Ranch Golfers Say Sculpture Out of Bounds

Diane Tietjen was well into her round at the Rancho Santa Fe golf course when she saw it.

Seemingly overnight, a bright red steel sculpture had appeared on the patio of a sprawling private estate just a chip shot off the fairway.

Some beholders might see beauty in the graceful sweep of curves, the dramatically teetering boxes, the massive split-steel shaft. But to Tietjen, an avid golfer, the thing looked downright out of bounds.

“The first time I saw it, I thought it was a piece of equipment of some sort,” Tietjen recalled. “It looks like an oil derrick. A small, very bright oil derrick . . . It’s really out of character. It just doesn’t fit in.”

Along with several other residents, Tietjen complained to the Rancho Santa Fe Assn., the governing body in this exclusive, 10-square-mile community of million-dollar Spanish-style homes and tony mansions. The rash of gripes, most of them from golfers who have gotten an up-close view of the sculpture, has prompted the association board to schedule a hearing next month to consider what to do.

While some neighborhoods might open their arms to such an ambitious work of art, produced by acclaimed San Francisco sculptor Fletcher Benton, critics on the Ranch say the 15-foot-tall piece is simply out of place along the sylvan expanses of their eucalyptus-enshrouded hamlet.

Violation of Covenant?

They contend the decision by homeowners Frank and Lee Goldberg to commission the sculpture, dubbed “Balanced/Unbalanced F2,” and place it at the brow of a lush back yard lawn is in sharp violation of the spirit if not the letter of the community’s protective covenant.

A collection of strict rules adopted in 1927, the covenant is administered by the seven-member association and regulates everything from permissible landscaping to a resident’s right to hang laundry in public view.

“We’ve had the covenant for over 60 years, and the majority of the people in Rancho Santa Fe moved here because of it,” said Dr. David Baker, a board member. “It makes this a unique community within this country.”

The association’s legal adviser has ruled that the welded-steel sculpture qualifies as a minor construction project, thus opening the door for offended Ranch residents to petition for the upcoming hearing to decide the art work’s fate.

Board President Brewster Arms said about a half dozen written complaints have been received from Ranch homeowners, ranging from gripes that the modernistic sculpture hardly fits the bucolic atmosphere of the place to remarks that it is “grotesque.”

“There are a lot of people who think it’s great, those who don’t like it and probably the great bulk who don’t give a damn one way or another,” Arms said.

Much like the community itself, the association board appears somewhat split over exactly what to do.

Though they appreciate the important issues of property rights and artistic freedom of expression inherent in the debate, some leaders suggest that the Goldberg’s unfenced back yard is essentially a public view corridor near the heavily used golf course, where golfers play more than 45,000 rounds each year.

“Every individual should have a right to express their own artistic views,” said Baker, emphasizing that he will wait to take a position until the hearing. “However, when that artistic view impacts others, that’s when we have to take the opinion of others into account.

Satellite Dish Comparison

“I personally like it. I think it’s a beautiful piece of sculpture,” Baker added. “But I don’t think everyone should be forced to look at it if they don’t want to.”

He compares the situation to the dilemma posed by the numerous television satellite dishes scattered throughout the Ranch. Although the dishes are permitted, homeowners are required to hide them from public view.

Baker contends the sculpture should be approached in much the same manner, suggesting that one possible alternative might be to screen the piece with a ring of trees between the house and the golf course.

Others have suggested it be repainted a softer hue or moved to another part of the property farther from the golf course and a bridle path popular among horseback riders, strollers and joggers.

Arms, who is also taking pains to remain neutral until the June 15 meeting, agreed that the board is faced with a tough dilemma. “If we just went ahead and exempted all artwork, someone could do anything at all,” he noted. “It could be something obscene and prominent.”

Tietjen, meanwhile, said she and other residents troubled by the sculpture have nothing personal against the Goldbergs, but simply feel the stark art work doesn’t mesh with the couple’s house, an attractive ensemble of wood and stone with a dramatic tile-and-glass roof line, or the lush, open expanse of golf course.

“It’s a sore thumb,” Tietjen said. “Maybe it would fit down in Del Mar at the beach with a real modern house, but this is not harmonious. It looks like a piece of playground equipment.”

Moreover, critics worry the arrival of the brightly colored sculpture might be only the beginning, prompting a proliferation of outdoor art work commissioned by residents of a community rife with millionaires, men and women who could easily afford the steep price tags of such extravagances.

Some Scoff at Complaints

“We want to keep this area looking really nice,” Tietjen said. “If people came here and painted their house bright purple, that wouldn’t be acceptable either. The ambiance of the Ranch is quite important and that sculpture just doesn’t fit in.”

Others, however, scoff at the idea that a healthy dose of public art would hurt the Ranch.

“I don’t see anything in our covenant that give the board the right to criticize and regulate personal artworks,” said Paul Thomas, a board member and former owner of an art gallery in Rancho Santa Fe. “I don’t know how in the world we as a governing body can subjectively decide what outside art is appropriate and what isn’t.

“It’s much too subjective, and it also deals, in a very private way, with the rights our citizens have for personal expression. I would only draw the line at something that is not in good taste.”

Although he readily agrees the angular sculpture contrasts sharply with its woodsy surroundings, Thomas noted that such disparities are the very essence of art, evoking intense reactions from an audience.

“To the extent that it is provocative, it’s kind of what art is all about,” Thomas said. “It’s supposed to be provocative. Not offensive, but provocative. So I think it probably does a pretty good job.”

Moreover, he questioned just how many Ranch homeowners are truly offended by the sculpture, noting that the board has only received a handful of letters from a community with more than 4,000 residents.

“My feeling is it’s much ado about nothing,” Thomas said. “It’s not like the community is coming down against public sculpture or art. There’s no hue and cry. There is is just a very, very small minority of people who have raised an eyebrow over it.

“I hate to see us try to legislate through our covenant what major artworks people can have outside their homes,” he added. “It’s kind of like burning books. Displaying public art, I think, is an inalienable right our citizens have. It should be encouraged instead of discouraged.”

The Goldbergs, meanwhile, are assuming a low profile during the hubbub and have refused to comment to the press about the dispute. But the artist whose work is causing all the commotion, Fletcher Benton, doesn’t mince words.

Question of Color

“It is really silly,” said Benton, a retired art professor from San Jose State University whose works have been exhibited throughout the world. “I think it’s ridiculous. I’ve never heard of anything so ridiculous.

Noting that many of the complaints seem to have centered on the color of the sculpture, Benton argued that “there are people who would bitch about it if it was any color. There are just people who don’t want sculpture around a house, I suppose . . . They should be thankful I didn’t paint it pink.”

Benton, who has several other pieces at homes in Rancho Santa Fe, also said he sees a danger that the dispute could put “a choker” on the public exhibition of fine art, popularizing restrictions typically applied only to buildings.

“Sculpture and other art works are not permanent structures, they’re not something attached to the earth like a foundation,” he said. “What they’re suggesting just isn’t in the American spirit . . . Our country is measured by its cultural arts, not just its bank accounts. This is outrageous.”