Oppenheimer Brothers Foundation.

SANDRA: And basically it is the foundation that concentrates on Johnson
County?

BRUCE: And that’s the foundation that has acquired much of the work for
the campus and for the new museum.

SANDRA: I see.

BRUCE: And so, when you look at things that–you know, the Jonathan
Borofsky that we have, the Louise Bourgeois, Magadalena Abakanowicz,
Barry Flanagan, etc.–there are eight major sculptures on campus that have
been acquired through that foundation. And then we’ve acquired almost a
hundred works of art in the last three years, once we began construction of
the new museum.

SANDRA: Is that gallery or public art you’re talking about?

BRUCE: Well, we decided to shift from outdoor sculpture to painting,
works on paper, photography, smaller-scale sculpture: works that could be
within the museum itself.

SANDRA: I see. So that you’re no longer doing any of the outdoor art?
143

BRUCE: We are doing that, but we’re going to be doing that through
college resources, and then other donors.

SANDRA: I see. So, that wouldn’t come under the foundation then?

BRUCE: Well, with the Oppenheimers, who knows? Two years from now
we might commission another big outdoor sculpture. I mean, they formed a
collection. We have three permanent collection-gallery spaces on the second
floor of the new museum. And they bought enough work to fill those three
galleries twice over.

SANDRA: Great.

BRUCE: And they’re–Marti and Tony are–kind of the most enlightened
type of patrons, in the sense that they’re not afraid to take risks, and they
enjoy visiting and meeting with artists. And we form an acquisitions
committee unto ourselves. I should mention that for your purposes.

SANDRA: Okay, because I was just going to say…

BRUCE: [interrupts] How does that function within the larger context?

SANDRA: Yes. In other words, I was interested primarily in the public-art
collection portion.

BRUCE: Okay. I was going to say, let me mention to you, one of the
reasons I think we got into the Public Art Review as one of the “Top Ten” is,
we decided–well, I should say, the Board of Trustees–we have six elected
Board-of-Trustees members for the college. And back when they first began
the acquisitions program in 1980–there is still one trustee who was here at
that time. She’s now 84 or 85 years old, I think.

SANDRA: That’s impressive.

BRUCE: They made the decision that the art needed–they wanted the art
on-view. They did not want to acquire art to put in storage or have a
warehouse, or whatever. And the work needed to be available to students,
visitors to the campus, faculty, staff. So, we began what we refer to as “focus
144

areas,” Sandra. So, we began to embrace public art as not limited to outdoor
sculpture or installations, but rather, that, in addition to the sculpture on
campus–we have 16 major sculptures on campus, 8 of them were [obtained]
through the Oppenheimers–but we have over 500 works of art. We have
several ceramics, contemporary-American ceramics installations, works on
paper, painting, and photography. So–and we are currently creating a brand-
new focus area on this campus. And that focuses strictly on contemporary
American-Indian art.

SANDRA: I see.

BRUCE: And that’s probably a first-of-its-kind in the country.

SANDRA: I was just going to say, I had not heard of that one before.

BRUCE: And normally, we wouldn’t do a focus area by ethnicity, but
because of the fact that we’re collecting things like Navajo weavings, textiles,
beadwork, glass, metal-smithing–things, genres, or medias that we don’t
normally collect but that are integral to Native American work–we decided,
“You know what? Let’s just go ahead and consolidate, keep this work
together.” Because we knew that for faculty use, they would want to be able
to come there from, you know, a Sociology department, or History, or
Anthropology. And rather than asking them to run all over campus, which, if
you’ve ever given tours to students–and, remember, that we’re mostly
freshmen and juniors, you know, to run 25 kids around campus to 20
different buildings would be a nightmare.

SANDRA: Of course it could be.

BRUCE: It’s big competition as the clock wears on. But anyway, we have
these areas where you can go on campus, and we wanted to make those so
that the faculty, like a Photography professor, could bring a class over and
spend two hours looking at 75 major American photographs in three corridors
that are adjacent to one another. And then we’ve done the same thing with
ceramics. There are three different floors, in one building, that each floor has
about 25 major American ceramic works. And when I say that, I’m talking
about artists like Ken Price, Peter Bolkus, Ken Ferguson, Adrian Saxe. These
are major. This is not minor works or…

145

SANDRA: No, no, I understand.

BRUCE: …or that sort of thing.

SANDRA: Well, from a couple of the pictures I saw on the website, it
looked like the surroundings of the campus-ground, and what little bit of
sculpture I could see, was quite impressive.

BRUCE: Well, thank you. The grounds here–first of all, the architecture of
the campus is that kind of Sixties “brutalist” architecture.

SANDRA: Yes.

BRUCE: Which is very austere.

SANDRA: Right.

BRUCE: Red brick. But at least we avoided all the poured-concrete
structures.

SANDRA: That’s nice.

BRUCE: And–but then, it’s these gently-rolling hills. The college has really
embraced landscape and art as a way of really enhancing the work
environment and the student environment. And I will share with you that one
of the vice presidents out here, one of the executive vice presidents, who’s in
charge of finance, he actually did a presentation–I think it was last year or
two summers ago–in Hawaii, and it was called “Beautiful Convergence: Art,
Architecture, and Landscape on the College Campus.”

SANDRA: Oh really?

BRUCE: And this campus is very much into research statistics, etc. And
every year, they actually do, oh, you know, like a kind of a thing that they
hand to students, and they have to fill out about why they enrolled here or
what they like about the campus. And almost always the art, the kind of the
natural surroundings, ranks either number one or in the top three.

SANDRA: Well, I would imagine.
146

BRUCE: Why students chose to go here.

SANDRA: Right.

BRUCE: Because they like the ambiance, etc. I should mention that our
dining halls, there are 45 major paintings installed over there. And I was
giving–I don’t know if you’re familiar with Roberta Smith, one of the art critics
for The New York Times?

SANDRA: I’ve heard of her.

BRUCE: She’s, arguably, the second most powerful art critic in America.

SANDRA: Okay.

BRUCE: And I mean literally. She’s from Lawrence, Kansas.

SANDRA: Oh, is she?

BRUCE: Her father was a professor of Geography at Lawrence.

SANDRA: Well, that says it all.

BRUCE: So, her first 18 years were spent here, 30 minutes west of us,
then she said, “I’m getting the hell out of Kansas.” She went to New York,
and she stayed. But she and her husband–Jerry Saltz, who’s the art critic for
New York Magazine, [and] formerly, The Village Voice–they’ve made many
trips back here through the years, because her parents were still in
Lawrence, etc. But I was giving her a tour a couple years ago and, by the
time we got to the dining hall, Sandra, she grabbed my arm and she said,
“My God! You don’t give these kids a chance.” And I thought, “God, what
does she mean by that?” And she said, “Oh, honey,” she said, “I don’t mean
that negatively.” She said, “This is the most unbelievable thing I’ve ever
seen.” Art.

SANDRA: Well, it sounds like, to me, whether it’s outside or inside, it is
really totally a complete part of the campus life.

147

BRUCE: It’s really integral. We have a saying here–some of the brochures
that we’ve done–we call it “Living with Art.” And it very much became about
allowing students, visitors, staff here, to have a spontaneous engagement
with art, so that, no matter where they come onto this campus, they are
engaged by art. But it’s also important art. It’s significant work.

SANDRA: That’s right.

BRUCE: So that it’s not–It’s certainly visual, but it also has real content.

SANDRA: Well now, when you come down to actual selection…

BRUCE: Yes?

SANDRA: …of either a collection, or a particular artist, or something new
for the campus?

BRUCE: Yeah.

SANDRA: How do you go about doing that? Does the committee just sort
of say, “Hey, we’re building another building. We’re doing another
improvement?” Or, “We have a vacant space here. We think we need some
more stuff? How does that come up?”

BRUCE: Well, with the annual budget, oftentimes what we do is, we
certainly look to the collection that exists here already and how can we add
to it substantially.

SANDRA: Right.

BRUCE: And we’ve always prided ourselves, Sandra–I always refer to it
as “judiciously spending the funds”–because, you know, we–sometimes, a
purchase might be related to an exhibit we have. Now previously, we had the
old gallery of art which was a 3,000 square-foot gallery in the Cultural
Education Center, here on campus. It’s now called the Carlsen Center. And
we did really cutting-edge contemporary art shows there. We did a show for
Kerry James Marshall back in 1995. And I don’t know if you know his work?

SANDRA: No, I’m not that familiar with it.
148

BRUCE: He represented the U.S. in the Venice Biennale this year.
He’s one of the most important African American artists living today. We gave
him a show in ’95, and then, the next year, we bought a major painting…

SANDRA: I see.

BRUCE: …from an installation at the Art Institute of Chicago. But we paid
$12,000 for that painting. So, that’s when I–when I’m talking about judiciously
buying, you know, sometimes if you have limited resources, it just means that
you have to spend your money that much more wisely.

SANDRA: But who makes the decisions?

BRUCE: Well, what we would do is, with our acquisitions committee, we
would make a presentation to the committee. Those meetings are called as
needed.

SANDRA: And, you say, a presentation to another committee?

BRUCE: No, to the eight-member acquisitions committee.

SANDRA: The eight–of which you’re the chair.

BRUCE: And which I chair. And, oftentimes, I make those presentations,
Sandra.

SANDRA: Okay.

BRUCE: And what I should share with you is that we vote on an artist, not
a particular work. That way, we’re never restricted to whatever might happen
to be available at a given moment.

SANDRA: So do you–say, for example–make a list or select several artists
you might like to have some of their works on campus?

149

BRUCE: Absolutely. So, let’s say, in a particular year, if we thought, with
our annual acquisitions fund, and if we said, “You know, we’d like to expand
the photography collection this year,” I, working with other members of that,
would come up with a list of, let’s say, maybe 10 photographers whose work
we would like to include. Then we would do an hour-long presentation on
those 10 artists, photographers. Then we get down to the work of deciding
who–what match we can make. We can’t afford a piece by everybody.

SANDRA: Right.

BRUCE: We might only be able to afford works by four of the artists we’ve
presented. So, then we get down to the task of picking the four whom we
would like to pursue a work by.

SANDRA: Now, do you try and take that out of your annual budget? Or is
there, like, a percent-for-art program? Or can you collaborate, or?

BRUCE: Well, with that, we’re talking about the annual acquisitions fund.

SANDRA: Okay.

BRUCE: So, that’s out of that fund.

SANDRA: Okay.

BRUCE: And once we vote on those, let’s say, four artists, then I have
essentially a year within which to find a piece by that artist. And then I’m
empowered to pick the particular work…

SANDRA: I see.

BRUCE: …that we’re going to select and acquire for the campus.

SANDRA: Okay.

BRUCE: But again, that allows us to look at a lot of work by that artist.

SANDRA: So, that’s basically the annual budget.

150

BRUCE: So that’s the annual $25,000. Now, we also do this percent-for-
art, but that’s geared, of course, to new construction.

SANDRA: Right.

BRUCE: Now, you should know that this is a campus of construction.

SANDRA: Okay.

BRUCE: So, ever since I’ve been here, there has been a building under
construction somewhere.

SANDRA: Well, that’s good.

BRUCE: Which is great for the art project. And our next building will be a
new library, so that will be about a $30 million project.

SANDRA: Wow.

BRUCE: And so we will theoretically have, perhaps, a half-a-million
dollars.

SANDRA: So, you might have exterior art or interior art?

BRUCE: Absolutely.

SANDRA: Either/or, or one or the other?

BRUCE: Or a combination.

SANDRA: Okay. I see.

BRUCE: Yes. And so, there we’ll be more ambitious. Now, I will share with
you, Sandra, that for the Regnier Center and the museum we had, you know,
roughly a million dollars for the–between these two buildings. And so, for the
museum we commissioned the artist Leo Villareal, based out of New York, to
do a huge, 60,000 white LED-light outdoor installation…

SANDRA: Impressive.
151

BRUCE: …underneath the cantilever entrance to the museum. And so,
he’s an artist that–oh, golly, he just–he’s working with the National Gallery of
Art in D.C. right now on a potential…

Also, Sandra, I should mention that, then, we also decided that the first
floor of the building adjacent to us–this building that’s for technology,
technology and business–the entire first floor would be contemporary
painting, the second floor would be contemporary American-Indian art, and
the third floor would be contemporary American sculptural clay.

SANDRA: Okay.

BRUCE: And so we judiciously will spend our money.

SANDRA: You’re growing those collections, yes. But the other thing I’m
curious, though, you have to watch your money, it sounds like that you are
pretty free in your decisions as to what you need and know how to go about
it. What about the president of the college? Do you have to tie in the college
or with the community? Or, is this pretty much an independent portion?

BRUCE: Well, the museum is very much–and the collection is very much–
part of the college.

SANDRA: I see.

BRUCE: So, it is all governed by the Board of Trustees. Once we vote as
a committee on the art that we’d like to acquire, I then do periodic
presentations to the Board of Trustees to share with them the works that
we’re acquiring. Now, I don’t present every piece, Sandra, because, like for
this project, literally we acquired hundreds of work for it.

SANDRA: Oh, of course not. I understand that.

BRUCE: But, you know, but what I do is, I let them know the direction that
we’re going in, the types of works that we’re acquiring, what the plans are.
So, we have that annual acquisition fund which we’ve talked about. We have
this percent for new construction, which we’re talking about currently. And
then, of course, we have private gifts, donations.
152

SANDRA: Donations, as all schools do.

BRUCE: The one by the Oppenheimers is the most significant ongoing
one. They’ve been doing it for over 16 years now.

SANDRA: Great.

BRUCE: And what I do there is, they created a contract, an agreement,
with the college when they first began. And it stated that the two
Oppenheimers, Marti and Tony Oppenheimer, and myself, acting as the
representative of the college, would be the acquisitions committee for the
funds that they provide.

SANDRA: I see.

BRUCE: And that’s around $200,000 to $250,000 a year.

SANDRA: How nice for you.

BRUCE: So, thank God for Jules Stein.

SANDRA: So, you have that money to spend each year?

BRUCE: Yes, and now we’ll acquire, you know, major things. I mean, we
may spend all of that on one Louise Bourgeois sculpture.

SANDRA: I understand.

BRUCE: But, once we started the construction of the museum, we did not
want to pull the art off campus, Sandra, to, you know, sort of cherry-pick that
collection to put into the museum.

SANDRA: Now, you said–but let me just clarify one other thing.

BRUCE: Yes.

SANDRA: On the percent-for-art: it comes through the college? It isn’t part
of the state?
153

BRUCE: No.

SANDRA: It isn’t mandated by the state?

BRUCE: No. It’s through the college. We’re primarily funded by a property
tax on real estate in Johnson County.

SANDRA: I see.

BRUCE: It’s kind of–it would probably never happen again in the history of
America.

SANDRA: Probably not.

BRUCE: When this college was founded in ’69, they actually–Johnson
County as a county said, “Well, okay, your six elected Board of Trustees
have the power to raise and lower a mill levy on property tax.”

SANDRA: Oh.

BRUCE: Well, no one could have foreseen that the county would suddenly
explode the way it has. And so, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, about
30 minutes south of the campus, is building one of the largest railroad places
in America. It’s costing billions with a capital “B.” Well, that’s where they will
bring every up from Mexico, Latin America, and then it will be sent off to the
East Coast and the West Coast, and up to Chicago. Suddenly, we’ll collect
property tax. The college will, just on that, so we’ll take in an extra $6 million
a year, or something.

SANDRA: That’s pretty nice.

BRUCE: So, we have the good fortune of that. The Board has actually
been lowering the mill levy for many years, because the college was taking in
too much money.

SANDRA: So, what are the fees for the students? They must not be very
high.

154

BRUCE: It’s very reasonable.

SANDRA: Oh, that’s fabulous.

BRUCE: It’s very small.

SANDRA: So, they have this wonderful education and exposure to this
fabulous art.

BRUCE: And, as a consequence, they’re very competitive here in salaries
for faculty. So, we have a much higher percentage of Ph.D.’s, etc., people
with great experience at four-year university.

SANDRA: Well, they have the money they can pay them.
BRUCE: Precisely.

SANDRA: Yeah.

BRUCE: And there are a lot of people that may go off to the East or West
Coast, up north.

SANDRA: And this comes through the property tax and stuff.

BRUCE: And this is through the property tax.

SANDRA: I see. Does the community get involved in any of the art
development at all, or anything like that? Or, is that pretty much strictly run by
the college?

BRUCE: We have our foundation. We have other donors.

SANDRA: Right.

BRUCE: We have people that will, maybe, buy one work of art for us, etc.
You know, we do a big fundraiser every two years here, called “Beyond
Bounds,” and we generally generate around $150,000 from that. Most of that
goes to buy art also.
155

SANDRA: There’s just money coming out of everywhere.

BRUCE: Well, I wouldn’t want you to make it sound too easy, because it’s
not.

SANDRA: No, I’m not.

BRUCE: Well, we’ve been very, very fortunate. We’ve had tremendous
community support. It’s interesting. I was doing an interview–and I can’t even
remember what publication it was for now. It was something back on the East
Coast that was in conjunction with the opening of the museum–and this
gentleman was questioning, sort of, the legitimacy of having a major art
museum in suburbia. And I was, of course, saying to him, “Well, we actually
were the underserved audience.”

SANDRA: Yes.

BRUCE: Because the urban core is typically where all of these things are.
And yet, you have these enormous populations surrounding that. And I said,
“Johnson County is one of the most affluent counties in America. It’s one of
the most highly-educated and one of the most well-traveled. Sixty percent of
the membership of the Nelson-Atkins Museum, the Kemper Museum here,
comes right out of Johnson County. And over 60% of their support comes out
of this county.”

SANDRA: I see.

BRUCE: That tells me that we have the real art audiences sitting all
around us.

SANDRA: Well, you do. You definitely do.

BRUCE: And so, it was kind of, like, the obvious thing waiting to happen.

SANDRA: Of course, now you’re not doing any public art per se, but let’s
say you do a building. You have an artist to put something…

156

BRUCE: [interrupts] Well, as I mentioned to you, Sandra, we have a
project, that we’re just starting to work on right now, for a new parking
garage. And that’s a $12 million parking garage. And it’s underway, and it will
have a wall. And we actually asked that that one wall that’s angled be done
in cast-stone that looks like limestone. And we’re going to be reviewing artists
to look at that wall to do something.

SANDRA: But when you do engage an artist for something on campus,
does the fee include fabrication and installation?

BRUCE: Yes. We have a budget of $250,000. Everything has to be done
within that.

SANDRA: And what about maintenance? Do you have maintenance
programs?

BRUCE: That we actually are able to pay for through our facilities on
campus.

SANDRA: I see. That’s good.

BRUCE: Which is great. And we’re also building an endowment, as well,
for the museum. And so our goal is to eventually have a $5 million
endowment for the museum, so that we could generate around $250,000 a
year that we could use for acquisitions, for programming, for educational
programming, and for the maintenance of the collection.

SANDRA: Yes, because I would think, especially in your climate, that you
would need that terribly.

BRUCE: Well, exactly, particularly if things are made out of fiberglass or
some sort of materials that’s less weather-resistant than bronze or stone.

SANDRA: Absolutely. What would be the best description of your public
art collection? Contemporary?

BRUCE: Ours is contemporary. Ours is really post-1980.

157

SANDRA: How would you measure the success of the collection-building
program? It sounds like you have it very well organized, and it’s
extraordinarily successful. But I would think it would be because the art is
interwoven, sort of, into the fabric of the education of the students.

BRUCE: Well, one of the most rewarding things for us, Sandra, you know,
when you go into a program like this–now, first of all, I should share with you
that I’m certainly steeped in a traditional art-history background, curatorial
background. I was formerly the Chief Curator at Cranbrook Academy of Art
Museum.

SANDRA: Oh, you were? I’ve had two different professors say to me that
they think Cranbrook is a marvelous place.

BRUCE: It is. It’s spectacular. And while I was there, we began many of
the renovation programs of the architecture. And we certainly build–you
know, we were working on expanding the collection there. I think, in the four
years I was there, we took in 360 works of art, I believe.

SANDRA: Impressive.

BRUCE: Well, Cranbrook is strictly a masters-only program.

SANDRA: Oh, I see.

BRUCE: A graduate school. And there are nine different departments. And
so, Architecture is very strong, Design is very strong. And then, Cranbrook
has always been strongest in the so-called “craft media” like ceramics,
textiles…

SANDRA: I see.

BRUCE: …metal-smithing, as opposed to painting and sculpture. And, as
a consequence, it’s been very influential in the Detroit area, because they
have always viewed contemporary clay as being as legitimate as painting or
sculpture. There was never that hierarchy that sometimes you see in other
communities, and certainly traditional art history reinforced.

158

SANDRA: Well, listen, one of the last questions I have for you is on the
current acquisition practices and your strategies.

BRUCE: Yes.

SANDRA: Have there been any particular significant changes to your
strategies, say, over the last five years? And, if so, have they influenced the
program, or is there something you would really change? If you had your
choice of what you’d really like to do, do you have something you would
particularly like to implement into the collection-building?

BRUCE: Well, I think that the greatest change we had was simply
because, when the Oppenheimers decided to build a collection for the
museum per se, they gave three-quarters of a million dollars that we spent,
within three years, on cutting-edge contemporary art. And we were really
looking at a number of emerging artists.

SANDRA: And when did they start that? I’m sorry.

BRUCE: That started three years ago.

SANDRA: Three years ago, okay.

BRUCE: And so, we very much accelerated our process.

SANDRA: From that point–that was a big change, yes?

BRUCE: From that point. And we literally moved into a period of time
when we were–we averaged it out–we were buying a work of art every week.

SANDRA: How nice to be able to do that.

BRUCE: And so, certainly, that was a challenge.

SANDRA: I bet.

BRUCE: You know, just the logistics of buying work, we were making
more trips to New York, to Los Angeles, to Miami, etc. And, fortunately, with
159

the Oppenheimers and I, you know, we’re able to make a decision on the
spot. And that’s empowered us enormously.

SANDRA: That is great.

BRUCE: So, I mean, do you know the work of Dana Schutz, by any
chance?

SANDRA: I’ve heard of her.

BRUCE: She is considered the hottest young artist in America, essentially.
She’s 30. Well, we did a show for her about three or four years ago. And–but,
because of the Oppenheimers, we were able to buy a major painting at the
Armory Show in New York, right on the spot. It’s gone on to become this
iconic work. We’re loaning it, actually, to Stockton to the museum there, this
summer.

SANDRA: I see.

BRUCE: And so, it’s traveling all over. And, we were able to act quickly
and decisively. So, I know that that’s kind of been the envy of a lot of my
colleagues.

SANDRA: Well, of course it is.

BRUCE: Because sometimes, you know, museums, universities, the
process, the bureaucracy…

SANDRA: The process is very slow.

BRUCE: It can become so cumbersome…

SANDRA: Yes. And you don’t have the funding to do it, either.

BRUCE: Precisely.

SANDRA: You know, you’re very limited. And I have to say that the people
I have interviewed that are subject to the one-percent-for-art program, where
160

they really have to interact with so much of bureaucracy, I am so impressed
with their dedication.

BRUCE: Absolutely.

SANDRA: And I just think it’s phenomenal–what is accomplished.

BRUCE: It’s amazing what occurs.

SANDRA: They’re sort of, like, the unsung heroes here, of the art world.

BRUCE: Well, absolutely. And, I mean, there are a lot of hurdles that have
to be jumped.

SANDRA: Exactly.

BRUCE: And they do it out of real passion and dedication, which we all do.

SANDRA: Exactly. It’s just that some of you are just a little luckier than
others.

BRUCE: Precisely.

SANDRA: You’re at the right place at the right time.

BRUCE: You’re in the right place, or you make things happen.

SANDRA: That’s true.

BRUCE: And so, you know, I’m fortunate, Sandra, because my
background–my father was in private business, and I grew up working retail
when I was in junior-high and high school.

SANDRA: Yes.

BRUCE: I can’t imagine better training for getting out into the real world
and having to deal with people in a real way.

SANDRA: Yes, I know.
161

BRUCE: And–and you learn how to negotiate and compromise and all of
those kinds of things. And that’s helped me enormously in my role as a
fundraiser.

SANDRA: Well, what other university would you admire for their on-
campus public art?

BRUCE: Well, I have to say that I’m a big fan of the University of California
at San Diego.

SANDRA: Oh, I know, isn’t it lovely?

BRUCE: That’s amazing. Because, what I love is, there is such a focus on
those kinds of monumental installations. I was going to say, to me, that’s one
reason why, when you asked me that, that was the place that came to mind,
because that program is operating at the highest possible level.

SANDRA: Well, it didn’t just happen accidentally.

BRUCE: Absolutely. We have so many people come to the museum now,
and they tend to think, “Wow, this just happened overnight!”

SANDRA: No.

BRUCE: This is not an overnight success story.

SANDRA: Well, I want to thank you for taking the time.

BRUCE: I was going to mention one last thing from one of the questions
you had asked me, about, you know, some of the surprises of installing the
art on campus. And, obviously, you assume that studio classes and art-
history classes are really going to utilize what you’ve done.

SANDRA: Right.

162

BRUCE: And they have. I think one of the most rewarding aspects of what
we’ve done here, by creating these focus areas and having this substantive
work all across campus, so that, when you go down a certain corridor, there
are 40 or 50 major works, etc., is that so many other departments have
utilized it.

SANDRA: Yes.

BRUCE: So, we have an enormous number of English composition
classes that literally make it an assignment of students that, when they have
to write (because this is freshman English– we’re a two-year college), when
they write, you know, their descriptive paper, the faculty say, “You will write
your descriptive paper; you will pick out a work of art on campus.”

SANDRA: That’s right.

BRUCE: “And you will write a three-page paper that allows me to visualize
that work in my mind’s eye just from reading your paper.”

SANDRA: That’s great. They do that, similarly, at UCSD as well.

BRUCE: It’s fantastic.

SANDRA: When I interviewed Mary Beebe last week, one thing she
mentioned was (which I thought was nice when I asked her about the
success of the art collection–and it might be something that’s probably
happened to you or may not be aware of it), “Well, I’ve run into several
students who have come back to campus after a certain period of time–either
to teach, or to lecture, or just to visit–and the first thing they usually say to me
is, ‘You know, I never realized what great art we had on campus ’til I got to
Paris and I saw such-and-such had artwork and realized we had artwork by
that same artist back at home, on our campus.’”

BRUCE: I can’t tell you, Sandra, how many times I’ve encountered that
over the years. And, most recently, I will share with you, that a young African
American man that grew up here in Johnson County took some classes here,
as a senior in high school, advanced classes. I didn’t know him at the time or

163

anything. And–but unbeknownst to me, he was coming over for all our shows
in the gallery and everything and looking at the art on campus. He went to
the Baltimore Institute of Art, and then he went on to Yale…for his master’s,
and then onto the Studio Museum of Harlem, in New York, a couple of years
ago.
And we invited him back last year to be part of a show. It was actually the
last exhibit that we did in our old gallery space before we closed it
permanently. And it was a show called “Homecoming.” And he was one of six
artists. And, at the time, he shared with me–we were out to dinner one
evening, and he said–you know, he said, “You just have no idea what it
meant to me, growing up here in Kansas and everything, to be able to come
here.”
And he said, “It was just like being transported to another place.” And he
said, “I just sought out everything on campus to look at.” And he said, “Once I
left, and I went to Baltimore and I had access to New York and D.C. and
everything,” he said, “I would go around,” and he said, “I can’t tell you how
many times I would see something and go, ‘Oh, we had one of those at
Johnson County Community College.’”

SANDRA: Yes, and students do that.

BRUCE: And this year, he will be in the Whitney Biennial.
And we also purchased a piece by him.

SANDRA: How wonderful.

BRUCE: And we have two former students that are working at the
Museum of Modern Art in New York now.

SANDRA: That’s great.

BRUCE: One is in the education department and one in development. And
the one that’s in the education department, her father called me, oh, a few
years ago, and he said–he’s an important attorney here in the area, and he’s
got that kind of voice, too–and he said, “You know,” he said, “I brought my
daughter out there all through junior-high and high school.” And he said, “I
never met you.” And he said, “You know, she loved all of the exhibits you
did.” He said, “I, frankly, didn’t like any of them.”

164

SANDRA: That’s funny.

BRUCE: And I just howled. I thought, “I love this guy. He’s completely
candid.” He said, “But you know, she went on to Smith and da-da-da-da-da.
She did an internship at the Museum of Modern Art. She’s now working there
full-time in their education department.” And he said, “The reason I’m calling
you, young man, is, would you put her on your mailing list? Because she
loves to get the mailings, because people at MOMA kid her about being from
Kansas.”

SANDRA: And she wants to show how sophisticated Kansas is.

BRUCE: Exactly.

SANDRA: Yes.

BRUCE: And he said, “I can’t tell you how many times that they will have
acquired something from MOMA, and she’ll be standing there and she’ll say,
‘Oh,’ she said, ‘my God, Johnson County Community College in Kansas
bought one of those five years ago.’”

SANDRA: Yeah, so take that!

BRUCE: Yes.

SANDRA: That’s good to hear.

BRUCE: Well, obviously, there are times when you think, “Am I just doing
this for myself or for a very small group of people?”

SANDRA: Exactly.

BRUCE: And then, when something like that happens, it’s absolute magic.

SANDRA: You know it’s hitting its mark.

BRUCE: You know that it’s touching people’s lives. For every person that
comes up and shares that with you, there are so many more that you’ll never
know about.
165

SANDRA: That’s true. That’s very true.

BRUCE: I’ll tell you a quick story, Sandra, because you’ve probably seen
the image of “The Walking Man,” the Borofsky?

SANDRA: Yes.

BRUCE: That’s here on one of the–the roof of the Commons Building,
which is where our dining halls are. When we brought Borofsky here in 1995
we–because we have a partnership with Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Railroads, and they built a huge technology building where they train, you
know, 12,000 railroad people a year here on campus and everything, and
bring people in from all over the country–well, we got Jonathan out there,
adjacent to that building, and there was a beautiful big berm, and Marti and
Tony and I said, “Oh, you know, we were sort of thinking, like, one of your
hammering men,” because we’re thinking, “Oh, it would relate to the railroad
and everything.” And he said, “I’ve done 22 of those.” He said, “I don’t think I
can stand to make another one.”

SANDRA: That’s funny.

BRUCE: And so we said, “Well, what would you like to do?” And he said,
“You know, I’ve always wanted to do a figure walking on the edge of a
building, so that it really–it looked like you could just fall off, sort of, at any
moment.”

SANDRA: Oh.

BRUCE: And he said, “But I don’t want it to be scary, per se, but I just
really want it to be purposely fallen?.” But he said, “To do that, you’ve got
have a building that’s absolutely flat.” And he said, “I’m looking around here
and, my God, every building is absolutely flat, every roof-line.” He said, “I’ve
never seen anything like it in my life.”

SANDRA: That’s funny.

BRUCE: So, he picked that building. He said, “Where do the students
really hang out?” Well, obviously, it’s where the food is, and everything.
166

SANDRA: Of course.

BRUCE: And, years later, after–I mean, literally, the year after we installed
it, one of the English classes had asked people to write a paper about
something, or a moment in their life, that had changed their life. And they’re
not supposed to, of course, share those papers with anybody. [Laughs] But I
had this one professor send this–he sent me a Xerox of it and he said, “I
shouldn’t be doing this,” but, he said, “I just had to send this to you, Bruce.”
And it was a young woman in his class who was in her mid-twenties who
had come back to college. She had, you know, married when she was still in
high school and had had two children. By the time she was about 23, she
was divorced and struggling. Her husband was no longer making…child
support payments or anything. And she came back to school to try–she was
working as a cashier at Wal-Mart and trying to raise these two kids, and she
came back to school, and she was struggling.
This paper, Sandra, she wrote–by the time I finished it, I was in tears. She
really–very, very honestly–wrote about how she just felt overwhelmed in her
life, that she was trapped, that she was not going to be able to go to school,
care for her children, keep a full-time job. And she said, “I realized that I was
just going to have to drop out, and that I probably had, kind of, made these
decisions early in my life, and I was just going to have to live with the
consequences of my actions and probably never better myself.” And only
how that, perhaps, “One day my children would do better than I and
everything.” And she was taking a class in our huge gymnasium over here,
and she said that, right after we installed “The Walking Man” sculpture, she
came out, and it was a beautiful fall morning, and she saw that sculpture, and
she thought, “Oh, for God’s sake. What is that?”
And she looked up at it, and she thought, “Oh, that’s so bizarre. Why
would they do that?” You know, “That’s so outrageous.” But she said she
thought it was funny, and she said, every day that she came out on campus
and she would come out of the gym, she would look up and just stare at that
sculpture. And she said it was the first time in years that she stopped looking
at the ground when she was walking. And she said she was looking up for
the first time in years. And she said, “It changed my whole attitude.”

SANDRA: That’s quite a story.

167

BRUCE: And she said, “I came to study that sculpture, and I thought, you
know, ‘He’s just up there walking right on the edge of that roof. The hell with
everything. So purposeful, so determined, oblivious to danger.’” And she
said, “I thought, ‘God damn it, I’m going to do the same thing.’”

SANDRA: Very inspiring.

BRUCE: And even now, telling you the story, I get choked up, because
you always hope that that’s occurring.

SANDRA: Yes.

BRUCE: But you know, it’s easy, with all the bureaucracy and the politics
and struggle, to sometimes think that it doesn’t make any difference, and
then you think, “Oh, my God, art still has that kind of power to change lives.”

SANDRA: I agree.

BRUCE: She went on to get her degree in nursing. She got out, got a job
making $50-60,000 a year, and has simply excelled. A good friend of mine,
years ago, told me, “You know, it seems like I can’t go anywhere in the world
that I don’t run into somebody.” And I said, “I was on the Left Bank of Paris,
and I was walking down this boulevard, and I heard somebody go, ‘Bruce!
Bruce!’”

SANDRA: Just so I have it clarified–and it’s probably on the tape–when
you make your choices of what kind of artwork you want, what drives it? Is it
strictly from the funding–like you do your annual funding, and then you do
your donor, or your foundation funding? What makes the decision to do what
you’re going to do? In other words, why do you choose Indian art, or why do
you do the ceramics?

BRUCE: It’s oftentimes a variety of reasons.

SANDRA: I see.

BRUCE: Obviously, with something like this parking-garage wall, you have
a site that’s, sort of, been predetermined. And now we’re obviously going to
do an outdoor work, and installation on that wall, etc.
168

SANDRA: It’s all sort of timely, at the time.

BRUCE: [interrupts] Exactly.

SANDRA: Yeah.

BRUCE: Now, with the American Indian, Sandra, while my academic
training is in contemporary art and art history, I grew up in a family that began
collecting American Indian art in the 1960s.

SANDRA: Oh.

BRUCE: So, it’s a real area of expertise for me.

SANDRA: I see.

BRUCE: And that extends to contemporary as well. And we made the
decision that we really–the Haskell Indian School is just less than 30 minutes
west of us, and it’s one of the American Indian colleges that was formed, you
know, a hundred years ago, or whatever.

SANDRA: Yes.

BRUCE: And so many American Indians have gone through there, many
American Indian artists. And there’s a huge interest here in our area…

SANDRA: I see.

BRUCE: …for, you know, American Indian art. The Nelson-Atkins
Museum, which is our major encyclopedic museum, is currently embarked on
this huge, new creation of an installation.

SANDRA: I see.

BRUCE: One of the most major in America.

SANDRA: So, in other words, it’s all timely.

169

BRUCE: It’s all timely. And it’s trying to recognize a need, whether it’s a
site or something that could add to diversity on campus. That’s something
that I haven’t touched on with you. But our campus, because of the nature of
the demographics of our county, which is overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon and
very affluent, we very much have embraced that the collection can also
enhance the idea of and exposure to diversity on this campus.

SANDRA: I see.

BRUCE: And so, the American Indian collection fit into that. Now, some of
the other is driven, Sandra–because, as I mentioned to you early on, the
decision was made that these areas would be emphasized that are important
areas in the curriculum, like, photography, painting, drawing.

SANDRA: Right.

BRUCE: You know, sculpture and clay, that kind of thing. So, you know,
we continue to build in those genres.

SANDRA: I see. Well, that gives me more of a feel for things, then. Now I
understand that a little bit better.

BRUCE: Okay.

SANDRA: Well, thanks again. I thoroughly enjoyed our conversation.

BRUCE: Well, thank you so much. Good luck.

[End of Interview]
170

Appendix G

University of California, San Diego (UCSD)
LaJolla, California

Located in the community of La Jolla, California, in northern San Diego,
the 1,200-acre UCSD campus is situated on a dramatic mesa about the
Pacific Ocean. Since its establishment in 1960, UCSD has emerged as one
of the leading institutions of higher education in the United States.
Considered among the top eight public universities for undergraduate
education in the United States, it is home to the Stuart Collection, a unique
collection of site-specific sculpture by leading artists of our time.

171

Images from the Stuart Collection of
University of California, San Diego

Figure 11. Alexis Smith. Snake Path,
1992. Stuart Collection
Source: University of
California, San Diego.

Figure 12. Tim Hawkinson. Bear,
2005. Stuart Collection
Source: University of
California, San Diego.

172

Images from the Stuart Collection of
University of California, San Diego

Figure 13. Niki de Saint Phalle. Sun God, 1983. Stuart Collection.
Source: University of California, San Diego.
173

Profile
Mary Livingstone Beebe

Since its inception in l981, Mary Livingstone Beebe has been the
director of the Stuart Collection, an ongoing program commissioning
outdoor sculpture for the 1200-acre campus at the University of California,
San Diego. The collection was initiated with funding from the Stuart
Foundation.
Previously, Beebe was director for nine years of the Portland Center
for the Visual Arts in Portland, Oregon, where she oversaw an important
program of exhibitions, installations, performance art, music, dance, and
other forms of artistic expressions in the 1970s. Beebe has also held
positions at the Portland Art Museum in Portland, Oregon, the Boston
Museum of Fine Arts, and the Fogg Art Museum at Harvard University.
Beebe holds an undergraduate degree from Bryn Mawr College and
also attended the Sorbonne University in Paris.
174

Interview with Mary Beebe
Director, Stuart Collection
University of California, San Diego
January 22, 2008

SANDRA: The subject of my thesis is “best practices” for public-art
collections on campuses, and I am looking for what really makes it tick–what
makes it happen. Because you can go through all the processes and the
proper things we are supposed to do as public art professionals, and there
are some collections that are spectacular and turn out to be extraordinarily
good whereas others don’t have that special zing to them. In my interview,
one of the questions is, “What other university public-art collection do you
admire the most?” Out of seven interviews, five have chosen the Stuart
Collection.

MARY: That’s nice to hear.

SANDRA: Anyway, let me run through this quickly. Obviously, this is about
the role public art plays in a university. How long has this public-art collection
been in existence?

MARY: I was hired in 1981. And that was the beginning.

SANDRA: And, of course, it relates to the mission of the university–I’m
sure that it does–because I think it has become an icon for the university,
hasn’t it?

MARY: It has. But also I like to say that we do cutting-edge art, just as the
university wants to do cutting-edge research in every other field. They want
to be right where things are happening now. And so, I feel that is our
standard. We want to have the best of what’s happening right now.
And that is a different mission than something like the Franklin Murphy
Garden at UCLA, which is fabulous. We decided that we didn’t need to
replicate that, because UCLA already provides a great sculpture garden just
a few hours away.
We were starting with a clean pallet and could take advantage of the fact
that a lot of artists were thinking about site-specific work when we started in
the 1980s. The 1970s were sort of all about site specificity and site
175

generated, so we could take advantage of that. Now that has sort of changed
a bit, and artists aren’t thinking so much about that anymore. I think that just
representing a variety of what’s going on currently as we go year by year.

SANDRA: One of the best practices, then, is cutting edge. You know what
role this public-art collection plays on the campus, and that it’s an integral
part of the campus, but can you explain how that works? How does it fit in? In
other words, do the students love walking around and seeing the artworks?
Or does it seems to blend in well with everything here on campus.

MARY: We like the idea of discovery, that students can discover these
things and that they are scattered throughout the campus. A lot of students
haven’t ever seen them all. But the more awareness that we can generate
amongst the student body, the better I think it is. That is why we have
brochures that we pass out extremely generously. We also encourage
student tours. I do a lot of student tours. We are on the regular tours of the
campus. “The Sun God” was the first work. And so the year after it was
installed, the students started “The Sun God Festival,” which has become the
largest undergraduate event of the year since it was started in 1984. “The
Sun God” is kind of an iconic thing for the campus.
But I felt strongly that the second thing that we did after “The Sun God”
should be sort of the opposite, in a way. So did Bob Erwin, who is the
quintessential California artist in light and space and perception. We felt that
this was important, because we wanted to indicate that they weren’t all going
to be just oversized statuary.
Now students do things, like we got a group of students who are doing
something called “The Amazing Grace” where they have to go from one
piece–they have to discover one piece after another. The winning team each
gets a copy of our book, Landmarks. And students and professors generate
treasure-hunt kind of schemes, or assignments that are related to a particular
piece. Or, choose your artwork and compare it to some reek something-or-
other. And the dance people use the Fleischner–the dance and theatre
people for sort of interacting and dancing and all of that.

SANDRA: So it really works into the educational part extremely well.

176

MARY: Also, a lot of them are sort of useful. Like the “Bill Wagman” over
there. Theater people have sort of a recess, or rest or whatever, out there all
the time. And people have gotten married at the “Wagman”, and at “The Sun
God”, and at “The Snake Path”, and “The Stonehenge”, of course. So,
people do choose these sites for special occasions as well.

SANDRA: I love “The Snake Path”. I took a tour with our class. Jane gave
us a tour, and I fell in love with “The Snake Path”. I don’t like snakes. But I
love this one

MARY: Have you seen our “Barbara Kruger”? It is going up right now as
we speak. There is nothing there to see yet, but here are some drawings.
[Hands drawings.]

SANDRA: Do you have a master plan that you go by?

MARY: Our advisory committee generates with us a sort of list of artists
that we want to invite. Then I work with those artists on developing proposals.

SANDRA: You say an advisory committee–is that in lieu of a public-art
committee? I know the state schools that are mandated for the one-percent
for art programs do have to have committees that make the decisions,
combined with the architects, community members, and members of the
school.

MARY: Ours is actually an art advisory board that is composed of well-
known professionals in the field: John Walsh, Director the Getty; Hugh
Davies, from right here, Director of the Contemporary; Rob Storr, Director
EAO, Graduate Studies at Yale; Ann Philbin, who is of course head of the
Hammer Museum; Patricia Fuller, who runs the program at MIT; Joan
Jacobs; and Bob Erwin.
The committee helps generate a list. And then they meet whenever we
have completed a piece. For instance, at their last meeting, they reviewed six
proposals, and we are enthusiastic about two. We don’t do every proposal.
The committee provides a very special role, because they are art
professionals. If people start griping to the chancellor or anyone else–“You
call that art?” or whatever–then the chancellor doesn’t have to defend it,
because the chancellor is a scientist. At least it means one can say, “Well, I
177

don’t know if it is art or not, but I’ve got this committee of professionals, and
they offer best advice I can get. And they tell me that it is art.”

SANDRA: When do you decide to do another piece? In other words, you
have the advisory board that recommends this–and I know you are putting in
something new on Saturday–but let’s say when that’s done next May, then
what do you do?

MARY: We have another one in the works.

SANDRA: It just sort of goes or flows.

MARY: This next one is Do-Ho Suh. It is a real challenge. It’s going to be
expensive and sensational. It is going to be disturbing to the people, but we
are very excited about it. The students are excited, and everybody is excited
about it. I’m hoping that we can get a site settled very soon.

SANDRA: But once the advisory committee makes this recommendation
and selects one or two, who actually makes the final decision? Do you make
it?

MARY: Well, then I have to take it through a campus process. It is really
important for me to know the long-range plans of the university, because I
can’t get an artist going where a parking lot is going to go, or a parking
structure or something. I have to really make sure that it is feasible along the
way of developing the proposal. Then, once we have a proposal and it’s
okay, I have to go through a campus process.
For instance, on this “Barbara Kruger,” actually it worked really well,
because the building was going up. There was this huge wall, and the
people, the student-life people, wanted something on that wall. So, they were
very enthusiastic. It wasn’t as expensive as some of the things: $360,000 or
so. We actually have the money. I mean, we didn’t have it, but we have
raised it. Already, this thing on Saturday, if we got more money, it would go
for the Do-Ho Suh. It is an opportunity to introduce people to the site and the
concept and the whole thing: introduce it to the public, our donors, and our
friends.

SANDRA: And it generates more interest in the project–maybe a little bit
more money also?
178

MARY: Yes, and I think it will. Assuming it doesn’t rain, we will get some
more donations.

SANDRA: It is sort of an indirect way of fundraising. When I asked the
various people I’ve interviewed what their favorite collection would be–other
than their own, of course–many of them chose the Stuart Collection. In
addition, many also indicated they would enjoy having the same financial
support provided to them that is provided by the Stuart Foundation.

MARY: I have to raise all the funds for the works.

SANDRA: How is the collection funded? Is it through your fundraising
efforts?

MARY: Yes. The university pays my salary. Jane’s salary. They give us
the office. They give us $35,000 a year for maintenance, and that is it. I raise
the money for all the works.

SANDRA: You do fundraising for maintenance as well?

MARY: No. They give us the $35,000 for maintenance, not for
conservation. If we do major conservation, which we have done a couple of
times on “The Sun God”, then I raise the money. And we have this “Friends”
group that pay $1,500 per year to support the collection, and they get a
special dinner in the summer with a special speaker. This summer will
probably be Barbara Kruger. But it was Rob Storr last time, and Michael
Govan the time before that, and Tim Hawkinson.

SANDRA: Do they do a fundraising program for you?

MARY: No, not really.

SANDRA: They just donate a certain amount of money?

MARY: Yes.

SANDRA: Is it a large group?

179

MARY: It’s about 60 now, and they are mostly couples. And we do trips.
We went to London last fall. We have 30 signed up for Minneapolis in April.
So we organize those trips, which is another big job.

SANDRA: That gets them aware of what’s available and what is going on
in the world of art?

MARY: Well, yes, and they can get into private collections, which is the
main thing people really like. And it is quite a fun group. And now we have a
reputation of having really fun trips. But we have done Seattle, Chicago, and
Dallas/Fort Worth, and New York, and London, and Cuba, and Santa
Barbara. We did–like, summer–we did a one-day trip to L.A. We went to
some studios, and we went to Eli Broad: the second time we have been to
the Eli Broad Foundation. We had lunch at the Getty with Tim when his show
was there.

SANDRA: So, it is sort of the public-relations of fundraising–and also
getting to know everyone. It’s a win-win on both sides.

MARY: Yes. The trips don’t really make much money. They hardly make it.
We call them “Friendraisers” instead of fundraisers.

SANDRA: Which is a good thing. Getting back to our earlier topic, the
collection is called the Stuart Collection, and I know it was started by a
gentleman by the name of Stuart. Is he still alive?

MARY: No.

SANDRA: Didn’t he have a fund?

MARY: He put up the initial money, about a million-and-a-half to get it
rolling. And he felt that, if it was successful, we would be able to get
community support. And that is what we are doing. We ran out of his money
a long time ago. But we’ve only spent close to $4 million for all…

SANDRA: [interrupts] For all the art-work that is on this campus? That is
amazing.

MARY: Yes.
180

SANDRA: Does the funding include the cost of fabrication and installation?

MARY: Absolutely.

SANDRA: And maintenance is not included because you get that through
the university?

MARY: Yes.

SANDRA: It seemed to me, when I was on a trip down here a year ago, I
thought Jane said something about how one of the key factors is that, when
artists do installation and fabrication, that basically you pick up those fees
rather then giving them an actual fee. They may get something.

MARY: They get a commission fee. And it started out as $20,000 in the
1980s, then it went up to $30,000, and now it is at $35,000.

SANDRA: So, it’s like a courtesy.

MARY: And it’s nothing compared to what these people could usually get.
But the artists agree. Some people tell me I should raise it for sure, but when
you are raising all the money–I mean, I know that they should get $100,000,
but there is a big difference between $35,000 and $100,000 from our point of
view. And if they are willing–and they have been so far, because we do
things that other collections can’t. We really back them. That’s $25,000 that
they walk away with, or $35,000, or $5,000, or $10,000 for a proposal fee.
We have upped that to $10,000.
And, for instance, sometimes the proposal has to be reworked somewhat,
and then we pay them again. We don’t want the artist to be out-of-pocket
anything. And then we underwrite all the rest of the production and
installation costs.

181

SANDRA: When I talked to a lady by the name of Jane Farver at MIT, she
didn’t elaborate on it that much, but it’s sort of the same philosophy that they
have. She said that, because the artists are interested in having their artwork
be a part of the on-campus collection, that they are more than willing to do
something for a lot less which allows them a lot more.

MARY: And they have a percent. And we have tried to talk this university
into a percent, and they won’t even consider it. Michael Bishop at UC San
Francisco asked me to help them out, I guess about eight years ago, and he
satisfied a one-percent for the New Mission Bay Campus at UC San
Francisco. We have spent over $7 million up there already. It is some great
stuff. And some of it’s commissioned, and some of it is bought. And some of
it’s not all outdoor sculpture. We bought a lot of Bay Area stuff for the walls
and a little bit of San Diego stuff for the walls. But that has been a lot of fun. I
didn’t have to raise one nickel for that. Otherwise, it would be a conflict of
interest for me. They have an advisory board too, which I am a member of.

SANDRA: The advisory board sounds like a very good plan. On current
acquisition practices and strategies, have there been any significant changes
to your collection-building during the past five years? In other words, have
you changed some of your philosophies or methods about the way you go
about it, or have you improved upon it in some fashion? Probably not
considering what you have, it sounds like you are building it as you go.

MARY: As I said, we have the commission fee.

SANDRA: Is there anything you would do to improve this collection-
building? Obviously, maybe having it will be easier to raise funds?

MARY: Yes, obvious things like that. Or getting the university to do a
percent. That has its own complications, because the percent is usually
associated with a building, which means we have to answer to people
anyway. I mean, that’s part of my job, to integrate these things to get them–
we have to have the buy-in, i.e., student life, people in the Price Center, in
order to do that. I had to get Audrey Geisel to buy into that. She was great,
but I knew that I couldn’t put up something that she hated.

SANDRA: Well, no, you aren’t allowed go around and just place it
wherever you want.
182

MARY: Yes–there is the political part of doing that.

SANDRA: I’ve found, though, in listening to people talk, when they do that
one-percent, it does influence a lot of what the choices are, a lot more
heavily. I think maybe that you might think…

MARY: [interrupts] I think that is probably true. If you start with a
committee that is all constituency, then you have to answer to that
constituency.

SANDRA: That is right. What is considered the best description of the
public-art collection here on campus? What would it be Contemporary?

MARY: Yes.

SANDRA: Total Contemporary?

MARY: Yes, they are all commissioned. They have to be from live artists.

SANDRA: Yes, that is right; I understand that. There was nothing left over
from the olden days?

MARY: There are a few things.

SANDRA: But not very much.

MARY: No. There is a “Michael Todd” up at the undergraduate library. I
think it is still there; I don’t know for sure. There is a piece that our committee
“okayed” by Isaac Witkin up at the International Center that was donated to
the university. There is a small “Zuniga” that was given before we started by
a couple who were getting divorced, which is quite sweet. And there are
temporary student works which we encourage.

SANDRA: I was going to ask you if you had any temporary work at all?

183

MARY: Well we’ve done a few things. We did a big project with Jenny’s
,i.e. Jenny Holzer table. Last year, when the museum opened, just this time,
they had a great big “Jenny Holzer” in that museum downtown, MCA. It’s
really beautiful. And they commissioned Jenny to do some projections. She
did one downtown and one in La Jolla at the museum that goes into the
ocean. And she wanted to do the cliffs up here. So, I helped get the
aquarium and the Scripps Institute of Oceanography to agree to let us do this
projection from the pier, the Scripps pier, onto the cliffs for one night. It was
really great. The ones into the waves were the most moving. But they were
really beautiful on the cliffs, too.

SANDRA: Is there any other universities public art collection that you
admire?

MARY: MIT. Obviously, UCLA, and Stanford’s. They are all very different.
UC San Francisco is doing a great job. University of Washington in Seattle
does a pretty good job, too.

SANDRA: And Western Washington University?

MARY: Yes.

SANDRA: How would you measure the success of your art collection here
on campus? Is it simply because of the integration of the students?
Obviously, the public accolades that you get, and the fact that it is the
cutting-edge kind of experience, would make it all contribute to being very
extraordinarily successful.

MARY: I think the university now recognizes that as a major asset and
kind of a defining aspect of the university. I mean, people do talk about the
university in terms of the Stuart Collection. Not all people. Not all students.
Not all faculty. But it has become known as kind of special.

SANDRA: But it is a very integral part in that it really does provide the
attention and support for the university, and it’s so contributory. It just adds
so much.

184

MARY: Yes, that is what I like to think. One of the things that is most
pleasing to me is that, when students leave, they don’t all recognize what is
going on when they are here on campus, but when they leave and, say, go to
Paris and see a Niki de Saint Phalle there, they remembered that they had
Niki de Saint Phalle’s “The Sun God” on campus when they were in school,
and they are, naturally, very excited.

SANDRA: Their subconscious was influencing them all the time without
even realizing it.

MARY: Yes. One airline pilot that I sat next to at the Chancellor’s
Breakfast a couple of months ago said that the Stuart Collection taught him
to think three-dimensionally, which changed his life.

SANDRA: But that is what you want them to do.

MARY: Yes. And there is also this guy, a dancer, who came back as a
visiting professor, and he said that when he was a student here they danced
and used the Fleischner all the time. And when he went to New York and
started getting really involved with dance, he saw a “Bruce Nauman” and
realized, “We had a ‘Bruce Nauman’ on campus.”

SANDRA: When I was talking about Texas Tech University, which is
located on a 1,800-acre campus, someone said, “Can you imagine being out
there in the middle of nowhere and walking around a corner and seeing a
“Picasso” or “Richard Serra” just sitting there! And you didn’t have to go all
the way to New York or Chicago? Can you imagine how exciting that would
be?” And I thought, that’s true.

MARY: They also have one of the best statues of Buddy Holly in Lubbock
that I’ve ever seen. I love it.

[End of interview]

185

Appendix H

University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona

University of Arizona was the founded in 1885 and specializes in
higher education and research. The school had an active public art program
up until a few years when the program was suspended because funding was
diverted to support on-campus building expansion.

186

Images from the Public Art Collection of
Arizona State University

Figure 14. Jean Charlot. “Man’s Wisdom Subdues the Aggressive Forces of Nature,”
1951. Mural.
Source: Arizona State University.

187

Images from the Public Art Collection of
Arizona State University

Figure 15. Jerry Peart. Celebration,
1984. Sculpture.
Source: Arizona State
University.

Figure 16. Fletcher Benton. Double
Column Ring Triangle, 1994.
Sculpture.
Source: Arizona State
University.

188

Profile
Dianne Cripe

Dianne Cripe served as the first Director of Public Art at Arizona State
University for six years, during which time she published several works, gave
lectures, taught a public art class, and served six years as a member of the
Tempe Municipal Arts Commission (as chairman for one year). Cripe then
worked as the Public Art Specialist for the City of Goodyear, Arizona, in
which position she managed the public art collection, oversaw new
commissions, and set policy for both. Cripe has served as a panelist on
numerous artist selection committees for cities throughout the Phoenix area
as well as moderator for a public art panel at the University of Arizona in
Tucson.
Dianne holds master’s degrees in both Art History and English Education.
189

Interview with Diane Cripe
Public Art Director (2001-2007)
Arizona State University
February 8, 2008

SANDRA: Anyway, to get started really quickly, I appreciate this,
especially since you’re no longer working with the university. But I’m doing
this thesis on “best practices” used in building on-campus public art
collections. [My] interviews are based on the universities, selected by Public
Art Review, of the ten top on-campus public art collections in the United
States.

DIANE: Yes.

SANDRA: I was very interested in the best practices that the successful
universities and colleges use because, even though we all know how you go
about getting a program going, and what you have to do, there are certain
special things I think you do instinctively. Or, maybe not so; maybe it’s
planned. But there are best practices that make a difference, and I was
looking for some of those, along with the various ways people go about
acquiring their public art collections and growing them and such.

DIANE: Okay.

SANDRA: So, I’ll just start down the line of questions. I think it’s easy for
you, about the role of the public art collection with the university. How long
has that collection been in existence?

DIANE: Well, I want to clarify something. It started as a public art
collection about 1985, when the school decided to pass an ordinance, or at
least what municipalities would call an ordinance, of dedicating one percent
of their capital improvement budget to public art. So, that’s when the program
actually began. It was–probably for a few years, they were able to acquire a
few artworks by working with–this is before I came onboard–by working with
galleries, working with the museum director at the time, and deciding how
they were going to spend money from the ordinance. Everything had to go
190

through an all-campus commission, which was called the Public Art Design
Review Council.

SANDRA: I see.

DIANE: And they were the ones who would forward recommendations to
the university’s administrators, including the university president, that they
should spend money on “such-and-such.” So, that’s basically how it got
started.

SANDRA: Do you know how the committee was chosen?

DIANE: Um, [I] really don’t. They looked for representatives from each of
the colleges. And, basically, they asked people if they’d be interested, and
those people usually had some type of interest in arts.

SANDRA: I see.

DIANE: Or architecture, because it included architecture.

SANDRA: Yes. Did they include any members of the community? Or, do
you know?

DIANE: Yes, they did. They wrote the ordinance such that there would be
a student representative and a community representative.

SANDRA: I see.

DIANE: And they didn’t always follow through with that, but that’s how the
ordinance [was written].

SANDRA: Well, no, that’s sort of like the way you start out and do the best
you can.

DIANE: Yes.

SANDRA: On the ordinance that they did, was this strictly based on your
one-percent for building and renovation?

191

DIANE: Yes. It was based on the building.

SANDRA: On campus.

DIANE: Right.

SANDRA: So, did that come from the university itself? It’s a state
university. Or did it come through the state?

DIANE: Well, it had to be approved. It was actually approved by the Board
of Regents, which is the governing body.

SANDRA: Right.

DIANE: By the state. So, they approved it.

SANDRA: Well did that continue on while you were there, as well?

DIANE: Well, it did for awhile. You know, there was a change in the
presidency. And so, when I started as Public Art Director, which was, I
believe, in 2001, the president there was very “pro” public art. And there were
some funds that had been built up over the years and had not been spent.

SANDRA: I see. That’s nice.

DIANE: Yeah, it really was. It was great. They just weren’t sure where they
wanted to go with the program, and there was just nobody heading it. The
museum director just said, “I don’t have the staff to do this.” And so, they
appointed a university architect. So, I worked closely with him. And he was–
he was really instrumental in continuing to push the need for public art.

SANDRA: I see.

DIANE: But they hired a new president around 2004, And his focus was
more on science. And they also noticed that there were some members of
the legislature who were fairly conservative. The president had a lot of
building projects on the books ….this is President Michael Crow:… “Let’s
build this; let’s have dorms; let’s do this.” So, he actually asked the state to
pay for quite a bit.
192

SANDRA: I see.

DIANE: And they said, “We’ll pay for it, but we really don’t want to see the
line-item for public art.” So, they essentially suspended the ordinance.

SANDRA: I see.

DIANE: So, I continued there for another few years, and we worked very
carefully with building up projects–but also partnering with departments on
campus–to make our money go further.

SANDRA: Right. Well, that sounds like you were very busy.

DIANE: Yes. Well, it was really a good thing to be involved in.

SANDRA: I bet it was fun.

DIANE: Yes, it was.

SANDRA: And you really enjoyed it. I have to ask some of these questions
that sound probably a little formal, but anyway: on the collection itself, does it
reflect the mission of the university? Or did it?

DIANE: Yes.

SANDRA: Because obviously the president, or at least the president you
were first working under, was definitely into public art, and I would imagine he
would have extended that into the mission itself.

DIANE: Well, I don’t know how closely the mission of the university was
because there are missions all over the university.

SANDRA: Yes.

DIANE: There are 50,000 students there.

SANDRA: Yes.

193

DIANE: So, each college is, in a way, its own university, in some ways. So
the mission of the university under Michael Crow is called “The New
American University.” And I really think that what we were doing in public art
very much tied into what he was doing in trying to be very, very forward-
thinking, in terms of how we were going to work on public art. We had one
building, that is about ten stories high, and public art was incorporated into
the glass façade of it.

SANDRA: Oh, I see.

DIANE: So, we were really doing very, very current practices.

SANDRA: It sounds very contemporary with the time.

DIANE: Yes.

SANDRA: Yes. I would assume, then, that this has all become an integral
part of the campus, as far as students are concerned [and] how they react to
it?

DIANE: Yes.

SANDRA: I mean, in other words, they have areas they meet and gather,
or what have you.

DIANE: Right.

SANDRA: And it becomes a part of their campus lives.

DIANE: Right.

SANDRA: Do you think it influences them in any other way? In other
words, on one of my interviews, one of the ladies said to me that she had met
a student that had come back to the school after graduation to do a guest
lecture, and his comment was, “I never realized how much nice art we had on
campus until I went to New York and saw some of the things from some of
the artists there that we had on our very own campus.” In other words, the
impact on them is somewhat subliminal, but yet it does work.

194

DIANE: Yes.

SANDRA: And I think that that’s an important factor, because, whether
they know it or not, they’re getting a little education in the art field.

DIANE: Right. Well, I think they first realize, by seeing the artwork, that
art in culture is an important part of the university atmosphere. It is part of the
education of a whole person. And I think they get that right off the bat. The
newspaper on campus has done surveys [asking] “What is your favorite work
of public art?” and students are always ready to say, “I like ‘this’; I like ‘that’; I
don’t like ‘this’; I don’t like ‘that.’” And, I mean, they’re used as landmarks on
campus. They’re used as gathering places. They definitely foster civic
dialogue.

SANDRA: Right.

DIANE: You know, we have a wonderful work by Louis Jimenez, that’s a
myth of–I guess, I think it was Aztec, but I’m not sure–that’s sort of come to
life in fiberglass. And it’s one of the very favorite artworks for the students
there.

SANDRA: They come to love those things, though, that if anything
happens to them, where you change something, they get all upset.

DIANE: Absolutely.

SANDRA: You said you worked closely with the architect. Did you have a
staff, or were you sort of a one-man-show?

DIANE: Oh, I was a one-person-show.

SANDRA: I know. It seems like most people at each university are.

DIANE: Right.

SANDRA: But, did you do any fundraising?

DIANE: Well, yes.
195

SANDRA: The partnering–I know you would probably do that too?

DIANE: We would get work done in kind. Like, we did a project: I worked
with one of the poets over in the creative writing program. And we basically,
for $2,000, we got the materials, we had the graphic design donated by a
well-known designer in town, who just donated her time to come up with kind
of a shrink-wrap vinyl that would surround these golf carts that went around
campus. And it won a “Year-in-Review Award” from Public Art Network,
which was just really cool.

SANDRA: I’d love to show that in my paper.

DIANE: You know, it’s on the website.

SANDRA: Great.

DIANE: Sure. Well, it’s herbergercollege.asu.edu. And then you just go to
“public art. And we called it, “Moving Poems.” Students in the creative writing
program submitted very, very short poems that had to do with movement,
transportation, growth, that sort of thing.

SANDRA: I see.

DIANE: And then we had people curate out the ones that they liked the
best. The information was given to the graphic designer, who worked on a
vinyl that would cover these carts. They’re like, basically, golf carts with these
big boxes on the back for moving things.

SANDRA: Okay.

DIANE: And the graphic designer said, “Let’s get a picture of the poet.” So,
we actually had the poets’ large-scale photos and their words next to it. And
then, on the very back, we gave credit to people who participated. But, we
did the whole thing, like five or six carts, for about $2,000.

SANDRA: That’s good.

196

DIANE: This is where we worked with students–we worked with School-of-
Art students–to do temporary projects. The idea really was just to get art, and
whatever type of visual art [and] literary art, on the campus for people to see.

SANDRA: And you did do some temporary art then?

DIANE: Absolutely.

SANDRA: A lot of the universities don’t have the funding to do that.

DIANE: Well, it’s very minimal in cost.

SANDRA: Was it mostly the students doing the temporary art?

DIANE: Yeah, we had both: we had students doing temporary art, and
then we had a “call for artists” where we partnered with the City of Tempe,
and we selected artists to do an installation on the lawn of Gammage
Auditorium, which is where we have our Broadway series. We actually bring
Broadway plays to campus.

SANDRA: I see.

DIANE: And there’s this huge lawn that’s on a major thoroughfare. People
go by. You know, we actually found out how many thousands of people
would see it every day. And then, these artworks were put up for a period of
about three months, and they drew a lot of attention. And they were very
popular with the students, as well as the whole city.

SANDRA: Is that also on the website?

DIANE: Yes. That’s called, “Shared Terrain.” And the idea was that, you
know, Tempe and ASU grew up together. They interact with each other.
They’re in each other’s spaces. And that was the theme.

SANDRA: That’s interesting. I’m happy to really hear that. Does the
university have a master plan for public art?

197

DIANE: They actually did commission a master plan, in about the year
2000. And it had wonderful, wonderful ideas. And then, at that point–you
know, about a couple years later–the funding basically stopped. So, they
were really not able to implement all the areas. But there were some areas–
the collaboration, and so forth–that we were able to do.

SANDRA: When you said that they recommended that that ordinance be
suspended, who recommended that, the Board of Regents?

DIANE: Well, no. The Board of Regents supported it, but the university
president and his advisors, upon realizing that they were receiving some
negative feedback from the state legislature, just said, you know, “We don’t
want to jeopardize all the things that we’re asking the state for.”

SANDRA: I see.

DIANE: So, they just said, you know, “We’re just going to put this on the
back-burner and not do anything about it.” They didn’t actually just say we’re
going to suspend it. They just said that, as each project went before the state
budget committee, it did not include public art.

SANDRA: I see.

DIANE: The idea was that, well, eventually we’ll put it back in. But I really–
I really didn’t–that’s why I’m working for City of Goodyear. I really didn’t get a
sense that it was ever going to get put back anytime soon.

SANDRA: Yes. That’s sad.

DIANE: Yes.

SANDRA: What primary issues were you most concerned with that
pertained to collection-building? Were there any major issues that you were
concerned about?

DIANE: No.

SANDRA: Or, were there any changes that you might make?

198

DIANE: Well, the only issue, of course, is maintenance and conservation.

SANDRA: Right.

DIANE: It takes a huge amount of money. We have a fiberglass artwork by
Louis Jimenez, and it was becoming badly faded. It was blistering. It had an
outer sacrificial coat that was clear-coat, and it was blistering and literally just
falling off. And so, we had to use what public-art funding we had to call in a
professional conservator who had worked with this artist’s fiberglass works
before: keep the integrity of the artist’s work, but still had to do some fill-in
paint that you would know was done by the conservator and not by the artist.
In other words, we had to hire someone of a high professional stature to
come in and do it. And we had to get somebody from L.A. to do it, to come to
Phoenix.

SANDRA: I see.

DIANE: And he did a wonderful job. And the price was very reasonable.
But it was something that we knew we’d have to keep doing over, and over,
and over again.

SANDRA: Right. So, basically, so you don’t have any fund? Or you did?
You don’t have any current fund, then, set up for maintenance or
conservation?

DIANE: No. No, it was all one fund.

SANDRA: So, it’s just on an “as needed” basis.

DIANE: Right.

SANDRA: Yes. On the artist selection, you said the committee makes
recommendations about artists and such. Did you do an actual “call for
artists” in that sense?

199

DIANE: Yes we did. We had one–they were building a parking structure,
but it was going to be much nicer than your average parking structure. And
we were able to get some funds from the Parking and Transit Office to
partner with the public-art fund. And we put out a call to artists. We selected
an artist team from Minnesota who created these wonderful limestone
columns that really fit the area, in terms of theme and material. The idea that
they were carved limestone was very, very nice for a college campus. But
what they carved were actually very large, oversized motifs from desert
plants: Socorro cactus blossoms, that sort of thing. And that’s on the website
as well.

SANDRA: Okay. When you did this artist selection, were you involved in
the final selection? In other words, did it go through the committee? Did you
continue to have a committee?

DIANE: Yes, we did. Oh, yes.

SANDRA: Okay.

DIANE: Because the committee was not just a public-art committee. This
all-campus committee was also for architecture.

SANDRA: Oh, I see.

DIANE: So, when they were planning new student residence halls, that
had to come before the committee to be approved.

SANDRA: I see.

DIANE: So, the committee was meeting on a regular basis.

SANDRA: So I really understand how the process worked: the
commission–did they recommend artists to you, or ideas, or projects? Or,
was that your focus, and then you ran it by the committee?

DIANE: Mostly they would say, “Here’s an opportunity for public art.”

SANDRA: I see.

200

DIANE: This parking structure. And so, I organized the call to artists.

SANDRA: I see.

DIANE: We had an artist selection panel.

SANDRA: So, as this came up, they’d let you know?

DIANE: Right.

SANDRA: And you got busy and got something in there.

DIANE: Right.

SANDRA: I see how it worked. Okay. And did you go primarily for your
local artists? Or was it, sort of, half-and-half?

DIANE: You know, it depended on the budget.

SANDRA: Yes, I know.

DIANE: I mean, we had a $100,000 budget for the parking structure, so
we wanted to open that up to the best artists for the job, and that happened
to be this artist-team from Minnesota. So, it just really was based on the size
of the project, both in terms of budget and space available.

SANDRA: And then, once the recommendations and such were made, did
the committee make the final approval?

DIANE: Yes.

SANDRA: Okay.

DIANE: The Artist Selection Panel selected the artist. Then, it went to this
all-campus Public Art Design Review Council, and then they made the
recommendation. And from there it went up to the administration, and,
basically, once it had gotten to that point, it was okayed.

201

We had an Artist Selection Panel that interviewed the artists and then
selected the artist.

SANDRA: I see. And it was part of the commission?

DIANE: And it was partially members of the commission but also other
stakeholders.

SANDRA: I see.

DIANE: For instance, Parking and Transit was helping to fund it, so we
had somebody from Parking and Transit.

SANDRA: Right. So it adapted to each project.

DIANE: Right. Exactly. Each one was different.

SANDRA: So, there was an Artist Selection Panel?

DIANE: Right.

SANDRA: In addition to the commission?

DIANE: Right.

SANDRA: Okay.

DIANE: They recommended it to the commission.

SANDRA: Right. And then they worked with you in conjunction with that?

DIANE: Right.

SANDRA: Okay. Then, obviously, on the funding, we know what the
funding was about. Did you have any donors or any grants? Or did you use–
was this strictly “percent for art”?

202

DIANE: Well, we had a grant for the ASU-Tempe joint project. I wrote a
grant and got about $2,000 [to] $3,000 from the State Commission on the
Arts to help fund it. And that really made a big difference. We could actually
print out materials and get the word out about the exhibition because of that.

SANDRA: Yes. I notice a lot of people do that, in that they don’t seem to
have anything left over to get the word out.

DIANE: Right.

SANDRA: And it always strikes me as odd that the university would say,
“Okay, let’s have public art,” but someone has to take care of it. And
someone has to know that it’s happening.

DIANE: Right.

SANDRA: You know, but the funds usually aren’t there for that.

DIANE: Right.

SANDRA: Well, that’s interesting. It follows the pattern throughout these
universities. Did the funding include the cost of fabrication and installation?
Did it include maintenance?

DIANE: Yes.

SANDRA: Okay.

DIANE: All the project costs–from the artist’s fee, materials, fabrication,
installation, transportation of the artwork, everything–was in the project
budget.

SANDRA: Yes.

DIANE: And the artist knew from the outset that everything had to be
included in that.

203

SANDRA: Yeah. So, they gave you back a proposal as to what they would
do, and they would put in there how it would handled. Did they handle it, or
did you basically say, “Here’s the fee–we’ll take care of the fabrication and
installation”?

DIANE: Oh, they did everything.

SANDRA: They did everything.

DIANE: The artist had to do it.

SANDRA: Okay.

DIANE: I mean, for instance, you had limestone columns that were hand-
carved. It’s the artist’s work, so it’s the artist’s responsibility to create the
artwork and to ship it and install it.

SANDRA: I see, okay. If you had your choice, what would you have done
to influence anything in the program and collection-building? In other words, I
know money is a main issue. Would it be obviously reinstituting the ordinance
again, obviously? But, was there anything that you would really like to do a
little bit differently?

DIANE: You know, I really can’t think of anything.

SANDRA: Yeah.

DIANE: Because we tried, you know, both myself and the university
architect. The money-generating office on campus is called the Foundation.
They are the Foundation. They are separate and apart from the university
because of the financial aspect. But they really are a part of the university.
It’s kind of a strange relationship.

SANDRA: I see.

DIANE: And we tried very, very hard to get their attention, because they
are the ones who say, “You can go after ‘this person’ for money, but you
cannot go after ‘this person’ for money.”

204

SANDRA: Oh, really?

DIANE: It is ridiculous.

SANDRA: I’ve never heard of that before.

DIANE: It is unbelievable. It’s really sad, because people, like the museum
director, who has just retired, she would find someone who was interested in
the museum, and then the Foundation would say, “No. We really want them.
We want to target that person for this other branch of the university.” So, you
know…

SANDRA: [interrupts] So, they were a part of the university. And what
were they called?

DIANE: The Foundation.

SANDRA: And they were approved by the Board of Regents?

DIANE: Well, I don’t know. You know, I don’t really know how they were
approved.

SANDRA: Were they community members, or were they members of the
faculty?

DIANE: They were people–they were people brought in from all over the
country who had extensive fundraising experience.

SANDRA: I see.

DIANE: Some of them had worked in the corporate world. Some of them
had worked in education.

SANDRA: Oh, so it was sort of like an adjunct committee, on the side,
there?

DIANE: It was really a committee. I mean, it was…

SANDRA: [interrupts] A foundation.
205

DIANE: It was a fundraising arm.

SANDRA: I see.

DIANE: [Comprised] of a lot of individuals. And their idea was to go out
and to find money.

SANDRA: So, it was for the entire university.

DIANE: The entire university.

SANDRA: I see. So, they were, naturally, anything that had to be raised,
basically, kind of went through them, then, on fundraising.

DIANE: Yeah, absolutely.

SANDRA: I see. So then, if they didn’t want to do something, for some
particular form of public art, then they just didn’t want to do it.

DIANE: Well, they were basically told what to raise money for and what
not to raise money for.

SANDRA: I see. Who told them to do that?

DIANE: Um–the president’s office.

SANDRA: The president’s office.

DIANE: Right.

SANDRA: So, they were directed. They were directly under the president’s
office.

DIANE: Yeah, pretty much. Yeah.

SANDRA: I see. Well, that must have been very frustrating.

206

DIANE: No, it was really a shame, because we were talking about,
compared to the money they were raising for science–I mean, science was
their whole focus. And, in some cases, they were able to get a huge grant to
build a writers’ center. But public art, even though it says, “Wow, this is
great–we’ve got the start of a great collection,” it just was not their focus.

SANDRA: I know. Isn’t that a shame? What is the best description of your
public-art collection?

DIANE: It’s eclectic. It reflects the community. It reflects the university.

SANDRA: It’s a reflection of the time in which it is created.

DIANE: Yeah, each of the artworks is emblematic of the time in which it
was created.

SANDRA: Yeah. And you would consider it contemporary?

DIANE: It’s everything. We have 1930s “WPA” murals.

SANDRA: Great.

DIANE: Yes. That was one of the things that was a big surprise, that it was
actually just before the WPA. It was Public Works of Art Project, I think, and it
became part of the WPA. But, in about 1934, they commissioned an artist to
create two murals–on canvas, that were seven or eight feet tall and 16 feet
long–[and] put them in the new library. And they hung over the stacks of
books. We’ve got a great picture of it. And then the library was moved to
another building, so those murals were placed in the only all-adobe building
on campus, which was the registrar’s office. And so, people who were
registering for classes in the old-fashioned way, using cards and whatever,
would go to this giant room. And they would be looking over the people from
the ceiling area. And then they were told that that building was becoming part
of the Mars Project. They did a lot of research on the planet Mars. So, they
had to be moved. And that’s when I had just started to work at the university.
And they said, “You’ve got to find a place for these two huge murals.”
[Laughs] And I say, “Okay.” They had to be taken out of this adobe building.
They had been screwed into the wall, and adobe is like mud, solid mud.

207

SANDRA: Yes.

DIANE: So they had, you know, 18 inches of bolts going through the wall.

SANDRA: Wow.

DIANE: It was just amazing how they did this. And we found a company
who was qualified to move them to a building that was, like, the first building
on campus called [“Old Main”] which is from the 1800s. And they had to flip
these artworks to get it over a staircase. And it was just amazing. So now,
now they’re well-protected in this building that had been renovated, that
dates back to the 1880s, and it really fits. The campus started with these
murals from 1930s and, I think even before that, 1890, they had this
wonderful vase that…

SANDRA: [interrupts] I was just going to say, how old is the campus?

DIANE: The campus started about 1880-something.

SANDRA: I didn’t realize it was that old.

DIANE: And it has just an eclectic architecture from every era.

SANDRA: I think that’s great. How would you measure the success of this
collection-building program? Obviously, it’s very successful because a lot of
people thought it was one of the best in the United States. So, you’ve got
some good stuff going on there.

DIANE: Well, I…

SANDRA: [interrupts] When I say “success,” I mean not just for publicity’s
sake. I mean it works. It works with the students. It works for the university. It
works for the community, I would imagine.

DIANE: Well, it’s a living, breathing program. At least, it was. I mean, we
were bringing artists on campus for lectures. Every year, we had an annual
public-art lecture, which was well-attended. We had temporary public
artwork. Every year, there would be one or two exhibitions, and students
knew that something was going to be put on the lawn.
208

SANDRA: They probably were excited about that.

DIANE: So, yeah, and it just created a lot of buzz. Like, “What is this?”
“What is this doing?” That kind of thing.

SANDRA: Yes, which is great. I love that. Is there any other university that
you admire for their on-campus art?

DIANE: Oh, you bet: University of–Western Washington University.

SANDRA: Yes, that’s one of the ones.

DIANE: Awesome.

SANDRA: Yes.

DIANE: And UCSD, of course.

SANDRA: Of course.

DIANE: And there’s some in the Midwest. I think it’s in Kansas. I can’t
remember.

SANDRA: Are you talking about the Johnson Community College?

DIANE: No. Um–it’s a university, not a community college, and I can’t
remember.

SANDRA: Oh, you mean Wichita University?

DIANE: Yeah, I think it’s Wichita.

209

DIANE: This is for a master’s thesis, right?

SANDRA: Copies of this thesis will be sent around to the people I
interviewed. They all want a copy, to see what the differences were between
the universities.

DIANE: Yeah. I would love to see a copy of it.

SANDRA: Well, I’ll be happy to get you one. I don’t know what good-
reading it will be, but I think it’ll have some nice pictures.

DIANE: Okay, great.

SANDRA: I sure appreciate you taking this time.

DIANE: Okay. Well, good luck to you.

SANDRA: Thank you so much.

[End of Interview.]

210

Appendix I

University of Minnesota
Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota

The Twin Cities offer degree programs in many fields, from agriculture to
modern dance. The university has one of the country’s largest and most
dynamic public art programs. The artworks range from traditional sculpture
to gardens to multimedia installations. Some are interactive. Others are
expressions of social or political discourse. All have a common trait: each
artwork helps to create a unique sense of place on campus.

211

Images from the Public Art Collection of
University of Minnesota

Figure 17. Athena Tacha, Rhythmics, 1997. Concrete, sedum,
Juniper and coreopsis. Source: University of Minnesota.

212

Images from the Public Art Collection of
University of Minnesota

Figure 18. Stewart Luckman. Rokker V, 1981. Stainless steel.
Source: University of Minnesota.

213

Profile
Craig Amundson

Craig Amundson has been the Public Art Curator and Program Manager
of the University of Minnesota Public Art On Campus Program since 2006.
He will launch the new public art graduate minor at the University of
Minnesota in the fall of 2008, with courses in public art theory, history, and
studio. Amundson is also the chairman of Public Art Saint Paul, which has
advocated the inclusion of public artists in public projects for over 20 years.
He has completed more than 50 public art projects in his national consulting
practice of more than 35 years.
214

Interview
Public Art Curator and Program Manager
Interview with Craig Amundson,
University of Minnesota
December 11, 2007

SANDRA: How long has your public-art collection been in existence?

CRAIG: Our earliest piece dates from 1900, but that is a little misleading in
that our contemporary program was really started in 1988. Out of the 40
pieces that we currently have on the Twin Cities campus–I haven’t done an
exact count–60% date from 1988. They’ve been done in the last 20 years.
We have quite a few from earlier– there is a broad range–but it was very
inconsistent and not a concerted effort at all. We had no heroes on a horse,
but heroes in bronze from the early years, as you might imagine. Then, as we
got more into 1960s and 1970s, we received more contemporary work which
ranges from Alexander Lieberman to some more local people: Gary Slater,
who has developed somewhat of a reputation. He did a piece in 1973.
Lieberman’s piece dates to 1965. There is a range, a broad-based collection,
and it is more oriented to what has been happening in the last few years in
sculpture.

SANDRA: I’m trying to define the “best practices” for each university. Can
you think of anything in the selection of the public art that is unique to the
university?

CRAIG: Since 1988, we have used the committee process, which is a
double- edged sword. I would say that the works that we have done since
1988 have definitely been site-specific. They have definitely been reflective
of the heritage or values of a specific department, related to the building that
is going in near the site, that has generated the one-percent art money to
make it possible to do the work.
What we have not done–we’ve done a little bit of, but we have not done
well at all–is the whole idea of creating a master plan in terms of determining
where the best place for public art would be on campus, based on all of the
issues that an urban designer would take into account with regard to the

215

fabric of buildings, and the spaces between the buildings, and where the
focal-point should be, and how the public art might best serve as: either a
support for whatever the iconic symbolism is of the public space, or whether
it may serve as some kind of muse, in terms of more of a contemplative
space, or whatever role you might have for public art. Thinking about it in a
comprehensive, master-planning sort of way, we have not done well at that at
all. Coincidentally, I’ve been working for the last six months on a committee
which is updating our 10-year-old university master plan: working on defining
what role public art might take in that larger sense that I just described.

SANDRA: What role do you play? I know you are the Director of Public Art
on campus.

CRAIG: I’m the curator–Public Art Curator–and program manager. I’ve
had the job for a little over a year. There was a period of two years where
nobody had the job, and so, I’ve been making up for some lost time. I
actually have seven projects going right now because of projects that had
been left in the wind for awhile.

SANDRA: Do you deal directly with the committee? Is there an on-campus
committee that selects the public art, or is that your choice? How do you work
that?

CRAIG: We do a project-by-project committee. It’s a little strange. I
provide the continuity. What we did that way–the learning curve, of course, is
sometimes difficult, because, if we are working with the Business School,
then we are working with people from the Business School, although I
usually add one of our art museum’s curators, and somebody from the
Design College, and somebody from the Art Department, as additional
committee members in order to kind of service out.

SANDRA: So, you pick and choose the committee members as needed for
the project?

CRAIG: Yes. Then, some of the committee members come from the
department that is going to occupy the building. One of the things we have is
the opportunity to pool money, so it is not necessary that, because a building
generates public-art money, that the public-art project has to necessarily be
inside or on the grounds of that particular building. Our policy makes it
216

possible for us to pool money, and, as long as the money that’s pooled is
used in the same precinct as the building that is generating the money, that
works for us.
Although, I look at some of the other university art collections–university
and college art collections–and I’m pretty envious of the way they, from the
beginning, have been able to make decisions about where their public-art
pieces go based on larger master-planning principles.

SANDRA: Very few of the universities I have interviewed have a master
plan in place.

CRAIG: I’m aware of that. But I’m thinking of–one of my favorite places is
Western Washington University. They have general ideas of where they want
pieces, but they work with the artists in selecting a site, and we don’t do that.
I would like to do a little more of that.

SANDRA: I think it really does make a difference.

CRAIG: It makes a huge difference. If you have ever visited the Western
University campus, you would see. We do have a broad range of artists
represented. And we have a broad range of subject material. I think there is a
reason for that. We try to do a decent job of maintaining the works, although
that is probably the hardest part. Most of our pieces are outdoors, and we live
in a winter climate.

SANDRA: Do you have a maintenance program in process?

CRAIG: We do now that I’m here.

SANDRA: Are you from Minnesota?

CRAIG: Yes. This is a second career for me. I had a 35-year career as a
national urban-design consultant–worked on a number of projects all over the
country–and decided I was tired of traveling and being a consultant. And I am
not doing this now.

SANDRA: And you really enjoy it?

CRAIG: Yes, it is a fun job.
217

SANDRA: When you do your selection of public art, who has that final
authority?

CRAIG: The finally authority rests with the vice president of University
Services. That authority is never applied. As long as the committee is happy
with the work, we don’t end up needing an arbitrator, and the process
assumes that the product will be a good piece. So, we don’t really go to a
higher authority–almost never.

SANDRA: So, you are able to make the selection and the decision, then,
with the committee?

CRAIG: Yes, it usually works out pretty well.

SANDRA: To have that freedom is really good.

CRAIG: Things change. At any point, somebody else could come in as a
vice president who says, “I want this, that, or the other,” and you end up in a
tug-of-war. And then you end up going back to the university policies, that
are passed by the regents, with regard to who has authority of public art. And
you just don’t want to end up on that path, but sometimes, you end up [there]
in spite of your best efforts. I’ve not had that happen yet, but I know that it
happened in the past, and it can certainly happen.

SANDRA: It is sort of a law of chance. If it works, it works. If it doesn’t, it
doesn’t.

CRAIG: If you do enough projects, you are going to end up going back to
who has the authority at some point.

SANDRA: How do you fund your project? You said a “percent for art”
program, but do you have one?

CRAIG: Totally “percent for art.” We had a one-percent for art: one percent
of the construction cost was what our legislature passed. We had a hiatus
from that for about five years where one of the legislatures was able to put a
$100,000 cap on that. That made it much more difficult, as you might
imagine, for us to actually do the kind of quality and work with the kind of
218

artists that we wanted to work with. That was due to a lot of lobbying and
advocacy, and most important was the retirement of that legislator. We were
able to turn that back, and so we are back to one-percent now, for monies
that are appropriated from this point forward, for public art. So, we will be
back into the typically $300,000 to $400,000 range for a budget. That is a
pretty decent budget. We can attract people, and we can do some pretty
significant pieces that are built in a durable way, out of durable material.

SANDRA: How do you decide when you want to add to your collection?
Do you decide that, maybe, there is an area that needs expanding, or that
maybe there is an artist that you would like to work with? Or is it because a
new building is going up?

CRAIG: It is somewhat generated by “What does this particular building or
this particular part of campus need?” They are site-specific works based on
an evaluation and analysis of what is going on in the intended location. Our
collection has grown pretty much with the definition of what we call “public
art” here. And some universities and colleges don’t have a pretense of calling
it public art. They call it “a sculpture collection.” Very different. We call it
public art here, and we, at least–since all the things that were written in the
1990s about how to define public art–we have focused more on our pieces,
as I said earlier, being site-specific: being reflections of the values of the
university and of the people in the department that are working on the
project.
I’d say that, what we don’t do is, we don’t really take the role of public art as
an appeal to social conscience very seriously. I can only think of one piece
that did that. We don’t because–I don’t know why we don’t do it. You’d think it
would be done at universities and colleges if it were done that way and in
that place. I think neighborhood groups have a better chance of making that
kind of public art happen than universities and colleges do.

SANDRA: Do you do any temporary art?

CRAIG: We don’t do temporary art, because we don’t have a way to fund
it. If we had a way to fund it, we would do more temporary art. Our legislative
process specifically identified this as “not temporary,” because nobody knows
what the word “permanent” means.

219

SANDRA: Have there been any significant changes to your collection-
building?

CRAIG: When I looked at our collection, when I came on board a year and
a half ago, it looked to me like we had plenty of representations of what’s
been done in the way of space designs. We have plenty of representations of
what’s been done in just about every medium you can think of, with a couple
of exceptions. One of the things we did not have is any kinetic art, so we
specifically went looking for an opportunity to do a piece of kinetic art, and we
have an artist on a piece right now that is just about ready to be installed in a
month or two. The other thing that we are missing is: a piece dealing with
transmission of light. And we have an artist working on a piece right now that
I hope to get done, although we are getting some push-back from the
committee, because they are getting cold feet over not being able to imagine
what this thing is going to look like. We are hopeful to get that piece done.
Otherwise, we are pretty open to conceptualizing just about any idea, in just
about any medium.

SANDRA: How would you measure the success of your collection-building
program?

CRAIG: Quite frankly, we don’t have a very good way of measuring
success. I’d say that is something that we should probably try to do. A
product of this master-planning process that I’m currently involved in for the
entire university–that deals with master planning for new buildings, for new
public spaces, and other spaces between the buildings, master planning for
transportation systems and so forth–we will develop ways to evaluate our
success. And since public art would be an element in that master plan, we
will need to create that list of criteria for evaluating our success. We just
haven’t done that yet. I’m a little bit tied to this master-planning process, for
obvious reasons, so I’m not going to get ahead of that.

SANDRA: You admire Western University for their collection?

CRAIG: I think Western Washington University is the best I’ve seen so far.
You are probably aware of the pieces? It’s the “Who’s who” of sculpture for
the last 25 years.

SANDRA: How would you best describe the public-art collection?
220

CRAIG: I would say it’s primarily contemporary. It is particularly difficult for
universities that depend on donors for their public art–it is very difficult to
avoid that. The people that come as donors have an agenda in mind. It
becomes a political issue. “If you want my money, you will do what I want.”
Here we have a lot more freedom. We do some donor-based work but almost
none. I don’t like getting the calls. A few months ago, I got one from a donor
that wants to build a figurative bronze of Elmer Andersen, because “He was
just a great guy and nobody remembers him,” and why doesn’t he come and
help us do that? I’m really looking forward to this. I’ve spent months defusing
that idea.

[End of interview]

221

Appendix J

Texas Tech University
Lubbock, Texas

Texas Tech University is a public research university and is the only
school in Texas to house an undergraduate institution, law school and
medical school at the same location. It also has an excellent public art
collection located throughout its 1800-acre campus.
222

Images from the Public Art Collection of
Texas Tech University

Figure 19. Peter Woytuk. Bulls, 2004. Bronze
Animal and Food Sciences Building.
Source: Texas Tech University.

223

Images from the Public Art Collection of
Texas Tech University

Figure 20 Larry Kirkland. Headwaters,
2002. Granite.
English/Philosophy
Education Complext.
Source: Texas Tech
University.

Figure 21. Po Shu Wang. Comma,
2007. Stainless Steel,
Bronze and Granite,
Student Union Building
Courtyard.
Source: Texas Tech
University.

224

Profile
Cecilia Carter Browne

In May 2001, Cecilia Carter Browne was hired to develop, direct, and
manage all aspects of a newly formed University Public Art Collection and
Program for the campuses within the Texas Tech University System. The first
to hold this position, she had comprehensive responsibilities that included the
creation of operational policies, collection development, project management,
fund development, educational programming, and public relations. During her
tenure, the University Public Art Collection at Texas Tech grew to include
more than 100 works of art in a variety of media and was rapidly recognized
for its excellence.
Carter-Browne has a Bachelor of Fine Arts from the University of Texas,
Austin, and a Master of Arts from Texas Tech in Museum Studies and
Marketing.
225

Interview with Cecilia Carter Browne
Public Art Director (2001-2007)
Texas Tech University
December 3, 2007

CECILIA: Let me take you through a lot of our programs. You can stop me
at any time.

SANDRA: Can you tell me what your role was there? I know that the lady I
spoke with said that you were the public art program director.

CECIL[A: I was the Public Art Program director and really was kind of a
one-man band. I was involved from the top down. Everything from selecting
works of arts, working with committee, posting RFQ’s, RFP’s. Going through
the selection–all the selection process as well as–so that would be the
managerial part.
I also did fundraising, principally for conservation and educational needs.
Then, of course, the marketing and public relations, and then–aside to that of
course–are the educational components to the program. I was involved in
those areas: management, fundraising, PR, and education.

SANDRA: That means you are “Public Art”?

CECILIA: Well, you know, it’s interesting. I fell in love with the job. I
completely fell head over heels, and so it became more than a job. It became
just my baby. When it’s a labor of love like that–it didn’t feel like work
sometimes. It felt like I was on a mission.
The program was actually started in 1998. It was a Board of Regents
mandate. Texas does not have a state mandate for any projects. So, the
board approved the funding model in 1998. They looked for someone to kind
of give some directions. They hired me in 2001, and that’s really when we got
the program up and running. Technically, it started in ’98, but it got running in
2001.
In terms of what the mission was–in terms of starting this whole program–I
believe the Board of Regents was really interested in enlivening the campus
spaces. I don’t know if you know anything about the Texas Tech campus, but
it is enormous. It is not enormous in terms of its enrollment, but there it has
226

lots and lots of land. I believe there is more than 1,800 acres. In this part of
Texas, there is a lot of sun, wind, and land. You use what you have.
Part of the goal was just making the campus: breaking into, sort of, these
didactic spaces; creating spaces that were broken up by not only the
architectural environment, but by the public art–which also created zones in a
way that the way-finder needs an educational tool. And of course, it is a way
to kind of help navigate that enormous campus space.
One of the nice aspects to this program is that we had a complementary
one-percent Landscape Enhancement program. I worked very closely with
the landscape architect, and he and I would come up with these napkin
sketches. And that eventually would turn into blueprints. We had a lot of fun
with that. With all the construction projects we were in at the very beginning,
from schematic design all the way through the construction.
Of course, we believe that the research environment, in a way, is a
creative process. If we were creating spaces that encouraged people to think
creatively, we were adding value to that whole educational environment.
Dynamic spaces between the buildings, between rooms, that was all part of
it.

SANDRA: Because you were able to do this program from the beginning,
could you see the change with the students reacting to this positively? Did it
bring them together in a way? I know so many students that start school
haven’t even seen art.

CECILIA: That is exactly right. I think I did. Sometimes I thought, was I
imagining this? But it did seem like we were getting a more diverse student
body. And I don’t know if that was wishful thinking or what.

SANDRA: It probably wasn’t. It isn’t always something that you can
measure or define. You almost have to sense the change.

CECILIA: When I first came into the program, I did sort of an assessment
of the existing works of art on campus. It was all very heroic. Excuse the
term–there were just a bunch of white guys on horses. I thought, “What does
this communicate about what is value?” We really took a hard look at that, or
I did, and said, “We are not championing diversity on this campus through the
visual environment.” And that became one of my private goals.

227

Yes, where Texas Tech is, it’s in a geographically isolated area. Of course,
it’s a college town, so you have people from all over the U.S. But still, it is
sort of insolated. The metaphor I always use, when I was trying to explain
why we were introducing works of art on campus, would be that the public art
can be a mirror of the community. It reflects its values, its history, and those
kinds of things. It could also provide a window beyond its boundaries. And I
think in the educational environment that is critical. Because I felt like that
school was isolated enough that these–not just the students, but the faculty
and staff, everyone–needed that window beyond. And this was one way to
sort of tease that out.

SANDRA: Sounds good.

CECILIA: That was the metaphor that I used. It sort of helped people
understand why we were doing what we were doing.

SANDRA: You have been telling me what role the collection plays on
campus, that it is an integral part and the role you play. Were there any “best
practices” that were used in the selection of the art itself, that related back to
the university or something that the university thought would be a good idea?
It seems like to me that you were the really main focal point for this
development.

CECILIA: I did work with a committee. The committee included students,
faculty and staff, as well as leaders from the community. Initially, the
committee was set up by the chancellor. I think that is a good practice,
because it is not a strictly curatorial approach. It is a collaborative process.
And I think when you get the committee working in conjunction with what we
would call the clients or the users of the building, where the funding was
coming from, then everybody takes a little bit of ownership of the project. And
everybody feels like they have been part of the process, they understand
what the options were. They understand that this was not a “shopportunity,”
that I was not going out and forcing a work of art on anyone.

SANDRA: No. It had meaning, it had substance to it.

CECILIA: Exactly. You cannot get a program to survive if you have a
committee only for solutions, because you do have to get buy-in. And the
buy-in has to come from the highest levels of administration. Otherwise,
228

administration can kill the program in a stroke. And that happens. So, I think
that is the best practice: to get as much buy-in as you can.
The downside of this is, sometimes there is a lot of compromise. If I were
to build my ideal collection, it might have looked a little different. Differently
than perhaps some of the works that we acquired, although I am thrilled with
the work that we were able to acquire. But it’s not a one-person selection
process.
Of course, there is a lot of education. You have to get your contracts in
order. As far as “best practices” with contracts, I’ve learned that you have to
have liquidated damages in your contracts, because artists are like very
small businesses. And some are better at managing budgets and schedules
than others. And they have to be accountable. I ran into some problems
periodically with some artists who didn’t have enough income flowing in
regularly that they couldn’t manage the schedule and the budgets to stay on
target. That’s difficult.

SANDRA: What did you do? You don’t have to give me a detail–basically,
when you ran into that sort of situation?

CECILIA: I’m actually still dealing with one artist. I usually would fly to the
studio and visit with the artist and see what we can do–what happens, where
we are. We spoke every single week. We did regular progress reports, which
is part of the contract. Usually I give them a lot of leeway until they start
having problems. And then I start checking in at least once a week. But
initially, I trust that they are professionals that can manage their own projects
without me having to stand on them. Of course, occasionally we had to
involve general counsel and write a letter.

SANDRA: I think that is pretty much a standard problem, and you do the
best you can. You have to anticipate that going in.

CECILIA: And, of course, the progress payments: if you provide “X,” I’ll
provide you another payment. That usually helps kind of push it along.
Sometimes that artist says, “I can’t provide anything until I get some money,”
and we’re saying that we are not going to provide anything until he or she
shows us some progress. It can come to a standoff. It’s uncomfortable,
especially because, now, so many of these people I have come to adore.

229

SANDRA: You get too attached to them. I love the artists and working with
them.

CECILIA: On the other side of contractual best practices, with the
protection of the artist, we do include information on the Visual Artist Rights
Act in our contract. And that was something that I needed to educate the
administration about: that you cannot make changes to the artist’s art-work
when the administration changes. You cannot say, “Well, we don’t like this
particular aspect of that work of art, so we are going ask someone to come
out and make changes.”

SANDRA: And they would do that, wouldn’t they, on occasion?

CECILIA: There are people–I’ve seen letters where they were angry
former students who wanted to have works of art changed or moved,
especially the Tom Modernists that I commissioned. It’s a little provocative.
It’s provocative for that community. In most communities, it’s fairly benign. It’s
kind of a political piece. There are people who said that they wanted that
work of art moved to the art building instead of the Student Union’s courtyard.
I think that is always something that is important to include in the contract
and also important to educate the administration that artists have rights and
these are protected in our contracts– and that we will enforce these rights.

SANDRA: Did the university have a master plan? Seems like to me you
may have been the master plan–or were they even interested in one?

CECILIA: We had a lot of policies and procedures in place. But in terms of
a formal master plan, no. I thought about that a lot. I had a master idea of
where I wanted this to go. But I approached each project based on that
particular political climate. It could change with each and every project. And I
did the best I could within that environment to push it toward making a
cohesive collection.

SANDRA: And it seemed liked it worked, obviously. It seems to me that
you have gone through most of the issues and challenges. Was the
community involved in the selection process at all? Was that ever an issue?

CECILIA: Yes. We did have community leaders on the public art
committee. In fact, we had the director of a foundation board, and she
230

became a really valuable asset to us. We were able to bring her in and,
consequently, that foundation became very supportive by grant request.
They helped me a lot.

SANDRA: Was there a lot of collaboration on the funding, or was it pretty
much percent-for-art and grants and such?

CECILIA: All of the art-work was acquired through the one-percent set
aside from all construction projects over $500,000. My grant request and my
fundraising activities were aimed principally toward conservation. I started a
conservation endowment to help care for the collection, because they hadn’t
set that up. A lot of programs do not think about that. My other fundraising
activities were geared toward educational programming, printing the
brochure, and those kinds of things.

SANDRA: On the selection of the artists, you went through the RFQ or
RFP process, basically–but once you made your decisions and such, did the
final approval came the committee based on your recommendation?

CECILIA: Yes. Let me tell you how that whole process worked, because
we were using state funds and I was working in the architectural and
construction environment. I was part of Facilities Planning and Construction.
My process sort of paralleled the process they were using to hire
architects. So, this whole process had a very fair, competitive structure. I did
write the RFQ, and then I would post that on different sites. We receive
applications from all over the nation. I had a sub-committee made up
principally of artists and art administrators: people who were knowledgeable
in visual arts. We would do the first screening, and sometimes I would get
more than 100 applications. Then we would narrow that down to 15 to 20
semi-finalists. Then that group would go to the committee for further
screening. Now, that committee, again, was made up of students, faculty,
staff, and community.

SANDRA: I see. So, then you had your sub-committee which were the art
historians, the people that would be more experienced in this. You made
your recommendations, and then that went to the university’s committee.

231

CECILIA: Right. And there were more students on the sub-committee than
there were on the full committee. A lot of MSA students. And, of course, the
full committee couldn’t go through 125 applications, so we made that initial
screening. So, the 10 would go to the full committee, and that would be
narrowed further to, say, 3 to 5 finalists. From those finalists, I would bring
them in for a pre-proposal meeting. I would give them the RFP. They would
then go back and work on the proposal, and then–say, 2 to 3 months later–
they would come back. Of course, we paid for the proposal, travel expenses
and all of that. Then they would come in and present the proposal to the full
committee. The full committee would vote on the one they favored the most.
Then I would enter into the contract negotiations.

SANDRA: That works very well.

CECILIA: The downside to all of that is that a lot of leading artists do not
need to go through all of that. There are artists who know how to play the
public art process and they know how to work the system.

SANDRA: Did that mean, then, that more of your artists were experienced
artists, fairly well-known nationally? Or were they well-known in your area?

CECILIA: We got some of those.

SANDRA: I like seeing the opportunity for local artists to get a chance to
show what they can do.

CECILIA: I agree. Going back to best practices–I think that including local
artists to some degree in some of the projects is critical. Because you get a
lot of local buy-in. And you have to have that. What I meant about that is,
there are artists who always apply who you see over and over again
responding to these RFQ’s. And they are not always the people that are
doing, the gallery. It is just a different brand. I think I got a little bit of both.

SANDRA: Did you have any kind of temporary art at times? Or was it
primarily a permanent kind of collection?

CECILIA: Because it was coming out of the construction project, it was–
most of it was–permanent. And I really didn’t have time. I really wanted to do
some temporary.
232

SANDRA: Well, you sound like you were the one person there that was
doing all the work.

CECILIA: I spoke to students about possibly helping me put together some
temporary public art projects. But that never materialized.

SANDRA: It may in time, as it grows.

CECILIA: With our projects, they had to be engineered. And they had to
go through an architectural review. Everybody had to have insurance to
come on campus to work.

SANDRA: Did your funding or your proposals include the cost of
fabrication, installation, and maintenance, in addition to the artist fee?

CECILIA: The budget was all-inclusive. It was kind of a reverse bid
process. The artist knew what the budget was up-front. And he or she would
then design to that, knowing what they needed to make from that. They knew
they had to have insurance. They knew they had to go have their plans field
by a licensed engineer and the fabrication.

SANDRA: How would you describe your public art collection? It sounds
like to me you brought it into the contemporary world starting in the year
2001.

CECILIA: I would say it is probably 75% contemporary and 25% historical.
And those were objects that were on campus before my arrival.

SANDRA: I’m just curious–and I don’t know if this is even a fair question–
when you were making your choices on campus, when you were deciding,
“Well okay, it’s time–we need to do another project,” what would drive that?
That you felt the time and need was ready for a certain area of the campus?
In other words, kind of how did that grow?

CECILIA: It was all driven by the construction. Texas Tech had about $500
million in construction going on in about 2000. And we were in a major
building boom. Every time a new project came on-line, I got in at the very
233

beginning, and I was able to look at blueprints and start looking for artist
opportunity.

SANDRA: That’s pretty good.

CECILIA: It drove me. I didn’t drive it.

SANDRA: You must be kind of homesick?

CECILIA: Yes–that is an astute observation. I did it for six years.
I was ready for a break.

SANDRA: What is your background? Were you an artist yourself?

CECILIA: My undergrad degree was in Fine Arts. Yes, I did my own studio
work. Then I started moving to Art History. Then I worked for the Blanton
Museum of Art at UC Austin for 11 years and got more into the administration
end. And then I got a master’s in Museum Studies with a minor in Marketing
because I became more interested in how to you keep art institutions alive
and thriving.

SANDRA: A curatorial background is of help. But I don’t see where the
curatorial background is helpful here. I’m not sure how that fits in.

CECILIA: I think you are right. I think that there are environments where a
curatorial approach will work. My favorite collection in that nation is the Stuart
Collection, and I think they take a very curatorial approach. But they also
have private funding. It’s a foundation. I think it depends. My goal was
keeping this program alive and building the best collection that we could,
given the environment and the funding source and all of that. If I would have
taken this strictly curatorial approach, there would have been so much
hostility and resentment. I was taking one percent of their money from their
project that they had raised with their donors, and I did whatever I want,
regardless of their input. You can take the curatorial; you can build a really
strong, narrow collection, or one highly defined. Someplace that will work.

SANDRA: That’s true.

234

CECILIA: And there are advantages to that. I just think it depends. You
have to know your climate.

SANDRA: How would you measure the success of your collection-building
program? It sounds to me that it was extremely successful.

CECILIA: I think it was successful. I was very proud of the work that we
were able to bring there. And I do think it is cohesive. It provides a really
valuable educational environment.

SANDRA: It’s been wonderful talking to you. I’m just curious–are you
going to become associated with the same university as your husband, if
possible?

CECILIA: I did a presentation in Chicago last summer, and the campus
architect for UVA was in the audience. And he said, “When you get to town,
please come by and see me.” I did, and we had a very nice meeting. And I
said, “I look forward to hearing from you”–and I haven’t heard from him.
My feelings have been a little hurt. I would love to continue what I was
doing. I’m actually still doing some contract work with Texas Tech and a
private architectural firm. I’m still plugged into Texas Tech, because they
haven’t hired anyone.

SANDRA: Thanks so much. I will keep you in the loop.

CECILIA: I will put the release form in the mail. If there are any follow-up
questions, please call.

[End of interview]

235

Appendix K

Public Art Review
FORECAST Public Artworks
St. Paul, Minnesota

Public Art Review is published twice annual by FORECAST Public
Artworks in St. Paul, Minnesota and is the world’s only journal critically
exploring contemporary public art. Created in 1989, the Review has grown
from a black and white newspaper format with a few hundred readers to a
glossy 100-page magazine with approximately 10,000 readers in all fifty
states and twenty foreign countries.

236

Profile
Jack Becker

Jack Becker is the founder and executive director of Forecast Public Art,
a Twin Cities–based nonprofit organization established in 1978. In 1989, he
established an annual grant program for emerging Minnesota artists and
Public Art Review, the only national journal devoted to the field
(www.publicartreview.org). Becker has also served as a public art consultant
since 1994. In 2007 he received an Award of Excellence from Americans for
the Arts for his contribution to the public art field.
237

Interview with Jack Becker
Editor, Public Art Review
November 28, 2007

SANDRA: I read your article that was on the “Big Ten” that was in Public
Art Review last year. I was interested in knowing how you established these
choices. In other words, what were the criteria for that “ten best”? I would like
to define that a little bit better. Did you write the article?

JACK: Here’s how it worked. It isn’t a piece that we wrote. What we did
was poll members of the Public Art Network list-serve (which it states in the
article at the top of the page). We asked where are the best public-art-on-
campus collections in America? We simply posed that question without
providing too much criteria, because I think there are lots of different criteria
you could use to measure. While somebody might think their program is the
best because of such and such, somebody else might say, “Well, our
program is the best because of this”–for different reasons altogether–but not
necessarily less important reasons.
What we did was, rather than do some scientific evaluation and
measurement device–it was much more informal. We surveyed, via the list-
serve, all of the members of the Public Art Network. This is a list-serve that
participants join who are mainly professionals in the field: people who run
public art programs, people who work within university settings where they
have public-art programs, and artists who have done major commissions at
universities that have public art.
I think there are about 300 people on the list-serve, and we got about 40
responses. What we did was check to see the frequency of how many times,
say, Texas Tech was referenced. Okay, so it is not scientific. We don’t want
this to be held up as…

SANDRA: [interrupts] No, I’m not trying to.

JACK: Alright, good. It is an informal survey that asks people how they felt.
We use in our piece here their quotes and their names under their
nominations. So, for Pratt Institute, New York City, Harriett Senie says, “With
its multitudes of abstract and figurative work, sound sculpture and
arrangements of seating by artists, the Pratt campus is full of sculptures,
surprises–some adhering to buildings, others lying on the ground and one
238

happily ensconced in a tree.” So there is a reason. She is enamored of it.
That doesn’t mean she knows about all the other art-on-campus programs
elsewhere in the country.

SANDRA: I see. Well, I was interested in was how it all got started.

JACK: I assume you’ve read some of the other articles in this issue? And
as you can see, there is no science here. Everybody has their own way of
doing things. What I think is interesting–and I’m glad you are doing this
study–I’m real interested to hear what you learn. Okay? I am interested
because I think the teaching of public art is one of the most critical issues
facing the field. And how is it being taught? And is it being taught by
example, where the people who are learning about it have their hands
involved in it? Or are they simply reading and looking at slides and hearing
lectures?

SANDRA: Yes, I know. I’m very fortunate in that I have an internship with
Carol [Levy], which means I will be working for an on-campus project.
Obviously, I’m just the intern on the project, but I will be able to work on it,
learn how it works, and make some kind of contribution, so for that I’m very
grateful.

JACK: Well, you know, the development of public art in education as a
whole–you could write a whole book on that. It’s woefully behind where it
should be.

SANDRA: How did you get interested in public art?

JACK: Originally? Well, that is a good question. I certainly had a lot of
exposure to it growing up. My parents did a lot of traveling, and we got to see
a lot of art. I grew up in St. Louis where the arch was built. I have a feeling
that that project, just seeing that and growing up in that early time of life–
what cities can do, grandiose things like that–must have had some influence
on me. But I had a combination of visual-arts and theater-arts background. I
found that public art was really a hybrid of the two, and it really worked well
for me to have had some theater background and working with people and
engaging people in developing a project. Then to go into making some
public-art projects of my own when I was in art school and getting out of
school and doing commission work. Then finding myself in a CETA program
239

in the late 1970s that had a job title, “Gallery Director,” and I was told that the
city was the gallery and there were 60 artists in the program. And my job was
to organize exhibits of their work and the library and the government center
and public places. All of a sudden, that became my career opportunity. I
knew that was what I wanted to do. It sort of worked out, and I took to it pretty
well.

SANDRA: Well, you certainly have a wonderful magazine. I enjoy it.

JACK: Well, thanks. We are just getting off the press today with our fall
issues. We are very excited. It’s all about public art and Great Britain and the
British Isles.

SANDRA: Is there anything else you want to say?

JACK: I just want to say I think you can evaluate a school completely
independent of what kind of art they might have on campus, and by the
extent to which they are considering public art as a curriculum topic. Most
schools that are thinking about teaching public art probably have some art on
campus, but the point is, if they are in a city that rich with public art–say, New
York City, or Chicago, or San Francisco–say San Francisco Art Institute–they
don’t have to have art on campus. They are in a city that is filled with art, and
to teach it there would be perfectly logical. I would give them high marks for
being a school that is doing something about public art, but it is not the same
as talking about an art-on-campus collection, which is what this “Big Ten”
survey is really about. And having art on campus is different than teaching
public art, with all the various ways that public art can be taught. But I’m
hoping that the magazine–and the reason we started the magazine was to
provide an educational tool and that it would help inspire and encourage the
teaching of public art, not just at college level, but even younger, and try to
make the writing accessible to an audience maybe even younger than
college age.

SANDRA: Which would be very nice.

JACK: Well, you think about it, we are exposed to public art at a very early
age. Then we don’t find out about it until after when we are out of college?
That’s ridiculous.

240

SANDRA: I agree.

JACK: A lot of teachers who are teaching [in] an art school are stuck in the
old–they are not interested in changing the way they teach. This is a really
gradual revolution that is taking place in education, as teachers come into the
system, the institutions, that know that there is something going on in public
art, and I better include it in my curriculum. And there are finally schools like
USC and a few others that are saying that this is really an important subject
and you can actually have a major in it.

SANDRA: Yes, I’m thrilled that they had this program.

JACK: I think what is interesting is–I don’t know if this is part of your study–
it’s not about art on campus but the teaching of art on campus, the teaching
of public art as curriculum topic and the growth curve that you might be able
to plot of how many schools. My theory is that, like Urban Design, or Urban
Studies as a topic or as a field, 10 years ago there were one or two schools
that had Urban Studies. You look now, there are 50. So what happened
there? Why the growth and interest in studying Urban Studies? I’m hoping
that there is a similar growth curve with public art.

SANDRA: If there is anything else you can think of for me, please let me
know.

JACK: I looked over your survey, and I thought it was real interesting. How
many schools are you planning to interview?

SANDRA: What I was doing was interviewing all the people that were in
the “Top Ten” article. I wanted to get their viewpoint as to what they felt were
the best practices for what they did. I will start interviewing them next week.

JACK: I figured that.

SANDRA: You have been very helpful. You have given me some insight
on, “How did you decide what the ‘Ten Best Collections’ were?”

241

JACK: You are not the only person to ask that question. That one, two
page spread there of the “Top Ten” got more attention for us than almost
anything else we’ve done. We are thinking we should just make up “Top Ten”
things all the time.

SANDRA: Thanks for taking this time. I’ll be in touch with you.

[End of interview]

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this thesis is to identify the best practices used to facilitate on-campus collection building that consistently produce exceptional public art collections at universities in the United States. Research methodology explores how these best practices contribute to effective on-campus collection building and, ultimately, enhance a university s identity. This thesis raises five important issues: (1) What is public art? (2) What does it mean to build a public art collection? (3) How does public art contribute to the university s identity building? (4) How does public art contribute to the relationship between the university and its public space? (5) What are the best practices for forging this relationship through a public art collection?

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Coastal public art: an innovative way to disseminate ocean science

PDF

Collaborative art practice in the public sphere: The death of the artist?

PDF

Reconsideration of permanent percent for art works in the public sphere: a case study of public art commissioned by the community redevelopment agency of the city of Los Angeles

PDF

Swinging the pendulum: dance, gender, reform Judaism, public artmaking

PDF

Interpreting participatory art

PDF

Fostering vital places: public art and the revitalization of the Los Angeles River

PDF

Public art in Chicago's Millennium Park as a model for the new Civic Park in Los Angeles

PDF

Artistic intervention in the Los Angeles urban geography: the art practices of Charles Long, Harry Dodge and Stanya Kahn

PDF

Mejor vida/better life and day-to-day exchanges: Networks of social exchange in contemporary arts practice

PDF

Temporary or permanent? Considering time, memory and history in public art projects

PDF

Examining current U.S. public art trust fund programs for applications in Taiwan: visions for Taiwan 's new public art trust fund

PDF

Sites of resistance: LA Freewaves and inSite reinvent the public sphere

PDF

Alternative art incubators: cultivating collaboration and innovation in Los Angeles public art practices

PDF

Re-creating the city; place-making through public art

PDF

An exploration of leadership capacity building and effective principal practices

PDF

Now. Not now. And now: Toward a feminist critical envisioning of social practice

PDF

Four women, four public art projects, four decades: exploring socially conscious public art and social change

PDF

A plastic picturesque: notions of public as projected through the works of Claes Oldenburg and Andy Warhol

PDF

A commitment to our shared destiny: transformational gardens and a vision of equity

PDF

The kinesthetic citizen: Dance and critical art practices

Asset Metadata

Creator Liljenwall, Sandra Dyer (author)

Core Title Exploring best practices for building a university's public art collection

School School of Fine Arts

Degree Master of Public Art Studies

Degree Program Public Art Studies

Publication Date 04/22/2008

Defense Date 05/01/2008

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag best practices for building on-campus public art,OAI-PMH Harvest,public art collections,university's public art collections

Language English

Advisor Gray, Susan (committee chair), Levy, Caryl (committee member), Owen Driggs, Janet (committee member)

Creator Email liljenwall@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1179

Unique identifier UC1216037

Identifier etd-Liljenwall-20080422 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-66345 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1179 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Liljenwall-20080422.pdf

Dmrecord 66345

Document Type Thesis

Rights Liljenwall, Sandra Dyer

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu