When talk turns to Dale Chihuly, it somehow immediately becomes stupid (more on the Queen of Nuance's take on it later today; I need to get involved with putting out a print paper here).

But Seattle artist Christian French devoted himself to honestly expressing his complicated feelings about the Chihuly Museum—without being a jerk, without being anti-glass (it's a MEDIUM, people, and being against a medium is crazy), without being anti-Dale (he's just a human, calm down; eye patch jokes aren't funny), without being inadvertently anti-art (calling something not art because it wasn't made by the hand of the artist is the equivalent of cultural illiteracy: if you don't like his art, it might be related to this fact, but it isn't entirely contained by it, so do some more thinking).

I could not have said it better, so I am posting French's whole letter here.

The point is: Perfectly reasonable humans can ask critical questions—and in fact SHOULD ASK CRITICAL QUESTIONS—when a private museum is being proposed on a public property right next to another disaster of a private museum.

Jesus. Get a grip, people. When anybody who disagrees with something is called a hater, then, um, GEORGE W. BUSH.

Oh, and for those who discount the Facebook page "Anybody But Chihuly at the Needle" for its unfortunate name—why don't you go over there and see the number-one complaint of the people who are signed up for it: THEY DISLIKE THE NAME. Big deal. They still, like me, oppose the project as it is now envisioned.

I defer to French to describe how it is envisioned, and why I bristle at it. It's a long letter, but you'll be glad you read the whole thing.

As an artist living and working in Seattle, and as someone who has had a long association with the Seattle Center, both as an exhibitor and as a spectator, I was caught by surprise recently when I heard about the nascent proposal to place a Chihuly-centric project on Center grounds. Curious, I attended the extended meeting at the Seattle Center on Tuesday for what I had hoped would be a discussion of the proposal, and arguments for its merits, as well as some justification as to why the long-thought-out proposal for opening up the Center grounds was being suddenly replaced by something billed as a “done deal” in some quarters. Before attending the meeting I had some concerns, namely: that a permanent, static installation of the work of one artist would be the vehicle to create a lucrative tourist attraction that offered little of significance to permanent residents of the region, clogging up public space with boatloads of people herded to what would be billed as an unparalleled aesthetic experience all of whom, assumedly, would pay for the privilege, pause at the café, and shop at the gift shop. As a business plan, this is a winner, but this is being sold as a cultural treasure, which is where my misgivings lie.

I have lived in several urban spaces. In New York, we considered the space between the postal box and the fire hydrant to be open space, so I don’t automatically think a project like this is problematic for spatial reasons. What is being ignored however is the value of space which is flexibility, variety, change. Fixed, permanent things close down conversation, and I think we need to defend variety as a civic virtue. One core definition of what makes a living thing is it’s ability to change and if we want to preserve the vitality of the Seattle Center then any project must embed variety within it. Creating a “shrine” (suited for tourist pilgrimage) for any one person runs the risk of becoming a mausoleum, and I think that would be, well, bad.

At the meeting on Tuesday, I sat through endless testimonials in favor of this project (so fully along that even the moderators seemed to be promoting it). When you subtracted the people for whom there was obvious personal self-interest (do we really need to give public land over to private use to provide jobs for a few construction companies?) there weren’t many people effectively arguing in favor of the merits. Chihuly is generous? That’s nice, but I expect that of any member of our community who becomes successful. Chihuly has influenced, supported, benefitted, employed lots of people and artists over his career? Heck, when I lived on Eastlake, I used to sleep on his shelves, but that’s another story. His value to us as a region, to glass as a medium, and to the future of the Center must rest on what for lack of a better term I will call “meaningfulness”. The business-enterprise-cum-cash-cow that is being proposed here must do more than be attractive, it must offer significant public benefit, and that’s where the waters get murky.

People seem to split fairly clearly in terms of Chihuly’s work, and his contribution. People love his work, because it is attractive, accessible and in no small measure, collectible. People who don’t like his work find beauty an insufficient metric, have issues with his over-the-top success and fail to see how something they consider a craft is really art. As an artist who has passionately explored beauty in my own work, I appreciate what he attempts to do (it isn’t easy) and while some of his work fails to interest me, I think his enthusiastic and possibly indiscriminate pursuit of beauty can result in truly beautiful work. I think his chandeliers are in their Baroque, ebullient excess, simply gorgeous. And, I would add, something it takes an industry to support. The problem is: it was that industry that came out on Tuesday. It is that industry that came across as a giant bulldozer prepared to overwhelm considered opposition by proclaiming that because Chihuly is X or has done X or whatever - that “he” “deserves” “X”. We got little explanation as to how this project serves to elevate the dialogue about what art is and could be in our region/culture/society. We also got little explanation about why “he” thinks this is such a great opportunity and what “he” thinks is being offered to us. I think this oversight will cost this project, if not in terms of success then in terms of goodwill, and legacy. In the end an interested observer is forced to conclude that this is simply another form of marketing, branding and strategy, one that makes use of facilities conveniently located right next to a certain tall building owned by the people who stand to gain. Since those facilities are public there has to be a better case made for public benefit, beyond vague promises of a good rent. Nowhere here is a real argument for how the rest of Seattle and the region stand to gain on a meaningful level.

One thing struck me while attending the meeting, and it has taken me a while to tease it out, although I tried to take a stab at it in my public comments. Vested interests aside, I could see how people who actually thought that this was a good idea were sincere. I could see how they thought bringing tourist dollars in was a good thing. I could see how they imagined that the space created would be one of aesthetic fulfillment: i.e. that people would find it beautiful, attractive, and worth visiting. I could see them struggle with the idea that anyone would reject such a “gift”. I could see that people sincerely were in favor of this saw it as “Chihuly’s Gift to Seattle” and those opposed see it as “Seattle’s Gift to Chihuly”. Impassioned arguments about the man and his work are, in this matter, red herrings.

We don’t need a “Chihuly Museum” at the Seattle Center (leaving aside that it isn’t wouldn’t be and never was a museum), though some people would like to see one. We don’t need a “Museum of Glass” at the Seattle Center - Tacoma’s is fabulous enough. We may need to generate revenue to support the Center, but then we always have and there’s a larger discussion in that. What we need is a clear articulation of how anything and everything at the Center serves a public good, and I am always in favor when the Arts get celebrated as a public good (I am also always opposed when the Arts get taken advantage of for cynical motivations). To this end, I am forced to ask this question. If a project like this moves forward, how can it be something of true and real value?

As I suggested before, I can imagine a world where Chihuly cares about beauty and cares about offering up to everyone a gift of significance. I have wondered what such a thing would look like, filtered through my own bias. I would have to conclude that unless half the exhibition space was devoted to a rotating project space that allows for other artists to come through and engage multiple mediums, and the region, then the project is in danger of being forever condemned as a vanity exercise. I think that should be avoided. This project has the possibility of taking people already attracted and interested in Art and offering them a rich conversation about how we see the world and reflect back what is beautiful and meaningful in an endless variety of ways. We have several excellent examples here: Suyama Space and Open Satellite being but two, Kohler’s Arts and Industry program (in Wisconsin) being another take. I also suspect that unless some significant portion of this is made free and accessible then down the road people here will feel taken advantage of - again, a legacy worth avoiding. I would suggest that beyond a fixed rent, some respectable portion of revenue be allocated as a give-back: whether it be a funded grant with Artist Trust or Office of Arts and Culture, or whether it be support an annual temporary art installation program on the Center grounds or some other idea (keeping the money at the Center is the cleanest idea). This would allow something we could point to that exists above and beyond the project itself, giving the citizens of Seattle the feeling that we all somehow benefit. I’m sorry, an above-market lease may pencil out well, but it’s like getting socks for Christmas. Not much of a gift.

Anyway while I’m not good with sound bites, as my previous exegesis demonstrates, here’s what I think this boils down to. Since much of the arguments in favor of this project rise and fall on one man, I will address my question to him. Dale, if you want a project that celebrates Glass, that celebrates Art, that celebrates this region, and that celebrates you, then it has to be about more than simply you and your work. I would love to see you create a beautiful space that we all enjoy. I agree that a significant work by you would draw people from every corner of the globe. If you are the creative person that people make you out to be, and that I see in your work, then give us something that has true creative potential. Give us something that changes over time, that allows for a meaningful conversation, and that people on both sides of this can get behind. Make an allowance that some of the revenue go back to the creative community, so that everyone feels they have a stake. In short, give me a way to support this in good conscience, so I don’t have to keep writing long-winded letters like this one.

Thank you in advance,
Christian W. French