S eattle Center is winning no awards as a city park. It is a haphazardly designed campus choked with badly placed buildings you have to pay to get into. The most visible and infamous of these is Experience Music Project, a shrine to Paul Allen’s collection of music and science-fiction memorabilia, which has only occasionally been able to transcend its underthought beginnings as a vanity project. Surely, Seattle has learned lessons from its past planning at Seattle Center, right?
Maybe not. An idea for a huge, new, ill-defined pay-to-play tourist attraction—a Dale Chihuly exhibition hall, to sit at the base of the Space Needle—is already in the design stages. It was the idea of a wealthy local family, the Howard Wright family, which owns the Space Needle. The plan calls for a 44,550-square-foot exhibition hall of Chihuly’s glass art, to be placed inside and to extend the current Fun Forest arcade pavilion. The plan does not describe Chihuly’s vision, but it calls for a whopping 21,500 square feet of exhibition space, plus a retail shop and cafe. (By comparison, the Henry Art Gallery has about 14,000 square feet of galleries and the Frye Art Museum about 12,000 square feet.) Admission would be paid, and the venture would be for-profit. The Wrights would pay for construction, and the museum—the Wrights prefer it not be called a museum, and they have a point, since it won’t have curators, but no other word is quite right, either—would be privately run.
Seattle Center is a public/private enterprise that’s been foundering for years. It needs money. That’s the subtext when Seattle Center director Robert Nellams says, “The premier glass artist in the world wants to be part of this project. This is a good thing.” Nellams isn’t pretending to be adding to the cultural life of the city; he’s trying to bring something popular to Seattle Center. And it’s hard to blame him. The Chihuly Bridge of Glass in Tacoma, as well as Union Station in Tacoma—that city has literally thousands of Chihuly glass pieces displayed publicly, for free—are big draws. (Pity Tacoma if Seattle becomes the destination for Chihuly glass.)
But it’s hard to see why the Seattle Design Commission, which reviews all proposals for the use of public lands by private entities, approved the plan. The commission, a 10-
member body made up of architects, engineers, urban planners, and an artist, is supposed to keep both public benefit and design in mind—and to raise questions about both at an early stage, so they can be ironed out before plans go before the mayor and city council.
From 2006 to 2008, about 60 public meetings were held to determine what people wanted from the always-problematic Seattle Center. The response was overwhelming: more open, green space. Of Seattle Center’s 21 remaining public acres (the total acreage of the Center is 74), the Chihuly museum would occupy about two—in a place left green and open in the master plan that was developed in response to those public meetings.
“You should go to the master plan; you’ll see why it’s so counter,” says Dennis Forsyth, the architect who led the Century 21 Master Plan team. “The movement’s been to open up the Center. It’s a park for the city, and you ought to make it inviting for the city. There was a lot of community involvement—and I mean a lot of community involvement—and the consensus was to make it more green. We didn’t take out many buildings, but this was one of them.”
Forsyth wants to be realistic, and he recognizes that Seattle Center needs money. “I don’t want to take a position yea or nay,” he says. “But people should take a look at what they’re doing, and it ought to be done with the same level of sensitivity the master plan was done with.”
The Fun Forest pavilion, he points out, was constructed shortly after the 1990 master plan was published—and it went against that plan, too. “After the 1990 plan, the first thing they did was plop in a building that was not appropriate, and it was that building,” he says.
Lessons learned so far: zero.
The tension at the heart of Seattle Center is that it is a public-private entity. The land is prime civic real estate, but it is not supported by prime civic dollars, leaving the public side in a position of weakness—which is why it needs thoughtful, diplomatic advocates. City council member Sally Bagshaw, also chair of the Parks & Seattle Center Committee, says that if a project is going to run counter to what people said they wanted from the Center, it ought at least to be free and open to the public. Furthermore, how can the city know its options when only one is under discussion? Use of the land on the other side of the current Fun Forest (which is scheduled to shut down entirely after Labor Day) is being opened up for a request-for-proposals, or RFP, process, which means ideas will have to compete on their merits. The privacy of the Chihuly museum process thus far makes it look suspiciously like a fait accompli.
“There are two problems,” Bagshaw says. “One, it’s not open to the public, and secondly, if we have something that’s going to be used for private gain, we need to have an RFP—some kind of public process. They need money to run this place, and I really respect that; it’s just that I’ve got another hand up, which is to take care of this public space. It would be a little bit like if we said to somebody that wanted to move up into Volunteer Park, ‘Here, take two acres, enjoy yourself.’ And that doesn’t strike me as quite right without having the public engaged in it and saying, ‘Yeah, that’s what we want.'”
And what about the art content of the proposed museum? The plan calls for a 20-year lease, to be renewed in five-year increments. It is unclear what the displays would be or how often they would change. A distinction is made in the plan between a museum, which “has rotating exhibitions,” and this center: “This will be a permanent installation of Chihuly work.” That makes it sound like the Bridge of Glass in Tacoma, which is unchanging. But the minutes of the design commission meeting also say, “Uncertainty exists as to how often it might change.” The exhibition concept is unspecified.
That worried Norie Sato, the artist on the commission, and the lone vote against the plan at the January meeting where it was introduced. She wants to support arts at Seattle Center, but isn’t ready to jump on board yet.
“I just didn’t know, if you were going to set up a center like this, whether devoting it to a single artist was adequate—civic enough as an opportunity,” Sato says. “My other concern was the way Chihuly was thinking about it; it just wasn’t a big enough idea. It was sort of the attitude ‘I’m just going to put all my stuff in here.’ I didn’t think the whole thing had been thought through well enough, really. If we’re talking about taking public space away, I kind of think we have a responsibility to make it something that isn’t just okay or adequate.
“It’s going to be the biggest display of Chihuly anywhere in the world,” Sato continues. “It’s a really big deal. I think it’s a big change for the Center, and it may be good for the Center. I’m a little skeptical. I try to be supportive, because I think that anything that brings more culture in is a good thing, but we want to make sure it’s accessible—and worth turning away public space for.”
The most disturbing aspect of the planned Chihuly museum is not the idea itself—but the lack of questions that have been asked about it thus far. At a press conference on Tuesday, March 9, at the Space Needle, Chihuly did not take questions. He described his life history, then laid out the plans for the project, which will include “many of the best [glass] installations that I’ve ever done,” a 70-by-10-foot backlit mural on Plexiglas, others of his drawings and paintings, and, in the dining area, some of his own collections of objects. Ron Sevart, CEO of the Space Needle, said the museum is scheduled to open in spring 2011. “It’s gonna happen fast—I know that much,” Chihuly said, then was escorted out. 
This article has been updated since its original publication.
I have a non whiny comment to make.Lets inundate Sally Bagshaw chair of the Parks and Seattle Center Committee with phone and email messages about this usurping of public space.
And what has seattlekos done for the Northwest? Please let us know!
Obviously, you don’t know what your blabbing about. The center is a gathering place for ballet, opera, sports, theatre, concerts and all kinds of events that require buildings. It’s not one of the 101 hikes with the Mountaineers and the stud Ron Judd.
A comment from a previous article relating to the proposed Chihuly museum:
I’m truly sadden about the whole idea. Tacoma is known for the museum district and driven by “Chihuly” frenzy. The arts have deeply increased the commerce and helped city development. It brought national and international recognition through the artists and the organizations supporting the arts.
Now, it is a common trend for companies as the Russell Company and others to move to Seattle for broader and successful outcomes. Even people are moving out to Seattle and Eastside for profitable incomes. Soon, there will be closures or pauses of improving the waterfront and revitalized areas. Businesses and citizens are already struggling enough as it is. There will less people to pull in money for Tacoma. Unfortunately, I may migrate to another city for greater good in my own income,. Resources will be depleted and less people to appreciate the historic preservation, arts, history, and the beautiful waterfront.
The proposed Chihuly museum at Seattle Center will discourage tourists to visit Tacoma since they already spent their incomes in Seattle. There would be no valid reason or point of going to Tacoma; it would not matter whether Dale Chihuly was born in the City of Destiny. I’m truly worrisome and disturbed by the idea of Seattle taking away one of the viable parts of Tacoma. I wish at times Seattle would think about the effects on their sister cities for the ambitions of gaining a spot on the national and international scene and profitable margins.
I wish a couple of major companies will take acreages in our downtown and transforms the cityscape for the key development and sustain true preservation of a city which was originally the destination point of the railroad. Tacoma has true potential and room for top success.
Glass art is tacky, but Dale takes it to a whole new level. His big globs of glass with tentacles coming out of them look like a 3D model of a virus. Taxpayers will pay for the monstrosity, and the public will wind up paying 20 bucks to get in to look at this nonsense. Maybe they will close it when one of the virus models falls from the ceiling and kills someone. I will go have a look and I’m bringing a hammer. Somewhere someone must draw the line.
Sure, we could leave it open, #51…
Or we could have a Subterranean Greenspace….
Seattle’s version of A Boy and His Dog.
Hey, Wanda, and all you other provincial sluts — let’s see just how small-minded you can all get. It’s all about attitude; just stop being so negative. Be happy about your third-rate city. There’s a difference between negativity and criticism, you pork loin whore.
Maybe Seattle Center is actually the perfect place for a Chihuly museum, as it is the city’s dumping ground for all things tacky, overpriced and touristy. At least it would all be contained in one place. Poor Tacoma, with Chihuly turds spread all around.
Damn, Alex, two for two.
And I’ll bring my Dog (he CAN think out loud — but only to me!). If he ain’t peein’ on it, he’s real busy humpin’ on it.
The Rich are smart. They have an innate sense of where to put the neat things for us.
Okay, a massive Children’s Playground (thanks Knute!) located on ground level, yet under the Chihuly Memorial. Which we’ve allready decided should be up on Stilts. (Thanks, 2!)
PreOrg, you must work in the Stranger basement mail room because your stupidity is showing on the wide screen.
Maybe a trailer park exclusively for singlewide trailers and a 24 hour beer garden? Would that satisfy your Larry Reid lowbrow aesthetic? The Seattle Center is not Georgetown you clowns.
And you, YOU, represent civilization? The sort who thinks the Fifth Avenue Theatre’s latest production of Sound of Music is culture? The kind who still believes the Space Needle says something to the world?
It’s quite amusing that you call others lowbrows when you utterly personify how mediocre this place is.
You want a glass bauble museum? Fine. I’m holding out for something that is actually artistically interesting. You’re the one who’s trailer park, and wouldn’t know humour if it bounced off your Westlake shopping bag.
You suck-headed wench.
And you, YOU, represent civilization? The sort who thinks the Fifth Avenue Theatre’s latest production of Sound of Music is culture? The kind who still believes the Space Needle says something to the world?
It’s quite amusing that you call others lowbrows when you utterly personify how mediocre this place is.
You want a glass bauble museum? Fine. I’m holding out for something that is actually artistically interesting. You’re the one who’s trailer park, and wouldn’t know humour if it bounced off your Westlake shopping bag.
You suck-headed wench.
Light and color at the Center, what a concept. The Center has never been high culture anyway – why not? The glass art thing is based in Seattle, all the cool glass art artists are in Seattle, it makes sense for a touristy place to begin with (er, The Center) to have something like this, why not the Glass King? Let’s not stoop to dog-lick-balls nimbyism here – so Chihuly ain’t Rembrandt, at least he’s a genuine co-founder of the NW glass thing – you can’t turn everything into an empty field bereft of imagination – besides, only one acre of the five would be used for this – leaving the other four to be as dull as the unimaginative nimbyists want – you can have your thought vacuum and eat it too, woo hoo.
GRASS, GAS or ASS … NOT GLASS:
Imagine if Wright tried to pull this BS in the middle of Cal Anderson: same logic.
The problem isn’t having a Chihuly glass exhibition (those who love it will looove it, those who hate it will Hate). The problem isn’t even the fact that the region ALREADY has a museum of glass…
The problem is having it on public park open space.
Tell Wright to go ahead and build his “transparent vanity” project, but have him purchase the Funhouse lot or Mcd’s to build it on instead of next to the needle on public land.
@5: if we’re going to go all cliche, shouldn’t we first mention something about glass houses…?
@44 seattleites aren’t more idiotic, just more of the idiots here have been granted internet access. Same problem but with cars in California – at least the internets don’t run over your dog.
@53: while I want family-friendly amusements too, and enjoyed the fun forest more than most, how do you propose to ‘revitalize’ the fun forest, which was a private -not public- business venture that lost money hand over fist for years?? The “prove the business model” demand you cry out must apply to the “revitalize fun forest” ideas too.
@54: greenspace isn’t literally shit you can see that’s green. We’re talking about parks/city owned property, which has a mission to provide recreational open space in and through the city for the citizens (not necessarily tourist traps for cruiseship victims). That said ICONS (troll, needle, jimi, hats/boots, EMP, et al) are good for the city in general. THAT said, the area around the seattle center is OVERFULL of icons and needs no more.
@68. you finally figured that out by yourself or did you have help? 😉
It’s too bourgeois!
It’s too elitist!
A Grave Error
Jen Graves’ “art writings” have been saying so little for so long, that any lack of critical depth has come to be expected. However, her article entitled , “The New Guard”, published in volume 19, number 22 of The Stranger, was such an inane piece of shit, that it must be called out for what it is: at best, lazy uncritical writing, and at worst, nothing more than a regurgitation of what four mediocre artists think of themselves and their art.
First and foremost, let’s look at the title of the article: “The New Guard”.
What does that mean?
Who was “The Old Guard”?
What makes “The New Guard” new?
And most importantly, what are they guarding?
Or maybe, “The New Guard” is just a cool looking title at the top of a page…and important sounding to boot!
Regardless, calling these four artists Seattle’s “New Guard” is a pretty serious declaration. A declaration that demands some pretty serious critical attention. Critical attention that leads to some pretty serious justification. However, Jen Graves’ article contains none of this…so why don’t I go ahead and critically review this “New Guard” to see just how far ahead of the rest of Seattle’s up and coming art community they really are.
New Guard #1
Jason “Self-Indulgent” Hirata
According to Jen’s article, Jason Hirata wanted to remove himself from his art because he found art about himself boring. He decided to create “random” personal objectives that he somehow believed removed him from his process. How these objectives removed him is unexplained.
However, even this bored him, so he blamed it on picking objectives based on what he knew he could already do.
Once again, no explanation.
Why didn’t he simply pick objectives based on what he knew he couldn’t already do?
Or better yet, why pick objectives in the first place?
Utilizing these inflexible objectives led to predictability. This actually surprised him…and once again bored him.
So what did he do?
He continued writing objectives, but now had other people execute them. EUREKA! Finally he wasn’t bored. Having other people do the boring work was the trick.
Why this change in his process doesn’t fall into the same “truistic trap” that previously killed his curiosity isn’t mentioned. Perhaps Jason isn’t really interested in making anything. Perhaps Jason shouldn’t make anything.
One thing is for certain, he is completely absorbed by his own interest in his own art. The viewer is superfluous. If Jason only “makes art he wants to look at over time”, why does he show it to anyone else?
As far as “repurposing” old boring photos…nothing but a lazy cop-out. Boring shit by any other name, hung in any other way, is still boring shit.
But wait…what’s this I read? In his upcoming show he plans to employ bodily excretions (sweat) to make drawings with? WOW! You’re supposed to draw with ink, silly . SWEAT? That’s so weird, so “New Guard”.
Perhaps we’d all be better off if Jason removed himself from any art making process even further…like entirely. Please, for the sake of the viewer, have mercy. We’re all as bored with you as you are.
New Guard #2
Amanda “Cheap Shock” Manitach
As I read Jen Graves trumpet the virtues of Amanda’s syphilitic vagina drawings I couldn’t help but think back to her article on the Calder exhibit at the SAM , and her dismissal of his overall impact.
Let’s see here…
Invention of the Mobile
vs.
Syphilitic Vagina Drawings
Now, which overall has had more impact on the art world?
Syphilitic vaginas?! OOOH, now I get it! They’re gross and shocking! WOW! Who’s ever heard of employing such devices in a fine art context? Completely original. I’ll bet no one’s even thought of doing that before. BRAVO! The Seattle art community will never be the same again!
To quote Amanda herself, “I would love to be Alfred Jarry”… that statement sums it all up. Even Amanda Manitach isn’t interested in Amanda Manitach. Why should anyone else be?
New Guard #3
Gala “One Trick Pony” Bent
I’m not even going to comment on the ridiculousness of a formulaic device like cool lookin’ hair being “New Guard”.
“Hairnimals”?
You’ve gotta fuckin’ be kidding me.
New Guard #4
Troy “Pop Art Is Played Out” Gua
Employing a movement that is nearly fifty years old is “New Guard”? Lampooning pop culture is so obvious that it’s redundant. Honestly, is there anyone left on the planet that views politics and consumerism juxtaposed with popular culture as fresh?
It’s as archaic and obvious as arguing that the world is round.
NO DUH, TROY GUA.
Now, my critical examination of these four artists may seem a bit abrasive, but the moniker “New Guard” implies a pioneering vision and the breaking of new ground. This description applied to any of these artists is patently absurd.
What’s more, it is irresponsible to cast such unsubstantiated claims in any light of relevance, let alone publish the shit. The article might as well be a press release of four individual artist’s statements. There is no critique whatsoever.
No one that I’ve spoken to in the Seattle art community believes that these artists represent a “New Guard”. Apparently Jen Graves does, but she either doesn’t really know why, or is too lazy and unconcerned with critical thinking to bother expressing it.
Either way, I guess Seattle is just expected to take her word for it.
So…VIVA LA NEW GUARD! Jen…VIVA LA NEW GUARD!
Finally, as a publication, if The Stranger takes its art column seriously, please consider printing some thoughtful criticism for a change.
Amazing – Sato doesn’t mind sitting on a design commission that is incredibly exclusionary – it is the private reserve of the “design” industry; Sally Bagshaw, died in the wool personification of the anti-everything that doesn’t have de riguer snob appeal for the Allied Arts crowd – one of the main backers of the oh so sophisticated bored tunnel – she’s now a populist? Yeah, okay we’ll bite – so what’s the problem here?
Let’s face it, starting with the years of Virginia Anderson the scion of society managing the Seattle Center, the Paul Allen edifice to bad taste, courtesy of “star-chitect” Frank Gehry, the vanity guru; followed by the Gates Monument to Monopoly, why shouldn’t we allow one more freeloading multi-millionaire to squat on the public’s property?
And truly, little whine-baby Forsyth should give it a rest. He’s no better than the people he’s criticizing. He thinks nothing of plunking his little self on some committee made up of hand-picked members, selected not for their brilliance, representative-ness, or diversity, but because they are more of the same retreaded elites that the City installs to come up with every “master plan” for the last decade that disenfranchises more people than they ever empower.
So waaaa, since when was Seattle Center ever about anything other than gouging people for some use or another. It’s always been about special interests of one sort of another. Too bad if your interest isn’t in the ascendancy right now. If anyone cared so much about it there never would have been any private interests there in the first place, starting with the Wright’s ownership of what should be a public monument, the Space Needle.
After several decades of watching this garbage over whose vision is best in Seattle, and seeing it constantly going to those with connections and bucks, I could give a rip for the faux populists that want to act like they are so public minded. They only trot that act out when they think it might gain them – they and their elite friends, some extra leverage.
Amazing – Sato doesn’t mind sitting on a design commission that is incredibly exclusionary – it is the private reserve of the “design” industry; Sally Bagshaw, died in the wool personification of the anti-everything that doesn’t have de riguer snob appeal for the Allied Arts crowd – one of the main backers of the oh so sophisticated bored tunnel – she’s now a populist? Yeah, okay we’ll bite – so what’s the problem here?
Let’s face it, starting with the years of Virginia Anderson the scion of society managing the Seattle Center, the Paul Allen edifice to bad taste, courtesy of “star-chitect” Frank Gehry, the vanity guru; followed by the Gates Monument to Monopoly, why shouldn’t we allow one more freeloading multi-millionaire to squat on the public’s property?
And truly, little whine-baby Forsyth should give it a rest. He’s no better than the people he’s criticizing. He thinks nothing of plunking his little self on some committee made up of hand-picked members, selected not for their brilliance, representative-ness, or diversity, but because they are more of the same retreaded elites that the City installs to come up with every “master plan” for the last decade that disenfranchises more people than they ever empower.
So waaaa, since when was Seattle Center ever about anything other than gouging people for some use or another. It’s always been about special interests of one sort of another. Too bad if your interest isn’t in the ascendancy right now. If anyone cared so much about it there never would have been any private interests there in the first place, starting with the Wright’s ownership of what should be a public monument, the Space Needle.
After several decades of watching this garbage over whose vision is best in Seattle, and seeing it constantly going to those with connections and bucks, I could give a rip for the faux populists that want to act like they are so public minded. They only trot that act out when they think it might gain them – they and their elite friends, some extra leverage.
Y’know what, Seattle? Y’all are a bunch of spoiled, whiney, jaded poseurs. Sure, maybe Chihuly sculptures litter your landscape like cigarette butts. Maybe you use’em for target practice or spitoons. Maybe he no longer makes them himself. But nothing, NOTHING prepares a young person for their first sight of one, and the world of amazing artistic vision that it can open up to them. You grow up thinking sculpture is Rodin, or the clay crap you make in school. Then you see one of his creations and your mind is blown. Admit it, coolio, your MIND WAS BLOWN the first time you saw one.
Someone wants to buy a great big new art installation for your city?? LET THEM. Negotiate on size and on some green space, but let it happen. Chihuly certainly won’t be the first artist to get a monumental vanity installaton (ever hear of I.M. Pei and the addition to the Louvre? Michaelangelo and the Sistine Chapel?) and he won’t be the last either. And 500 years from now, if we’re fortunate enough, humans will enjoy your Chihuly building and the art it contains, and marvel at the age that endowed it.
Shut up with the * * moaning * * already! ! !
Mooooannn, ooooohh, Oooooohhhh, OOOOOAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!
It’s time to light up.
Comparing Chihuly to Michaelangelo is like comparing the sun to a turd floating in a rest-stop toilet.
There’s a Chihuly in the McDonald’s in downtown Tacoma.
That says a lot.
Please join the facebook page —
“Stop the Chihuly at the Needle Museum”
Every square inch of space at the Seattle Center is precious.
A group of civic leaders is being assembled to submit a response to the Seattle Center RFP to be free public green space at Seattle Center rather than the proposed Chihuly private commercial exhibit. We urge you to sign the following petition by June 3, 11:55 p.m. to add your voice of support to this green effort:
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/Cntury21/
petition.html