U·M·I University Microfilms International a Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm. master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sectionswith small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. U·M·I University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. M148106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Order Number 9300338 Art in Public Places: Hawaii State Foundation on Culture and the Arts and its cultural significance Munson, Gloria Ursal, Ph.D. University of Hawaii, 1992 Copyright @1992 by Munson, Gloria Ursal. All rights reserved. V·M·I 300N. ZeebRd. Ann Arbor, MI48106 ART IN PUBUC PLACES: HAWAII STATE FOUNDATION ON CULTURE AND THE ARTS AND ITS CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DMSION OFTIlE UNIVERSITY OFHAWAII IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OFPHILOSOPHY IN AMERICAN STUDIES AUGUST 1992 BY Gloria Ursal Munson Dissertation Committee: Mark Helbling, Chairperson David Bertelson James McCutcheon Duane Preble David Swift iii © Copyright 1992 by Gloria Ursal Munson All Rights Reserved iv Acknowledgments Thank you to members ofmy committee for their encouragement and helpful comments during this longgestation, especially to mychairperson, Mark Helbling, who challenged meto answer, "What isthe point?" A special acknowledgment also to David Bertelson, whose gentle questioning helped me to defme my conceptual framework. Mycommittee members' suggestions during our long discussions helped clarify my ideas. I want to thank all the people who have so willing andgraciously contributed countless hours and recollections during my interviews-without these individuals, I would have had no starting point. To Alfred Preis and PundyYokouchi; artists Satoru Abe, Laura Ruby, andSean Browne, and their ArtAdvisory Committees, and Rocky Jenson and hiswife, Lucia; and Franklin Odo of the University ofHawaii Ethnic Studies Program-mywarmest mahalo. Warren Nishimoto ofthe University ofHawaii Center for Oral History showed me some techniques for conducting fruitful interviews. I also appreciate the helpful staffmembers ofthe StateArchives ofHawaii and the Municipal Reference and Records Center. Finally, and most important, my warmest appreciation to Leon Munson, my husband, who was infor the duration: without his support, this dissertation would have remained in the proposal stage. Because ofhis support, I am now able to dedicate this dissertation to my parents, Sally Haruko Araki and Thomas Tiquilio Ursal. v Abstract I have based this study on the idea that providing art forthe people is a legitimate responsibility of government, which must make aesthetic experiences available for all. Byits very nature, art for the people raises broad political and aesthetic questions that often result in controversy. Ifthe state ofthearts and theirsupport bygovernment areto remain healthy and vital, such controversy is important as a catalyst for discussion. As Hawaii's official agency, the State Foundation on Culture and theArts assumed a significant role as art patron. Its role expanded when the legislature passed the percent-for-art lawestablishing theArt in Public Places program. This program was responsible for the purchases ofportable, relocatable works as well as permanently installed, commissioned works of art. Itsgoal was to enhance public enjoyment of art, develop public awareness of art, encourage professional artists, and preserve the multicultural heritage of the people of Hawaii. Using the case-study method, this research focuses on how the program's commissioning process demonstrates thecultural democracy that is thebasis for its policies. The Foundation democratized the arts by bringing fine arttraditions ofthe Eastand the West to the people. Such a dissemination of fine art conveys an aesthetic standard that values high culture as the best or most appropriate for the people. The Foundation also democratized the arts by expanding the definition to include ethnic andfolk art as wellas the crafts. It considered all aesthetic expressions art. This melding encouraged popular participation. Thus, Western abstractions incorporating Asian and Hawaiian vi forms competed forresources with ethnic representations ofmythical Hawaiian deities. In addition, the Foundation accommodated two different visions of art. One involved a multicultural synthesis within a Western concept. The other included various expressions ofthe different cultural enclaves striving to preserve theirheritage. Both visions of art werevalid, as were the two approaches to cultural democracy. They helped to explain howthe Foundation operated its art program. vii Table of Contents Acknowledgments . ..... iv Abstract. ..... ..... v Preface xi Chapter 1: Public Art, Public Participation ............... .. 1 Introduction ........................... .. 1 Thesis and Perspective ...................... .. 3 Research Methodology ...................... .. 7 Emphases and Limitations ......................10 Synopsis of Chapters ......................... 11 Chapter 2: National Arts Legislation: Cultural Democracy 13 Government Support of the Arts: Early America . 13 New Deal for the Arts ...................... .. 15 Federal Legislation Prior to 1960 . .. .... 21 Art and the Phenomenon of the Sixties .. 23 Kennedy's Invitation to the Arts ...................26 The Arts Lived in Camelot ......................27 A New Frontier for the Arts ................... .. 28 The Great Society Constructs an Arts Foundation . 34 A Federal-State Partnership ................... .. 39 Summary ............................ .. 42 Chapter 3: Creation of the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts . 45 The Rise of Ethnic Diversity . 45 Hawaii's Arts Awakening. ................... .. 47 The New Hawaii ........................ .. 50 viii A MasterBuilder ofthe SFCA .................. .. 54 Legislative Consensus for Act 269 . 60 Summary. .................. 65 Chapter 4: The SFCA Outreach 67 TheReluctant Chairman: PundyYokouchi . 67 The Odd Couple in Chicago ......................73 The First Commissioners 76 Community Involvement, Citizen Participation . 86 A Statewide Conference on Culture andArts ........... .. 89 Culture and Arts for Model Cities ................ .. 95 Summary ........ 101 Chapter 5: Art in Public Places . 104 TheStageIs Set . .. 104 Genesis .............. .. .. 105 Legislative Testimony for the Arts . .. .. 108 The Legislature Takes Action .................... 11 0 Passageofthe Percent-for-Art Legislation ........... .. 112 Provisions of the Legislation .................. .. 114 Artin Public Places: for the People ......... 116 Implementation of the Artin Public Places Program . 118 Public Art, Public Participation ................. .. 119 ArtAdvisory Committee Guidelines .............. .. 120 Management Audit of the StateFoundation on Culture and the Arts 122 Revised Guidelines for the ArtAdvisory Committees ...... .. 124 Summary ........................... .. 128 ix Chapter 6: Whose ArtIs It? 131 Art Advisory Committee in Action: Three Case Studies ....... 131 The Artist: Satoru Abe . 134 The Work of Art: Spring. SUmmer. Autumn. ......... .. 136 Art for the Community ....................... 141 The Artist: LauraRuby . 142 The Work of Art: Cromlech. ..... 144 Art forthe Community . 146 The Artist: Sean Kekamakupaa Lee Loy Browne .. 149 The Work of Art: Spirit Way (Ke Ala 0 Ka Uhane) 151 Art forthe Community ............... 156 Art in Public Places: A Dissenting View ............ .. 158 Summary ........................... .. 162 Chapter 7: Art forthe People 166 Introduction ............................ 166 Cultural Significance of the Commissioning Process . 167 Some Communal Values. ..................... 171 Conclusion .............................174 Appendix . ....... 178 Notes .... ...... 184 Notes to Chapter 1: Public Art, Public Participation . 184 Notes to Chapter 2: National Arts Legislation: Cultural Democracy 186 Notes to Chapter 3: Creation of the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts ....................... .. 192 Notes to Chapter 4: The SFCA Outreach ............ .. 196 x Notes to Chapter 5: Art in Public Places . .. 203 Notes to Chapter 6: Whose Art Is It? 209 Notes to Chapter 7: Art for the People. .............. 215 Works Cited . .. 216 xi Preface I wasbornon the island of Lanai, a place where rows and rows of pineapples grew and