Art on Loan

 

artonloan-feature

Without much fear of contradiction, one can say that artists want to exhibit their work and sell their work, too. When you yell into a canyon, you want to hear an echo. Getting that exhibition opportunity and making a sale, however, is rarely a given, leading artists to try alternatives. Some artists have found one option to be loaning their work, and they are discovering that a growing number of municipalities, as well as universities and museums, around the country are interested in receiving short- and long-term loans of artwork.

“It’s very difficult to sell sculpture through galleries,” said Reven Swanson of Denver, Colorado, who creates stationary and kinetic works. “Most people don’t have time to go to art galleries.” More often, they will have time and opportunity to travel downtown, and it is in these public locations that she places her large-scale pieces as part of a loan agreement with the arts commission or public arts commission in the city. Among the cities in Colorado are Broomfield, Boulder, Grand Junction, Greeley, Lakewood, Littleton, Longmont and Pueblo, and she also has loaned her work to city arts agencies in Iowa and South Dakota. At each site, the city creates a plaque identifying the artist and the title of the work, sometimes including information about the artist, and on occasion passers-by become more than a little intrigued, turning into buyers. “I’ve sold more than half of my loaned work, and I’ve received quite a few commissions from people in the cities where my work has been on display.”

Art loan programs are a way for cities and other institutions to “enhance public spaces without having to spend a lot of money,” said Anna Blyth, program planner for the City of Santa Fe (New Mexico) Arts Commission, and her agency solicits offers from artists (most of whom are within driving distance) for renewable year-long loans for sites at municipal parks, libraries and community centers. “Borrowing allows us to fill in the spaces where there is no art.”

Loan programs offer a variety of benefits for artists. For Mark di Suvero, who regularly creates monumental works, “a gallery show of 40- and 50-foot works don’t happen too often, because of the height limitations in most galleries,” said his studio director, Ivana Mestrovic. Lending his work to schools and other institutions “is really how his work is exhibited.” Sculptor Elyn Zimmerman also noted that “I try to put my work somewhere on loan, at colleges, museums or sculpture parks.” She contacts these institutions herself, finding that many of them are interested in short- and long-term loans. Her reason for doing this is that “maybe two or three works sell from a show and the rest take more time to sell. Meanwhile, I’ve got all these big sculptures to store while I’m making others. If I can put my work on display where people can see it, it’s better than my paying to store it. They have guards and insurance, so I don’t have to pay for that, either. An added benefit is that I can bring people out there to look at it – that may result in a sale.”

The Roy Lichtenstein Foundation periodically loans sculptural works in the “Brushstrokes” series by the late artist to museums and other cultural centers “as part of its mission, which is to facilitate public access to the work of Roy Lichtenstein,” said Jack Cowart, the foundation’s executive director. Noting that “the foundation does have to support itself, some of these loans turn into purchases by the borrowing institutions, including one by the Indianapolis Museum of Art that had begun as a five-year loan.

In Greeley, Colorado, where Swanson has loaned her work, a panel selected by the public art coordinator, Kim Snyder, decides among the submissions of applications and images to pick a dozen works every year. Among the criteria for selection, Snyder noted, are the size and strength of the artwork, whether or not it would be “a good fit for Greeley” and the object’s susceptibility to damage or vandalism. Each selected artist receives a $700 stipend to cover (or assist with) the costs of moving and installing the artwork – additional manpower is provided by the city’s Parks Department – and the public art commission publishes a brochure that provides information on each piece and its creator. The commission annually solicits area residents to vote for their favorite artwork, and the artist of the biggest vote-getter receives an additional $500 People’s Choice Award. Every year, the city also purchases one of the loaned artworks for its permanent collection, and Swanson has been the recipient of both a People’s Choice Award and a purchase.

DeTroyer Sculpture

REGROWTH, 2009. Metal, found I-beam formed by hand hammering, 800 lbs. 6 ft. tall X 3 ft. wide X 2 ft. deep.
On loan for $550 for one full year.

Every art loan program requires that the artist keep his or her work in place for the entire contract period, regardless of whether or not someone purchases the work. Sales do take place from time to time, and these occasions are handled in different ways. If a work included in the corporate art loan program of the deCordova Sculpture Park and Museum in Lincoln, Massachusetts is bought by a museum corporate member, the artist receives the full purchase price. On the other hand, the Marble Falls Community Art Program in Texas takes a 25 percent commission on any sales that result from the year-long exhibition in the city’s downtown.

An honorarium for the artist, or even help with the cost of moving and installing artwork, is not a given at many city public arts agencies, and insurance against damage and theft also may be left to the individual artist. The City of Santa Fe, Anna Blyth noted, expects the artist to carry any insurance on his or her work, while other municipalities will assume the costs of insurance but require the artist to cover the deductible. Lago Vista, Texas sculptor Michael Epps loaned one of his works to a nearby city (“I don’t want to mention the city by name, because I still work with people there”), and the piece was sited in a parking lot across from a saloon. Late one December night several years ago, a patron of the saloon backed into his sculpture, driving over it and then taking some piece of it away. Neither the saloon patron nor the missing piece was ever found, and the sculpture was a total loss. The city’s insurance policy for the artwork had a $2,000 deductible, which was subtracted from the settlement that the artist received, in addition to a 30 percent commission that the city took for the sale of the sculpture.

The contract with the City of Bee Cave, Texas informs artists taking part in its art loan program that the insurance policy “is for the protection of the City against liability created by placement of the Sculpture on City Property” and does not cover damage or theft, which remain the responsibility of the artists. Normal wear-and-tear, damage from severe weather occurrences and vandalism do take place, and The City of Palo Alto (California) states in a written contract with artists participating in its art loan program that “The Artist, at his or her sole cost and expense, will maintain and repair the Sculpture and the Base during the term of this Agreement.”

Jack Cowart stated that “we’re very careful” where works by Lichtenstein are placed by the borrowing institution. “When asked by the occasional university, we trust it won’t be placed on fraternity row. We would prefer it in front of the university museum, a bit set back and with security.” One work that suffered damaged was placed in a park in Switzerland that local teens regularly used for games of soccer and Frisbee. “I guess the locals got annoyed by the presence of the work. They parked their bikes up against it. It was tagged once or twice. We had no idea.”

Since Lichtenstein’s sculptures aren’t placed on pedestals but are set directly into the ground (“Roy liked the idea of his work coming up from the ground, as though it were a tree”), the foundation stipulates to borrowing institutions that groundskeepers not drive their lawnmowers and trimmers right up to the works.

Not every artist has found the experience of lending artwork rewarding. Mike Baur, a sculptor in West Chicago, Illinois, found no buyers or commissions resulting from his various loans to different city public art agencies, and having pieces gone for a year or more “meant that my galleries had fewer pieces to sell.” Gary Beals, a sculptor in Phoenix, Arizona, noted that there was no honorarium for his loan to the City of Santa Fe, and his work needed to be refurbished when it was returned. “Cities should compensate the artist, changing their programs from loan programs to rental programs,” he said. “It need not be overburdening to the city. It just needs to be an acknowledgement of the artist’s effort and worth.” Rick DeTroyer, a sculptor in Chelsea, Michigan, has a “rental program,” but has “had very little response to my offer.”

The opportunity to have one’s work seen by far more people than visit art galleries is an irresistible temptation for artists, and lending pieces to cities, universities and other institutions may result in commissions and other opportunities to exhibit elsewhere. There are no honoraria for artists at gallery shows, and these displays rarely last more than a month, although they do draw the more select group of people who are more prone to buy artwork. Reven Swanson claimed that more public awareness and excitement attends the installation of her work in public settings than when there is a gallery exhibit. “In smaller towns, you get treated like royalty,” she said. “The mayor comes out to greet you. You get written up in the newspaper; the local television station interviews you.” In addition, there is a more immediate reaction – one way or another – to one’s work. “Works that don’t get a positive response I’ll later cut up and do something else.”

By Daniel Grant

4 responses

  1. Thank for this article. I have encountered all of the issues of placing large-scale sculptures. I recently brought my steel giraffe home from a county park where it was adored by the public with no recompense to me, no insurance and no work on the part of the staff to sell it. I plan to open up my own “sculpture park” on my property. That way I get to have a bit more control over the whole process AND I get the benefit of actually seeing the reactions to my work!

  2. Receiving payment certainly is rare, as are efforts by anyone trying to help an artist sell loaned work. With insurance, sometimes a municipality will cover that, but that isn’t a given except where a public art commission has created that type of policy. The clear benefits of installing (with permission, of course) one’s own work in a public space is the number of people living in the area who will be able to view it and think about it, perhaps get to like it enough to want to acquire it. Putting your own work on your own property as a private sculpture park can also become a local attraction (contact a Tourist and Visitors Bureau) if you can promote it that way. And, of course, that assumes you are willing to allow strangers access to your private property, which may increase your insurance liability and could involve a potentially adverse response from neighbors.

    You might want to consider asking a municipal or state arts agency if it would be willing to support your efforts to create a sculpture park. Probably, no agency would underwrite the exhibition of just your own work, so you might consider inviting other artists to display their work as well. You would be not only an artist but now a curator in charge of programming.

  3. You bring up some very good points. I have already contacted my insurance company and raised some eyebrows there. Yes, extra insurance is required. I have already been sued once personally and don’t care to do it again. I am starting to work on all the local tourist and art center contacts. The neighbors are all good, in fact they are excited about the idea. I don’t think I will have other artists, at least for the first couple of years until I see how it all goes. I am really excited about the idea, I feel like I will be giving something to my local community that they might not otherwise have.
    The best place for public art that I found was the sister city network started by Jim Clark in Sioux Falls, SD. He really treats the artists well, provides insurance and a small travel stipend. He has been very good to me over the years.

  4. Having your work outside on your property helps solve the storage problem and makes things convenient if you hold an open studio event. If it is visible to people who might drive by, or if you advertise your display in some way, visitors are likely to stop by, which is where the insurance issues come into play. There also is the chance that outside display and storage will cause deterioration to your work, which adds another element of cost.
    Placing your work elsewhere, with someone else or some municipality covering the insurance (and, perhaps, maintenance) costs, may solve some problems.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: