Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

CARROLL: The latest visual insult

By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published December 16, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

More stories »

The artist John McEnroe says he's encouraged "that a single object can still provoke thought and action" - referring to the towering stack of crimson intestines, or slippery sausages, or whatever they are, plopped on a pedestal near the pedestrian bridge at Interstate 25 and Platte Street.

He's correct, of course: Ghastly pieces of public art - especially when they carry possible phallic overtones - do tend to "provoke thought and action." And also complaints, for that matter, from taxpayers - who resent the $53,000 price tag - and pedestrians who must endure the visual insult.

"Most public art is sort of designed to please the public," McEnroe told the Rocky. "But it should be as good as the art in a museum."

Oh, heck: a failure on both counts.

It is always possible, of course, that the public may fail to appreciate a genius who strides forth in advance of his time. Perhaps National Velvet, as McEnroe dubs his work, will someday be hailed as a masterpiece. But forgive me for suspecting that another outcome is somewhat more likely: that a later generation will marvel at how Denver officials could take seriously a work that appears to be nothing so much as a strange and mischievous jest.

Some 'monopoly'

John Mackey has a point. The CEO of Whole Foods wonders why, if his company is the fearsome monopolist the federal government imagines, that sales haven't soared since its merger last year with Wild Oats.

In fact, he says, same-store sales are down.

"How can a monopolist have negative same-store sales?" Mackey asks. "The whole thing is ridiculous.

"There's only one place Whole Foods has a monopoly, and that's in the imagination of the lawyers at the Federal Trade Commission."

Whole Foods this month sued the FTC over its continued efforts to unravel a merger with Boulder-based Wild Oats - a merger that a trial judge originally approved. That ruling should have ended the matter. Instead, the FTC - propelled by a surreal belief that Whole Foods threatens to corner the market on premium organic food in cities such as Denver and Boulder - pursued the case, and an appeals court unexpectedly sided with the government.

The upshot: Whole Foods might be forced into the costly exercise of trying to untangle - or at least abort - the integration of two grocery chains that is substantially complete.

And for what? Supposedly so that customers won't be hostage to the "higher prices, reduced quality and fewer choices" that the government implausibly predicted would follow the merger. Yet with so many grocery options available to the public, Whole Foods would have to be crazy to think it could treat customers with disdain once it gobbled up a rival.

Alas, it is too much to expect a federal agency to entertain second thoughts about punishing a first-rate company at a time when consumers are trying to economize and, according to The Associated Press, "the rotten economy is eating into sales of organic foods." To the contrary. The FTC has scheduled the Whole Foods case for an administrative trial in February.

At least the company isn't deluding itself. Its lawsuit compares the FTC to the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland, who famously declared, "First the sentence, then the evidence."

Maybe the judge will award Whole Foods points for gallows humor.

Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

Comments

  • December 16, 2008

    2:06 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    roger44 writes:

    While the general public has become more ignorant in recent years, just what does the government know about the business of selling groceries? if people are dumb enough to believe these foods are better for you and can charge them a premium price, let the chips fall where they may. What the public fails to understand is the farmer has depleted the soil they use of any nutrients, and even with the label organic, they have to use them.

  • December 16, 2008

    6:39 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    VVVV writes:

    Has there been a work of art installed in Denver that hasn't drawn criticism? Even the big blue mascot of a baseball team we no longer have received criticism. Now you walk past art galleries selling paintings of the bear. I appreciate it every time I see red paint on the dancing aliens. I also enjoy having a horseman of the apocalypse scaring tourists away from DIA, as if we need more people to move here without jobs, just because they liked it.

    A visual insult would be blatantly obscene. A pile of sausage, or bloody doo, whatever you call it, seems like a perfect depiction of what I have to watch out for on the sidewalks while I walk to work, especially in the summer. If you don't appreciate artistic freedom, maybe you should get art for your city at the hotel surplus auctions, or just try designing something boring by committee. I'm sure that won't cost more than about triple what you paid, and look like a beige lump of nothing.

    Spainish artistic freedom led to the critics coining the term gaudy. Now people from all over the world travel there to see it. Of course the courage of the Spaniards may have been more than we are willing to have.

    As for Whole Foods, all I can say is watch out for the Argentine brie cheese. It is more rotten than a real pile of poo, and at twice the price.

  • December 16, 2008

    7:48 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

    Except that while the city of Denver is whining about revenues being down, it can spend taxpayer dollars on garbage art? Watch for the cuts in services coming to your neighborhood soon while taxes are increased to pay for more artwork.

  • December 16, 2008

    11:53 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jfayers writes:

    Art that is displayed in the manner described above should reflect something positive about the city. I can't imagine the positive message conveyed here. Notice, i said that art displayed in this manner. Art in general should be whatever the artist needs it to be. But this is different because it is aggressively placed in that the average pedestrian is now, for whatever reason, confronted with grotesque imagery. However, the fault does not fall at the feet of the artist. He can and should do whatever the hell he wants in creating his work. It falls at the feet of the individual or organization that let the piece of art be displayed in such an aggressive way on city property.

  • December 16, 2008

    12:44 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    VVVV: "I also enjoy having a horseman of the apocalypse scaring tourists away from DIA"

    --laughs--

    Best description I've heard of the DIA horse!

  • December 16, 2008

    1:59 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    HopiMedicineMan writes:

    The only real art I'm aware of is Indian. Visit the IAAA in Santa Fe. The theme of Indian art is re-birth. It speaks to a rising people, to dignity, grace and humility. Anglo art reflects a culture self-destructing before the eyes of the world and calling it progress. Anglo art is liberal art. Conservative artists have no voice. And as most of the posts here, liberal art carries only one theme, defiance.

  • December 16, 2008

    3:19 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jjez writes:

    Hopi--oh please! Native art is done as much for profit as any other art. It's not all about re-birth. I've seen plenty (have family in the Native art/jewelry business) of pin-up art created in the "genre" of Native art, by Native artists. Yes, there are many artists who create for the sole purpose of the creation of the art and they just happen to make money at it. The whole "noble savage" bit is a fallacy and you know it. There are as many artists who create for the market as there are the other. Very little art is created solely for the sake of "art". Every artist makes a statement with their art. That's the whole point of creating art. Or writing books. Or making movies. They all have something to say.

  • December 16, 2008

    4:40 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    TimeLord writes:

    Blow it out your Hopihole, dullard.

  • December 16, 2008

    10:58 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    BacklashSchitzka writes:

    "National Velvet"? It reminds me of the years I spent working in the V.D. Clinic back in the early '80s.

    The hifalutin folks who buy their appointments to the selection committees for this public "art" spectacle must inflict their pitifully poor taste upon the rest of us and chuckle all the way to the Mayor's cocktail soiree where they unveil this schlock. As the rest of us don't have the dollars to invest in the "war chests" of mayoral candidates, we will never have the privilege of selecting asthestically pleasing and timeless art for the people of this city.

    Hey taggers! Havaball...