Since August, downtown Seattle’s business district has been adorned with a series of stark banners, black on one side and white on the other. The 79 banners ask a series of questions about wealth and poverty, privilege and denial. One banner reads, “Are you a member of a country club.” On the other side, “Ask yourself: why are you excluded.” Another says, “Did you attend private school. Was it Ivy League.” on one side, and “Do you know anyone who can’t read or write.” on the other. All the statements are deliberately made without question marks to leave them open and drifting.
These banners were created by Los Angeles artist Daniel Martinez as a part of the “In Public: Seattle ’91” project to celebrate the Dec. 5 opening of the new Seattle Art Museum in downtown. Thirty-six artists from around the world have donated works to the project, but Martinez’s has, by far, created the most controversy. Less than one third of the cost of the banners came from the city-the rest came from private sources.
Although there is considerable public opinion in favor of the banners, downtown merchants want them removed. According to a protest letter from the Downtown Seattle Association, local merchants wanted a “colorful, cheerful and enjoyable display, as is Seattle’s tradition.” Instead, the people of the city, which has one of the largest homeless populations in the nation, got a political display which forces them to confront their own social inequities. Despite the protests of the business community, the city of Seattle is committed to keeping the banners up.
Another, more bizarre, controversy has erupted in San Francisco recently over a plan to convert an entire downtown block into a permanent piece of art. Merchants and civic leaders there are very supportive of the project, except for four proposed steel arches over the street which would carry a five-word phrase. And what is the
offending phrase? “This is a nice neighborhood.” They feel that the city will get a bad reputation the first time someone gets mugged or attacked under the sign. The artists chose the expression after hearing those same civic leaders say it repeatedly during planning meetings for the project. The future of the installation is still in limbo until both sides can agree on the wording.
For the next three weeks, the hills through the Grapevine here in Southern California will be dotted with thousands of 20-foot tall yellow umbrellas, courtesy of Belgian-born artist Christo. There is also a concurrent installation in Japan of blue umbrellas. Unlike the other two projects, the umbrellas have not drawn any significant controversy, although some people question the purpose of Christo’s entirely self-financed $26 million installation. In fact, the umbrellas have gotten a far more favorable reaction than the other two works. Thousands of tourists are flocking to the Grapevine from all over the world to see the umbrellas, and so far, two couples have even gotten married under them.
The hoopla surrounding these three works has raised the question of public versus private art. Should public artworks be made acceptable to the majority of the people, or should they be more confrontational? Should tax-supported work simply echo the sentiments of the establishment, or should the artists be allowed to think for themselves? Should there be public artwork at all, or should art be confined to the museums? Should public installations, such as banners or umbrellas, be considered art at all?
As Seattle Post-Intelligencer art critic Regina Hackett said, in discussing Martinez’s banners, “It’s odd no one ever questions the art status of even the most inept and cliched landscape or figure painting. But as soon as art hits the streets, people want to know what it’s doing there, brazenly asserting itself in the flow of daily life.”
Truth is, most people do not want to be confronted with tough questions in their everyday life. They would rather drift along, unthinking, day after day. Like the Downtown Seattle Association, they want a “colorful, cheerful and enjoyable display” that does not rouse them from their comfortable existence. When they do want to see art, they prefer to see it on a museum wall, where they know they can leave it at the end of the day and not have to think about it ever again.
Fortunately, there are people and groups, like the city of Seattle, who still believe in the importance of artistic expression in our everyday lives. Unfortunately, they are a minority and their voices are easily drowned out by the screams of the more powerful and less tolerant majority.
Journalism operations manager at the University of La Verne. Production manager and business manager of the Campus Times.
