Sculptor threatens to destroy Palais Royal art

[Merlion]

I am having a good laugh out of this story. See last paragraph.

Sculptor threatens to destroy Palais Royal art

Dec 31, 2007. Times.

The artist responsible for one of Paris’s most controversial sculptures – a collection of black and white striped columns in the Palais Royal – has threatened to destroy it because, he says, the State has let it go to ruin.

In an outburst that has embarrassed the Government, Daniel Buren said that his celebrated work had fallen victim to “state vandalism”.

He said that the 260 columns were crumbling, the lights meant to illuminate them broken and the fountain he had put in the courtyard had run dry.

... The artist said that he had been pressing the Culture Ministry to repair his sculpture, officially called Les Deux Plateaux, but commonly known as “Buren’s columns”. ...

In response, Christine Albanel, the Culture Minister, said that the Palais Royal would undergo a €14 million (£10 million) [$30m] restoration, with up to €3.2 million to be spent on the courtyard and the sculpture. Work on the columns is to begin in 2009 but Buren’s supporters claim that that may be too late.

Le Figaro said that Buren may have scored an own goal by threatening to demolish his work. His critics, who denounce the sculpture as an anathema when it was erected in 1986, could take him at his word in a bid to get rid of “the eyesore”, the newspaper said.

[allenring]

Gads let the guy destroy the installation, save the city money. 'Course doesn't that get back to the Atlas Shrugged issue by Ayn Rand? I would think this artist has no claim to ownership of the art and has no right to determine its fate.

Something that has been their since 1986 is far too long. Personally I think the things are silly looking and very dated. In a larger sense I am all for public art having a shelf life of no more than a decade.

I really really get tired of looking at the same sculpture in front of the major museums in DC decade after decade. Make room for something new and interesting. Give a new artist a shot. How can a thirty year old abstract hold anyones interest? How can it have any relavence?

We have a throw away society. We constantly throw away the old and replace with the new and improved. If we do not throw away we renovate, repaint, replant, modify and so on. Why should public art be any different?

[Merlion]

This is the first time I've come across a sculptor who threatens to destroy his public sculpture because it is not well looked after. And this is after so many years.

Perhaps he is still the owner. If Palais Royal is the owner, what he is threatening is destroying somebody's property.

If he is not the owner, he may have artist's right to take it back if the owner is scrapping it.

[allenring]

Seems like the artist is just raising a stink because the pieces have not been maintained, which tells me that he is not the owner. The work "crumbling" was used so Ill bet the things are cast concrete which would be difficult to repair and nearly imposable to move. Easer to tare them down and put in a parking lot, plaza or some new art that is not an "eye sore".

[grommet]

How can a thirty year old abstract hold anyones interest? How can it have any relavence?

Is this the hole you're looking to dig?

[evaldart]

I can think of many aging abstracts that continue and continue to nourish my future and aim my efforts in the direction of eventual immortality.

[Merlion]

I now have more in-depth details about this episode.

Apparently this artist Daniel Buren is "one of France's most internationally acclaimed modern artists", and "the winner of the 2007 Praemium Imperiale, the Japan-sponsored Nobel Prize of three-dimensional art."

Here are more detailed information concerning the 3-D art installation, and the damage and neglect that it has suffered.

"The sculpture is officially called Les Deux Plateaux (The Two Levels). It has a subterranean section, covered by metal grilles, through which water is supposed to flow merrily, illuminated by floodlights, to reflect the columns above.

"Eight years ago, one of the floodlights came loose. It was shoved back into place with a lump of concrete. All of the other lights fused. They have never been repaired. Seven years ago, the running water packed up for reasons unknown. It has never been restored.

"The underground sections of the sculpture have since filled up with rubbish and coins, cast hopefully by tourists into a non-functioning fountain. The columns had also begun to look grey and tatty. They have recently been polished, for only the second time in two decades."

The location of the installation is prominent, and significant to the issue at stake. This below is what the artist said.

"Would they show only half a work of art in a museum?" Buren asks. "No other fountain in Paris has been left like that, without water. Six months, I could have accepted, but for seven years? Frankly, any pavement in the capital is better maintained."

His fury is compounded by the fact that the Culture Ministry, responsible for the upkeep of his work, has its gilt-encrusted headquarters in the Palais Royal. For seven years, successive culture ministers, and their senior officials, have looked out of their lovely, full-length, french windows on to a half-abandoned public monument and done nothing about it."

"If the Culture Ministry can ignore something, literally, under its nose", Buren says, "imagine what is happening to modern, state-commissioned artworks elsewhere? There is widespread negligence towards contemporary art [in France]," he said.

The whole episode is complex. About the legal and moral right to the artist's work, this excerpt below is informative.

Legally, Buren has a right to demand that the columns be dismantled. Under French law, an artist has a "right to respect for the unity of his works ". Buren has said that he would prefer to see the columns, lights and channels scrapped rather than left half-abandoned. This seems, however, to have been a clever first volley in a campaign to generate public interest in the plight of his work.

"An artist has moral rights over his works," he said. "That's what I am fighting for. [I will go] to court, if necessary. Demolishing the columns would cost as much as restoring them. That would be by far the most absurd outcome. I hope that it doesn't come to that."

All the above quotes and excepts are taken from this Jan 5, 2008 review below.

Monument to the french malaise?

[Andrew Werby]

Wow, I would have thought that artist's moral rights would get a little more support here. If a municipality commissions a piece of art, one would think they'd have a certain responsibility to maintain it. A private landowner can't let his property go to seed without getting in trouble with municipal authorities (at least where I live, which isn't in France, admittedly). I don't see why the same thing shouldn't apply to public works of art, and the language of the Berne Convention (to which France is a signatory):

"(1) Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation."

The aesthetic merit (or lack thereof) of the piece is beside the point - the govenment presumably considered that when commissioning it, and allowing it to deteriorate clearly won't improve it. On some issues which concern us all, don't you think we should put our petty jealousies aside, and speak with one voice in support of art and artists?

Andrew Werby
www.unitedartworks.com

[GlennT]

Perhaps the French government is being far-sighted by observing the trends...piles of construction rubbish as art, Andy Goldsworthy's works that decay and vanish, etc...or perhaps they view it as performance art...this is how the fountain performs over time when left alone to interact with the environment....perhaps they view the work as a metaphor...the black and white stripes are like a prison...the limitations we place upon ourselves which keep us imprisoned....nature performs its selfless service in breaking down the prison walls and liberating the captive columns of the mind....or perhaps the cultural ministers are too busy attending to their cultural affairs, or liasons, or....

[Merlion]

Am I right in this observation below?

Paris has in past centuries been a world center for art. Now the world center for contemporary art has moved to New York. Next in line is London. Compared with these two cities, and in spite of the presence of Centre Pompidou, Paris is much less interested in contemporary art.

[allenring]

I am missing something here, is public art supposed to be different from public architecture? Sure the art should be maintained just as a public building should be maintained. However when a building is neglected for what ever reason it is often cheaper to tear it down and get a shiny new building.

But if the building is historically significant the public sector finds the funds to renovate and protect it. Would the same concept then apply to this sculpture? The preservation of the historic building involved a committee making a decision about the historic and aesthetic merits of the building, the building had to qualify on the basis of merit to be preserved.

Is it being claimed that just because this work is "art" that it should be maintained in perpetuity? Why should this thing be different than a public building? Does it have some significance other than the fact that it is art, seems to be no mention of that. I say it is time for a little selective urban renewal.

[Primroy]

Originally Posted by allenring

Gads let the guy destroy the installation, save the city money. 'Course doesn't that get back to the Atlas Shrugged issue by Ayn Rand? I would think this artist has no claim to ownership of the art and has no right to determine its fate.

Something that has been their since 1986 is far too long. Personally I think the things are silly looking and very dated. In a larger sense I am all for public art having a shelf life of no more than a decade.

I really really get tired of looking at the same sculpture in front of the major museums in DC decade after decade. Make room for something new and interesting. Give a new artist a shot. How can a thirty year old abstract hold anyones interest? How can it have any relavence?

We have a throw away society. We constantly throw away the old and replace with the new and improved. If we do not throw away we renovate, repaint, replant, modify and so on. Why should public art be any different?

Sculpture is a record and should be preserved for posterity. We are not talking dress lengths here. Can you imagine a world where every Greek marble, Roman bronze, and Egyptian monument had been meticulously preserved?