Hopefully by now you’ve read Tim’s cover story in this month’s D Magazine about the showdown between the Museum Tower and the Nasher Sculpture Center. If you haven’t, here’s a quick summary:
Museum Tower : Magnifying Glass :: Nasher : Ant
Now the New York Times has a front page report:
No one quite knows what to do. The condo developer and museum officials are at loggerheads. Fingers are being pointed. Mr. Piano is furious. The developer’s architect is aggrieved. The mayor is involved. A former official in the George W. Bush administration has been asked to mediate.
The situation has been characterized by some here as a David-and-Goliath battle between a beloved nonprofit and commercial interests. But the dispute has also raised the broader question of what can happen when, as is currently the rage, cultural institutions are cast as engines of economic development.
Meet The Dallas Morning News' New Architecture Critic
Interview: Architect Tadao Ando on the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth
Chasing The Elephant: Thoughts From Last Night’s Panel on Fair Park and South Dallas
This Evening: Discussing Fair Park at the Dallas Architecture Forum
1 comment
In one of Tim Rogers excellent updates he refers to the possible lack of viability of a “nuisance’ claim by the Nasher. It occured to me – that as with art copyright issues brought against artists – how inarticulate and unsophisticated American law can be when it comes to litigating issues involving art – mainly because it doesn’t know how to value art in anything other than crass commercial terms or in terms of whose property is whose.
The legalese in such issues in a society that struggles with its latent philistinism leaves attorney’s offices, or courts of law, as one of the least likely places you’d expect to find empassioned, credible and accurate conversations about art and its societal value. How does one value great art, great buildings and institutions, beyond dollar signs?
The Leonardo that the DMA is ‘auditioning for’ right now, for example: $150M, $250M, $400M? – how can you price such an artwork? In the end, all you know is that it’s invaluable, and that its ultimate price tag is more than just an expression of “market forces” but an approximation of ‘invaluable’. One could philosophically argue that that sole art work is more significant than any thing ever produced in Dallas, or even the sum of all of Dallas’ production.
Thus, an institution such as the Nasher is seen – in legal terms – as a neighbour with ‘sensitive’ issues – as if it’s sort of ‘highly strung’, eccentric, or outside the norm of everyday prosaic functionalism. In other words, that art is not central to our existance, but a sort of luxury item. Try telling that to Leonardo.
To put this in functional terms that a court of law can grasp: if some developer got under Arlington Stadium to dig and underground mall (for some weird reason), and tilted the entire field by 25 degrees so that it sloped from right to left- there would be more than a nuisance claim, because the playing field would become inoperable. Or if Lovefield’s air traffic was re-routed immediately above the Meyerson… Art and art museums’ primary requirement for functionality is light. Remove the light source or interfere with it sufficiently, and you have effectively removed the building’s functionalilty. A conventional ‘nuisance’ claim here, seems like inadequate terminology.
A city without proper museums is not a city..it is just urban and suburban sprawl.
More specifially, in relation to downtown adopting certain green codes for glass reflectivity (which are more demanding than uptown’s requirements – as reported by Rogers) which in turn is giving Museum Tower’s advocates cause to try to blame city codes – the upside down logic of this is about as convincing as blaming a rape victim for wearing a short skirt – the city didn’t make the developers build the tower, nor design it with sheer convex glass surfaces, nor unexpectedly double its height late in the day. The point is, that the design was inappropriate from the get-go – even though it is an otherwise handsome building.
The 17% differential between 27% refelctivity (uptown’s requirements) and 44% Arts District’s) glass reflectivity is not the point here at all. That would be like causing a sewage leak in someone else’s property and saying, “its not a nuisance because we’re only spilling 27% of our excrement into your building – excrement only becomes a nuisance at 44%.
If someone craps in your bed, they’ve crapped in your bed – you don’t crap by degree….one either empties one’s bowels or one doesn’t – No one says – “this is first degree crapping with intent, your honour, but we’re prepared to plea-bargain down to accidental misdemeanour baby-pooping”…
Attorneys, populism…drag out a law suit for ten years – meanwhile, Dallas’ greatest, most optimistic and most functional cultural asset to date is fucked up by a giant shiny piece of “luxury life-style”. How does one couch that in a court of law exactly? Is there a precise legal term as eloquent and descriptive as “…to have completely fucked something up, your honour”?