Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: RW Extremism In the Arts: "Carbon Sink"

Posted 1 year ago on Oct. 30, 2012, 4:06 p.m. EST by WSmith (1980) from Cornelius, OR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

RW Extremism In the Arts We Don't Need, "Carbon Sink"

Art That Irked Energy Executives Is Gone, but Wyoming Dispute Whirls On

The University of Wyoming removed “Carbon Sink,” after receiving "complaints."

By DAN FROSCH

Published: October 26, 2012

LARAMIE, Wyo. — The idea behind the sculpture that appeared on the University of Wyoming campus about 16 months ago was simple but provocative: a swirl of dead wood and lumps of coal, intended to show the link between global warming and the pine beetle infestation that has ravaged forests across the Rockies. Related

Green Blog: Coal-Themed Sculpture Annoys Lawmakers (July 21, 2011)

National Twitter Logo. Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

But in a place like Wyoming, where the oil, gas and mining industries are the soul of the economy, some view such symbolism as a declaration of war.

And ever since the British artist Chris Drury installed the 36-foot-diameter sculpture, called “Carbon Sink,” the university has been embroiled in a bitter controversy, which eventually led to the quiet removal of the artwork last spring after energy officials and their political allies complained to administrators.

The dispute over the sculpture — part of a series of campus installations commissioned by the university’s art museum — has continued to dog the university after it released e-mails discussing the artwork.

The e-mails, first obtained by Wyoming Public Radio, showed that the university’s president, Tom Buchanan, privately asked that the sculpture be dismantled a year ahead of schedule because of the uproar surrounding it.

In a note on April 13 to the director of the university’s art museum, Dr. Buchanan wrote that it would be best to remove the sculpture, “given the controversy that it has generated.”

His note followed objections raised by local lawmakers and officials in Wyoming’s energy industry, which helps support the university through state taxes and felt betrayed.

What is this? Marion Loomis, the executive director of the Wyoming Mining Association, said to a university official in an e-mail, using a mild profanity for emphasis. “I am all for freedom of expression, but putting a permanent piece blasting the coal industry while taking millions in royalties, A.M.L. fees and severance taxes strikes me as a stab in the back.” A.M.L., short for abandoned mine lands, refers to a reclamation fee.

In another e-mail, to Dr. Buchanan, State Representative Thomas E. Lubnau II threatened to introduce legislation that would ensure that “no fossil-fuel-derived tax dollars find their way in the University of Wyoming funding stream.”

Mr. Lubnau, a Republican from energy-rich Campbell County, said he subsequently told the university that he was not serious about cutting financing, and emphasized that he never called for the sculpture’s removal.

“I don’t think the university planned for the consequences of its actions very well,” he said. “But I have never commented publicly on the artist or the merit of the art. I’ve always maintained that tensions in ideas make us stronger.”

Mr. Lubnau added, “I’m not afraid of any idea.”

Mr. Loomis, of the mining association, said that the group was not trying to tell the university what art to display, but that it had a right to complain about something it deemed offensive.

“We felt like it was a slap,” he said. “So we reacted. We may have overreacted. We’re over it.”

But if the controversy is finished for the energy industry, it is not for the university.

E-mails show that one university official told an alumnus that the sculpture was removed early from its perch on an expanse of grass because of water damage — an irrigation line had broken in the area.

An editorial on Monday in The Casper Star-Tribune criticized the university for misleading the public over the reason the artwork was taken down.

Dr. Buchanan declined to comment on the matter. Chris Boswell, a vice president at the university, said that the explanation given to the alumnus was a mistake, and that no official reason had ever been released.

Mr. Boswell also pointed out that the sculpture remained intact for nearly a year — evidence, he said, that the university had not acquiesced to pressure.

“There are scholarly efforts, research efforts that occur on campus which I’m sure industry is not thrilled about, but occur on a daily basis,” he said. “At the same time, the university is very well dialed into the industries of this state.”

“Any institution is smart to be mindful of controversy,” Mr. Boswell added. “Does that translate into the muddling of opinions? No, I don’t believe so.”

Amid the fallout from the controversy, lawmakers passed a measure that requires artwork for a newly renovated campus recreation center to reflect Wyoming’s history of transportation, agriculture and minerals.

The measure also gives Gov. Matt Mead, along with the university’s Energy Resources Council — composed primarily of energy industry representatives — final say on the art selected.

Mr. Mead, a Republican, said at a recent news conference that he did not feel it was appropriate for him to review the art.

Jeff Lockwood, a professor of natural sciences and humanities who has been outspoken in his frustration over the university’s handling of the sculpture, said outrage had grown among students and faculty members.

“I’m disappointed that the university caved in to that sort of extortion and that sort of implied threat,” Dr. Lockwood said. “And I’m angry that this sort of behavior on the part of private industry, as well as their effectiveness in lobbying our elected officials, would lead to an act of artistic censorship on a university campus.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/us/controversy-lingers-over-wyoming-universitys-removal-of-carbon-sink.html?_r=0

4 Comments

4 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 0 points by Brython (-146) 1 year ago

The Times is saying the Republicans hate bonfires?

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1980) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Not as much as they hate obstruction, or even criticism, of Big Fossil production and profits!

[-] 0 points by Brython (-146) 1 year ago

I like bonfires and carbon. Let's put a match to it.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1980) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

OK---dokay