An e-mail to Iowa State Representative Scott Raecker
To: scott.raecker@legis.state.ia.us
From: The Quiet Man
Subject: Your appalling and shortsighted proposal to sell Jackson Pollock's "Mural"
Representative Raecker,
I wanted you to know how saddened and appalled I am by House Study Bill 84, requiring The University of Iowa to sell Jackson Pollock's "Mural." I think the proposal is shortsighted and sickening in light of the incredible cultural asset the painting gives to the state.
Your suggestion is not in line with the principles of Iowa. Peggy Guggenheim gave the state an amazing and influential piece of American art and history, and the UI Museum of Art has given all Iowans an opportunity to discover and appreciate it. It is a one of a kind treasure of Americana handed down from generation to generation, like my dad's rare 1970 Pontiac Firebird, and not sold for quick money. That's something heroin and crack addicts do. (Do you think I would ever entertain the idea of selling my dad's car when it becomes mine? I have no doubt he is glad you are not his son.) How dare you shame our values and image, and try to rob future Iowans of cultural enrichment.
I echo the statements of UI Faculty Senate President Ed Dove printed in the Iowa City Press-Citizen: selling the painting would be a disaster for the university and state, and is at odds with the principle of supporting a thriving and vibrant School of Art. Your proposal sends the wrong message to the state's blossoming artists: their creativity is not valued culturally, but financially for short term profits. You are telling them their visceral and carefully crafted artworks are simple products to be treated like those being mass produced in southeast Asia.
Allowing the UI to have "Mural" on loan for three months at a time once every four years is not good enough. This stipulation is evidence you do recognize the cultural significance of the painting, which makes your proposal that much more disgusting. We own the painting as it is and have it year round, so we need to keep and cherish it. What you need to do is support the UI's continuing effort to fund and build a new art museum on campus so the painting can be proudly showcased by the public. You should be supporting Iowa's public museums and an effort to have "Mural" regularly tour the state so those unable to make it to Iowa City can enjoy its powerful image and message.
Selling "Mural" as a shortsighted scholarship funding gimmick is wrong and will only prove to damage Iowa's cultural heritage and image. It is as bad an idea as France selling the "Mona Lisa" to fund its pension system.
~[The Quiet Man]
From: The Quiet Man
Subject: Your appalling and shortsighted proposal to sell Jackson Pollock's "Mural"
Representative Raecker,
I wanted you to know how saddened and appalled I am by House Study Bill 84, requiring The University of Iowa to sell Jackson Pollock's "Mural." I think the proposal is shortsighted and sickening in light of the incredible cultural asset the painting gives to the state.
Your suggestion is not in line with the principles of Iowa. Peggy Guggenheim gave the state an amazing and influential piece of American art and history, and the UI Museum of Art has given all Iowans an opportunity to discover and appreciate it. It is a one of a kind treasure of Americana handed down from generation to generation, like my dad's rare 1970 Pontiac Firebird, and not sold for quick money. That's something heroin and crack addicts do. (Do you think I would ever entertain the idea of selling my dad's car when it becomes mine? I have no doubt he is glad you are not his son.) How dare you shame our values and image, and try to rob future Iowans of cultural enrichment.
I echo the statements of UI Faculty Senate President Ed Dove printed in the Iowa City Press-Citizen: selling the painting would be a disaster for the university and state, and is at odds with the principle of supporting a thriving and vibrant School of Art. Your proposal sends the wrong message to the state's blossoming artists: their creativity is not valued culturally, but financially for short term profits. You are telling them their visceral and carefully crafted artworks are simple products to be treated like those being mass produced in southeast Asia.
Allowing the UI to have "Mural" on loan for three months at a time once every four years is not good enough. This stipulation is evidence you do recognize the cultural significance of the painting, which makes your proposal that much more disgusting. We own the painting as it is and have it year round, so we need to keep and cherish it. What you need to do is support the UI's continuing effort to fund and build a new art museum on campus so the painting can be proudly showcased by the public. You should be supporting Iowa's public museums and an effort to have "Mural" regularly tour the state so those unable to make it to Iowa City can enjoy its powerful image and message.
Selling "Mural" as a shortsighted scholarship funding gimmick is wrong and will only prove to damage Iowa's cultural heritage and image. It is as bad an idea as France selling the "Mona Lisa" to fund its pension system.
~[The Quiet Man]
Comments
Post a Comment