ROSEN: Keep 'Mustang' at DIA? Neigh
By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published February 13, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.
The first time I saw the Blue Demon at Denver International Airport, I thought it was some kind of temporary publicity stunt. The next time I saw it, it was evening and those menacing red lights from the scary steed's beady eye sockets were glaring at me through the darkness. Little did I know that Denver city government intends the Mustang, as it's officially named, to remain as a permanent fixture. Only time will tell whether it serves to attract or ward off evil spirits.
It probably wasn't a good omen when Mustang pulled a Frankenstein's monster and turned on its master, sculptor Luis Jimenez, crushing him to death during the final stages of its creation. Jimenez, an award-winning, "exuberant" Latino artist, was well-intentioned and did not craft Mustang to scare little children. He meant it to symbolize the boldness of the West, we're told.
But the statue has become a target of growing controversy, even gaining national attention on television and in a recent front-page article in The Wall Street Journal. It's been described by its critics as the "Meth Horse," been compared to the Ringwraith horses from The Lord of the Rings and is reported to have brought on nightmares (or, perhaps, nightstallions) in the aforementioned little kids.
Rachel Hulton, a local real estate agent, has created a Facebook page at byebyebluemustang.com in hopes of exorcizing the beast from DIA. Support for Mustang has come, not surprisingly, from the arts community which, in the face of widespread public revulsion, defends the city's decision to buy it and to put it on prominent display at the airport. They argue that the purpose of art is to engage, provoke or rile you up.
Erin Trapp, director of the Denver Office of Cultural Affairs, regards the Blue Demon as a success because it stimulates passion, even in the people who hate it. Artist Shawn Tolliver condescendingly scolded Hulton about her "ignorance as to what art is." Tolliver's Web site goes by the name "deviantART." Need I say more?
Listen, there's nothing new about this argument between enlightened artists and the rest of us uncultured cretins. One such sensational incident was the 1989 flap over Andres Serrano's Piss Christ photograph depicting Christ on the cross submerged in a glass filled with the artist's urine. What angered the public was that the National Endowment for the Arts had rewarded Seranno with $15,000 of the taxpayers' money.
Similarly, the DIA controversy is all about public art. Art is subjective. I'll confess that my layman's tastes favor the traditional, the grand, the uplifting and the tasteful. I don't want to be provoked or "engaged" by the Blue Demon on my journeys to DIA. I don't like it and I don't think it gives a good impression of Denver to out-of-town visitors.
If artists choose to create - and private individuals choose to purchase - controversial or deviant art, that's their business. If it's public art paid for with public dollars, the greater public ought to have a greater say. It seems that artsy types dominate the selection process. Funding what the "ignorant" public regards as repugnant art with public dollars disserves the public interest. This isn't a First Amendment issue or an art appreciation issue, it's a political issue.
Denver's Office of Cultural Affairs claims the public is evenly divided on the Blue Demon. I don't believe it. Deane Knox, president of Knox Galleries, has offered to donate a magnificent bronze sculpture, The Pegasus, by Sandi Scott valued at $180,000 to replace the Blue Demon at DIA. On my Web page at www.850koa.com (click on "Shows," then on The Mike Rosen Show), in a head-to-head match with the vote count approaching 2,000, The Pegasus is trouncing Mustang, 80 percent to 20 percent.
The $650,000 the city paid for Old Blue shouldn't go to waste. It would make a great scarecrow in a cornfield and might even qualify for a federal ethanol subsidy.
Mike Rosen's radio show airs weekdays from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA. He can be reached by e-mail at mikerosen@850koa.com.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
February 13, 2009
6:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
wolf25 writes:
The Broncos should buy it and place it outside of the visitors locker room.
February 13, 2009
6:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
gkb2008 writes:
The sculpture should be relocated to Skyline Park to scare away the meth heads and hoods that gather there at night.
February 13, 2009
6:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
AngelontheSidelines writes:
Anything that enrages knee jerk conservatives is fine by me.
February 13, 2009
7:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
taoistblockhead writes:
The Blue Mustang should be placed outside the New York Stock Exchange in an attempt to exorcise the demons residing on Wall Street.
To symbolize the spirit of the West we should place a statue of the Sand Creek Massacre outside of DIA. Complimented with a hologram of Denver’s Brown Cloud.
The white immigrants to America have always taken pride in the truth of their God, their religion and their way of life – they should either put up or shut up.
February 13, 2009
7:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
INC writes:
As long as conservatives are worried about Art and not sabotaging the economy any further. I say keep the mustang just the way it is.
Keep em distracted.
February 13, 2009
7:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
jd writes:
I think the artsy fartsy folk are wrong. Good art doesn't make controversy but uplifts. The rest is junk hiding as art. It doesn't take much skill at art to throw mud at a canvas and call it good art. It just takes good talking skills to get someone to pay you top dollar for it. Michelangelo & Mozart didn’t create controversy but made the best art in their field and it still is to this day.
February 13, 2009
7:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:
Send the Mustang back to New Mexico and plant a tree.
I want a refund!
February 13, 2009
7:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Good2Go5280 writes:
That thing is heinous.
February 13, 2009
8:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
d1234 writes:
Tao,
Why must everything you say become some anti conservative diatribe? I was an art major in my youth and escaped that community when I realized that art was no longer about making people feel good, but was, in many instances designed to piss people off. Why is it that when I want something to be beautiful and nice, I'm a redneck rube, but if I want it to "make me think" (read: cause anger in most white folks because we oppress everyone and all bad things in the world are our fault)I'm a progressive thinker, thinking the 'right' thoughts? Methinks there is double speak about.
February 13, 2009
8:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
RJS07 writes:
I don't think it's that big a deal...on the other hand, I guess I'm paying more attention to getting where I'm going when I go by it, so I don't have time to study it. It's no more offensive than a good many other pieces of art around, so I'd say leave it alone. Since no one has to look at it for very long, I'd say find something else to worry about.
February 13, 2009
8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
fishtanksamurai writes:
Leave it to some "blockhead" to hijack a discussion about art to promote his own racist agenda. No one has to "put up" anything.
Back on subject, the horse is hideous and I like the suggestion to put it on display for the opposition at Invesco.
February 13, 2009
9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
BJG writes:
Not all art pieces are going to be "liked" by everyone. It's not something I would have chosen, but, that doesn't mean it's not good art. So Denver, live with it you paid a lot of $$ for it. If everyone had a say in the art Denver places all over the city there wouldn't be a stick of art anywhere. Some group seems to complain for every piece selected.
February 13, 2009
9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mombob55 writes:
I think the Mustang is tough looking! Mustangs represent this part of the country more than some mythological, whimsical creature.
February 13, 2009
9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
If they get rid of it, then make sure NOTHING goes up in it's place. If the city is going to "cave" to one group, then why put something else in it's place that another group won't like? The city will be going through this cycle (place sculpture-disgruntled group dislikes it-replace it-etc) forever.
The government needs to get out of the art business once and for all.
d1234 writes: "Tao... Why must everything you say become some anti conservative diatribe?"
Because he's a Liberal. (You have to ask?)
February 13, 2009
9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
While we're at it - where do I sign the petition to have all the stupid sculptures outside the art museum removed as well?
Those are far more of an eye-sore than the "blue mustang".
February 13, 2009
9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
VVVV writes:
I love it. Though I'm used to the outcry when anything new is erected, like the library, Invesco field, the dancing aliens, or even DIA itself. There are always haters, and always will be. I think the Mustang is amazing, and it resembles a sculpture of a horse kept in the athens museum. History has always valued reminders that there is an untameable wild part of nature, that although it is scary, it is admirable. I think the problem is that too much Disney, Hannah Montana, and Pixar movies people are watching with their kids have dulled their sense of taste.
I am amazed that Mike Rosen has fallen onto the lipstick and rouge PC side of this argument. I like you politics, but your sense of taste makes me glad you aren't on any art selection committees, or our entire town would look like a Powerpuff Girls episode.
February 13, 2009
9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
taoistblockhead writes:
"We're all living on the reservation now." - John Trudell
Keep the horse... It symbolizes the aliens living beneath DIA.
February 13, 2009
9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
nnp47 writes:
When I look at this, I am reminded that all creatures have their "explosive" side. I like the reminder. Things do not have to look like us to be appreciated. Keep it where it is.
February 13, 2009
9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
VVVV writes:
Take a look at the ancient greeks real idea of a horse, not that cartoonish pegasus that Rosen is pushing for.
http://www.ancient-greece.org/images/...
February 13, 2009
10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
dragonfly writes:
Remove it. I feel like I'm entering the gates of Hell each time I go to DIA. How about swapping the blue demon for the blue bear?
February 13, 2009
11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
This liberal agrees with Mike Rosen, that thing is hideous.
I agree with those who say that public art shouldn't be common-denominator bland or cutsie-poo, but that Mustang is terrible. Especially those death-ray eyes. Maybe the Mustang is a test platform for some SDI project.
I do like the Denver library, and the artistic pile of rust-colored I-beams to the west of it, but the Mustang is hideous. But, considering its bad karmic history, I suppose any attempt to move it would probably cause it to fall on and kill the movers, so I guess we're stuck with the dang thing.
February 13, 2009
11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
jabuhrer writes:
"Michelangelo & Mozart didn’t create controversy"
AAAAAAAAHAHAHA!!!!
You really should read up on art a little if you insist on making asinine comments on the subject. Michelangelo and Mozart certainly did have to deal with "controversy" from conservative dunces like you and Rosen in their times. You should read up on Girolamo Savonarola, the Dominican priest and leader of Florence who burned masterpieces by Botticelli and Michelangelo in huge bonfires because he claimed they were "immoral." Many of Michelangelo's fresco masterpieces were partially destroyed in efforts to censor them.
There have always been stodgy mossbacks that stand in the way of progress and beauty. They are called conservatives.
February 13, 2009
11:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
bjones writes:
jd -
Are you serious? Michelangelo didn't create controversy? Check your history. He was one of the most controversial artists of his time. Ever see the "Last Judgment"? It was so controversial the Pope had the figures all painted over because of.. oh no! ... nudity!
February 13, 2009
11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
bjones writes:
jabuhrer wrote -
There have always been stodgy mossbacks that stand in the way of progress and beauty. They are called conservatives.
Amen to that.
February 13, 2009
11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
rrman writes:
Keep the Beast!
February 13, 2009
11:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
BettyMahaffey writes:
When I first saw the sculpture, I was reminded of the old Country and Western song "Ghost Riders in the Sky." I don't care one way or the other if it is removed, but I don't understand the purpose of using taxpayer's money to erect something so ugly. I also agree about Denver's downtown art. It looks like a day care center for giant children and don't get me started about the hideous aneorxic dancers. I agree that art should provide beauty and peace, not create arguments and controversy.
February 13, 2009
11:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
rachelbeme writes:
Interesting quote from the artist:
“I don’t want to sound like a commercial artist but [making art] is entirely different when you’re working with a community. The work belongs to the people. It has to come from the artist but the people have to be able to identify with it.” – Luis Jimenez {From John Beardsley’s “Personal Sensibilities in Public Places,” Artforum 19 (1981)}
February 13, 2009
11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
rachelbeme writes:
why is this about political sensibilities? I know dozens of liberals and conservatives alike who think the horse is both inappropriate and ugly.
February 13, 2009
12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
bxwatso writes:
That horse is the most aesthetically offensive thing I have ever seen. I would rather have an upside down crucifix in a barrel of urine.
February 13, 2009
12:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
csanford writes:
BettyMahaffey -
It wasn't paid for with taxpayer's money. It was paid for using municipal bonds. It's not the same thing. This is something that is severely overlooked and incorrectly portrayed consistently on the issue.
February 13, 2009
2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dr_B writes:
Rosen and Caldera and the righties are testing their strength on this issue.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with the Mustang. Its quite beautiful and very moving.
Caldera and Rosen and the righties just want to see how much noise they can create, and how much power they have. Its pretty silly. The statue is terrific and Denver can be proud to own it. The state, however, should be ashamed of all the right wing hate mongers it harbors.
Rosen should go back to hating liberals. His ability to discuss art is pretty shockingly pedestrian. But he manages to incite resentment -- his one and only trick.
Can't wait for the Rocky to fire him.
February 13, 2009
2:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
vimbo writes:
Isn't it cute that the only vitriol in this thread comes from the socialist seminar writers? The conservatives hate the friggin' horse. The seminar writers hate the conservatives. That said, the horse is a smidgen less offensive, as both art and decoration, than the androgynous dancing space aliens at the Convention Center. God, they're awful.
February 13, 2009
2:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:
A realistic Mustang rather than a fake blue Mustang with red eyes would have been awesome, beautiful and art.
This thread illustrates the problem with using public funds to do anything other than the basics.
Why spend peoples money on things they hate?
Government is suppose to be about things everybody needs..
Roads are a great example. The justice system is another example minus the laws that have nothing to do with violence/force.
February 13, 2009
3:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
gary writes:
To those of you that think art should get you mad and riled up...
You should really like the art flag that was put up at Thomas Jefferson High School.
Read about it....a bunch of people do not like that art..and they took it down those nasty conservatives.
All of you (not the conservatives) should be all riled up and mad because they took that flag down.
February 13, 2009
3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
BettyMahaffey writes:
"When I first saw the sculpture, I was reminded of the old Country and Western song "Ghost Riders in the Sky." "
Betty, please!
That was a Western song. Nothing "country" about it.
There are only two types of music: Country and Western.
All else is noise! : )
February 13, 2009
4:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
"csanford writes:
BettyMahaffey -
It wasn't paid for with taxpayer's money. It was paid for using municipal bonds. It's not the same thing. This is something that is severely overlooked and incorrectly portrayed consistently on the issue.'
Wait, what? Who is paying BACK those bonds? The space aliens under the DIA trains?
It's PAID WITH TAXPAYER MONEY, FOOL!
February 13, 2009
4:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
jonesld writes:
The shape of the wild stallion itself is fine. Just paint the entire thing (including/especially the eyes) white or black and it would look great.
February 13, 2009
5:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
MM2 writes:
Thank you Mike, for writing on such truly important issues of the day. I look forward to next week's column, "Margarine or Butter?". And for the record, yes, you need to say more than "Tolliver's Web site goes by the name deviantART. ' Need I say more?" That's textbook ad hominem and refutes nothing.
February 13, 2009
5:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
BHS1976 writes:
Turn it into the world's largest jar of metalic blue glue...
February 14, 2009
1:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
A beautiful picture and some positive reviews from "outsiders."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12339...
February 14, 2009
8:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
benzoo writes:
That horse is hideous but that's not the point. I also hate that thing but now that the national media is talking, it looks much better! I think we should keep it as an act of defiance. Who cares what the people back east think? Let's change our attitude and be proud of the ugliest statue in America! When we let outsiders tell us how to live then we're in trouble. Embrace Blucifer! Let's build more! Local gov't is the best gov't.
February 14, 2009
9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
taoistblockhead writes:
Either that or move it into Dan Caplis's backyard.
February 14, 2009
1:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
ollie writes:
No one gives a damn about your opinion Rosen.
February 14, 2009
4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
localyokal writes:
Dr_B,first, do no harm.
"The state, however, should be ashamed of all the right wing hate mongers it harbors." ---------I would bet you believe in freedom of thought and speech, tolerance and diversity and that you are a progressive and forward thinker, right? Although when someone disagrees with your points of view, all that liberalism goes out the window and you are just really one more hater, intolerant and extremely hypocritical. You should consider therapy to help you through these times of distress.
February 15, 2009
11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
Would painting it black and changing the eyes to silver make it more appealing? Why blue with red eyes?
The consensus is that this is "heinous" regardless of your ideology!
February 15, 2009
11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
Dr_B writes:
"Can't wait for the Rocky to fire him."
Is this your example of "love mongering"?
February 15, 2009
3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
bluejacket writes:
Are we not supposed to be watching the road out there?
Just a thought.
February 15, 2009
6:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
djbrav writes:
Brain writes:
"Would painting it black and changing the eyes to silver make it more appealing? Why blue with red eyes?
The consensus is that this is "heinous" regardless of your ideology!"
So, a majority of those who speak up on this blog and the 7,000 on the facebook site makes for a consensus? Hardly. I like the horse and look forward to seeing it when I travel or pick up visitors from the airport. It does evoke thought and passion and to me represents the wild nature of the west.
Keep the horse. My condolences to the artist and his family.
If you get scared at the sight of the horse - grow a pair.
February 16, 2009
10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
jonas writes:
I like it.
February 16, 2009
2:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
If this causes your kid to have nightmares then you need to send that kid to counseling.
February 16, 2009
6:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Zim writes:
My vote is to replace it with a big purple dinosaur. And it should have animatronics to hug every visitor who enters the airport.
February 17, 2009
8:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
with rosen's days at the rocky pulpit coming to an end....this is how he's ending his time there?
golly, mike, don't hurt yourself.
February 17, 2009
9:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Zim writes: "My vote is to replace it with a big purple dinosaur. And it should have animatronics to hug every visitor who enters the airport."
--laughs--
February 18, 2009
7:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
sometimes i wonder why rosen practically never puts anything substantial in print...then i remember how hard it is for him to run from his on air rhetoric...
Mike Rosen continued his misinformation campaign about the economic recovery package, falsely claiming that "less than 20 percent" of the spending in the legislation would be completed in 2009, and "almost half" would be spent "in 2011 and beyond." Colorado Media Matters noted that he had stated a similar falsehood twice previously. Further, Rosen inaccurately asserted that legislation reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance Program, which President Obama signed February 4, "extend[s] health insurance benefits to children as old as 25 years old." The law contains no such extension.
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/item...
which brings me to my point....try to keep it between the ditches if you choose to write about the stimulus package, mike.
people are no longer buying your crap.