Home › Opinion › Opinion Columnists
Thomas: Hardly enhancing 'new art city' image
Works displayed at county center offend some taxpayers --again
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS
More from Opinion Columnists
You may recall the bad-old days, when we sometimes arrived at the theater in the middle of the movie — and then we also left in the middle of the next showing, when someone said, "This is where we came in."
Well, this is where we all came in — some years ago — with a hassle over art at the Ventura County Government Center. The scenario goes like this: The county hangs something on the wall, some taxpayers get offended and the county takes it down.
The last time this happened, as best I recall, the offensive artworks depicted such public issues as AIDS and war. Things some people preferred not to think about and, certainly, not to be reminded of where they went to pay their taxes.
This time, the offensive artwork depicted one of nature's most inspired creations — the human female body.
The Ventura County Arts Council selected 40 pieces to put on display, we're told, while rejecting some nudes. But when viewers objected to two other works, they were taken down.
The two offensive pieces were a marble sculpture of a woman's buttocks, called "Luscious," and a tile mosaic called "Ambrosia," depicting a nymph's breasts. Here in River City, we don't tolerate artworks depicting female fannies or bare bosoms.
But this isn't censorship, at least not according to Monica Nolan, president of the arts council. Nolan told The Star's Kathleen Wilson this is simply getting rid of art that's not "suitably appropriate" for a government building visited by 1,000 people every day, including some who evidently are rather easily offended.
Whatever the reason, this incident does little to enhance the ambition of Ventura officials to have this town seen as "new art city." If anything, the incident resurrects a one-time City Council member's regretful observation that Ventura had a "cow-town" image.
(For anyone who tuned in late, that's why one annual Ventura race was named "The Cow Town Mile.")
As regular readers of this column know (all three of them), it's a recurring contention here that government should just stay out of art entirely — and this latest fuss is a fine example of why. Whenever government gets involved in art, government winds up defining art — and, inevitably, that definition becomes a form of de facto censorship. Art that isn't anointed as "acceptable" is, by implication, unacceptable.
In their attempts to make this "new art city," Ventura officials will have a lot of defining to do — since they're spending millions of dollars to build living and working quarters for artists downtown. Which raises the question, for which artists, in particular?
For those who already live in Ventura? For those who don't live here, but would like to live here, with the help of a city subsidy?
And how is the decision to be made about exactly which artists are worthy of this largess? If they depict female fannies and bare bosoms — or anything else that offends some taxpayers — are they automatically disqualified?
Meanwhile, the same city officials are imposing a $1.49 monthly "fee" — whatever you do, don't call it a "tax" — on 911 service, which most folks consider as basic as government services get. And, inevitably, The Star is getting letters to the editor wondering why the money being spent on art projects isn't being used to pay for 911 services.
For current city officials, the pat answer is, that money "can't" be spent on anything but art because a previous City Council imposed that restriction. The money comes from what is often called a "tourist tax" — the city surcharge on hotel room rentals. A previous council majority mandated a portion of that money to go into a separate fund that only can be used to finance art projects, and not used for such basics as 911 service.
The current council majority could change that mandate at any time, but is hardly likely to do so. If they did, the "art versus 911" debate would come up every year at budget time. This way, it's much handier to continue justifying the arts money by saying, "We can't spend it any other way."
If government shouldn't be funding art, how should art be funded? The way it had been for centuries — through patrons and sponsors of the arts, and through the sale of artworks and tickets to attend performance arts.
As a prime example, take Fandango Americana, a gala event taking place today, from 4 to 11 p.m., at Bell Arts Factory, 432 N. Ventura Ave. There will be music by a variety of local bands, food catered by local restaurants and, of course, plenty of art.
Featured will be works by the artists working at Art City, a longtime, funky landmark in the Ventura Avenue area. The event is designed to raise funds for Art City, and a portion of the proceeds from the sale of artworks will go to that end.
We've been assured that even the tickets are works of art worth saving.
Another arts fundraiser, titled "Night of Passion," is coming up, where works by 40 local artists will be auctioned off for the benefit of the Ventura Music Festival — on Saturday, March 29, at 5:30 p.m., at the Ventura Beach Marriott. For more information, go online to http://www.venturamusicfestival.org.
When it comes to supporting the arts financially, I'm proud to note that this newspaper is a longtime, regular sponsor of a whole array of cultural events, from theater performances to musical concerts. And unlike the involvement of government in arts funding, to the best of my knowledge, The Star has never told the artists who enjoy that support what kind of shows to stage or what kind of music to perform.
For thinking that government should leave art to the artists and sponsors of the arts, a guy can get himself dismissed as another Archie Bunker. (Remember him? He may still be around in reruns.) But I've clocked countless hours at concerts, galleries and museums and have enjoyed most of it immensely.
And, I'm rarely offended by much artwork except, of course, for artists whose paintings are both undecipherable and unappetizing, and composers who mistake mere dissonant noise for music.
They should all be granted government funding, just so the funding can be cut off.
— Chuck Thomas is a Star columnist whose column appears on the Opinion pages each Saturday. His e-mail address is star4cthomas@earthlink.net.
Posted by del on March 8, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Cow Town"...must be a reference to the old Taylor Ranch feed lot west of the river.
I grew in the county hearing Ventura called, 'Bakersfield by the Sea'. But we were all oil-field-trash from Oklahoma.
Either way, censorship is an insidious evil, the refuge of those not capable of appreciating how another sees 'things'. But then I enjoy Breton, Magritte, Dali and Ernst.
Posted by Wendy_Halderman on March 8, 2008 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Thomas correctly notes that government often gets into trouble with taxpayers when it purchases specific art work or provides its venues for exhibition, as it reads as a direct endorsement of the art. As much as we hate the word censorship, government can NOT legitimately appear to endorse the full range of human thought and artistic expression without undermining its very purpose.
The best thing government can do to promote the arts is to simply help provide the venues, events, and physical and economic environments in which all artists can flourish, where a wide range of aesthetic expression can be both nurtured and appreciated. The market (i.e., which art succeeds and which does not) will take care of itself.
Posted by jimluttjohann on March 8, 2008 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For clarification, the writer has confused Transient Occupancy Tax or TOT with public art funding which is based on a fee assessed on certain CIP projects. While TOT is charged to visitors staying in Ventura hotels, those funds go to the City's general fund and therefore do fund in part programs like Cultural Affairs grants, there is not in place at this time a tax on tourists that specifically funds Ventura's arts.
The City's cultural plan completed a couple of years ago is entitled Creating California's New Art City and includes a recommendation of possibly enhancing City funds for the arts by increasing the rate of TOT charged. The curent rate is 10%. An increase of 2% (as an example) would add approximately $800,000 to city coffers that could, if so dedicated, fund arts activities, promotion and marketing as well as possibly growing the funding of programs like the Cultural Affairs grants.
To establish such an increase in taxes would require a ballot initiative which recent history shows us is difficult to get passed by Ventura voters.
I, for one, Chuck think you have way more than three readers, but then I am only the third to comment on your letter.
Thank you for speaking up on behalf of Ventura's artists and freedom of expression. I think the liklihood is that a generous few members of our community will continue to be the primary funders of the arts in Ventura for the time being.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on March 8, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, Chuck, looks like you've gone up 33% in readership...a fourth reader!
one thing I'm curious about...why does everyone assume it was a woman's "Lucious" butt...are we really sure it wasn't some fat male plumbers butt sticking out there? You know..the kind with a butt crack you could toss quarters into?
I think you're second reader...Wendy has it right about what the government should do about art.
Of course, one could argue that the Government Center could be one of those appropriate venues for display of art too....ooh, this starts to make my head hurt....
For cryin' out loud...it was a sculpture of a FAT BUTT...like, no one out there has a butt? Let me guess, nobody has ever turned around at a mirror to look at...egads! THEIR BUTT??
Dogs and cats walk around (never mind farm animals...perhaps we should not go there) and they all SHOW THEIR BUTTS!! OMIGAWD!! It's like a festival of BUTTS!
Almost sounds like performance art doesn't it?? Oh, we should get started on that...but to me, the most obscene art in Ventura is that dang "Bus to Home" shelter, it cost a bunch of money and does a lousy job of sheltering. What a waste..it looks awful too! And I guess the paint is peeling too...
Maybe you'll get lucky and fifth reader will add to this thread!
Posted by Carl on March 8, 2008 at 10:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
At least you're open enough to say this is an OPINION column because clearly you haven't done your journalism homework. Or, you have carefully chosen to only state the facts that fit your bias. You have placed a hodgepodge of unrelated issues under a big "art topic" umbrella.
First of all, the exhibition space at the Ventura County Hall of Administration, where artworks were taken out of the show because of nudity, is overseen by the County Board of Supervisors (not Ventura City Council). The show was hung by the Ventura County Art Council for the Ventura Music Festival, the fundraiser which you later go on to promote in this column. (Am I the only one confused by you yet?)
Secondly, City of Ventura public art funding is NOT paid for by hotel tax (TOT), but 2% of eligible CIP projects that have a variety of funding sources and specified uses. Its true, you can't pay for public safety using CIP restricted funds. For example, CIP projects funded by Gas Tax funds can't go to public safety. They pay for streetscape improvements. 2% of eligible Gas Tax Funded CIP projects go to public art for streetscape public art projects. This is a common and flexible public art funding model used by cities across the US.
While I could make a series of sound rational arguments about why public funding for the arts is important - from academic achievement to economic impact to telling history - I know it would fall on your deaf ears.
Instead, I challenge all of your 5 readers to envision the world you promote - one in which the arts are not valued by our society. Maybe we'd have a few more pennies in our pocket that we can either spend on the military or, if we really save, we could go to Europe to look at all of their fabulous publicly funded art that we don't have.
Why don't we go a little further with your logic... maybe we shouldn't fund public libraries either and just rely on capitalism for books. My kids can do all their homework and research at Borders or Barnes and Noble based on the bestsellers. And yes, let's just do away with NPR and PBS and rely on Time Warner, Bloomberg and all the media conglomerates for our news. Brilliant!
No public funding for the arts means no Lincoln Memorial, no Father Serra, no Vietnam Memorial, no murals, no public sculpture, and no public museums - just to name a few examples. That is not the world I want to live in.
And, to your point about artists, I'm rarely offended by writers, except for those that make undecipherable, unappetizing, and dissonant arguments such as yours.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.