Art and Architecture Are Not at War

As a member of the Culver City Arts Committee, I read with much interest Christopher Knight’s commentary on Culver City’s City Council decision to consider under certain circumstances that the architectural design of a building itself might satisfy the percent-for-art requirement (“When Culver City Asks ‘Is It Art?’ It Misses the Point,” Calendar, April 20).

The Arts Program is new in Culver City and is just getting started. A lot of the art that has been commissioned or purchased is awaiting installation after the ongoing Downtown Charette and City Hall building projects are finished. When these projects are completed some wonderful art is going to start sprouting in Culver City.

The issue of architecture in art was the subject of lengthy discussion on the Arts Committee, which advises the City Council. The issue was raised by developer Fred Smith who has built some wonderful projects in Culver City with a world-famous architect named Eric Owen Moss, who has been recognized both in the architecture and arts community for his innovative and creative work. Smith wished to avoid making an additional contribution for the Arts Program, because he felt he was hiring an artist to design his buildings. Most members of the Arts Committee, on the other hand, felt that letting the architect’s work be the art contribution would open a Pandora’s box of problems. The fear was that every architect, not just architects of Moss’ caliber, would proclaim their work was art.

Defining art is nearly impossible, because art is an evolving concept. Art is really only a cultural dialogue that has been ongoing throughout history and which consistently changes. People first questioned whether Andy Warhol’s paintings of soup cans were art. Today there is no question.

Architecture, if not art, is at least a cousin to art, because it is part of the cultural dialogue. When one looks at the work of architects such as Frank Lloyd Wright, Frank Gehry, or Eric Moss, one can only conclude that these people are doing more than just building, but are interested in substance, form, materials and shape, the basic subject matter of much of 20th-Century sculpture. The fact those shapes also carry a function may or may not disqualify it as art in some people’s minds.

As a lawyer and the sole member of the committee who thought that an architect’s work of Moss’ caliber could be recognized as art, I thought we could promulgate guidelines that would define the artistic use of architecture, limiting it to work by a select few architects of unique artistic accomplishment and reputation and to construction of unusually significant quality.

I was, however, unable to win support for this position from the Arts Committee. For example, Dave Pastor, a very talented architect on the committee, argued that architecture was not art, and that if we allowed architects to qualify as artists for the project, we would be opening a Pandora’s box that could gut the arts program. The Arts Committee members’ arguments were so persuasive that I switched over and the committee’s vote was unanimous that architects be disqualified as the artist for any project they worked on as architect.

The City Council ignored our advice, partially due to a breakdown of communications with us (which has been recognized by both the council and the committee, and which shall be remedied). I believe the City Council wishes to go cautiously forward on a select case-by-case basis and does not intend to open the floodgates.

I am sure they are looking to the Arts Committee to propose strict guidelines, and I expect the guidelines to be very, very select. As always, acquiring art is an aesthetic act of selection, and if some of that art happens to be the buildings in Culver City, so be it.

Culver City’s efforts should be applauded. Culver City is a small town trying to make a commitment to culture.

Although I think Knight had some very relevant comments, many of which I agree with, I think he was falling prey to hyperbole when he said, the next thing you know, Culver City will start deciding who is or is not a human being. Art and architecture are not at war, and I remember not too long ago when photography or ceramics were not considered art. The only problem and job we have is selecting the good from the bad. Art history is the final judge.