Is David suitable viewing for all ages?
Today I sat through a long meeting of the Glendale, California Arts and Culture Commission. They have worked in concert with so called "Risk Management" attorneys to develop (after almost five years of saying that a 'policy' is in the works) a set of guidelines for artists who may want to exhibit their work in a Public Space here in Glendale. One Commissioner, Razmik Gregorian, objected to one point of the policy: that submitted artwork be 'suitable for audiences of all ages.' This became a point of contention for Mr. Gregorian. A discussion then ensued regarding whether or not Michelangelo's David would be considered appropriate for display in City owned properties. His objection to this point was overruled by the other commissioners.
A draconian list of requirements that artists who may want to install in Glendale, included a laundry list of inappropriate works of art, definitions of pornography including whether the artwork would incite to riot or unlawful behavior.
The whole policy (that was eventually approved by the A and C Commission) is supposed to guide artists to want to show in Glendale. What it does is impose on anyone who may be interested in pursuing a goal of Art for Glendale a set of "rules" that are outlined in a six page list, mostly of restrictions, to protect the City from issues arising from the decapitation of a rambunctuous kid who may knock over a misplaced sculpture to someone being injured by a falling painting. Do I think this is ridiculous? Well, in a word: yes.
We have common sense to guide us but the highly paid staff of attorneys working for the City needs to make sure that nothing offensive or challenging or thought provoking or sexually suggestive or otherwise artful in a contemporary sense will ever be installed inside the walls of a Civic Building. By pre-censoring anyone who may be foolish enough to ever want to show in a public building, they have, effectively, solved their problem. No one will apply, nor should they.
The City also wants to charge artists $100 to $500 for the privilege of showing and want for artists to have their own insurance to cover, not the artist, but to indemnify the City from imagined harm that may come from the art exhibit.
There are thoughtful commissioners on the Glendale Arts and Culture Commission. Director Cindy Cleary is thoughtful and fair. That they agreed to this draconian (I do love that word!) set of rules set forth by Risk Management Experts is a shame. If any artist applies to what may in some distant future be a Request for Proposals by the City, be forewarned that the list of requirements basically will restrict you to something nice that may go with a sofa or maybe brighten up a bathroom. Any art with substance or teeth of any kind is not for public consumption in a City Owned Facility.
I yelled a little at the Commission today. They get it that artists should be supported and encouraged. Mr. Gregorian was vocal on that topic and should be applauded. But, what it comes down to is that the excuses that the men in suits come back with is "that's the standard way we do it."
That the City of Glendale is pretty much anti-art seems clear now. A wonderful presentation by an Arts for L.A. representative mostly was nodded at by the commissioners today. These arts advocates got the LAUSD to agree unanimously that an arts curriculum is a vital part of education in Los Angeles. In Glendale we have six pages of 'rules' that no self respecting artist or any person, for that matter should ever have anything to do with.
Does anyone with any clout have anything to say about this? I sadly doubt that hardly anyone really much cares.
Michael Sheehan
Adams Hill
Day Seven
