INFORMATION TO USERS

Tills reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While tiic most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality o f the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or “ target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “ Missing Page(s)” . I f it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity.

2 . When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin film ing at the upper left hand corner o f a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections w ith small overlaps. I f necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department.

5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed.

UniversiW M icrailnns International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1321001

RIDGE, ANN

BEHIND PUBLIC SCULPTURE

THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY M.A. 1983

University Microfilms

I nternetio nel300 N, zeeb Road, Ann Arbor. MI 48106

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PLEASE NOTE:

In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark ^

1. Glossy photographs or pages

2. Colored illustrations, paper or print_____

3. Photographs with dark background _____

4. Illustrations are poor copy______

5. Pages with black marks, not original copy

6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page

7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages J

8. Print exceeds margin requirements_____

9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine ___

10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print

11. Page(s)______lacking when material received, and not available from school or author.

12. Page(s)______seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

13. Two pages numbered ______. Text follows.

14. Curling and wrinkled pages ______

15. Other

University Microfilms International

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BEHIND PUBLIC SCULPTURE by

Ann Ridge

submitted to the

Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences

of the American University in Partial Fulfillment of

The Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts

in Performing Arts

Signatures of Committee:

Chairman:

7 / / a /u..

Dean of the College \ .Id. Daté 1981

The American University Washington, D. C. 20016

THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY j |^'3

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BEHIND PUBLIC SCULPTURE

by Ann Ridge

ABSTRACT

In the past thirty years public sculpture in

Chicago has become a widespread phenomenon. Due to the

size, materials and installation costs of public sculpture

considerable expenses are incurred. Simultaneously, many

relationships are necessary to conceive of and implement such projects. The purpose of this these is to determine

how public sculpture is funded. The most prominent categories of funding are in­

dividual donations and commissions, government funding,

foundation grants, corporate funded projects and loans. Of

thirty-eight pieces of sculpture researched, ten were

individually funded, six corporate sponsored projects, six

government commissions and four were the result of foun­ dation grants. Thirteen institutions acquired sculpture on

permanent or short term loans. Fifteen different variables pertaining to the

mechanics of the acquisitions were consistently present.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction profiibited witfiout permission. varying radically according to the circumstances and the

relationships of the donors, recipients, the artists, and the influence of the architects.

Reproduced with permission of ttie copyrigfit owner. Furtfier reproduction profiibited witfiout permission. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper was born of sheer curiosity.

Words cannot express the profound thankfulness

I feel toward my father and mother, my good

friend Michael, and Esther. Their constant sup­ port, love and open ears carried me through.

11

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... ii

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION...... 1

Scope, Purpose and Method of Research

II. INDIVIDUAL GIFTS AND PURCHASES OF SCULPTURE...... 7

"Construction in Space", Grande Disco", "Oreillart", "Aileronde", "Pulchinella II", "Diagolo", "Armonia", "Why?", "Horse", "Rouge Coquille" III. GOIŒRNMENT FUNDED SCULPTURE ...... 33

"Flamingo", "Batcolumn", "From Here to There", "Our King", Percentage for Art, City of Chicago IV. CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC SCULPTURE .... 59

"Untitled", "Chicago Totem", "Dynamic Pyramid", "Bather", "Arris"

V. FOUNDATIONS AND SCULPTURE ...... 81

"Head of a Woman", "Four Seasons", B. F. Ferguson Fund, "Nuclear Energy", "Celebration"

VI. SCULPTURE ON L O A N ...... 104 "Reclining Figure", "Grande Radar", "Mobius Triangle", The Albank Sculpture Garden

111

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. VII. GOVERNORS STATE UNIVERSITY ...... 115

VIII. CONCLUSIONS...... 126

CHARTS .... 135 APPENDICES ...... 138 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 182

IV

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, public art, particularly public

sculpture has become an important art form in America.

Municipalities across the country have participated in an enormous effort toward this trend. Acting in accordance,

Chicago has met the challenge of collecting sculpture for outdoor spaces with great enthusiasm. The downtown Chicago

plazas have become permanent exhibits of works by Picasso,

Chagall, Noguchi, Oldenberg and Bertoia. The city's many university campuses have become landmarks for their

collections of work by internationally known sculptors. Works by Chicago artists are found in every imaginable

neighborhood, public building complex, civic center, park

and thoroughfare. "Chicago has in fact developed over the last decade

or so into a major center for public art of mammoth size.

And despite the diversity of the factions behind public sculpture commissions, there has been an "...effort of big

Chicago patrons to turn their city into a leading center

for monumental art.

^Franz Schulze, "Chicago: Bigger and livelier but...", ARTnews, February 1979, p. 45.

^Ibid. 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The pieces range vastly in aesthetic/historical significance, in financial value, in dimension, material,

colour and scale. All, however, share one common denomi­

nator; eash exists for public attention in a public place, hence, the term "public sculpture." The term implies many

inferences; i.e., the piece was funded with taxpayers' dollars or, perhaps, the public created it. To clarify the

term here, public sculpture is defined as sculpture in­ stalled on public or private property, out of doors, for

all the world to see.

Contemplation of the sculptures provokes many questions beyond the aesthetics. How was this piece

financed? What kind of cooperation is necessary to imple­

ment a project of this nature? Was an architect involved? And, the greatest question of all, "Who chose this piece?"

These observances expanded into more complex questions.

Is one person or group of people orchestrating the pro­

liferation of public sculpture in Chicago? Are these

people related to each other and in what ways? What is entailed in the process of an acquisition?

The above issues consolidate into two central

themes; what are the most significant sources of funds for purchasing public sculpture and what is the process for

acquiring this kind of art? Prior to 1950, the majority of public sculpture was

limited to monuments and memorials commemorating great

Americans and events. Located in the city's twenty-six

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 parks, these sculptures represent two important aspects of

early Chicago life; a strong need to identify history through art and a statement of ethnic cohesion. As a rule,

the monuments and memorials were cooperatively funded by community groups and associations. An ethnic association,

for instance, the Norwegians, would isolate a historical

event worthly of commemoration and commission an artist to

create an appropriate sculpture. Funding was obtained from

within the association in the form of individual contri­

butions . When sculptures were not funded by community groups,

they were the donations of wealthy art patrons. Of all the

pieces located in the Chicago Park District, approximately

twenty-five percent were paid for by individual donors.

This trend changed after 1950 when organizations and agencies took responsibility for acquisitions of sculpture.

For instance, Chicago was one of the first cities to partic­ ipate in the "percent for the Arts in Architecture" program administered by the General Services Administration, where­

by a percentage of the construction costs of a new federal

building is allocated for the commission of art. In the

case of a private funding source, Chicago has a trust en­

dowed by the late B. F. Ferguson for the express purpose

of funding monumental sculpture.

A closer analysis reveals the financial impetus

^The Chicago Park District, Listing of Sculpture in the Chicago Parks.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4

behind the public arts movement as an informal donor net­ work: an unstructured collection of people and organi­

zations composed of corporations, foundations, government agencies, arts advocate groups and individuals. The donors

supporting these projects emerge from many different

directions, and give for numerous reasons in countless ways.

Scope, Purpose and Method of Research

The purpose of this thesis is to clarify how public

sculpture is funded by: 1) determining the most significant source of funds for contemporary public sculpture in

Chicago (works acquired after 1950), and 2) examining these

sources regarding details of the exact events of specific

acquisitions.

The method of research was developed in two stages. The first was the selection of thirty-eight pieces of

public sculpture to represent significant works and a cross

section of funding sources. Because the pieces were chosen at random, and not according to any aesthetic value system,

they do not include many of Chicago’s important works.

Regrettably due to the constraints of research, many valuable instances of major funding projects were not in­

corporated, but certainly not unnoticed'.

The text will categorize the thirty-eight pieces

into the various types of funding and present each piece

as a case study of an acquisition.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5

The second sLage focuses on the individual sculp­

tures. Each piece investigated according to: title,

artist, location, owner(s), donor(s), commissioner(s), the relationship of these individuals, the decision making in

selecting the sculpture, planning and designing the foun­

dations, the costs of the installation, foundations and transportation and the legal aspects of the transactions.

The mode of investigation was conducted as follows: 1) Personal interviews with the artists, donors,

foundation representatives, trustees, museum directors and board members, corporate architects, the Chicago Council

on Fine Arts, the General Services Administration, the city

architects office, et al. 2) Investigation of the sculpture in the Chicago

Park District. 3) Interviews with local arts authorities, art

critics, writers, art professors, newspapers and architects,

4) Investigation of documents, records and plans of the city sculptural projects at the Chicago Municipal

Reference Library. 5) Investigation of building and fund raising

records at the University of Chicago, Northwestern Uni­

versity and Governors State University. 6) Interviews with representatives of the B. F.

Ferguson Fund at the Art Institute of Chicago.

7) Relevant newspapers, periodicals, press

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6

materials and books. The research of the sculptures relies heavily on

personal interviews and other kinds of original research. Consequently, certain aspects of the information may be

viewed quite differently by each source. The paper

attempts to reconstruct the circumstances of the acquisi­

tions as accurately as possible, as well as presenting

varied perspectives.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER I I

INDIVIDUAL PURCHASES AND

GIFTS OF SCULPTURE

Individual patrons of the arts, particularly in the number of acquisitions and not necessarily in the dollars

spent, remain in the forefront in purchasing sculpture and

financing commissions. Of the thirty-eight pieces examined

in this paper, ten were financed by individuals and nine of

those acquisitions were donated to, or commissioned in cooperation with, educational institutions. Historically

individual art patrons have been instrumental in purchasing

and donating much of the sculpture in Chicago. Prior to 1950, most of the donations by individuals to the city were

intended for erection in the twenty-six city parks.^ These individuals often had social recognition in the com­

munity and further commitments to various art forms. In

this respect, the trend has not changed. The social and political qualities of the patrons are the same, but the

nature of the recipients of the donations has shifted, as evidenced by an increased number of donations to institu­

tions rather than the city park system.

^The Chicago Park District, Listing of Sculpture in the Chicago Parks.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8

Currently, the individual patron chooses the recip­ ient institution for numerous reasons; 1) he or she is an

alumnus, 2) sits on the board of trustees or similar

governing body, 3) has had a child in attendance at the institution, 4) shares personal or business interests with

influential people within the institution. The patron donates for a variety of reasons, i.e., he or she may have

a personal art collection, portions of which may not remain

in the family. At some point the patron recognizes the problems and responsibilities of disposing of the col­

lection. With the assistance of an attorney or an accoun­

tant, the donor devises an estate planning system whereby

ownership of the art (in this case sculpture) is pledged

to a charitable organization. When a work of art is donated to a charitable in­ stitution, such as a museum or university, the donor may take a tax deduction for up to one-half of the fair market value of the piece on the date the gift is made. In many instances this is more advantageous to the donor than a direct monetary gift to the institution, since the price paid may be substantially less than the appraisal.2

For further information on the appraisal of art (the

computation of the assessed value of a donation and the regulations of the Internal Revenue Service (1RS), see appendix, pages 138-40.

For the 1RS regulations on donating paintings, an­

tiques and other objects of art, see appendix, page 141.

^Leonard D. DuBoff, The Deskbook of Art Law, Washington, D. C .: Federal Publications, Inc., 1977, p. 124.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9

Sculpture commission, on the other hand, occurs under quite different conditions. In these cases, patrons

usually have a history of an intimate financial relation­ ship with the recipient institution. In many instances,

the commission is pledged in combination with a large

donation for architectural purposes. Under these circum­ stances, many individuals participate in the acquisition

of the sculpture. The principal figures usually include the head of the development office of the university (or

the college for which the particular building is being

constructed), the president of the university, the artist, the university architect, the project architect, and in the

principal role, the donor. The following will discuss in detail the circum­

stances that led to the donation of the aforementioned ten

pieces, the event of the acquisition, and, where possible,

the terms of the transaction.

"Spatial Construction of the 3rd and 4th Dimension", Bronze; Antoine Pevsner, ~The Law School Quadrangle, 1120 E. 60th Street, The University oY Chicago, Chicago, Illinois Referred to as "Construction In Space^ "Construction in Space", a bronze sculpture at the

University of Chicago, stands above the reflecting pool in the law complex quadrangle. In the December 28, 1968 issue

of Saturday Review, Katherine Kuh, art critic, collector

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10 and connoisseur, describes the piece as "the least publi­

cized, but to my mind the best outdoor sculpture in the city ..." Though criticism of public sculpture is in no

way the purpose of this paper, Ms. Kuh makes a good point.

In researching the piece, conversations with many members of Chicago's art circles revealed little knowledge of the

sculpture and, in many cases, an unawareness of its exist­ ence. To concur again with Ms. Kuh, the sculpture is a

beautiful piece and deserving of attention.

In 1962 Pevsner was approached by Alex L. Hillman, a University of Chicago Law School alumnus, to discuss the

possibility of a sculpture for the reflecting pool at the law school quadrangle. The sculptor was asked to consider

a piece which would complement the architecture of the new

law school building complex, designed by architect Eero

Saarinen.^

The two men reached an agreement and chose a piece

that was originally a small maquette, that could be cast into a larger scale appropriate to the reflecting pool.

Shortly after Hillman purchased the sculpture, Pevsner

died. The piece which the University acquired was cast

after the artist's death by the Susse-Fondurs foundry in

Paris and shipped directly to the law school. The relationships between Hillman, the University

^Interview with Philip Neal, the University of Chicago, Chicago, 111., November 1979

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11

and Pevsner preceded the donation by many years.^ Hillman

had contributed annually to the law school after his gradu­

ation. As an alumnus he was informed of the plans for

Saarinen's new law school complex and expressed his per­ sonal commitment to the project by donating funds for a

seminar room.^ Hillman was also reknowned for an intense

interest in art as evidenced by an extensive private art collection. The combined qualities of a patron of the arts

and a long time supporter of his alma mater convinced Dr. Edward Levi, then Dean of the Law School, that Hillman

was the man to appeal to for assistance in purchasing the

sculpture. The initial consideration of Pevsner was suggested

by Saarinen as the perfect coalition of design.^ Dr. Levi and Walter Blum, a law school professor and art enthusiast

who collaborated on the project, in accordance with the

architect, agreed. At that point Hillman was requested to contact Pevsner. In an interview with Dr. Blum, the nature

of the combined efforts of the three men was described as

a joyful and exciting event. He added that the initial

selection of the Pevsner was arrived at informally,

followed by a standard review and acceptance by a University

^Interview with Walter Blum, the University of Chicago, Chicago, 111., December 1979.

^Ibid. ^Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12

committee on sculpture. This committee, chosen by Blum and

Levi, was composed of representatives of the law school

faculty, the University Architects office and the art de­ partment.^ Blum recalled the committee's overwhelming

and unanimous support in favor of the Pevsner piece.

The conditions of the transaction were documented in

two letters of intention; one between Pevsner and Hillman,

the other between Hillman and the University. The Pevsner

letter transferred the right of the design and the maquette

to Hillman. Also, a careful entry stipulated that the g sculpture could never be recast again. Dr. Blum explained that, prior to the University's

acceptance of "Construction in Space," they had not been

informed that the piece had been cast twice before; once

in Hague and again at Princeton University. Blum expressed a disappointment and strong dissatisfaction with their dis­

covery that the acquisition was not unique. The letter

clarified that the sculpture could never again be recast

nor would they accept the manufacture of any kind of

facsimile. Funding for the marble base, the foundation, and the

installation for the sculpture, included in the building

project budget from the outset, was part of the general

fund raising effort for the law school.^ The costs of the

^Ibid. Bibid. ^Interview with Philip Neal, the University of Chicago, Chicago, 111., November 1979.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13

base and Installation were negotiated separately with an outside contractor and built apart from the general con­ struction. The equipment and laborers were privately

sub-contracted through the University Architects office. The transportation arrangements were paid for and

handled by Hillman, who hired a shipping agent to deliver the piece from France to Chicago, via the St. Lawrence

Seaway.

"Grande Disco", Arnoldo Pomodoro, Bronze

"Oreillart", Antoine Poncet, Marble

"Aileronde", Antoine Poncet, Marble

"Pulchinella II", Sorel Etrog, Bronze The Cummings Life Science Center, 920 E. 58th Street, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois Nathan Cummings, prominent American industrialist,

philanthropist and art collector has had a close and en­

during relationship with the University of Chicago for many years. As a member of the University Citizens Board, his

contributions have not only been financial but influential

to the planning and development of the University.^® (See

Chapter VI, page 106 for further discussion on the Cummings

family relationship with the University of Chicago.) In 1969 Cummings embarked on a University medical

school project which would evermore distinguish his

^®Interview with Mrs. Robert B. Mayer, Chicago, 111., March 1980.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14

presence at the school. He made a commitment to the Dean

of the Medical School, Dr. Leon 0. Jacobson, to provide

funds for the construction of the medical/biology center; a multi-million dollar project. From this beginning junc­

ture Cummings discussed the possibility of donating a piece of sculpture by favored protege, Antoine Poncet, for

installation on the grounds of the new center.

A catalog containing several pieces of Poncet's work

was sent to Jacobson for review. An accompanying note

identified a specific piece, "Aileronde," recommended for the architect to keep in mind when considering plans for

the building. Cummings had purchased that particular piece

for his personal art collection in 1968. In the following months the medical school and the

University trustees reviewed the suggestion of "Aileronde" and accepted it as part of the University collection.

Cummings committed further monies for transportation, in-

stallation and maintenance of the sculpture. 12 During the construction of the Cummings Life Science

Center, Michael E. Claffey of the medical school admini­

stration staff and Cummings exchanged photographs and

sketches of possible placement for the sculpture. The

Nathan Cummings to Dr. Leon 0. Jacobson, 8 December 1969, University of Chicago Medical School, Chicago, 111.

1 9 Nathan Cummings to Michael E. Claffey, University of Chicago Medical School, Chicago, 111.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15 desire to have it erected in a prominent position in front of the building was fulfilled and the sculpture was in­

stalled in coordination with the completion of the Center and with an exhibit of the Cummings private art collection

at the Art Institute of Chicago in the fall of 1973,

Ownership of "Aileronde" was stipulated very care­ fully in correspondence between Cummings and Jacobson.

The conditions of the donation specified that it would be

given to the University as a loan with the understanding

that it be appraised every four or five years, and made a 13 gift to the University upon the event of Cummings' death. In June of 1973, Cummings devised a similar arrange­

ment to donate a sculpture by Italian artist, Arnoldo

Pomodoro, entitled "Grande Disco,” purchased at Marlborough

Galleries of London in 1971.^^ The agreement to transfer

ownership was again formalized in the same manner of a loan

that would eventually become a gift. Though Cummings was

willing to move the sculpture to the campus and have it

installed temporarily, in this case, he would not provide funds to have it relocated to a permanent site and re­

installed.

^^Nathan Cummings to Dr. Leon Ü. Jacobson, 2 January 1970, University of Chicago Medical School, Chicago, 111.

^^Interview with Mrs. Robert B. Mayer, Chicago, 111., March 1980. ^^Nathan Cummings to John Piva, 11 July 1977, Uni­ versity of Chicago Medical School, Chicago, 111.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The responsibilities surrounding the acquisition of

"Grande Disco" of particular concern to the University

were as follows : --transporting the piece to the campus

--presenting the sculpture to the University Trustee Committee

--estimating the cost of moving --arranging for moving permits

--hiring cranes --determination and preparation of a temporary site on campus (for the duration of one month) --assuring proper crating for the transport and proper handling through customs.16 The University accepted "Grande Disco" with the in­ tention of reinstalling the piece upon the availability of

funds and when the appropriate site in the Life Center plaza was prepared. At the writing of this paper, despite

the plan, the sculpture remains in the "temporary" site

behind the Cummings Building.

In April of 1977 Cummings once again committed the

donation of two more sculptures. He communicated this time

with the Vice-President of the University of Chicago

Medical School, Dr. Robert Uretz. These pieces were also from Cummings' personal art collection, again donated on

permanent loan to become gifts to the University as part of

Sandy Lividahl to Michael E. Claffey, 29 June 1973, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111.

^^Interview with William Von Stein, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111., January 1980.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17

the Cummings legacy. As with "Aileronde" and "Grande Disco," the two new

sculptures were donated on the condition of placement on the grounds of the Life Science Center. It was not until

1978 that the decision was finalized and the arrangements

to relocate and install the sculptures were begun. The sculpture "Oreillart," purchased from Antoine Poncet in

1968, and "Pulchinella II" by Romanian artist Sorel Etrog,

purchased in 1968, prior to Cummings' donation, were on temporary loan at the Art Institute of Chicago. They were

transferred to the University by the coordinated efforts of

Mary Braun, assistant registrar at the AlC, and Lynn Bender

of the University of Chicago Physical Planning and Con­ struction Department. Cummings agreed to pay for new bases,

restoring each piece to its original condition, moving and

maintenance, at the estimated cost of twenty-seven hundred 1 8 dollars each. None of the resources pertaining to the Cummings

donations alluded to the actual price of the sculptures. Because all four works were from Cummings' private col­

lection, the prices were unnecessary for the University's

needs, and consequently not disclosed.

^^Nathan Cummings to John Piva, 11 July 1977, University of Chicago Medical School, Chicago, 111.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18

"Diagolo", Virglnio Ferrari, Bronze; Pick Hall, 5828 University Avenue, The University of Chicago7 Chicago. Illinois

"Armonia", Virginia Ferrari, Bronze; Pick- Staiger Auditorium, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois The acquisitions of "Armonia" by Northwestern Uni­

versity and "Diagolo" at the University of Chicago require a glance into the lives of the donors, Mr. Albert and

Mrs. Corinne Pick, and of the artist, Virginio Ferrari.

The history of their relationship provides the background to understand the nature of these generous contributions.

The Picks both studied in Chicago; Mr. Pick in

business at the University of Chicago and Mrs. Pick in music

at Northwestern, After their marriage, they remained in

Chicago where Mr. Pick pursued a career in the hotal busi­ ness (Pick Hotels International) and she returned to further

study at Northwestern and later raised a family. During

their marriage, the Picks travelled extensively throughout the world for pleasure and to visit the sites of their many

hotels. Early in the 1960's, while in Verona, Italy, they

were introduced to a distant relative, the young sculptor,

Virginio Ferrari. During their stay they often visited Ferrari in his studio, saw the development of his work, and

grew most interested in his career.

^^Interview with Mrs. Corinne Pick, Highland Park, 111., March 1980.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19

In 1964 Mrs. Pick encouraged Ferrari to enter a work

in an exhibit of large sculpture in Ravinia Park, an out­

door perform ing arts center north of Chicago. His work was

well received not only in the show, but in the Chicago arts

community as well. With further support from the Picks, he

moved to Chicago in 1967 to take a position as an instructor

of art at the University of Chicago. 20 In the following years, the Pick and the Ferrari

families grew close personally and in business. Numerous

pieces were purchased and kept in the Pick's private col­

lection or donated to favored institutions. On other

occasions they commissioned work for specific sites.

"Diagolo" and "Armonia" are instances where sculpture was

donated to educational institutions as part of more exten-

sive building projects. 21 In the following section, each piece will be looked

at separately and compared for the differences and simi­

larities in the method of donation.

"Diagolo"

"Diagolo," commissioned in 1971, was conceived

specifically for Pick Hall and the Center for International

Studies at the Unversity of Chicago. The sculpture was

paid for in part by the Polk Brothers Foundation of Chicago

2°lbid.

21-Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20 99 and by Albert Plck.““ The piece was built simultaneous to

the construction of Pick Hall, which was paid for by the

Ford Foundation, the National Science Foundation and Albert

Pick. When Pick made the commitment to furnish the monies

for the building project, he did so with the stipulation 23 that the plans include a sculpture by Ferrari. The pro­

position was presented to the Trustee Building Committee

and agreed upon. The arrangement to include the budget for

the sculpture in the overall project budget was incor­

porated from the very beginning. According to Professor Chauncey Harris, Director of

the Center for International Studies, a peculiar chain of events led to the donation of twenty thousand dollars by

the Polk Foundation, specifically for the purchase of the

sculpture. For a number of years prior to the commission,

Mr. Pick and Mr. Polk were attempting to negotiate the

price on a piece of property for sale by Mr. Pick. The two

men quarreled so bitterly over the figures that Mr. Polk

swore never to pay Albert Pick the twenty thousand dollar

selling price, and Mr. Pick in turn said he would never

sell the property at a lower pice to Mr. Polk. Time elapsed

however, and although the hard feelings prevailed because

Mr. Pick was firm on the asking price, Mr. Polk still wanted

9 9 Interview with Chauncey Harris, Center for Inter­ national Studies, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111., April 1980. «Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21

the property, but was not willing to accept Pick's offer. Simultaneous to these events, the plans to build

Albert Pick Hall were emerging, as was the Ferrari com­ mission. After considerable deliberation from both parties,

the disagreement was resolved; rather than pay Mr. Pick the

twenty thousand dollars for the property, the money was donated to the University of Chicago for the specific pur­

pose of financing "Diagolo. Before the formal financial commitments were made by

Pick to the University, the artist invited the Picks to the

probable site of the sculpture, to examine the space and discuss the possibilities of the piece. At this juncture

the content of the sculpture was discussed. Although a

specific design or motif was not requested of the artist, a form compatible with the international nature of the

study within the building was considered the ideal. They also discussed the probable costs and the terms of the com­

mission and then determined the price. When the total

figure was agreed upon, Mr. Pick donated the money directly to the University, in addition to the funds for the

building.

Ferrari developed drawings, a maquette and a pro­

posal which included costs of materials, operating expenses.

Z^lbid. 2 S Interview with Virginio Ferrari, Chicago, 111., February 1980.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22 casting costs at the Bovicini Foundry in Verona, shipping,

crating, travel expenses and fees.^^ The three parts of his proposal were presented to the University Committee on

Memorials, a group of concerned board members, and to the

project architect, Harold Hillman, for recommendations and approval. Harold Haydon, then director of the University

of Chicago art department, received a copy of the proposal to help ascertain proper financial compensation for the

sculpture, according to the artist, and the proposed artis- 2 7 tic value of the sculpture. Ferrari received payment for "Diagolo" directly from 2 8 the University. The contract contained the purchase

rights to the sculpture, the design and the maquette, the

schedule of payments and the determination of responsi­

bilities of mounting and insuring the sculpture. This and all other technical matters pertaining to the commission

were handled by the University Architect's Office.

Monies for the foundation, transportation, instal­

lation, hiring cranes and auxiliary services were contracted

by the University and paid for from the building project 29 portion of the donation. The University administered payment of those expenses through the Architect’s Office.

ZGlbid. 27 Interview with Chauncey Harris, Center for Inter­ national Studies, University of Chicago, Chicago, III., April 1980.

28lbid. 29%bid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23

The sculpture was installed during the construction of Pick

Hall, giving Ferrari free access to the workers. Conse­ quently, with the expertise of their skill and the equip­

ment, "Diagolo" was erected at very little expense to the

University.

"Armonia"

"Armonia," donated in 1975, was given in a different

manner. Mrs. Pick, as discussed earlier, studied at North­

western before meeting and marrying Mr. Pick. Long after leaving her formal studies there, she continued her affil­

iation with the University through board work, financial

donations and an avid interest in the music program.

In the early 1970's as a special gift for his wife,

Mr. Pick combined financial efforts with his relatives (the

Staigers) and contributed funds to Northwestern for a new

auditorium, to be sited on the Lake Michigan shore, at the

eastern border of the University. Their symbol of patron- 30 age to music would become the Pick-Staiger Auditorium. The decision to install "Armonia" at a site in the

United States was made on a trip to Milan in the I960's.

They saw the sculpture and immediately concluded to pur­ chase it. Mrs. Pick recalled their decision to choose an

appropriate setting, which became Northwestern.

With the prospect of installing the sculpture at

^^Interview with Ann Robinson, Northwestern Uni­ versity, Evanston, 111., November 1979.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24

Northwestern, Ferrari sent photographs of the space to the

project architect, Edward Dart, to the University architect, Jeremy Wilson, and to the President of the University,

Dr. Robert H. Strotz. The sculpture was submitted to the

faculty/student advisory committee for consideration of the

artistic and aesthetic value. The Architect's Office and

physical plant determined the feasibility and expense of the installation. The final approval, however, upon con­

sideration of recommendations of the above, came from the 31 President's office. The agreements concerning the purchase of the sculp­

ture were made between the University Architect's Office

and Ferrari. There were two versions of how the formal agreement for transferring ownership of the piece was docu­

mented. Wilson, of the University Architect's Office, des­ cribed it as a simple letter of understanding with the

artist. Ferrari described the document which formalized the transaction as a contract which included rights to the

design of the sculpture, the costs of shipping, the terms

of the installation and the schedule of payment. Ferrari and Dart determined the location and the

specifications for the installation. As was stipulated in

the agreement with the University, the school was respon­

sible for all expenses surrounding the erection of the

^^Interview with Jeremy Wilson, Northwestern Uni­ versity, Evanston, 111., December 1979.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25 sculpture, Including hiring the services and equipment.

The school openly absorbed the costs, regardless of the

price. It was clear through conversations with the repre­

sentatives of Northwestern, Eric Nowlin, assistant to the Provost, Ann Robinson of the Development Office, and Wilson,

that though they were not actively seeking sculpture at the time of the donation, they were more than willing to comply with the Picks' desire to bestow a gift upon the

University. In fact, the response to "Armonia" was delight that the sculpture was of such caliber that it could hardly

O O be refused.

"^y?", Richard Hunt, Bronze; The Harper Quadrangle, the University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois Samuel H. Nerlove was a nationally respected econo­

mist and forty-three year member of the faculty at the University of Chicago Business School. When he died in

February of 1972, his presence was remembered by generations

of students, scholars and colleagues. His lifetime of work

in economics was distinguished, particularly in "the in­

vestment aspects of life insurance business, which revo­

lutionized the life insurance industry.

32ibid. ^^Interview with Ann Robinson, Northwestern Uni­ versity, Evanston, III., November 1979.

^^Evelyn Nerlove to Edward Levi, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111., 9 June 1972.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26

Nerlove was survived by his wife, Evelyn, a son and two daughters. Several months after his death, in June of

1972, Mrs. Nerlove proposed to the President of the Univer­

sity of Chicago, Dr. Edward Levi, the possibility of com­ missioning a sculpture as a memorial to her husband. She

had researched several artists and examined the University for the right site. She finally selected Richard Hunt as

the artist and the Harper Quadrangle the appropriate 35 location. Within one week. Dr. Levi, who had been a close

friend of Nerlove for many years, responded that her pro­ posal was accepted, and pledged the University's support.

They agreed to take responsibility for the actual com­

mission and coordinating the construction of the founda- 3 6 tion, the base and installing the sculpture. Mrs. Nerlove, meanwhile, contacted Hunt to confirm

the plans. They collaborated on the content, discussing her husband's nature and his role and contribution to the

University. (Hunt described his experience with Mrs.

Nerlove in most complimentary terms.) As her first com­

missioning, she was thorough in her endeavor to plan the

sculpture and negotiate the right price. Their efforts resulted in a design for a sculpture appropriate to her

wishes, the University's standards and the setting. The artist wrote a proposal, tailored to Mrs. Nerlove's

35ibid. ^^Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27

financial limitations, and built a maquette for the Univer-

sity to review. 37

At the end of June a University vice-president called Hunt to ascertain the requirements for the base, plaque,

material for the sculpture, the size of the piece and a

description. In August, Mrs. Nerlove communicated with the

University, stating that she had accepted Hunt's design and

had agreed upon a price. She continued to say that Hunt claims the sum is "a direct factory discount price and he

wished not to have the price disclosed, except to the O Q University." Mrs. Nerlove reconfirmed the donation to

the University (also she previously expressed the wish for funds received by the Graduate School of Business in honor

of her husband to be applied to the purchase of the

sculpture) and spelled out the inscription for the plaque.

In November of 1972 the proposal and maquette were

presented to the University Committee on Memorials and

Portraits. Three months later. Hunt's piece was approved. Letters of intent between Nerlove, Hunt and the University

documented the arrangements, in what the artist described

O Q as an informal manner. The University assumed the costs

of materials and labor for the installation, working within

37 1980.

38Evelyn Nerlove to "a vice-president", 27 August 1972. 39Interview with Richard Hunt, Chicago, 111., March 1980.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28 Hunt's specifications. The artist's only obligation was to

build the sculpture and transport it to the University. Monies for cranes and workmen necessary for the fabrication

were sub-contracted by Hunt and provided for in the price of

the sculpture. The artist was guaranteed payment in three installations to be administered by the University.

When the terms were finalized, Mrs. Nerlove donated the money to the University over a period of time. Simul­ taneously Hunt began working on "Why?" in his studio.

Within six months the sculpture was complete. (An interesting note explains the title of the

sculpture. Apparently, during Dr. Nerlove's long career of

study and teaching, his favorite question was "Why?".

"Horse", John Kearney, Metal Bumper Fabrication; Mid-North Realty, 2460 N. Clark StreetT Chicago, Illinois

Purchasing public sculpture is not always a compli­

cated procedure, and in some cases is quite easy. Several years ago, Richard Greenberg, a Chicago realtor, commis­

sioned local sculptor John Kearney to construct a sizeable

realistic sculpture resembling a horse. The piece was intended for installation on the sidewalk adjacent to

Greenberg's North Clark realty office. Mr. Greenberg's intention was to acquire a piece that would portray his

interest in horses and the rodeo, at the same time

40lbid. ^^Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29

distinguishing the exterior of his b u i l d i n g .

In his business, Greenberg visited the homes of

other art collectors, where he saw many examples of

Kearney's work; usually life size animals of all species, shapes and sizes. He learned that Kearney enjoyed com­

missions and special requests. An artist's flexible attitude toward the content of a commission was difficult

to find, as well as the ability to comply with the buyer's

demands. Greenberg immediately approached Kearney with his

request. Greenberg verbally described the content of his

imagined horse, the dimensions and the attitude. The

ability to incorporate specifications using the bumper

technique was examined and confirmed.The two men negotiated the artist's fee and quickly came to an

agreement of the price. The arrangements they made were

entirely verbal, without the use of a lawyer, agent or gallery. And because Kearney's work is created with a con­

sistent formula, no drawings or maquette were required for

Greenberg to accept the initial design. Greenberg was hesitant to discuss the financial as­

pects of the commission. He did, however, disclose that all the expenses incurred for the project were paid from his

personal income. He also made clear that he does not

^^Interview with Richard Greenberg, Chicago, 111., September 1979.

43lbid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30

budget art expenses in his business and personal life.

The "Horse" was built entirely in Kearney's studio

without the help of any outside services, equipment or labor. Kearney purchases the bumpers by the ton and does

all the labor of the fabrication himself. The completed

sculpture was loaded on a truck and delivered to the realty office without help. For the installation, the hoofs of

the horse had been prepared for bolting into the cement of the sidewalk.

An interesting anecdote describes the commotion

caused concerning the zoning of "Horse." Apparently, neigh­

borhood merchants and local residents started complaining

that the sculpture was on public property, immediately

after installation. When the police arrived at Mid-North

Realty to answer the complaints, Greenberg very calmly ad­

mitted that he did not have a permit to place the sculpture on the public sidewalk. He then informed the officers that

if they wanted the "Horse" removed, they would have to do

it themselves. The police walked out, drove away and never

returned again.

"Rouge Coquille", Antoine Poncet, Red Marble; Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois

Nathan Cummings, as evidenced by his substantial

financial and artistic contributions to the University of

44ibid. 45ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31

Chicago, favors the support of educational institutions.

In 1974, Northwestern University received Mr. Cummings'

generosity with the acceptance of a red marble sculpture

entitled "Rouge Coquille." Originally Mr. Cummings pur­

chased the sculpture for his private collection from pro­ tege artist, Antoine Poncet.The piece was displayed

for a number of years in front of the Sara Lee Foods head­

quarters in Deerfield, Illinois. (Cummings was Chairman of the Board of Consolidated Foods which owns Sara Lee.)

According to Jeremy Wilson, the University Architect at Northwestern, Cummings and the then University president,

J. Roger Miller, were close personal friends. The donation was a result of an informal phone conversation when Cummings

mentioned the sculpture in Deerfield and asked if the Uni­

versity would like it. Miller immediately agreed to accept the piece upon approval of the University arts advisory

committee. This group of concerned University students and

staff have the responsibility to review, accept or reject

all donations of art objects and exterior permanent work at

the University. To examine "Rouge Coquille," Wilson, the chairman of

the art history department, and a faculty member of the

geology department, went to Sara Lee. Their recommendation

^^Interview with Mrs. Robert B. Mayer, Chicago, III., March 1980. ^^Intervie^^Interview with Jeremy Wilson, Northwestern Uni- versity, Evanston, 111., December 1979.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32

to accept the piece was reviewed by the arts advisory

committee, concurred with and passed on for acknowledgment

by President Miller. The recommendation to accept the

piece on behalf of the University was unanimous and Cummings was contacted to conclude the final agreements. The University absorbed all the costs of relocating

the sculpture on the campus and creating a foundation. The

planning and maintenance department and the architects office engineered the installation. Wilson was not clear

whether formal documentation established the exchange of ownership of the sculpture. He did assume, however, that 49 some sort of letter of intent was exchanged.

48lbid. ^^Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER III

GOVERNMENT FUNDED SCULPTURE

Government monies furnish an important avenue for

funding public sculpture. During recent presidential ad­

ministrations, federal support, particularly, has been on the rise. The movement toward recognition of the arts as

an important aspect of American culture began with the advent of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) which in­

volved artists, along with the many unemployed, in a

national work effort. The WPA set up the Federal Arts Project, who in turn commissioned thousands of pieces of

art from American artists and paid them the "security wages" for their work. The fees paid to the artists were the same

wages received by other manual laborers under comparable

WPA programs. Toward the end of the 1930's the WPA expired. The next attempt by the federal government to support the

arts was a short-lived, lesser known program: the State

Department Cultural Exchange Program, a diplomatic device to

share the arts with other countries. It was not until 1965

when the Johnson Administration created the National Endow­

ment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the

Humanities that a firm commitment of support was enacted by

the federal government.

33

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34

These beginnings, though somewhat weak at the out­ set, eventually expanded the recognition in the federal

government of the dramatic necessity for art in public places. During the following fifteen years other agencies,

most notably the General Services Administration and the Office of Housing and Urban Development, have embraced the

arts and incorporate them into most federally funded con­

struction projects. The influence of federal support expanded over the

years to both state and local government bodies. By the

late 1970's many municipalities had the opportunity to

utilize funding from all three levels of government. In

most cases legislation appropriated between one-half and one percent of all construction costs for government buildings

to be spent on art. (In many cases this money is spent on

sculpture.) The tide toward municipal participation turned in

Chicago after Mayor Richard Daley's attendance at a U. S.

Conference of Mayors, where the need for cities to finan­

cially support public art was voiced. Daley immediately

recognized Chicago's historical lack of support for the arts and responded by developing the Chicago Council on Fine

Arts. To further the efforts of the Council to purchase

art, the city passed an ordinance to allow one percent of

all city construction costs to be budgeted for art.

The following are four specific instances where the

federal government paid for large scale sculpture in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35

Chicago and a discussion on the circumstances of those

acquisitions. Following is a brief overview of the Chicago Council on Fine Arts and a synopsis of their guidelines for

implementing the 'Percent for Art in Architecture' program.

"Flamingo", A lexander Calder, Cor-ten Steel (Painted); Federal Center Plaza, Dearborn at Adams, Chicago, Illinois "Batcolumn", Claes Oldenberg, Cor-ten Steel (Painted); Social Security Administration Building, 600 W. Madison, Chicago Illinois Federally funded commissions of sculpture are perhaps

the most visible and controversial methods of funding public art. In fact, many citizens assume that all outdoor sculp­

ture is paid for with enormous sums of federal tax dollars. The findings of this paper demonstrate the contrary. Of the sculpture examined, five were paid for from federal taxes

and only two were paid for directly from the General

Services Administration (GSA), the government's agent for

administration of the federal Art in Architecture Program.

The pieces, "Flamingo" by Alexander Calder and Oldenberg's

"Batcolumn," represent two of the most visible pieces of

sculpture in Chicago and have become city wide landmarks.

Before the particulars of each commission are dis­ cussed, a history of the Art in Architecture Program, its

decline and revitalization, and a capsulization of the official procedures will help put the current process of

the program into perspective.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36

In 1963, Bernard L. Boutin, administrator of the

General Services Administration, enacted a decision to

develop an Art in Architecture Program to incorporate a

collaboration between architecture and fine art in public buildings.^ He proposed that for each federal project the

figure spent on art would not exceed one-half of one per- 2 cent of the construction budget. During this stage, the

project architects were to develop plans for placing the

art work and to recommend at least three artists for the

GSA to approve. Between 1962 and 1966 forty-five pieces of art were

commissioned in thirty-four locations in the U. S. In

August 1966, William A. Schmidt, then director of the GSA,

"suspended" the program due to inflation and rising costs. Though this was the official reason, the rumor spread that

in truth the GSA was highly concerned with negative public opinion. Donald Thalacker, current director of the Art in

Architecture Program, in his recent book. The Place of Art

in the World of Architecture,^ cites the example of a Robert Motherwell sculpture that was the object of extreme

public dissension in 1966. He recalls that the news media

extracted bits of dialogue from the local community and

^Donald Thalacker, The Place of Art in the World of Architecture, (New York, Chelsea House Publishers, 1980), p. xir.

^Ibid., p. xii. ^Ibid., p. xii. 4 Ibid., p . xii.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37

used it against the artist to hype public opinion. The con­

troversy it generated created such public upheaval that the

project was nearly abandoned. Several years passed before

the dust settled and the program could be rejuvenated.^ In 1972, Arthur F. Sampson, acting director of the

GSA, with the coordinated support of several Chicago archi­ tects and arts advocates initiated the project to build the

monumental Calder in Chicago. At the same time Larry F.

Rouch, commissioner of the GSA Public Buildings Services

(PBS), revitalized the program formally by stipulating in

an inner-agency declaration that all PBS projects from then on were required to incorporate fine art works in each

federal building project.^

In coordination with the new effort, GSA officials and Brian O'Doherty, director of the Visual Arts Program for

the National Endowment for the Arts (1973) developed the

following procedures and have since used them in the selec­ tion process for each commission.

When the architect-engineer contract negotiations take place, the architect is informed that one-half of one percent of the estimated construction costs will be allocated for fine arts. He is encouraged to submit an art-in-architecture proposal as part of his overall design concept. This proposal must include a descrip­ tion of the location and nature of the art work(s) to be commissioned.

^Interview with William Morrison, General Services Administration, Chicago, 111., January 1980.

^Donald Thalacker, The Place of Art in the World of Architecture, p. xiii.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38

- Shortly after the award of the construction con­ tract, GSA requests NEA to appoint a panel of qualified art professionals to meet with the project architect for the purpose of nominating three to five artists for each proposed artwork. At least one of the panelists is to be from the area of the project.

- Then, the panel, including the project architect, meets at the project site with representatives of the GSA and NEA to review existing visual materials of artists whose work would be appropriate for the pro­ posed commission(s). Thus, artists are nominated by an ad hoc panel, the membership of which differs for each proj ect. - The artists' nominations are transmitted to the GSA by the NEA. The artist is then selected by the Administrator of GSA and the artist negotiates a fixed- price contract for the design, fabrication and instal­ lation of the artwork. The artist's concept is re­ viewed and approved by GSA’s art-in-architecture design review panel.'

"Flamingo'

Because Calder's piece was the beginning of a new era

in the GSA's history of acquiring art it was not commissioned

from a formal standard of procedures. When the Federal Center was in the initial planning stages the cooperating

architectural firms, known as the Joint Venture Architects (C. F. Murphy, the firm of Mies van der Rohe, architectural

firm Schmidt, Garden and Erickson, and A. Epstein and Sons)

agreed that a piece of monumental sculpture would enhance

the space surrounding the Center. They had seen such col­

laborations on other federal projects and were aware of the

past successes of the Art in Architecture Program. The

offices of Mies van der Rohe, representatives of the Joint

^Ibid., p . xiii.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39 Venture Architects and members of the Graham Foundation of

Chicago, organized a group of citizens and appealed to the

Regional Commissioner of Public Building Services, William Morrison, for use of a small portion of the building funds O to commission a piece for the plaza.

The suggestion to invite Calder for the commission

was initiated by the architects, agreed upon by Morrison

and submitted to the CSA for approval by Arthur Sampson. The CSA's administrator's decision to contact Calder for a

proposal and maquette bypassed the necessity for panel and 9 committees. The artist enthusiastically accepted the invitation

to build a sculpture for Chicago and developed a complete presentation for the CSA including a large maquette. The

piece was a huge sprawling stabile of cor-ten steel painted red, that would loom fifty-three feet high, not far from

the Federal Center Building. Calder's plan was accepted by

the architects, Morrison, and finally approved by Sampson. The CSA developed a contract containing the specific roles

and responsibilities of the government and the artist. The following issues were included in the terms of their

agreement; definitions, scope of services, changes, inspec­

tion and care, time of completion, ownership, fee and pay­ ment, travel, responsibility of the artist, suspension of

^Interview with William Morrison, General Services Administration, Chicago, 111., January 1980.

^Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40

work, termination disputes, pricing adjustments, payment of

interest on artists' claims, assignment of claims, examina­

tion of record by the comptroller general, officials not to

Ko-r-«o^-i Tip»-rv Of-» o C ,<> t Q t" r»T» t -r« rr o T-» 1” -P c» d o o m i p l r\ t > -k-«

tunity clause, affirmative action for handicapped workers,

affirmative action for disabled veterans and veterans of the Viet Nam era, utilization of small business concerns,

utilization of minority business concerns, utilization of

business enterprises, convict labor, contract work hours

and safety hazards, clean air and water, and buy American

recommendations.^^ (See the detail of the government con­ tract in the appendix, pages 142-71.

Each of the above issues was examined and clarified

before further activity on building the sculpture. Soon

after the negotiations were complete, the work of fabri­

cating the piece began at the Serge Iron Works in

Waterbury, Connecticut. Cost for the "Flamingo" was determined in advance at

two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, the most expensive piece ever commissioned by the federal government. The

cost of the foundation was determined separately and esti­

mated at an additional seventy-five thousand dollars. "Flamingo’s" positive reception in Chicago was

^^Ceneral Services Administration Standard Contract (Artist) 1980. ^^Interview with William Morrison, General Services Administration, Chicago, 111., 1980.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41

overwhelming. It's success publicly and aesthetically en­ abled justification for the GSA to continue its renewed

support of purchasing sculpture for future public buildings.

Between 1972 and 1978 fifty-one more pieces of sculpture were commissioned in federal buildings across the coun­

try.

"Batcolurnn" Claes Oldenberg's contribution to Chicago sculpture

and the General Services Administration's collection of art demonstrates the inability to control all aspects of a com­

mission regardless of the extent of planning. The sculp­

ture, "Batcolurnn," was commissioned from Claes Oldenberg

according to all the official procedures stipulated in the

previous section. The project did encounter several com­ plications which could have terminated the commission had

the artist and his co-workers not continued with complete

dedication. The architect firm of Lester B. Knight and Asso­

ciates with project architect, William R. Baker, for the Social Security Administration building in Chicago, recom­

mended to administrator Sampson a major piece by Oldenberg.

The sculpture would be the artist's first major piece in

Chicago. The three National Endowment for the Arts

appointed panelists, Anne Rorimer, curator, the Art

Institute of Chicago, Ira Licht, curator, the Museum of

^^Donald Thalacker, The Place of Art in the World of Architecture, p. 215.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42

Contemporary Art, Chicago, and Tracy Atkinson, director of the Milwaukee Art Center, concurred with the architect's 1 3 suggestion. Oldenberg, intrigued with the proposition of a large

Chicago piece, also recognized the great opportunity. He

negotiated the contract on February 14, 1975, and was hired

for a fee of one hundred thousand dollars, to be admini­

stered in four payments. When the artist first envisioned a piece for the

plaza, he saw an inverted fireplug, then a long handled up­

right spoon. Dissatisfied with both concepts, he began a

reconnaissance of Chicago, searching for ideas. He soon

recognized a consistent use of columns in Chicago archi­ tecture. Here began the conception of a structure re­ sembling a one hundred foot vertical, laticework baseball

bat.^^ The design and drawings were submitted to the CSA Review Panel and approved. The GSA did reserve the "right

to approve or reject the work at different stages during the

fabrication process" and cancel the project if Oldenberg

did not live up to any portion of the contract. Twenty thousand dollars beyond the one hundred thou­

sand dollar commitment to the artist was retained from the

building budget for a round pedestal base for the

l^Ibid., p. 217. ^^Calvin Tomkins, "Look What I've Got Here," New Yorker, p. 72, 12 December 1977.

^^Ibid., p. 71.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43

"Batcolurnn." The architects office assumed all responsi­

bilities of the base and preparing the foundation for the

installation. The project construction workers cooperated

-t^ V.I o- +“ ^ V.t l +.L. ... V.. o O lb

Fabrication of "Batcolurnn" began in November of 1976

at the Lippencott Company in North Haven, Connecticut.

Oldenberg worked directly with their work crew on the fab­ rication details and with engineer Robert Jennings who

translated Oldenberg's drawings into working plans.

An article in the New Yorker magazine (December 5, 1977) by Calvin Tomkins extensively described Oldenberg’s

plight to construct "Batcolurnn." To capsulize his com­ ments, the first bugaboo was in obtaining the materials.

The steel mill which had promised Lippencott the necessary cor-ten steel was unable to deliver it for many months

beyond the committed delivery date, substantially dis­

rupting the production schedule.Despite Oldenberg and Lippencott's efforts to recover time, the sculpture could

not be ready for the promised installation date of October,

1976. To complicate matters even more, the final tally of

costs for producing the sculpture at Lippencott alone amounted to nearly one hundred and forty thousand dollars.

^^Interview with William Morrison, General Services Administration, Chicago, 111., 1980.

^^Calvin Tomkins, "Look What I've Got Here," New Yorker, p. 74, 12 December 1977.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44

The additional monies above the one hundred thousand federal dollars were not supplemented by the government, 13 and Oldenberg personally absorbed the financial burden.

Then, when the piece was finally completed and in transport to Chicago, the movers discovered, at the Chicago- Indiana border, that they did not have the proper moving

permits. The piece was detained another day beyond its 1 q long anticipated arrival. ' The officials on the receiving

end were less than pleased with the circumstances, lending

an unhappy tone to the dedication.

"From Here to There", Richard Hunt, Bronze; The King Community Service Center, 4314 S. Cottage Grove Avenue, Cnicago, Illinois

The King Community Service Center on the south side

of Chicago provides the Grand Boulevard, North Kenwood and Oakland neighborhoods with "life supporting" human services

and programs. The center is a product of the Model Cities/ Chicago Committee on Urban Opportunity Program, which was

developed in the mid 1960's. It contains health care, em­ ployment services, and welfare information, supported by the

Chicago Board of Health, Civil Service Commission, Illinois

State Employment Agency and the Illinois Department of Pub­

lic Aid. Housed in the building is the Mayor's office of

Inquiry and Information, the Chicago department of consumer

sales, weights and measures, the Mayor's office of senior

l^Ibid., p. 74. ^^Ibid., p. 78,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45

citizens and a branch of the Chicago Public Library. For common use there are multi-purpose meeting rooms, a child

C3.ÎTC âTid 2.n 2.u.d.2-tzoTiu.in wi_tb. td rs G bjj.'n.di!’0d snd fd fty seat capacity. In the grounds of the outdoor amphitheater

at the rear of the building stands a large two piece bronze

sculpture by artist Richard Hunt. The piece is a focal

point at the rear of the building and stands out as a major

part of the outdoor environment, 20

Erwin France, director of the Chicago Model Cities Program initiated building the service center; the project

was funded by HUD. After the proposal and budget for the project were developed, the responsibilities for the design

of the building and grounds was handed to the city archi­

tects office who contracted the architectural firm, Wendall Campbell and Associates. (Contracting a private firm

allows the decisions for employing building goods and ser­ vices to be as impartial as possible.) Upon completion of the proposal and of the design and

budget by the city, Wendall Campbell retained Wilfred's Construction Company as general contractors for the building.

In the early stages, a sculpture was originated by the

planning committee of the Model Cities Program. Led by Dr. France, they decided to enter a commission as a line

item on the project budget. Jerry Butler of the city archi­ tects office described how the thirty-five thousand dollar

20Groundwork for the Future, King Community Service Center Publicity Materials, p. 5.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46 figure for the piece was determined. The process was

simply looking at what other model cities programs had paid

for sculpture, and at the cost of sculpture in other circum- stances and took an average figure. 21 Funding for the in­

stallation, foundation and services were part of the general contracting budget and not included in the thirty-five

thousand dollar figure, which was exclusively the artist’s

fee for the sculpture. 22 After determination of the costs, the Department of

Human Services requested several artists to submit sketches and proposals for sculpture within that figure. These

sketches were reviewed by city architect Jerry Butler and Marshall Sulloway, Commissioner of Public Works. The

decision to select the work was left exclusively to this

committee. Hunt was informed of his acceptance and in­ structed to contact Wilfred Construction to formalize the

details of the commission, including the installation and

foundation requirements.23 Here, the technical aspects of the agreement become

unclear. According to Andrew Brown, administrator of the King Community Center, a contract was drawn up which in­

cluded the time schedule and the system of payment, and the

^^Xnterview with Jerome Butler, Jr., city architect, Chicago, III., March 1980.

Z^Ibid. Interview with Richard Hunt, Chicago, 111., March 1980.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47 "labor package,handled through the department of Human

Services. He also maintained that all financial arrange­

ments were conducted through the city's comptroller's

office.

Hunt, however, recalled that he was contracted by

Wilfred Construction Company and that all the payments and 25 arrangements were administered by them. He did say that his fee was broken into percentages; an initial fee, then

working capital and finally a complete payment upon instal­

lation. His contract with the construction firm also stipulated that Hunt was not financially responsible for

installing the sculpture, though he was committed to pay­ ment for the sub-contracted labor and transportation to

move the piece. The sculpture was cast in Hunt's studio and in­

stalled at the Center while the building project was under

construction. The entire complex and "From Here to There" 26 were dedicated on November 13, 1975. Hunt had strong per­ sonal feelings toward contributing his art to the primarily

black Community Center. The sculpture received its name for a specific reason; "It deals with the sculptural space

between those two fixed points as two elements of the

^'^Interview with Andrew Brown, King Community Service Center, Chicago, 111., December 1979. ^^Interview with Richard Hunt, Chicago, 111., March 1980. Groundwork for the Future, p. 11.

Reproduced with permission of the copyrightowner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48

concept--how King's movement got started, how far it has gotten, and how far it didn't go, I see it as fluid." 27

"Our King", Geraldine McCullough, Bronze; Madison and Kedzie, Chicago, Illinois

Following the assassination of Martin Luther King in 1963, Chicago's west side, specifically the area at Madison

and Kedzie was destroyed by racial unheaval with fire and

violence. The victims of the revolt were left mostly home­

less and with little sense of community. To help resurrect the neighborhood, a not-for-profit organization called the

Chicago West Side Development Corporation (CWSDC) was

formed and built what today is the Martin Luther King Plaza, 28 a residential homesite. The founder and president of

CWSDC, Edward Allen, implemented a plan with design firm. Environment Seven Architects and Planners, to build a one

hundred and thirty-eight unit housing development that

could meet the Federal Housing Authority's specification and local housing codes, and also fulfill the needs of the

low income Black community. The construction mortgage was initially underwritten by the Continental Illinois Bank for

3.8 million dollars, as a guaranteed loan from the federal

government. When the construction of the project was com­ plete, the mortgage was transferred to the federal

Z^Ibid., p. 11. ? R Interview with Edward Allen, Chicago West Side Development Corporation, Chicago, 111., December 1979.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49

government where the Housing and Urban Development Agency

assumed responsibility for the funding. 29

From the beginning Allen felt a need to commemorate

Martin Luther King. He proposed to the board of directors the possibility of commissioning a piece of sculpture that

would capture the likeness of the man as well as symbolize

the universality of his work. The suggestion was heard with enthusiasm and a motion was made to pursue the project.

The board entrusted Allen with all the decision making responsibilities in selecting the artist, approving the

plans for the sculpture and the task of finding funding.

Allen approached the commission with a consuming passion. He started with a proposal to HUD asking for a

percentage of the landscaping budget to pay for the sculp­

ture. HUD approved that nine thousand dollars of that por- 31 tion of the funding could be transferred for that purpose.

According to Allen, no stipulations or restrictions were tacked on as regulations, nor did HUD ask for participation

in choosing the artist or approving the piece. Next Allen researched Black and African history and

art, searching for universal symbols which would apply to

King's work. He then had to find an artist capable and willing to build a sculpture that could incorporate the

demeanor of King with those symbols. In his pursuit, he

29lbid. 30lbid. ^^Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50 spoke with architects, community leaders, university faculty and the editors of Ebony magazine. The housing project

architect, Arnold Cooper, recommended Ceraldine McCullough, a Black sculptress and chairman of the art department at

Rosary College in Chicago, as a prospect worth serious at­

tention. After viewing her work, Allen immediately sensed

her ability and the facility to empathize with the spirit of

the commission. Their first contact, by phone, dealt directly with

the issues of finances and conditions. From the onset, McCullough was insistent on establishing the monetary per- 32 imeter of the project. The nine thousand dollar figure

was quoted, as were his intentions on the purpose of the

sculpture. At this juncture Allen made it verbally clear

that the piece must bear a realistic, recognizable likeness of King's face. She agreed to develop a proposal complete with drawings and a maquette of her conception of Allen's

described image. For the duration of the project, Allen and McCullough worked together on the negotiations of the contract and or- ganizing the activities surrounding the commission. 33 In interviews, they each commented on the pleasure of the pro­ ject and the cooperation. Allen felt such an affinity for the artist and her work that no other artists were con­ sidered.

^^Interview with Geraldine McCullough, Chicago, 111., February 1980. 33lbid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51

McCullough's proposal included a budget which dis­

cussed the method of fabrication, material costs, the com­

pletion schedule, labor costs, transportation and mounting needs. This, the drawing and maquette were presented to

the board of CWSDC and accepted upon Allen's recommenda­ tions. McCullough finalized the agreement with a contract

drawn up by her attorney stipulating the payment schedule, the timing, the completion date, the responsibilities of

insurance (which she assumed until the sculpture was

delivered), transporting the sculpture and the assumption of

financial responsibility for contracting outside services.

The payment schedule was broken into thirds; three thousand

initially for materials, three thousand midway, and three

thousand upon completion and installation.^^

McCullough and Allen worked intensively to incorpor­

ate all the elements essential to the commemorative ideal, many of which were incorporated in the finished piece.

"The elaborate tribunal gown is topped by a dove of peace, the orb is incised with the continents of the globe; the

sword, broken near the handle, has the tryptic, coptic-like cross as its base; the ornate patterns of a Hundu prayer

wheel become part of the costume and Dr. King's Peace Prize 35 hangs as a medallion around his neck."

34ibid, ^^"Unveiling Ceremony," Press Materials, Chicago West Side Development Corporation, Chicago, 111., 15 January 1973.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52 CWSDC assumed the financial responsibility of in­

stalling the sculpture. National Homes Construction Com­

pany, the firm hired for the building project, supplied the

labor for erecting it. The construction firm also donated

the base for "Our King" as a contribution to the resi­ dents.^^ McCullough personally hired the laborers to

transport the sculpture. To avoid any possibility of damage O -j en route, she handled the whole move herself. In conclusion, this acquisition is one of the few

where zoning became an issue. Originally Allen wanted Madison Street, at the stretch in front of the plaza where

"Our King" would stand, to bend toward the sculpture and form a cul-de-sac. To his disappointment, the city had

regulations against rerouting a public street for a pri- O O vate purpose.

The Percent for Art, the City of Chicago, 78 E. Washington Street, Chicago Pffinnis The City of Chicago enacted an ordinance in 1978 to

financially endorse the municipal commitment to art in

architecture. The ordinance amended a municipal code

^^Interview with Edward Allen, Chicago West Side De­ velopment Corporation, Chicago, 111., December 1979. ^^Interview with Geraldine McCullough, Chicago, 111., February 1980. ^^Interview with Edward Allen, Chicago West Side De­ velopment Corporation, Chicago, 111., December 1979.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53 as follows : Every contract for the construction for a public building for or by the City of Chicago, and to which there will be general public access, shall provide that an amount not to exceed one percent of the cost of con­ struction, of the structure itself, excluding land, fixtures, furnishings, streets, sewers, and similar accessory construction, shall be set aside for the pur­ chase of artworks to be located in or at such building. The city architect shall select all such artworks after consultation with the Chicago Council on Fine Arts.39

Chicago followed by many years other cities in the

legislation of support for public art; Philadelphia ini­ tiated municipal support in 1959, followed by Baltimore in

1964. It is, however, the largest city to undertake such

a program. The city architect is responsible for imple­ menting the law in collaboration with the Chicago Council

on Fine Arts (CCFA).^^

Unofficially, the ordinance grants the flexibility to use the one percent on open space projects as well as

buildings. Further, it is the city's goal to utilize local artists in at least fifty percent of the commissions.^^

In the 1978 budget for construction for municipal

buildings, five hundred and seventy-seven thousand dollars

were allocated for art in twenty different projects. At

this writing, five pieces of sculpture have been completed

3^Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code of the City of Chicago, section 26-7, 5 April 1978. ^^"The 1% Solution," Chicago Council on Fine Arts, Press Materials, 1978. ^^Interview with Dennis Banning, Chicago Council on Fine Arts, Chicago, 111., December 1980.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54

and installed; "Jetty,” by Barry Tinsley at the Far North

Police Station at Clark and Schreiber, "Riverview,” by Jerry Peart, at the Area 6 Police Station at Belmont and

Western, "Untitled," ilmir hour, at the Fourth District

Police Station at 103rd and Luella, "Rescue," by Jill

Parker, Fire Station CF-17 at 4001 W. West End Avenue, and

a new piece by Bruce White at Fire Station No. 16, 4400

Chicago Avenue. Administration and commissioning of the projects are

handled by the Public Arts Committee (PAC), a six person group chaired by the city architect and composed of the

executive director of the CCFA, the commissioner of the department of planning, city and community development, two

members of the arts community and a staff member of the

CCFA. The committee's responsibilities range from selecting the artists and specific designs for the commissions, to

determination of the art budget for each municipal project.In coordination with the ordinance, they

established an artists slide registry, which contains the

names of several hundred artists who have submitted exam­

ples of their work for consideration in public projects.

The PAC refers to the slide registry as a primary source, although any American artist is eligible to contend.

A standard procedure for selection was developed by

"Process for the Selection of Art Work for the City of Chicago," Guidelines for the Chicago Council on Fine Arts, Chicago, 111.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55

the PAC to ensure fair administration of each project. The

process begins when in the preparation of a project budget,

"Q - y a r> Mo'r»orr/!ü>"c‘ r\y ~ \ a

percent of the construction budget for artwork. The city

architect as part of that bureau, notifies the PAC after the

site and budget have been approved. Search for the artist

begins when the designs for the project have developed to the point where potential locations for the art and sug­

gestions of media are possible. The PAC chooses one of three methods for selecting an artist: 1) open competition,

2) limited entry (invitational), or, 3) direct selection.

The next stage evolves specific to the individual project. The PAC appoints a Project Advisory Panel (PAP)

to recommend artists and aid in the selection of the art.

The panel is composed of a chairman; the director of the Percent for Art Program who reports the findings of the

panel to the PAC; the project architect, a representative

of the contracting department; one member of the arts

community and a member of the community serviced by the

agency (chosen by the Mayor's department of neighbor­

hoods) The PAP examines the perimeter of the project and

the recommendations of media and possible location from the PAC. Three artists and their work are submitted and

43lbid. “^^Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56 reviewed. The artists are considered by the following

criteria : A. Quality B. Style--appropriaten8ss of scale, material, form and content in relation to the project site C. Permanence D. Diversity--of media in respect to the overall Per­ cent for Art p r o g r a m .

Once a potential artist has been determined, the PAP

sends its recommendations to the PAC who finalizes the

decision. The selection procedures also contain guidelines on the specific aspects of a commission on which Percent for

Art monies can be spent. Allocated funds may be expended for any of the following purposes : A. Direct costs of purchase and installation of an existing work of art by an artist. B. The costs of the production and installation of new works of art, including, but not limited to, the following: 1. the professional fees of the artist or artists

2. labor of assistants, materials, and contracted services required for production of the work or art 3. studio and operating costs

4. travel expenses of the artist for site visi­ tation and research

5. transportation of the work of art to the site 6. installation of the completed work of art.

^^"Chicago: Percent for Art in Municipal Buildings," The Chicago Council on Fine Arts, Chicago, 111., 1978.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57 7. all necessary insurance required by contract

C. Plaques and label identifying the work of art.

D. Mechanical, electrical, plumbing and other devices which are a necessary component of adjunct of the work of art.

E. Frames, mats, pedestals, or other support or framing systems which are necessary for the proper presentation of the work of a r t . 4°

Upon approval of an artist by PAC, the artist is

offered a commission. If the artist expresses an interest in return, a design fee is negotiated and a date is set for

the artist to present his/her proposal to the PAC. In res­ pect to the submission of proposals, the committee also

determined:

A. The method of presentation is completely at the discretion of the artist. However, artists should keep in mind that the presentation should best reflect the discipline and media involved.

B. The artist must also submit a budget at the time of presentation. It should indicate total pro­ ject costs including: shipping, installation, engineering and technical consultation, insurance, labeling and photographic documentation of the installed work.4'

"The City of Chicago is sole owner of all works of

art created under this law. Furthermore, the City will

enter into a reciprocal agreement with the artists' con­

cerning use of the copyright of the work."^®

The decision to accept the artist's proposal is ^^Ibid. 47ibid. ^^Interview with Dennis Banning, Chicago Council on Fine Arts, Chicago, 111., November 1979.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58

finalized by the PAG. The contract is negotiated with the artist and sent through the bureaucratic channels for exami­

nation and acceptance. (See appendix for a copy of a stan­ dard contract, page 172). According to the director of the

Art in Public Places program at the CCFA, this process can extend from six to eight months. The contract starts at the

Commission for Public Works, and proceeds to the head of

purchasing, the legal department, the purchasing department, the comptroller, the Mayor's office, back to the comp­

troller and the purchasing agent and finally ends with the

artist for finalizing.

49lbid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER IV

CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC SCULPTURE

Corporations and industry in Chicago have rallied

considerable support for public sculpture. They are keenly

aware of the national interest in public art and find out­

door sculpture a way of participating. While beautifying the environment and aiding the local or national arts com­

munity, the corporation, with the purchase of an outdoor

piece, acquires a means for visual recognition from the

public. In some cases the sculpture has the effect of a logo; in others it becomes a vehicle for community out­

reach. In either case, the public benefits, for the private

sector has the financial resources to select and purchase "the best." At times the competition to achieve that goal

becomes so intense that an organization will invest a large

financial commitment to the project. The costs, terms and artist's reputation assume varied

degrees of significance in each corporation. The level and formality of decision making also depends on the personal­

ities implementing the individual project. In some cases

formal committees are formed specifically to oversee the

commission, in others the President of the Board (or similar

official) personally assumes the decision and administrative

responsibilities. 59

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60

The following sections illustrate the diverse methods

which five corporations in Chicago used to acquire sculp­

ture. For further information on how a corporation can

purchase art and receive a tax advantage by donating the piece to Art in the Center, see chapter V.

"Untitled", Harry Bertoia, Copper and Granite; Standard Oil Building Plaza, Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois

The Standard Oil Building of Chicago, designed by Edward Durrell Stone, was the architect's final contribution

to architecture. Standard Oil contends that it is the second largest building in Chicago and the fourth largest

in the world.^ The white marble facade contrasts sharply

with the backdrop of Lake Michigan and visually separates the building from other downtown architecture. In balance

to the enormous building. Stone incorporated a large plaza

surrounding the southern entrance to the building. It cre­

ates a comfortable outside environment for the occupants

and a visual relief from the structure. Stone also insisted that the plaza incorporate a large piece of sculpture as an

integral part of the outdoor design. Harry Bertoia was an obvious candidate for the com­

mission. He and Stone had worked together during different

stages of their careers; in 1957 on the American Pavillion

at the Brussels World Fair and again in 1963 at the Joslyn

^Standard Oil of Indiana, Press Materials, Chicago, 111., 1980.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61

Art Museum, in Omaha, Nebraska. The sculpture at the

Standard Oil in Chicago continues a similar type of col­

laboration. Stone develooed the environment and the frame­ work and Bertoia took the challenge of working within the

perimeters. The sculpture is situated in a four thousand square

foot reflecting pool, surrounded by the plaza on three

sides and a one hundred and ninety foot waterfall on the other. The piece is composed of eleven units made of cop­

per rods welded to metal brass plates and attached to

eighteen inch pedestals of polished black granite. The rods move in the wind and in conjunction with the waterfall,

creating sounds of various tones and effects. The sculpture was officially commissioned and is

owned by Standard Oil Realty Company, a subsidiary of 2 Standard Oil Industries of Indiana. All assets of

Standard Oil Indiana are owned and leased by Standard Oil

Realty. Within the corporate structure of the entire organ­

ization, all the officers of the realty company are em­

ployees of Standard Oil Indiana. The sculpture is leased 3 directly to Standard Oil Indiana.

As the plaza was developing, so was the discussion

on the most appropriate artist to complement Stone's plan.

O Interview with Roger Hage, Standard Oil of Indiana, Chicago, 111., February 1980.

3lbid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62

According to Roger Hage, corporation architect, a number of artists considered for the project were invited to present

proposals, drawings and maquettes for review by three

separate committees. Each committee had been formed for the purpose of supervising the planning and realization of

the Standard Oil Building. The influence in the decision

making was hierarchical in nature, and informal in process.

No official voting or general concensus determined the

artists, the budget, or ultimate decisions on any aspect of

the project.^

The Executive Committee

Chairman of the Board Standard Oil, Indiana President Standard Oil, Indiana

Vice-President of Law Standard Oil, Indiana and Public Affairs Executive Vice-President Standard Oil, Indiana

Vice-President of Finance Standard Oil, Indiana

The Building Committee

Vice-President of Law Standard Oil, Indiana and Public Affairs and President, Stan­ dard Oil Realty Company

Secretary Vice-President, Standard Oil Realty Company

Assistant Secretary Vice-President, Standard Oil Realty Company

•■Interview with Frank Carrioti, Standard Oil of Indiana, Chicago, 111., December 1979.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63

Project Architect Team

Edward Durell Stone Consulting architect

Perkins and Will Consulting architects Corporation architect Standard Oil, Indiana

The proposals from the various contributing sculptors

were initially reviewed by Standard Oil Realty, who in turn

recommended specific pieces to the building committee.

Bertoia personally presented his proposal, the maquette and drawings to the building committee and the project archi­

tects. Hage recollected the presentation as well accepted

generally and met with a strong enthusiastic response from

the Chairman of the Board. Although the Chairman immedi­

ately applauded Bertoia's plan, he did seek recommendations and confirmation from the three committees.^ Collectively,

the committees felt that no other artist approached Bertoia's ability to integrate a sculpture into that par­

ticular environment.

The decision to accept the sculpture was followed by a contract between Standard Oil Realty and the artist. (No

agents or galleries participated in the arrangements between the corporation and the artist.) The contract for­

malized the commitment to the sale of the sculpture and the

rights to the design. Bertoia's primary responsibility was

to remain on location to direct the mantling, with the

^Interview with Roger Hage, Standard Oil of Indiana, Chicago, 111., February 1980.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64

assistance of Turner Construction Company, a firm sub­

contracted by Standard Oil Realty. Bertoia was also required to collaborate with the architects and engineers in

selecting materials such as the granite for the foundation,

to formulate architectural specifications and assure com­

pliance with the building codes.^

Bertoia had been paid in advance to develop the proposal. Prior to Standard Oil Realty's acceptance of the

piece and Bertoia's final commitment to accept the com­ mission, no finances had been discussed. l\fhen the contract

was negotiated, Bertoia presented the price as determined in

his proposal and Standard Oil Realty accept the figure.^ The contract stipulated the payment schedule as follows;

the beginning retainer and purchase of the maquette upon

invitation of the commission, a partial payment midway

through the project and the remainder of the payment upon

completion and installation. All business dealings were

handled directly by Standard Oil Realty's lawyers. Hage did not speak of the actual costs of the project

or Bertoia's fee. The breakdown of what the project cost

Bertoia and what separate services assumed by Standard Oil

Realty cost were also unavailable. Hage did present the funding issue in the following manner, which illustrates the financial commitment and preparedness to invest in the

project.

Gibid. 7lbid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65

1) No line item in the project budget was allocated

to purchase the sculpture. The corporation had unlimited

funds to work with and anticipated spending whatever

necessary to complete the sculpture according to the

artist's specifications.

2) The price of the sculpture was negotiated after

the piece was accepted by the executive committee, demon­

strating a predisposition to purchase the sculpture without

a regulation of cost. 3) The total cost of the Bertoia design, the ma­

quette, the materials, installation, labor and services, equipment, the foundation and reflecting pool, meeting and

consultation travel expenses and all other costs related to

the sculpture totaled one-half of one percent of the entire building project.

"Chicago Totem", Abbott Pattison, Bronze; Outer Drive East Apartments, 400 E. Randolph, Chicago, Illinois In 1960, the Chicago based Jupiter Corporation, a

division of Jupiter Industries, designed and constructed an

apartment complex at 400 East Randolph Street, in Chicago. The concept of the building was considered highly innovative

for its location on the east side of Lake Shore Drive, on a tiny peninsula that extends into Lake Michigan. At the

time, the building created a startling new silhouette on

the city's shoreline. As an additional feature, an enormous

indoor swimming pool, enclosed in a transparent geodesic

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66

dome, was constructed adjacent to the building on the northwest side.

To complete the environment of the complex, Jupiter Corporation commissioned a large piece of bronze sculpture

for the exterior of the building. Although the sculpture

was purchased for commercial reasons as an additional pro­

motional tool, it is not contrived or industrial in appear- O ance. It stands separate from the building as a piece of

fine art, rather than an extension of the landscape or the architecture.

During an interview with Mr. Edward Ross, president

of Jupiter, the circumstances of the acquisition were

revealed in a delightfully open manner. The decision to

erect a piece of sculpture as additional inducement for potential occupants was included in the apartment building

plans from the beginning as a separate line item on the

budget. After Ross conferred with the project architect and

associates (Hirshfield, Pawlan and Reinheimer), he deter­ mined a fifteen thousand dollar figure as appropriate for

the purchase of the sculpture. During the construction of

the buildings, Ross spoke with other Chicago architects and

art dealers that would help inform him of potential artists

in the Chicago area. His primary demands were to find an

^Interview with Edward Ross, Jupiter Corporation, Chicago, 111., October 1979.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. o /

artist that could 1) work in a manner that would complement

the architecture as evidenced by past collaborative efforts,

2) evidence an established reputation in Chicago, and 3) willingly accept a commission at a fixed price.^ Al­

though several artists were discussed, Abbott Pattison

received the most attention. He had a personal friendship

with the architect and had worked with the firm on other

proj ects. Once confidence in Pattison's reputation was con­

firmed, the artist was contacted and asked to submit a proposal including estimated costs, timing projections,

sketches and a maquette. Pattison agreed, but in his pre­

sentation, rather than submit one maquette, he constructed fifteen, all appropriate to the project.Ross selected

one of the maquettes for the large sculpture and purchased

it separately. (After the commission, Pattison sold all

the remaining maquettes to other collectors

It should be pointed out that Ross, independently, made all the decisions pertaining to the acquisition of

the sculpture. Singularly, he chose the artist, selected

the sculpture and determined all the budgetary

^Ibid.

l^Interview with Abbott Pattison, Winnetka, 111., January 1980.

l^Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68 considerations. 12 No formal acceptance or rejection pro­ cesses were used.

Pp t" 1" 1 Q n'.i ri crni~ i a Final nnn Unanf rHno^rlir t.ti uVi

Jupiter associate, Harold Blankstein, without the inter- vention of a gallery or agent. 13 The contract included

commitment to scale, materials, and the payment schedule as administered in thirds; five thousand after acceptance

of the maquette, five thousand at completion of the sculp­

ture and the remaining third upon installation.^^

The artist assumed responsibility for designing the

foundation (which was originally planned as a fountain for

the sculpture) and making the arrangements for the piece to

be cast in a foundry in Italy.

Jupiter Corporation assumed responsibility for the costs of 1) shipping and other transportation costs to and

from the foundry, 2) building the foundation for the sculp­

ture and payment for all materials and labor entailed and

3) the labor, services and equipment costs of the instal­

lation. Mr. Ross scheduled the installation to coincide

^^Interview with Edward Ross, Jupiter Corporation, Chicago, 111., October 1979.

l^ibid. ^^Interview with Abbott Pattison, Winnetka, 111., January 1980.

l^ibid.

^^Interview with Edward Ross, Jupiter Corporation, Chicago, 111., October 1979.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69

with the apartment building construction, providing Pattison with the project workmen during the installation.

All the labor and services were included as part of the architecture portion of the budget, not the sculpture

item.

The terras of commission and sale of the sculpture were formalized in a standard contract tailored to the

sculpture and its specific requirements. Jupiter Corpor­ ation purchased the sculpture, the maquette and the design.

Ownership today belongs to the occupants of the 400 East

Randolph building, for when Ross sold the building as individual condominiums, each person who bought into the

building became part owner of the sculpture. "Chicago 1 Q Totem" is now held as a "common element." Twenty years later, Abbott Pattison spoke of his

disappointment when the project came to an end, for the monies allocated for the fountain ran short. The sculpture

had to be installed without the added dimension of running 19 water, a crucial element of its design. Another regret

was the loss of money in fabricating the piece. The fif­

teen thousand dollars proved an impossible limitation when

the final costs of fabrication alone exceeded the fifteen thousand dollars. Pattison did add that it was the only

l^Ibid. ^^Ibid. ^^Interview with Abbott Pattison, Winnetka, 111., January 1980.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70 miscalculated estimation in his career. 20

Mr. Ross, however, was delighted with the sculpture.

A modest man, who makes no claims as an art expert, he felt

such a great degree of satisfaction that he commissioned two more pieces from Pattison for other apartment

buildings. "Dynamic Pyramid", Richard Hunt, Steel; Johnson Products, 8522 S. Lafayette, Chicago! Illinois

Johnson Products is a large black-owned manufac­ turing company, and a recognized leader and innovator in

the beauty care industry. The company manufactures per­ sonal grooming products; hair dressing, hair relaxers,

condition and shampoos, cosmetics and male fragrances. Brand names include Ultrasheen, Ultrawave and Afrosheen.

The products are manufactured in Chicago and sold across

the United States and in foreign markets as well. The president, George Johnson, started the company in 1954 with

the manufacturing of hair care products. Today it is a

multi-million dollar industry. In the early 1970's, Mr. Johnson rebuilt the plant

and headquarters at 8522 South Lafayette on the south side

of Chicago. By 1973 all but the final details of the

building's landscape were complete. At that point Johnson

ZOlbid. O 1 Interview with Edward Ross, Jupiter Corporation, Chicago, 111., October 1979.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. / i

commissioned Richard Hunt, noted Chicago sculptor, to build

a piece which would specifically complement the architec- O O ture and the landscape.

Johnson had been an art collector for many years. The new headquarters, filled with African primitive art and

contemporary prints, paintings, and sculpture, demonstrates

his commitment to art. In fact, his first introduction with Richard Hunt developed into a twenty year friendship as the result of prior purchases over the years. 9 9 When Johnson

made the decision to expand the corporate collection to the exterior of the corporate headquarters, he considered only

one artist, Richard Hunt.^^ Acting in the name of the company, Johnson made all

the decisions in choosing the artist and accepting the pro­

posed sculpture. When the location and content of the piece were discussed, Johnson personally escorted Hunt to

the site just outside his office window, where the sculpture

was intended for installation. Johnson, Hunt and the architect collectively discussed the potential dimensions,

the foundation requirements, the environmental elements, the materials and the perimeters concerning the content. Be­

cause the exterior of the building, particularly the land­

scape, was designed with a triangular motif. Hunt was

9 9Interview with Grayson Mitchell, Johnson Products, Chicago, 111., October 1979.

23lbid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72

requested to reflect the triangular form in the sculp- 25 ture.

Here, the facts concerning the content diverge.

According co public relations officer, Grayson Mitchell, the theme was abstracted from the Egyptian Pyramids, due to

Mr. Johnson's personal affinity for the Egyptian civili­

zation and desire to represent the symbols throughout the

design of the headquarters.^^ When Hunt was asked to

concur with Mitchell's understanding of the reason behind

the triangular motif, he quickly retorted that he and

Johnson had never discussed the content in those terms and had heard no evidence that would indicate a deeper meaning

to the triangle. His only understanding was the request

to remain consistent with the overall architectural design.27

Before the final commitments were exchanged, Johnson

suggested that the artist write a proposal including a

timing schedule and a budget, as well as a drawing and

maquette. With knowledge of Johnson's requirements. Hunt constructed a small rendering which was included in the

total price of the commission.

Mitchell and Hunt were hesitant to allude to the cost of the project. However, it was clear that the sculp­

ture was not considered an item in the corporate budget nor

2^Ibid. ^^interview with Richard Hunt, Chicago, 111., March 1980.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73

was it part of the planning budget for the new head- quarters. 28 Johnson was prepared to spend whatever neces­

sary to implement the commission. After the architect and

Johnson accepted the artist's plans as feasible in the out­ door environment, the total price for the sculpture was

negotiated.

A letter of intent was written by Johnson to for­ malize the terms and the system of payment, including rights of ownership of the design, drawings and maquette.

The price of the sculpture also included funds for auxiliary services (labor, rental of equipment, and trans­

porting) , delegating all these responsibilities to the artist. 29 Johnson Products arranged for the foundation

and, separate from the price of the sculpture, absorbed

the costs. Hunt received payment in thirds; once upon completion of the maquette, the second midway through fabri- O 0 cation and the third upon delivery.

"The Bather", Carl Nejar/Pablo Picasso, the Gould Corporation, Illinois Highway 53 and the Northwest Tollway, Rolling Meadows, IllinofF

In 1972 Gould Incorporated, an international corpor­ ation and manufacturer of electronic and industrial products

2 8 Interview with Grayson Mitchell, Johnson Products, Chicago, 111., October 1979. 2 q Interview with Richard Hunt, Chicago, 111., March 1980.

3°ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74 was completing a huge forty acre commercial/recreation

complex, officially entitled "Gould Center." The self-

contained complex offers a semi-public park, tennis courts, a swimming pool, office tower and smaller office units to

its employees and the community of Rolling Meadows.

That summer, William Ylvisaker, president of Gould,

considered the possibility of commissioning a piece of sculpture for the grounds. He consulted friend, Sally

Fairweather, and decided to pursue a commission. According

to Fairweather, the choice in selecting an artist was simple ; Ylvisaker insisted on commissioning a sculpture by 31 the world's most famous artist, Pablo Picasso. Fairweather was placed in charge of arranging the

commission. Within the year, she contacted Sir Roland

Penrose, the British art historian, for help in reaching Picasso. After considering the problem, Penrose suggested

contacting Carl Nejar, a Norwegian artist and long time

friend and associate of Picasso. Nejar had collaborated with Picasso on many large sculptures, translating the

artist's linear designs into large scale sculpture, utilizing a technique called betongravure, a French term

for engraving graphic lines in concrete.

Fairweather flew to Norway to present Nejar with a

plan for a commission that would collaborate his skill

with one of Picasso's designs. The initial discussion

2^Interview with Sally Fairweather, Fairweather- Hardin Gallery, Chicago, 111., December 1979.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75 focused on the prospect of obtaining the rights for a piece

and the requirements for enlarging it at Gould. Upon Nejar's consent to pursue the commission, Ylvisaker and Fairweather scanned dozens of designs in

Speiss' book of Picasso sculpture. After considerable deliberation they agreed upon a piece entitled "The Football

Player." A full page reproduction of the design, a maquette made from folded paper laminated on very thin sheet metal,

a scale model of the Gould complex and grounds and a letter in French requesting rights to the design were delivered to

Picasso for approval and transferred of rights. The artist was to sign a blown up photograph of the design with

the phrase "D'accord, P." as the official recognition of

the transaction. (Ms. Fairweather did not suggest what the financial arrangements between Gould and Picasso would

entail.) Several months passed before Picasso made his decision. A meeting was planned between him and Nejar to

complete the transaction.

The night before their meeting, on April 6, 1973,

Picasso died. No instructions were left pertaining to the

Gould project and the transaction was left incomplete. (Ms. Fairweather recalled the event clearly, for when the

announcement of Picasso's death came over the radio, she

happened to be driving just opposite the Gould construction

site. Though she was disappointed over aborting the origi­ nal plan, Fairweather would not quit. Her reaction was.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75 32 "the king may have been dead, but not the project . .

They returned to Nejar for suggestions of other works to consider. After working on dozens of Picasso pieces

during his career, Nejar knew of several which had been sold

but never realized. One piece in particular, called "The

Bather," had been approved for the Louisiana Museum of

Denmark. The rights were sold to the museum in 1965, but, 33 due to lack of funds, the piece was never built. Dating

back to his earliest collaborations with Picasso, Nejar was assigned the rights to construct his work on any scale, with

the only stipulation that they be constructed in informal

wooded environments. Fairweather negotiated with Louisiana director, Knud

Jensen, for the rights to "The Bather." When the director

realized the commitment from Gould toward the project, he

transferred the rights to the design directly to the

museum. (At no time did Fairweather obtain ownership of the design during the transaction. Her role was strictly

as the negotiator.) When the arrangements on the construction of "The

Bather" were finalized, they discussed time limitation,

building costs, material sources, travel and artist's fees. To comply with Picasso's specifications, the agreement pro­

vided for specially imported concrete from Norway. For assistance, Gould offered Nejar all che material and labor

22ibid. ^^Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77 necessary, including the construction workers from the head­

quarters’ work site. 2“^

Fairweather drew up an official proposal stating the

terms and submitted it directly to Ylvisaker. The decision

to accept the agreement was presented to the board of directors and was approved with no contest. No formal com­

mittee was designated to review the decisions or act as intermediary between Nejar and the corporation. Ylvisaker,

with the aid of Fairweather, assumed all the responsibilities

of facilitating the entire commission. After lengthy arbi­ tration, the terms of the contract were accepted by Nejar

and Ylvisaker, and the monies for the commission were

budgeted into the building plans. 35 Gould has not disclosed the total costs of "The

Bather" and has managed to keep all the financial aspects

a well guarded secret. The company was reported to be willing to invest whatever necessary to comply with

Picasso's exacting demands, Ylvisaker even brought tool mold-making specialists from Norway to Rolling Meadows to

assist in constructing the sculpture on site. The site

itself was moved from the entrance way to the Gould Center,

a more secluded wooded environment.

Consistent with Ms. Fairweather's efforts not to

34ibid.

3Glbid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78 disclose any of the financial figures associated with the

sculpture, Alan Artner wrote in a Chicago Tribune article,

"The Gould, Inc. has refused to disclose its costs, a lack of money even after several years indicates that the dif- o n ficult process is expensive."

"Arris", John Henry, Cor-ten Steel; Congress at DearborriT Chicago, Illinois "Arris," a fifty foot creation by Chicago based sculp­

tor, John Henry, resulted from a collaborative business and

personal friendship with two Amalgamated Trust and Savings

bankers. Prior to the commission of the sculpture, Henry acquired business loans for the construction of other

pieces. The business dealings were primarily handled by

Robert Reiser and Dr. Martin Gecht, Chairman of the Execu­ tive Committee. After several years of association, the O Q bank developed a personal interest in Henry and his work.

At the same time, many large downtown businesses were

actively contributing to the collection of loop outdoor sculpture. Dr. Gecht initiated an enthusiasm within the

directors of the bank to participate by commissioning a

piece by John Henry. The artist was contacted by Gecht and

Reiser and asked to produce a piece specifically for the

27chicago Tribune article on "The Bather," Alan Artner, 11 April 1974. 2^Interview with Robert Reiser, Oakbrook, 111., October 1979.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79 39 location at Congress and Dearborn. A formal proposal was not requested of the artist,

only a drawing and maquette. The bank quoted a figure that

they were willing to invest in the project, which was the sole determining factor of the fee and not negotiable with

Henry.'^0 The artist accepted their offer and soon pre­

sented the renderings of "Arris." It was not designed

specifically to complement the architecture in the back­

ground (a blank brick wall), but to stand on its own in a small park like setting, a raised rectangle of ground facing

Dearborn and Congress. The size of the sculpture was determined by the physical limitations of the space.

A formal process was not used to accept the artist's

plans.Dr. Gecht reviewed the drawings and the maquette, reported his reaction to the bank's board of directors,

discussing the merits of the piece, and gave the project the "go ahead," The final decision to employ Henry was made by

Dr. Gecht alone, though the opinions of the other board members were considered.

A contract was drawn up between Henry and the bank

that, upon approval of the preliminary sketch, the artist

39lbid. ^^Interview with John Henry, Chicago, 111., December 1979, ^^Interview with Robert Reiser, Oakbrook, 111., October 1979.

42lbid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80

would receive ten percent of the total price, then forty

percent upon approval of the maquette, the remainder upon

installation of the sculpture. The contract also included the purchase of the maquette in the overall commission

price. Henry was committed to work with the bank's con­

sulting architect to help in preparation of the site for

the sculpture, and to install the piece upon completion.

"Arris" was originally constructed in Henry's studio, unbolted, loaded on a truck and transported to the site.

There, he and his helpers unloaded it with a crane and

bolted it back together and to the foundation below. He absorbed the costs of the services, the crane and other

equipment for the entire project.

^^Interview with John Henry, Chicago, 111., December 1979.

44ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER V

FOUNDATIONS AND SCULPTURE

The major foundations in Chicago have taken a strong

position in support of public sculpture, at the same time maintaining a quiet profile. Though foundation funds are

available to numerous organizations and individuals, the

foundation's role as a funding source is least often pub­ licized. In fact, the strong, silent foundation shies away

from all interaction with the outside world. The distance

is assured by rarely participating in interviews or group forums to discuss their attitudes, not disclosing the events

of their decision making, or publicizing the standards of

their judgments. From this point of view, foundation

funding takes on certain mystery, as the guidelines of

their support remain unclear to the fund-seeking public. Each foundation operates differently according to the

personalities of the board of trustees and the admini­ strators. The foundations in Chicago contribute substan­

tially toward public sculpture, financially, and in the

quality of the projects they endorse. The agreements be­

tween donating foundation and recipient institution or

individual vary in the manner of combining efforts and of

the actual acquisition of the sculpture.

81

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82

"Head of a Woman", Pablo Picasso, Daley Center Plaza, Dearborn at Washington, Chicago, Illinois

* a o T.Trvm TT\ PT/-»aQor>*o loT^r^ma-vtr c/^iilTvf-n-v-ci -ir>

Chicago, qualifies as the city's most highly recognizable piece of public art. Few other works have commanded com­

parable attention, positive and negative, with enough impact

to redirect the course of acquiring sculpture in Chicago, particularly the trend toward purchasing public sculpture.

Until the installation of the Picasso, sculpture was nearly

confined to monuments commemorating public figures or events, usually figurative in form, and located in parks or

affiliated with buildings for commercial reasons. Abstract

sculpture had been installed in outdoor spaces prior to

the Picasso commission, but in Chicago, never on that scale

or with the specific purpose of attracting a large public

audience. The impetus to purchase the sculpture began in 1962

when the Public Building Commission of Chicago planned a

new civic center as a self-contained complex for law courts

and government offices. The initial plan to build two medium sized buildings was abandoned in favor of a single

six hundred and fifty foot sky-scraper that would diminish

the downtoxm congestion and create space for an open plaza.

The supervising architects hired by the Public Building

Commission were C. F. Murphy and Associates. Consulting

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83

associate firms were Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, and

Loebl, Schlossman, Bennett and Dart.

from the onset, the architects agreed to dc focal point in the plaza for a monumental piece of sculp­

ture. As an architect at Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, and

a significant art collector, William Hartmann was an active part of this decision.^ His participation as the facili­

tator of the Picasso project was crucial to its creation.

Hartmann described the selection of the artist as a very

simple procedure. To meet the tradition of high standards

in Chicago architecture, he explained, "Picasso was our only choice. We wanted the sculpture to be the work of the

greatest artist alive." "We," meant the collective opinion

of Mayor Daley, the officials of the Public Buildings 2 Commission and William Hartmann.

The difficulty of initiating the project was the approach to Picasso. On the advice of Alfred Barr, leading

American authority on Picasso and Head of the Museum of Modern Art in New York, Hartmann contacted Sir Roland

Penrose, the British art historian and ". . . probably 3 Picasso's best friend in the English speaking world." The introduction to Penrose was secured by Allan McNab of

^Interview with William Hartmann, Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, Chicago, 111., March 1980.

^Ibid. O Picasso Dedication, Municipal Reference Library, Chicago, 111., p. 3.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84

the Art Institute of Chicago.

Penrose agreed to participate and instructed Hartmann

to write Picasso a detailed letter about Chicago, describing

the plans for the civic center and a commission. (Hartmann

had been requested by the city to act as liaison with Picasso and orchestrate the project.) They would follow

the letter with a visit to Picasso's villa. Mas Notre Dame de Vie, in southern France. Hartmann wrote the letter,

describing in detail the environment politically, socially

and geographically, and included the invitation of a com­ mission.

The second approach was a visit by Hartmann, Penrose, and Charles Murphy and Norman Schlossman, to

Picasso's villa for a personal presentation of the in­

vitation. For the meeting, Hartmann constructed an elaborate display of the proposed civic center complete with a scale

model of the building and plaza. He supplemented the plans

with Chicago memorabilia including photographs of famous Chicagoans, historical images and street scenes and other

tokens of the city life. Picasso showed a real interest in

his guests and their plans by asking many questions. Des­

pite his gracious reception, there were no firm commit- 4 ments. In the following months Hartmann made repeated trips

to France, wooing the artist with photographs of the civic

^Ibid., p. 4.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85 center developments. Further, he Ingratiated the artist,

playing on his penchant for native costumes and artifacts.

He brought the artist a . . genuine Sioux Indian War Bonnet, a Chicago White Sox blazer, a Chicago Bears helmet

and a Chicago fireman's helmet."^ These symbols of Chicago life delighted Picasso and eventually captured his cooper­

ation. For a year Picasso worked on several renderings. In

May, 1965 he completed two studies of the same theme; one

strong and heavy, the other fragile and graceful. He in­ vited Hartmann to see the progress. During their meeting to

discuss the final selection Picasso realized that the more

graceful rendering was the appropriate piece for Chicago.^ Hartmann had no dispute with the artist's decision and with­

out hesitation arranged for the model to be shipped to the Art Institute of Chicago. There at a private viewing for the

project officials and the board of trustees of the AIC, the

model was presented and accepted by Mayor Daley and the PBC. The project architects, principally from Skidmore,

Owings and Merrill, had to determine the physical demands of producing the sculpture and estimate the necessary costs.

No specific budget was drawn up for fabricating or instal­

ling the work. The estimated cost of material, labor, transportation and installation, though accurate, was

^Ibid., p . 4.

^Interview with William Hartmann, Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, Chicago, 111., March 1980.

Reproduced with permission of the copyrightowner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36 informal and not included in the Civic Center budget. The three hundred thousand dollars for manufacturing "Woman"

had to be found from private sources. Hartmann personally

approached three of Chicago's most prominent foundations

for support; the McCormick (Chauncey and Marion Deering)

Foundation, the Field Foundation of Illinois and the Wools Charitable Fund.^

These three, as Hartmann knew, had considerable

assets and large annual expenditures with primary interests

in supporting the arts, particularly the Art Institute.

(Members of all three families had been on the board of trustees of the AIC over the years.) The foundations were each asked to contribute one hundred thousand dollars each.

All three responded without reservation with the requested O financial and emotive support. Mr. Hartmann was asked in an interview whether he

would have sought funds no matter how great, to realize the

project. His response after a long silence was, "If the sculpture would have cost three million dollars, I would have

found the money.The agreement Hartmann made with the

foundations was affirmed by verbal acknowledgments and the

rapid transfer of monies to the Public Building Commission

for administration. Except for the architectural supports

7lbid. ^Ibid. Q Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87 for the sculpture underneath the plaza, no public money,

municipal or federal, was used to commission the sculpture.

Hartmann went to Picasso in 1966 to formalize the final

details and receive Picasso's sign of approval, "Bona

tirer. Picasso, 9/8/66."^^ Until then the fee to Picasso for the design and the maquette had never been discussed.

Hartmann had been authorized (he did not say by whom) to

offer the artist a considerable sum. The subject was

opened by Hartmann one day during lunch with Picasso. A

quote from the dedication most aptly describes the response. "Picasso turned to his wife, Jacqueline, and

then to Mr. Hartmann. He would, he said, accept no pay­

ment for his work. He wanted to give the design and the

maquette, or model, as a 'gift to the people of Chicago'".^

Picasso's involvement with the project hardly ended with the donation of his design. Continually during the

fabrication of the piece he was sent photographs of the

twelve and a half foot wooden model which was used to determine stress and construction problems. Working

drawings were sent back and forth during each stage for the artist's approval. The entire fabrication process was

handled by the United States Steel Corporation in Gary,

Indiana. There, the sculpture was completely assembled

^Opicasso Dedication, p. 4.

^^Ibid., p. 4.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88

prior to installation in Daley Plaza. (The dedication

tries to commemorate the many people responsible for

helping to create the sculpture, but finds them too numerous to mention personally and refers simply to the

appreciation of the architects, engineers, computer tech­ nicians, steelworkers, welders, crane operators, granite 1 9 setters, etc.) The breakdown of payment to these indi­

viduals was impossible to determine. When Mr. Hartmann was asked how those responsible felt about the financial com­

pensation, he replied that, for most, the experience alone

was enough payment, and that the hours spent beyond the

actual financial remuneration were done out of the love for

the project. Documentation of the transaction with the City was

drawn up in a declaration at the conclusion of the dedi­ cation. It marks the beginning importance of public sculp­

ture as an asset to the City of Chicago.

The monumental sculpture portrayed by the maquette pictured above has been created by me, Pablo Picasso, for installation on the Plaza of the Civic Center in the City of Chicago, State of Illinois, United States of America. This sculpture was undertaken by me for the Public Building Commission of Chicago at the request of William E. Hartmann, acting on behalf of the Chicago Civic Center architects, I hereby give this work and the right to reproduce it to the Public Buildings Commission, and I give the maquette to the Art Institute of Chicago desiring that these gifts shall, through them, belong to the people of Chicago.13

l^ibid., p. 4. l^Ibid., p. 6.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89

"The Four Seasons". Marc Chagall, Four Sided Mosaic, Stone and Glass; First National Bank Building Plaza, between' ClarE and Western at Monroe, Chicago, Illinois

The ability to secure a major commission from a great

living artist is sometimes the result of more than a well

engineered courtship. The gift of Marc Chagall's "Four

Seasons" to the First National Bank of Chicago arose from a

long time social relationship between the artist and Mr. William Wood Prince, the funder of the mosaic. The

event of their collaboration was facilitated by shared

personal experiences in an environment where Chagall had a

history of personal interest.

The first time Chagall and Chicago had occasion to

meet dated back more than thirty years.He had been

living in the United States to escape the pressures of war­ time Europe. While living in the United States his work was

on exhibit at the Art Institute of Chicago. During his

attendance at the opening of the show, Chagall was asked to speak at the University of Chicago. There he met Professor

John Nef, and struck an immediate friendship when he dis­

covered two of his paintings in the professor's home. In 1958 Nef invited Chagall back to the United States

to lecture before the University of Chicago Committee on

Social Thought. Chagall accepted, but found it impossible

^^Interview with Thomas Tyler, Chicago, 111., January

1980,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90 (due to his Russian heritage) to obtain a visa to enter the

United States.(McCarthyism was in full rage at that

point and even those with the most remote affiliations with communist countries, regardless of current political

beliefs, were not granted entry into the United States.) During that period, Mr. William Wood Prince was

Chairman of the Committee on Social Thought. Profes­

sionally, he was Chief Executive Director of Armour and Company and a Director of the Board of the First National

Bank of Chicago. As a man of international prominence,

Mr. Wood Prince exerted his influence in the State Depart­

ment by assuring the value and honor of a visit by Marc Chagall.The visa was granted and Chagall spoke before

the Committee. An interesting aspect of that speech in­

directly refers to the eventual acquisition of a piece of art for Chicago, though at the time, a collaboration had

never been the slightest consideration. "What happiness

it would be for another artist and for you if he should

:reate a monument to your new world of today and

tomorrow . . . Those in attendance were unaware of what

those words eventually would bear.

l^ibid. ^^Thomas Tyler, speech on "The Four Seasons," Chicago Public Library, Chicago, 111., 7 February 1978.

^^"The Four Seasons," First National Bank press materials, Chicago, 111.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91 In 1971 Chagall and his wife traveled from France to

Washington, D. C. and presented a wall mosaic to Professor

and Mrs. Nef for their home in Georgetown. Mr. and Mrs. Wood Prince attended the event and took the opportunity

to discuss the possibility of a mosaic for Chicago. The artist expressed appreciation for Chicago and his honor of

the invitation, but concluded the conversation with only

the promise to consider the matter. Madame Chagall,

however, liked the idea. In the ensuing months she and

Mrs. Wood Prince corresponded regularly, assessing the 18 possibilities. At the same time, Mr. Wood Prince con­

ferred with the Board of Directors at the First National Bank on the ability to use the bank plaza as a site for a

mosaic. He also made a pledge to underwrite the costs of

the project, with funds from the William Wood Prince Foundation, "as a living memorial to his adoptive father,

Frederick Henry Prince, provided Chagall would make a gift to Chicago of a major work."^^ His recommendation to the

board was accepted without reservation. With the confi­

dence of their support, Mr. Wood Prince flew to France and

once again presented the invitation of a commission, this

time stipulating the agreement to personally underwrite all

costs. Chagall, recognizing the seriousness of his intent,

agreed.

^^Interview with Thomas Tyler, Chicago, 111., January 1980. 19 "The Four Seasons," First National Bank press materials.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92

In February of 1972, Mrs. Wood Prince and Carter

Manny, the project architect, initiated the project by taking to Chagall's home in France a four foot model of the

First National Bank building and plaza, as a foundation for

Chagall's preliminary renderings. After examination of the

potential site, the artist quickly abandoned a two dimen­

sional motif in favor of a three dimensional mosaic for installation in the plaza's east terrace. According to

Thomas Tyler, friend and counsel to Mr. Wood Prince, and

a coordinator of the project, the documentation of the formal agreements between Chagall did not take place during the initial stages. Chagall drew up several renderings

after choosing the topic of the four seasons and submitted them to Mr. Wood Prince, not necessarily for approval, but

to include him in the creation of the art. The mosaic was well under way when, in March, 1972,

a fire destroyed the studio at Biot and the master maquettes 20 of "The Four Seasons" were completely burned. Fortunately the project was saved, for without Chagall's knowledge,

Madame Chagall had taken photographs of the original "Four

Seasons" watercolor maquettes and stored them, in case just

such a tragedy should occur. Chagall soon resurrected his studio and began

ordering the hundreds of tons of glass and stone needed for

the one hundred and twenty-eight paneled mosaic. The final

ZOlbid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93 size would measure seventy feet long by fourteen feet high

and ten feet wide, with more than three thousand feet of

three hundred and fifty different shades and hues.

Meanwhile, there was a flurry of activity in Chicago

to formulate the financial arrangements for Mr. Wood Prince, Thomas Tyler, acting as counsel, and the president of the

Field Museum of Chicago, the president of the Art Institute

of Chicago, and the president of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago, were collectively forming a not-for-profit

corporation called Art in the Center. 21 The organization was to be directed by the three founding museum heads as a

legal entity which could retain ownership of works of art

that were in the public domain and not affiliated with a particular institution. The official purpose is described

as follows : To acquire for the benefit of members of this corporation and to maintain, preserve, and exhibit to the general public, in a location or locations accessible to the general public at all times, pre­ eminent works of art for the education and enlight- ment of the general p u b l i c . 22

To provide a facility or facilities for the education and enlightment of the general p u b l i c . 23

Lawrence Chalmers, President of the Art Institute

O 1 Interview with Thomas Tyler, Chicago, 111., January 1980.

^^Certificate of Incorporation, Articles of Incor­ poration, for Art in the Center, Office of the Secretary of State, Springfield, 111.

Z^Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94

and President of Art in the Center, presented the potential

of the corporation in more explicit terms. The not-for-

profit corporation would provide a vehicle for private col­

lectors to donate works of art that are by nature designed

for a public environment, but not affiliated with one par­ ticular organization, to a not-for-profit entity. Thereby,

for example, a corporation could acquire art for public

consumption without bearing the entire financial respon­ sibility. By donating the art to Art in the Center, a

considerable tax relief is available. In the case of "The Four Seasons," the mosaic was

installed on First National Bank property, which was sub­ sequently leased to Art in the Center. The mosaic was

donated to Art in the Center with the stipulation that 25 First National would provide maintenance and upkeep. Art in the Center assumes ownership and the people of

Chicago have another work by a great artist.

Art in the Center was the product of considerable brainstorming. It exists in name only and is administered

solely by the three directors and the staff of AIC. Con­

sequently, it requires no capital for growth, yet has the

^^Tnterview with Lawrence Chalmers, the Art Institute of Chicago, January 1980. ^^Interview with Thomas Tyler, Chicago, 111., January 1980.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95 capacity to stimulate an enormous proliferation of art in

Chicago. The actual cost of "The Four Seasons" was never

discussed by Mr. Tyler or Mr. Chalmers. Nor was it alluded

to in any printed materials such as press releases or news articles. Clearly the financial aspects of the acquisition

were kept out of the public domain.

Chagall generously donated his efforts and the

design of the mosaic to Mr. Wood Prince, and would accept O -7 no monetary compensation. To show their gratitude to the

artist, the Wood Princes purchased one of his paintings and

donated it to the National Gallery of Art in Washington, O Q D. C. This gesture and the complete willingness to supply any provisions and comply with all the artist's

demands was their total financial remuneration.

The B. F. Ferguson Fund

The B. F . Ferguson Fund, established in the early

1900's, was the beginning of a lifelong commitment to public sculpture in Chicago. Ferguson, a Chicago business­ man of substantial financial means and a great lover of

fine art, created the fund in his name to provide future monuments specifically for and in the city of Chicago. A

small section in Ferguson's will provided Chicago with a

2Glbid. 27%bid. ZGlbid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95

financial capacity to acquire sculpture unlike any private

fund in the country. The excerpt of the will is as follows :

(e) My said Trustee after paying the bequests hereinabove mentioned and establishing or realizing and keeping intact a permanent trust fund of not annually thereafter or oftener, if required, pay the entire net income arising therefrom (deducting its compensation as Trustee herein mentioned) to The Art Institute of Chicago, to be known as the B. F. Ferguson Monument Fund and entirely and ex­ clusively used and expended by it under the direction of its Board of Trustees in the erection and main­ tenance of enduring statuary and monuments, in the whole or in part, of stone, granite, or bronze, in the parks, along the boulevards, or in other public places within the City of Chicago, Illinois, com­ memorating worthy American History. The plans or designs for such statuary or monuments and the location of the same shall be determined by the Board of Trustees of such I n s t i t u t e . 29

The first piece commissioned by the trustees com­

memorated the founder, entitled, "Ferguson Fountain of the Great Lakes," by Lorado Taft, completed in 1913. Since

then seventeen works have been commissioned or purchased. After 1950, the Fund financed five projects, of which one

was the addition of a wing to the main building of the

Art Institute of Chicago (AIC). The remaining four works

were individually conceived and realized within the last

thirteen years. This section will focus on two pieces to illustrate

the diverse manner which the trustee and the AIC chose to

disperse funds. The first, "Nuclear Energy" by

2^Interview with Lawrence Chalmers, Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, 111., January 1980.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97

Henry Moore at the University of Chicago is a memorial to

the first self-sustaining controlled nuclear reaction. The second. "Celebration of the 200th Anniversary of the

Founding of the Republic" commemorated the topic of its

title. By Isamu Noguchi, the sculpture is located at the

rear of the AIC on Columbus Drive, facing Grant Park.

The following discussions do not propose to describe

the only processes used by the Ferguson Fund trustees to commission or purchase sculpture. In fact, the Fund ad­

ministrators do not subscribe to any specific standards or

system of guidelines in selection of sculpture. 30 Lawrence Chalmers, president of the AIC and an administrator of the

Fund, presented the attitude of the selection as entirely

subjective and geared entirely toward the individual pro­

ject. Qualifications for funding require no specific re­

quirements, proposals or artistic renderings, no official deadlines, no limitations on annual dispersements of funds

nor the amount of annual dispersement, and no standards for judging the projects to receive funds. All decisions are based on the discretion of the trustees according to the 31 individual sculpture. Chalmers also clarified the question of ownership.

When the Ferguson Fund provides monies for sculpture, they

assume ownership despite the requirement of installation on

city property.

30lbid. 3^Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98

"Nuclear Energy"

In 1965, Dr. William McNeill of the World History

department at the University of Chicago (UC) embarked on a single-minded crusade to acquire a piece of sculpture to mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of one of the University's

most historical achievements. His plan was to install the sculpture on the exact site of the first controlled nuclear 32 reaction. The nature of such a controversial commission

would necessitate finding a sculptor with the ability to convey the enormity of the event, who also had a world-wide

reputation as an artist. McNeill initially considered several artists, most

notably Jacques Lipshitz and Henry Moore. The artists

responded quite differently to McNeill's request to par­ ticipate. Lipshitz quickly withdrew for financial reasons

and Henry Moore, immediately captivated by the idea, wanted

to pursue it despite the inability of the University to 33 guarantee the source funding. Three representatives from the UC, McNeill, Harold Haydon from the art department and a consulting project

architect, I. W. Colburn, went to England to speak with Moore on the purpose and meaning of the sculpture and the

terms of a commission. Within an hour, the artist agreed

Interview with William McNeill, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111., December 1979.

^^Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99

to build a four foot maquette for consideration by the University. He offered the design of the sculpture and

his work as a donation to the UC, if the school would assume the responsibility for the base, installation, delivery and

casting.His only condition was in the design for the

site for the sculpture; it had to be surrounded with open space by at least fifty feet on each side. Placement for

the foundation and installation was coordinated by the pro­

ject architects for the University's Regenstein Library,

Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (specifically Walter Netsch).

The confirmation of the agreement between Moore and McNeill was verbal. No documentation was drawn up by either the 35 University or the artist.

Once the commitment to the sculpture was endorsed by

the University, the pursuit of funding became imperative.

At the time of the first conversation with Moore, Dr. McNeill had not obtained the money necessary to finance the

project, nor did he have a hint of support from the Univer­

sity on the purchase of the sculpture. He did receive a guarantee that the base would be constructed by funds from

the library building project budget.For two years McNeill addressed University trustees and the development

office on the import of the commission, to no avail.

34%bid. 3^Ibid.

3Glbid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyrightowner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 0 0

Grants were sought from foundations with negative results.

During this period, Moore continued to work, as

promised, on the sculpture. He first created a fourteen

foot plaster model in his studio in Much Hadham, England,

and then a final piece was cast by founder Herman Noack, in

Berlin. The sculpture was shipped directly to the UC. The

artist and the foundry worked the entire time with no more

than a verbal commitment from the University and the faith

that the monies for construction and transportation would

be forthcoming. Up until one month before the unveiling,

the funds had not been secured.

Simultaneously, the City of Chicago was planning the

construction of the Picasso sculpture for Daley Plaza. The

Ferguson Fund had pledged a contribution toward the fabri­

cation costs. Their donation was publicized as a sub­ stantial element in the "Picasso" commission. At the last

minute, however, dissension arose when the trustees dis­

covered that under the terms of the Ferguson will, the

Civic Center "Picasso" did not qualify for funding. The 38 Ferguson Fund had to withdraw all financial support. In response to their actions, the trustees felt a responsi­

bility to demonstrate their continuing support of public

3?Ibid. ^^Ibid. Lawrence Chalmers could not verify this point, for he was not affiliated with the Ferguson Fund in 1965. William Hartmann never alluded to involvement with the Ferguson Fund during the "Picasso" commission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101 sculpture. The desire to fund another project was discussed

between the president of the University, George Beadle, and the Ferguson trustee, Arthur Wood. The president broached

the subject of McNeill's dilemma in obtaining funds and the possibility of the Ferguson Fund transferring the monies

originally designated to the "Picasso," as an alternative.

Wood recognized the value of the project and reviewed the opportunity with the Ferguson trustees. Upon brief con­

sideration, they ascertained the potential for cooperation

with the UC; the topic of the sculpture commemorated a great

American event and was created by a renowned artist. The

Fund found the sculpture worthy of support and unanimously agreed to pay all the expenses incurred during the commis-

sion which were not assumed by the University. 39 The

president, acting liaison with the Fund, accepted their

offer.

In accordance with the site regulations in the Ferguson will, the sculpture had to be installed on city

property. To comply with the demand, the University donated

the property directly underneath the sculpture to the City - , . 40 of Chrcago.

39lbid. ^°Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102

! tCelebration of the Two-Hundredth Anniversary of the Founding of the Republic", Isamu Nogucni, Marble; 280 S. Columbus Drive, Chicago," Illinois. Referred to as "Celebration"

"Celebration," a two piece marble sculpture/fountain

demonstrates an acquisition initiated by the trustees of

the Ferguson Fund. Then Chairman of the Board of the AIC

and a trustee of the Ferguson Fund, Leigh Block, suggested a monumental sculpture, to complement the newly added east wing of the AIC. Planning for the sculpture began in the

early 1970's after construction of the wing was well under way. Though the eleven trustees submitted the names of

several sculptors for consideration, all were abandoned in

favor of Leigh Block's choice of Noguchi.In his view,

a work by the internationally respected Japanese-American

artist would be his first major contribution to Chicago and a valuable addition to the loop collection of work by major

artists. Upon the trustees unanimous support of the project.

Block approached Noguchi, requesting a proposal and

maquette. The artist accepted, and with the dimensions of

the site in mind produced a small maquette of "Celebra­

tion." It was soon approved by the trustees, upon the

recommendations of the east wing project architects.

^^Interview with Lawrence Chalmers, Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, 111., January 1980.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103

Skidmore, Owings and M e r r i l l . They assessed the archi­

tects' estimation of the projected costs, as compared to

Noguchi's figures, and negotiated the artist's fee. The

publicized cost of the entire project was two hundred and fifty thousand dollars; a total of the artist's fee for

the design and commitment to oversee the manufacturing of

the sculpture, the materials, installation labor and equip­ ment, and the architectural services.Robert Hutchins of

SOM was entrusted with the responsibility of coordinating 44 the operations to construct and install the sculpture.

42lbid. 43ibid. Interview with Robert Hutchins, Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, Chicago, 111., January 1980.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER V I

SCULPTURE ON LOAN

Public sculpture acquired on loan, (sculpture o^vned

by one party and lent to another for the purpose of dis­

play) has proven a viable method of obtaining for exhibit

otherwise unaffordable or inaccessible art. The examples

of loans described here are all on extended exhibit in

several types of institutions, and secured under various

circumstances. The agreements between the owners and the licensees are as diverse as the organizations they repre­

sent; from verbal acknowledgment of terms to formal written

contracts drawn up by attorneys on a systematic basis. This chapter also includes a discussion of a perma­

nent exhibit of sculpture at the Albank Sculpture Garden (ASG) in Chicago's north side. The pieces in the ASG

rotate; consequently, it will be examined as a whole, rathe:

than by the individual piece.

Further examples of sculpture on loan can be found

in Chapter VII (see Governors State University).

104

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105

Robert B. Mayer Memorial Loan

"Reclining Figure", Henry Moore, Bronze; the David and Alfred Smart Gallery, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois

"Grande Radar", Arnoldo Pomodoro, Bronze; the David and Alfred Smart Gallery, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois

The Robert B. Mayer Memorial Loan to the Uni­

versity of Chicago exemplifies a highly organized relation­

ship between a collector and a recipient institution. Mr.

and Mrs. Mayer, of Chicago, Illinois, were avid art

collectors during their married life; both with an interest

in modern art. The collection they acquired over the years

was intended for their home, Edgecliff, in winnetka,

Illinois. In 1976 Mr. Mayer died. Mrs. Mayer, unable to share her enormous collection with him, initiated the loan

in the name of her deceased husband. From her private collection, sculpture, paintings and objects of art have

been loaned to museums and educational institutions through­

out the country." The two pieces lent to the David and Alfred Smart

Gallery at the University of Chicago illustrate how the loan

operates and the manner in which Mrs. Mayer chooses the

sites. The Robert B. Mayer Loan is administered by Mayer

Enterprises, Inc., a Delaware Corporation. A five year

^Interview with Mrs. Robert B. Mayer, Chicago, 111., March 1980.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106

contract was drawn up for each piece, subject to possible extension when reappraised for insurance purposes at the 2 end of the term. Both "Reclining Figure" and "Grande Radar" were pur­ chased from private galleries, the Henry Moore from Lester

Galleries in London, 1963, and the Pomodoro from Marlborough

Galleries, 1965.^ The sculptures were loaned to the University of

Chicago Smart Gallery in 1976, for a period of five years. Mrs. Mayer developed a detailed, highly explicit standard

contract, which was used in connection with each of the loans to the University of Chicago.^ (A copy is attached

(see appendix

Mr. Mayer, Mrs. Mayer, their son and Mrs. Mayer’s

father, Nathan Cummings, have been intimately associated

with the University as students, alumni, donors and persons of significant responsibility over the years. Mrs. Mayer

particularly has been interested in the arts, as

demonstrated by her position on the visiting committee of the art department, and in the financial contribution

she makes toward the lectures given by the art department

O Interview with Richard Borne, the David and Alfred Smart Gallery, the University of Chicago, Chicago, 111., October 1979. O Interview with Mrs. Robert B. Mayer, Chicago, 111., March 1980.

^Tbid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107

each year.^

Due to this strong relationship and with Mrs.

Mayer's particular knowledge of the art department and its

activities, she knew what works would enhance the quality

of the Smart Gallery permanent collection and add to its

educational programs. Within the University two separate committees formed

to review and accept the loans. The first committee com­

posed of representatives of the art department viewed the

sculpture and made recommendations of specific pieces.

Members of the Art Committee included the Gallery Director,

the Director and the Chairman of the Department of Gifts

and Grants.^ On Monday, October 13, 1975, this committee accom­

panied by Mr. Walsh of Pennoyer and Taft Merchants Transfer

Gompany (building contractor for moving the sculpture) met

at Mrs. Mayer's home to select the final pieces and esti­

mate the costs of moving the sculpture. Artistic merit of the sculpture was determined by

the arts staff. Their recommendations of value were shared

with the University-wide Gifts and Donations Committee who

review the decisions.^ At that point, Mrs. Mayer presented

^Ibid.

^Interview with Richard Borne, the David and Alfred Smart Gallery, the University of Chicago, Chicago, 111., October 1979.

^Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103

the selected pieces to the Gifts and Grants office to process upon approval by the University. "Gift acknow­

ledgment" letters were sent to Mrs. Mayer and to the Dean

of the University. All details, costs, and labor to install the sculp­

ture were handled by the gallery director, Edward A. Maser.

He, Mrs. Mayer, and the University architect, along with the plant and maintenance staff, determined the placement

of the sculptures in the courtyard of the gallery. (The

contract stipulated placement of the pieces in the court.)

In accordance with the financial responsibility accepted in the contract terms, the gallery absorbed all costs for pro- O curing and installing the sculpture. The gallery antici­

pated yearly expenses of this nature and makes provisions for services and material expenditures for installations

and foundation in each annual budget. In the case of these

sculptures no additional funds had to be raised. As with

most University projects, installation labor is furnished 9 by the University maintenance corps.

"Mobius Triangle", Bruce White, Cor-ten Eteel; St. James CathedralT 65 E. Huron Street, Chicago, Illinois

In direct contrast to the formal mode of loaning

sculpture, characterized by the Robert B. Mayer Memorial

Loan, is the much less structured arrangement between

Gibid. ^Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109

Bruce White and the St. James Cathedral in Chicago. IThite

loaned the diocese an enormous piece of sculpture for the

plaza, which surrounds the cathedral and administrative

building on Huron Street. The tall and graceful sculpture

is well suited for its location at the rear of the main

building among a small cluster of trees. Although the

sculpture was not built for the site it has a distinct

sense of belonging to the environment. Bruce White has retained ownership of the sculpture,

though Roy Boyd has handled all the negotiations in placing

the sculpture. The piece was paid for from White's per­

sonal income. It was designed and constructed as a part

of WTiite's personal work, and with the intention to sell after completion.^® (Often large pieces of sculpture are

quite difficult to sell for many reasons. They are usually very expensive due to the material and fabrication costs

and there are limitations in the space for display.) At

the time, the Boyd gallery could not accommodate the enormous structure and decided to find a semi-permanent

location to exhibit the structure. The eventual proximity

to the sculpture was also a consideration. At the same time, Boyd was a member of the St. James

Parish. He approached Father Pitcher with the suggestion

that the piece would be appropriate to the new plaza

^®Interview with Bruce White, DeKalb, 111., December 1979.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110 creating a focal point for outdoor events. The exposure

of the sculpture would also increase White's reputation in

Chicago. The Father and the Bishop both agreed to the arrangement, after seeing a collection of slides showing

White's past work and viewing the sculpture itself.In

the case of this loan, no committee, members of the clergy

or members of the congregation were consulted about the

decision. In the case of a diocese, the Bishop has full

authority to make the decisions. 12 The agreement between the Cathedral and White was enacted in the form of a verbal acknowledgment of terms

between Boyd and Father Pitcher. No contracts were drawn

up nor were there any formal letters of intent. According to both of them, there were no specific terms discussing

duration of the installation, insurance, maintenance, or

the potential of the congregation to purchase the 13 sculpture. The piece has been placed in its location for over three years at the time of this writing. No exchange of

money has been offered as a gesture for use of the sculp­

ture.^^ The financial remuneration has been substituted

for the opportunity to have a piece on constant exhibit

l^Interview with Father Trenton Pitcher, St. James Cathedral, Chicago, 111., October 1979.

l-^Ibid. l^Ibid.

^^Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 111 close to the center of Chicago's art community.

The Albank Sculpture Garden

The grounds of corporations and financial institu­ tions provide particularly suitable environments for loaned

and large pieces of sculpture. Often a bank or corporate

headquarters is surrounded by unused space. In these situations outdoor work can be combined with the landscape

as a place for the community to enjoy and to enhance the architecture. The Albany Bank and Trust Company, referred

to as the Albank, at 3400 West Lawrence Avenue in Chicago's

north west side, recognized the opportunity to utilize the property adjacent and east of the bank as a sculpture

garden. Dr. Martin Gecht, art collector and chairman of the

board of Albank, initiated the program of loaned (actually

rented) sculpture.Drawing on his travels in France, where he saw many examples of contemporary sculpture along

the main boulevards, Gecht envisioned the possibility of a

similar display in Chicago. With the knowledge of many young sculptors needing an opportunity for exposure, Gecht

created an environment where their works could be exhibited

and recognized. Simultaneous to the decision to install a sculpture

garden, the neighborhood surrounding the eventual location

^^Interview with Dr. Martin Gecht, Chicago, 111., February 1980.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112

of the new Albank was in the midst of a major urban renewal

project; one of the first in the area to receive federal

funding for rejuvenation of older neighborhoods on the North

Side. The office responsible for the project was the North

Side River Commission. They worked with Gecht to develop

plans for a new bank and sculpture garden at the corner of

Kimball and Lawrence. The costs of installing the sculpture

garden were included in the landscaping budget of the

bank.

The opening of the first exhibit in the sculpture garden on June 6, 1979 was planned as a dedication for the

new bank as well as marking the completion of their reju­ venation project. The garden is the first of its kind

intended as a rotating display devoted exclusively to ex­

hibiting Chicago sculptors' works that is supported by a . ^ 17 private corporation. Six artists participated in the initial exhibit;

seven pieces were chosen representing a variety of material, sizes and forms. Though most of the art is abstract, the

examples show the diverse influences in the work of Chicago's sculptures. The artists, Alice Culbert, Jerald Jacquard,

Terrance Karpowiez, Brian Managhan, S. Thomas Scarff and

Paul Slepak were chosen by Dr. Gecht.As the garden planner, coordinator, administrator, chief decision maker

16lbid. l^xbid. l^Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113

and curator, he supervises the sculpture as he does his personal art collection.

During an interview, Dr. Gecht discussed the acqui­

sition arrangements and commitments. The exhibit is de­

signed to rotate on an alternate monthly basis. Each

artist is guaranteed that the piece will be on exhibit for

at least six months. The bank absorbs all the costs for

installation, preparing the base (if necessary), the rental

of cranes and payment of all services, removal and trans­ portation of the sculpture after the terms of the loan.

In addition, the artist receives an annual stipend of ten percent of the market value of the sculpture. If the piece

is sold at any time during the loan, the artist must give

the bank at least two months' notice prior to removing the sculpture. The artist also assumes the financial and

physical responsibility for moving the sculpture and de­ livery. During the term of the loan, the bank assumes the

responsibility for general maintenance and insurance for

the piece while it is on display.^® A contract is drawn up between the bank and the

artists. No galleries or agents handle the negotiations or

participate in any manner. When asked about the method and procedure of

selecting the sculpture, whether formal or collective in

manner, Dr. Gecht's reply was a very simple, "I do it." 20

l^Ibid. 2®Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114 There are no formal guidelines in the bank for the decisions, or committees to judge and evaluate the sculp­

ture submitted for approval. The decisions are made solely

by Dr. Gecht. He does confer, however, with other personnel

in the bank who express a strong interest in the art and

the garden. As an important art collector in Chicago, Gecht is

well known in the art circles and has access to sculpture

and people who are knowledgeable about what is available in

Chicago. He has informally encouraged all sculptors to

submit slides of their work and a list of current pieces available for loan. He keeps an extensive listing of all

the work he receives on file for future reference. At the

time of this writing, the work had not rotated. However, Dr. Gecht expressed certainty that the exhibit will change

by the summer of 1981.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER VII

GOVERNORS STATE UNIVERSITY

Southwest of Chicago, surrounded by Illinois farm­

land, stands one of the largest assemblages of outdoor sculpture in the United States. The collection, originally

an exhibit entitled, "The Sculptor, the Campus and the Prairie," is displayed on the campus of Governors State

University (GSU) in Park Forest South (PFS), Illinois.

From the beginning, the circumstances were unique in that

a large number of pieces were selected and brought to­

gether for the purpose of an exhibit with the intention of maintaining a semi-permanent collection that could permit

changes over the years. The evolution of the GSU collection is an intricate

weave of fortuitous circumstance and grew from the cooper­

ative commitment of its founders. To understand the genesis of the GSU project, a much

more extensive historic perspective is necessary than was explored in the previous chapters. Also, funding for the

collection, the sculptures, the installations, and the

transportation, was derived from a number of different

sources. Consequently, this chapter will be divided into

115

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116 two sections; 1) the historical events and 2) the organi­

zation of "The Sculptor, the Campus and the Prairie."

Though there are other collections of public sculp­ ture in the United States, GSU demonstrates the inventive­

ness available in educational institutions and other public and private organizations to tap resources and, in a col­

laborative effort, to utilize the many different avenues

of funding and networking toward the acquisition of

sculpture.

History

The emersion of the sculpture collection began in the 1960's through the efforts of Lewis Manilow, a real estate

developer and Chairman of the Board of the Museum of Con­

temporary Art in Chicago, and Dr. William Engbretson, then President of GSU. In the mid 60's, Manilow participated in

a federal government program which appropriated funds for

the development of towns and villages in rural and unincor­

porated areas near major cities. Manilow's particular plan was to build a community adjacent to Park Forest, Illinois; a town in which his father had pioneered as a real estate

developer many years before.^ The new community had an estimated potential population of eighty thousand people.

In combination with a plan to build single family dwellings.

^Interview with William Dodd, Governors State Uni­ versity, Park Forest South, 111., March 1980.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117

there was an equally strong interest in commercial business

development. Simultaneous to the federal residential

program, the State of Illinois chose the Park Forest South

area as the site for a senior university. The Board of Governors hired local real estate developer, Perry E.

Wagner, to purchase property from local farmers and Lewis

Manilow. The grounds grew to seven hundred and fifty-three acres and included a farmhouse land site from the Manilow

grounds. When the buildings were completed, William

Engbretson opened the campus as President. During the same

period, Manilow moved back to the campus farmhouse for 2 closer proximity to the growing town. The two men met and discovered many similarities in

life circumstances; one man building a community, the other

a university; each was involved in a change of domestic

lifestyle and both felt a great affinity for the arts,

particularly sculpture. With a mutual sense of enthusiasm regarding the arts,

the men soon became close friends while sharing their interests. Manilow introduced Engbretson to the Chicago

art scene and its artists, facilitating friendships with

sculptors John Henry, Richard Hunt and Jerry Peart, among

many. The GSU history becomes increasingly complicated.

The following events occurred coincidentally, within a

^Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118

short period of time, and are all essential to the eventual

collection. Though the actual timing in each instance is

unclear, they are described in the most accurate discernible chronology.

l\Fhen the community of PFS began to take order,

Manilow and a group of local art enthusiasts formed the Park

Forest South Cultural Foundation, with the intention of

establishing a sculpture park/garden in the village. The foundation's first acquisition was the donation of a large

metal sculpture entitled "Phoenix." Many years before,

Manilow purchased the piece from painter-sculptor Edvins

Strautmanis for installation in an apartment housing com­

plex called Cornell Village, in Hyde Park. "Phoenix," though specifically chosen for the location, was received

with controversy, criticism, defacement and repainting by

the residents. When the Cornell complex was sold as condominiums,

the resulting condominium association wanted the sculpture

removed from rhe property. At that juncture, Manilow suggested the donation of the "Phoenix" to the PFS Cultural

Foundation, for the prospective sculpture garden in the village. They agreed and the piece was relocated, with the

donated aid of machinery and labor from United States Steel.^

o Interview with Lewis Manilow, Chicago, 111., December 1979.

^Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119 (Manilow had contacted the company and requested their assistance, which they readily contributed.) It was stored

in an old barn on GSU property, anticipating future re­ location to the propsective PFSCF/sculpture garden. It

remained there until 1973 when the ownership was trans­

ferred to GSU and it was installed on the grounds of the

campus.

Concurrent to the donation of "Phoenix," Manilow invited sculptor Mark diSuvero for an extended visit at

the farmhouse. There, he provided the artist with work/

living space, materials for his art and additional monies.

This enticement kept diSuvero producing at the farmhouse,

close to two years, during which he built three large pieces, "For Lady Day," 1968-69, "Prairie Chimes," 1968-69,

and the "Mohican," 1967-68.^ After construction, the "Mohican" was temporarily installed at a shopping plaza financed by Manilow. Infor­

mation of the exact circumstances of ownership of the "Mohican" during this period is unclear. Many different versions point to a simple assumption of ownership after

completion of the piece in 1958. No sources imply the

contrary. Though it has remained on GSU property since 1969

and was then installed in 1974 when diSuvero, Engbretson

and Manilow chose a specific site, Mark diSuvero still

^Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120 claims ownership of "Prairie Chimes."^

"For Lady Day" was apparently donated by Manilow to

the PFS Cultural Foundation.^ Determination of the owner­

ship for the sculpture as between diSuvero and Manilow is

difficult to ascertain. Some sources contend that a verbal

transaction constituted a determination of ownership.

Others report that no ultimate determination took place and Manilow assumed possession of the sculpture. After the

sculpture was completed it went on a national tour of the

United States and returned to the GSU campus. "For Lady Day" was, however, listed by the PFS Cultural Foundation as

an asset when applying to the National Endowment for the g Arts (NEA) for a matching grant of sixty thousand dollars.

These monies were obtained to purchase three more sculp­

tures by American artists, Jerry Peart, John Chamberlain and Charles Ginniver. (Funds were received from the NEA

by the PFS Cultural Foundation in January of 1980.)

In order to maintain a chronological continuity, it

is important to keep in mind that in 1972 GSU received a

gift of real estate from the Park Forest Partnership (Manilow). The donation was with the restriction that in

the event the land was sold, the proceeds were earmarked

^Interview with William Dodd, Governors State Uni­ versity, Park Forest South, 111., March 1980.

^Interview with Lewis Manilow, Chicago, 111., December 1979.

^Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121

to be used only "for a cultural purpose in the honor of

Nathan Manilow."^

"The Sculptor, the Campus and the Prairie"

Intentions to commission a large piece of outdoor sculpture by GSU started during the early 1970's. Manilow

and Engbretson began to realize the potential of GSU's en­ vironment for large scale work. The first step began with

an inquiry to Ira Licht, then director of the NEA program

for Art in Public Places, to determine the availability of funds for large scale projects. The second was an in­

vitation to a number of sculptors in the Chicago area

requesting proposals and maquettes for submission to the

NEA's selection committee. John Henry's "Illinois

Landscape #5" was submitted to Engbretson and forwarded to the NEA due to its appropriateness to the environment and

as a representation of the purest sense of monumentality

in modern sculpture.The University received an un­

official acknowledgment from the NEA that the sculpture would be well accepted if a grant was applied for. (At that time, the proposed "Illinois Landscape #5" would be

one of the largest pieces of public sculpture executed by

a contemporary American artist.) In December, 1973, to formally launch the project.

^^Interview with William Dodd, Governors State Uni­ versity, Park Forest South, 111., March 1980.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 122

Engbretson submitted a grant proposal to the NEA re­ questing matching funds totaling twenty-five thousand

dollars, to commission the piece from John Henry. The

'"Pheonix" was used as the University's matching asset to obtain the grant. (Chicago art dealer, Walter

Kelly, appraised the market value of the "Pheonix" at twenty-five thousand dollars in October 1973.)^^ The additional monies itemized on the grant proposal were

obtained from the University grants office which re­ tains funds specifically to be used as assets to match

"matching grants." Upon the NEA's approval of the grant, the monies were released to the University. John Henry accepted

the commission, drew up a contract with the University and commenced building the sculpture in his Chicago studio.

The piece was completed two years later and was bolted

together on the campus with the aid of two workman and 12 a crane.

^^Interview with John Payne, Governors State University, Park Forest South, 111., November 1979. 1 9 Interview with John Hnery, Chicago, III.,

December 1979.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123 In early 1976, Engbretson announced his resignation

as President of GSU, effective August, 1976. To coincide with the event of his retirement he suggested to John Henry

that a major exhibition of outdoor sculpture could celebrate

the dedication of "Illinois Landscape #5" and mark the end

of his term as President. The idea was well accepted by

the University, Henry and his friend, Manilow. Without

hesitation they set to task the organizing of a show which

would become "The Sculptor, the Campus and the Prairie."

To properly engineer the exhibition, Engbretson en­ listed the assistance of Walter Kelly, Manilow, John Payne,

resident sculptor at GSU, and Jim Sitting Crow, as art con­

sultants to collaborate on coordinating the arrangements and installations for the sculpture.The two pieces

already located on campus, "Phoenix" and Prairie Chimes" plus the anticipated installation of "Illinois Landscape

#5" functioned as the core of the show. Manilow proceeded

to contribute two more pieces by returning "For Lady Day" from its national tour and removing the "Mohican" from the

shopping plaza and reinstalling it at the University. He personally financed the transportation and installation of

both pieces. Having pulled together the immediate available resources, Engbretson decided to appeal to other sculptors.

1 ? Interview with Lewis Manilow, Chicago, 111., December 1979.

^^Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 124

requesting indefinite loans as contributions. The Uni­

versity approached several artists, all of whom responded with a strong desire to participate in the exhibition.

Within only a few months, the show grew to eleven large

scale works including loans from Richard Hunt ("Outgrown

Pyramid II" and "Large Planar Hybrid"), John Payne ("Mock

I V Form" and "Mock II V Form"), Jerry Jacquard ("Oblique Angles"), and Jerry Peart ("Falling Meteor"). To transport

and install the selected loans, monies were obtained from

two parts of the operations portion of the University's

annual budget. The contractual line provided funds for

services and rental of equipment, such as cranes and trucks, labor assistance, consulting fees, publication services,

etc. The commodities portion of the budget provided funds for purchasing materials for the installation and pro­ motions.^^ To further clarify this issue, the University

did not budget an exhibition into its annual budget. Nor were the total expenses incurred during the exhibition

estimated prior to Engbretson's commitment. All funds were

drawn piecemeal, as the need arose during the installations. The diligent help of the University plant and maintenance

department provided ample labor, requiring the contracting of only a few skilled workers for specific problems in

setting up the exhibition. Outside contracting was

^^Interview with William Dodd, Governors State Uni­ versity, Park Forest South, 111., March 1980.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125

administered by Engbretson upon the recommendations of

Kelly, Sitting Crow and the artists.

In most cases the artists and the University shared

verbal agreements on the terms of the loans.The only

requirements were that the selected sculptures (if chosen

by the artist) be appropriate to the environment and the

intentions of the show, and that the artist cooperate

during the installations, offering recommendations on tem­

porary foundations, actually installing the work, and

extending to the University a few montl o notice before

removing the sculpture.

IGlbid. l^Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER VIII

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this conclusion is not to summarize

the foregoing materials but to present perceivable trends

in the area of inquiry. In considering the manner of

funding public sculpture, there are certain repetitive facts

and discernable patterns that lead to inferences, although

such conclusions are not universally true.

In analyzing each piece of sculpture, the sources of funds and the processes of acquisition, it appears that

approximately fifteen different variables were consistently

identified. See Chart I, page 135. For visual reference to coordinate the conclusions,

two charts condense the variables into three categories, 1) the relationships between the funding sources (purchaser/

donor), the recipient of the sculpture, the artist, and the architect(s), 2) the identification of the person(s) respon­

sible for the impetus behind the purchase (donation) of the

sculpture and 3) the mechanics of the acquisition. See

Chart II, page 136 and Chart III, page 137.

Individuals

In most cases, the ten sculptures funded by

126

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127

individuals were donated to not-for-profit organizations,

primarily educational institutions. In these cases, the

donation is not the only relationship between the donor and the organization. The gift was the result of a formal

relationship between the donor and the recipient. The donor either acted as a board member of the organization,

an alumnus, or had a previous history of contributions.

Individuals always provide the impetus behind the donation. Without solicitation for a donation of sculpture,

the donor will offer the organization the opportunity of

accepting a piece as a gift. In most of these instances,

the gift of sculpture is offered in conjunction with an

architectural project to which the individual has contri­

buted funds.

Individuals singularly make all the decisions of purchasing the art and selecting the institutions for donation, without the aid of a consulting body or committee.

l\hen the donor gives a pre-existing sculpture, it is usually from a personal collection and is a piece which the indi­

vidual has selected, rather than the recipient organi­ zation's choice. The act of administering the exchange of

ownership is handled by the individual, in cooperation with

the organization's president, the development office, and

the consulting architect.

In the case of donating pre-existing sculpture, the

exchange of ownership between the individual and the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 2 8

organization, is documented by a letter of intent rather

than a contract. Concerning commissions, however, the

individual will donate the funds directly to the organi­ zation, who in turn contracts with the artist for the

sculpture.

In both donations of completed works and commissions, the individual will usually assume the cost for the

foundation, transportation of the sculpture and the instal­ lation.

Individuals often prefer to donate the sculpture of

artists with whom they have had a previous business or

personal relationship.

Corporations

Six of the thirty-eight sculptures were commissioned by corporations. On all occasions, the impetus to purchase

the sculpture and the decisions pertaining to the acquisi­ tion were made singularly by the president or the chairman

of the board of the corporation in question. Usually the

acquisition of a piece of sculpture by a corporation was not the organization's first experience with purchasing art.

All the corporations evidenced a history of acquiring art,

either for formal corporate collections to which the presi­

dent or chairman of the board has great interest, or

informally for the offices of the employees. In most cases, however, the corporation had not commissioned a public

sculpture before.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129 In all instances, the decision to purchase a sculp­ ture, selection of the artist and acceptance of the pro­

posed piece, were reviewed by the board of directors and

accepted by the president or chairman of the board.

Occasionally an informal committee of interested indi­ viduals within the corporation will offer assistance in the

acquisition, but rarely is a special committee appointed to

coordinate the project from beginning to end. Corporations tend to view public sculpture as an

extraordinary expenditure (non-budgeted item). That is,

a specific amount for purchasing public sculpture is not

determined in the annual budget. They do, however, work

with architects to plan the physical aspects of the acqui­ sition and estimate the costs. As is the case of most

commissions, the corporation requires a proposal including

a budget and a maquette from the artist. Once approved,

the corporation will negotiate the price of the sculpture

with the artist (without the assistance of a gallery or agent) and conclude the transaction with a contract.

Foundations

The foundations examined here grant funding either

to arts organizations, especially for arts projects, or

were founded for the purpose of supporting sculpture in

particular. Administration of these grants was handled by

the trustees of the foundations. Here, an interesting note

may be added, although it applies only in the case of the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130 four major foundations mentioned in this paper. The trustees of the foundations not only have personal acquain­

tance with each other, but at some point in the history of

each foundation, a representative has participated on the

board of trustees of the Art Institute of Chicago. And, in

the case of each grant to purchase sculpture, there has been

a previous relationship as a board member, alumnus or pro­

fessional tie, between the donor, the architect and the

recipient of the sculpture. The impetus to acquire the sculpture or to seek

funding from a foundation for sculpture is from the donor, the recipient, or an architect. The artist, in the case of

the sculptures described here, did not attempt to secure the funding.

The decision to grant funding was determined solely

by the trustees of the foundations. The decisions regarding

selection of the grantee, the artist and the specific piece

were reviewed informally, without the approval of a specific committee or panel. In regard to these foundations, no specific objective standards were required for funding, nor

were time limitations enforced for the application for

funds. All sculpture funded by foundations were commissions,

requiring a maquette of the proposed piece, but rarely a

formal proposal. And in each case, the exchange of owner­

ship was documented by a contract with the artist, or a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 131

letter of Intent between the artist and the recipient.

Government An architect is always instrumental to government

acquisitions, federally and locally. The architect will

sit on a panel selected to oversee the public sculpture

project or is responsible for choosing the panelists. The

architect recommends a number of artists who are then requested to prepare proposals for a specific site. The

selection of the artist is predicated on the acceptance of

the proposed piece. In federally funded sculpture pro­

jects, the artist and the government agency (panel) do not

have a prior relationship. The artists are chosen according to their qualifications, their history of working

similar projects, and the appropriateness of the proposed

piece to the site. Government funded sculpture is usually acquired in

coordination with an architectural project, whereby the

monies for the sculpture are budgeted into the project from

the outset. In most cases, the figure spent is built into

the building budget as a percentage of the overall con­ struction costs. The architect will recommend the adequate

appropriation of monies for a given purchase. In many cases the full percentage allotted to the project is not

spent. The commission of public sculpture is the most

common method of acquisition. Routinely the government body

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 132 purchasing the piece requires a standard proposal, in­

cluding a budget, drawings and a maquette. Included in

the price negotiations with the artist, the government

always includes the cost of transportation, installation

and auxiliary services in the final figure.

Loans Loans are initiated by individuals. Either the loaner is an individual collector of the artist of the

sculpture in question. As a rule loans are extended from individuals to organizations, either corporations or not-

for-profit institutions. Loans are always sculpture that

were originally purchased after completion rather than

pieces commissioned by the individual. Often the loan is

a piece done by an artist with whom the individual has had a personal or business relationship.

In all cases the loans were the result of a past

relationship, whether a personal friendship or a formal

connection, such as an alumnus or a business affiliation

with the recipient organization. The loans are usually informally reviewed by the organization and passed by the

president or the chairman of the board. The recipient organization most often seeks the loan

of sculpture with the intention of paying for transpor­

tation and temporary installation. Under certain conditions

the loaner may receive a financial stipend for the use of

the piece. Generally, however, the recipient views the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 133

loan, especially a loan from an artist, as a vehicle to

exhibit the artist's work, and see the opportunity for ex­

posure as adequate comoensation.

A contract between the loaner and the recipient

documents the terms of the loan, the insurance responsi­

bilities and the transportation agreements.

The Acquisition as a Whole Only five major themes were consistent in all the

acquisitions, regardless of the type of funding. The first,

and perhaps the most important, public sculpture is almost always paid for from a single funding source, that is, one

individual, one corporation, one foundation, etc. On only three occasions was the funding derived from a combination

of sources. This trend contrasts sharply with the method

of funding popular prior to 1950, when groups of concerned

citizens privately contributed monies.

The second would appear obvious, but should be mentioned as verification of the facts. To document the exchange of ownership, of either a completed sculpture or a comiiiission, there is some kind of structured transaction;

either a letter of intent or a contract. These documents

are drawn up between the donor, the recipient and the

artist.

Thirdly, when the organization is actively pursuing

the purchase of public sculpture, it is always in the form

of a commission, rather than a pre-existing piece.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 134

Fourth, in the case of a donation, rarely is there a

relationship between the recipient institution and the

artist, except in the case of a loan.

Fifth, most public sculpture is not acquired as a result of impetus from the artist. That is, the artist did

not initiate the relationship by offering his/her services

to the funding source without an approach from that source. In most cases the organization, individual or agency pursues

the artist. As evidenced by the preceding materials, the pos­

sibilities of funding public sculpture are as endless as the

methods of acquisition. The cases illustrate the types of

funding available and the attitudes of the people behind

those funds. Beyond these fundamentals they also present

the case for imagination and resourcefulness to conceive of a public sculpture and the tenacity and dedication

necessary to bring the project to fruition.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ■DCD O Q. C g Q.

TD CD

WC/) Individuals 3o' "Construction in Space" X XX XXX X XX 0 "Grande Disco" XXXXX CD "Oreillart" XX X XXX 8 ■D "Aileronde" XXXXXX (O'3" "Pulcbinella II" XXX X XX 1 "Armonia" X X XXXXXXX 3 CD "Diagolo" XXXXXXX XX "Why?" XXX XXXXX 3. 3" "Horse" XX h-» CD UJ XXX X U1 ■DCD "Rouge Coquille" O Foundations CQ. "Head of a Woman" XX X XX X Oa 3 ■D "Four Seasons" X XX XXX X O "Nuclear Energy" X XXXXX ;

XXX X XXXX CD "Celebration" O. Corporations X CO "Untitled" XX X X XXX X -O X X XX X XXX CD "Arris" 3 X X X X X XXX (/) "Dynamic Pyramid" X X X X X XXXX I o' "Chicago Totem" "The Bather" X X X X X "Pheonix" X XX XX Government "Flamingo" XX X XXXX "Batcoluran" X X X X XXX "From Here to There" XXX XXX X "Our King" X XX X XXX ^ ^ T T T ^ .MA.? n T ^ X X X |x XXXX Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chart I

X X donor pays expense

X proposal

X maquette

X informal accept. X formal acceptance architect sug. X X artist impetus X recipient impetus donor impetus alumnus X board nenber X past relations X contract

X X letter of intent X X XX X X loans

X purchased comple te

X X X X X XX X commissioned

in

o to I g 1 o I t/J cn o .5^ a r H y I 6 CJ I

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I5 ..-)

A 'p , -u o> kO c 3 cl-5 w CN B'g g

H 4J w 'HO') . e 4.i U

CO (I) V 5 ? M CO C-Î r-f C-l o CO 3 'm I r~! s % I C,.S CT» lO

O QJ ÜQ Pi

k O VOCO CA a < C/Î w CO r-l CO

Ch .: ) a CJ 5 P 4 J T { 3 4..1 8 I 3 c: H •iH o •'O >'■ 4-J •p: c. t:i A- > Cl H o r ? S w L.) y -.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 0

’ "T r r !

CO a : C» vO ‘Hu (j •L,' c: o o

I %rq:OA o :1 ur: po'4 'd ' -a%du:a3 01 ■|j I cr.o rs CD o q I -?l!"-CO

c D <.N

M I M L) ,g JJ â 3 I 0) J.J &■ 1^0 ul a

00 a :§ v D 1 i ,R I

1 C) C) Ci i J ■I’ Xi o •ICO i o O L/1 :j C

V I— I B q 0) u u0 I r; Uj Ü ■§ •-0 r4 tj 0 s Li n (j rr.ojoog M C'

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix I

C CHARITABLE DEDUCTIONS

The 19Ô9 TLx Reforn'. Act changed ihe deduction avdleo’e tor rhsrita- b'e concributicris. W h iN the niogt ra d lcil changes affected the c'cnarinn of v/orks cxeated hy the doner, there vrere repercussions th.at erect the art dealer and collector. In this section, the amount v.-hich w ill be a!';o'. /ed as a chantable deduction— as ’.veil as the problems of valuation— v/lU be discussed.

A t the outset, the amount of the charitable deducdcre is limited to the value of the property contributed. The value of the property may bo viewed as: (I.) The property's original cost (or basis) -h (2) The appreciation of the property. Generally, this sum is the property's fa ir market value and as such, the maximum charitable deduction fora particular contribution ot propercy, is the projierry's fam market value. While the charitable deduction may \Uot exceed the property’s fair market value, the deduction may also be disallowed depending upon the nature of the property. When a taxpaye.- don.ites less than an entire fee simple— such as donating rent-free orcu-

138

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 3 9

pancy o f a home— no deduction sviil La adovveJ, Thus, a taxpayer donat­ ing a coHection, for n period of time, cannot deduct a rental fee (r.'d'.ougli certain costs may be ailowable as deductions). Assuming that there is a gift of a!L of the donor's interest in a particular property, there are two additional limitations that are imposed hy the IRC on deductibility' of charitable contributions. These are: (1) A limitation to a certain percentage of adjusted gross inco.m.a depending upon whether the recipient charity is a oub’ic charity. Of a private charity; and (2) A limitation dependent upon whether the property co.nrribured is capital gains property.

To illustrate, a cash contribution lo a qualiPed public charity may be deducted by the taxpayer up to 50% of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income (computed svithcut regard to the net operating loss carryback). If the same cash gift was made to a private charity, the ainormr of the deduction w ould be lim ited to 20% o f the donor's adjusted gross Income. The simplest method of determining whether the organization is public or private is to check the IRS's published list, or to request such informa­ tion from the particular charity. Contributions of capital gains property (a work of art or other invest- .ment property) are limited to3 0 of a taxpayer's adjusted gross in­ come. The 30% limitation is applicable to contributions both to private and public charities; however, it is applied after the 50% and 30% limitations discussed above. Accordingly, a donor contribnring capital gains property to a private charity is limited to n maximum cfeduciicn . equal to 20% of his adjusted gross income. .Seealso § 'J70(b)(1)(D)(iii). The allowed charitable deduction on contributed capital gain property, which is tangible personal property, is further qualified. When donating tangible personal property, which includes art, the taxpayer mus: reduce the fair market value by half the appreciation if the gift is put to an "unrelated use." This term means a use which is unrelated to the purpose or function constituting the basis of the charitable organization's exemp­ tion, such as donating a painting to a school \vhich sells the '.vork and uses the proceeds for educational purposes. If the tangible personal prop­ e rty is p u t to a related use, the g ift may be deducted at its tr.ir in.vrket value subject to the 30% limitation discussed above. For this reason, a collector or dealer who donates a work of art to a museum should obtain a letter of intent from the institution indicating that it Iniends to dirph’.y and retain the piece for an indefinite period or time. Property which would result in short-term capital gains— bcc.mse :t

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 140

h,-,: bean held cor less than six months— is treated as if it were ordinary income property.But see the 1976 Tax Reform Act discussed supra. Ordinary income property is limited to the fair market value of the work less the amount which would be income. In other words, on’y the actual cost may be deducted; no appreciation is allowed. Where the donee is a private foundation and not a private operating foundation, the charitable deduction for all appreciated long-term capital gain, property, .must be reduced by 5C% of thee long-term capital gain which would have been recognized had the property been sold at its fa ir market value. For more information on the current Treasury interpretation of the requirements fo r deductabillty, see Internal Revenue Service Publication 626, Income Tax Deductions For Contributions, available free from the 1RS (published yearly). An inierestLig question is v/hether the taxpayer may take a trip, acquire an object which he donates to a qualified charity, and deduct the cost of the trip as part of his charitable contribution. In Jersig v. United States, 69 U.S.T.C. 1Î9311 (1963), the taxpayer went on an African safari for the sole purpose o f collecting animal specimens which he donated to a museum. The court held that the cost of the excursion was deductible as part o f the value o f the specimens gathered. But see Rev. Rill. 71-135,1971-1 CB 94, where expenses incurred in going on a study- mission to Europe and Asia were not allowed as a charitable donation.

In addition to being subject to the limitations discussed abo\ e, a donor [SrAsLisUl.NC must be able to establish the value of the item donated to tb.e satisfaction VALUE of the IR5. Valuation problems generally fa ll into one of two categories. Either the experts disagree with each other and the 1RS on the value, or the art, if authentic, is clearly ivorth the deduction taken, but its au- thenricity is in doubt. H ow does the court handle a batcle of experts?

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Aooendix II

P.iinîings, An!ir;u3o, Other Objects of Art

Unless the item being evaluate''! i'> minor, scrip 33 culturel c.-ga.iizat:o.-3, a-'d secldc 13 yoi.r dedacticn should ce supported by a d e s c r ib e s over ■'■iO national hocby r.'/c- written appraisal from a qualified and reputa­ catio.-ai orgs.-izations, including various ble source. An example of the date tir-ir ,Ti.,st highly scecml.zed private cciiec’cr g cups. It be Included in appraisals of at1 objects, paint' also has a.-' alphabetical a.-.d key v.crd i.-.de.t. ings in particular, may be found unde' A.o- These books may be a v 2'laPI,i at a state, city, praisal rormat. college or museum library. To help you lccata'3 qualified acpraiser far Wosl art a p p ra is e rs are not experts on all y o u r danshon, you may wish It) ask an a r t art. Mere .veight will typically ba afforded an historian at a nearby college cr the director cr appraisal prspa.'sd by an individual specializ­ curator cf a local mus-:um. The tblephone ing in t.'.e type and pries rangs of the art com pany's yellow ,03gas for M etroooiitan being appraised. For example, certain art areas ofte;, li.sf scecinlized a.rt and a,iti.-;.;e dealers or appraisers, specializa in ni.-isteenth dealers, auctio.n;?.--, and a.rt appra'sera. .As­ century French old master cil paintings and sociations cf c'e.aiers also may be c o n t a c t e d bronza sculptera— and their opinions on the , for g u id a n c e . authenticity and desirability of such art would usually be afforded more weight than the opinions of more generalized art dealers or appraisers. They will typically report olcser, more recent, comparable sales to support their opinion.

Authenticity. The appraiser must be able to determine the auihenticity of the donated art. Appraisals of art objects should include a his­ tory of the donated item, that is the chain of Ownership, sale?, oxhi'oitions, and literaiy cita­ tions. Certificates of authenticib/ may be use­ ful but this depenos upon the genuineness of the certificate and the qualifications of the au­ thenticator. . ,

The Internal Revenue Service orter, re-riews the appraisals for deductions for charitable contrioutiona of art objects. The Service does not accept appraisals merely on the basis of the unsupported opinion of an "expert'. Con­ sideration is given to all other available evi­ dence. sucfi as the donor's cost, date of acquisition, method of acquisition, and the support for the value opinion of the appraiser.

An important item in the valuation ol an­ tique? and art is physical condition and ex­ tent ol resloraiion. These have a significant bearing upon the value, and must be fully re­ ported in an appraisal. An antique in damaged condition, or lacking the "original brasses." - m ay be worth considerably less than a similar piece in excellent condition. To identify and locate curatorial or schol­ arly experts on unique, speciai.-zed items cr . collections, you may wish to use the current 0 “icial f/usaom Directory of the America.-! • Association of Museums. It has both a subject category an"! geographic index.

The Bnzydopadia of Associations, Gale R e­ search Company, is anot.her useful stn.rtirg point, particularly section 5 w'rich describes educational crganizations. Serstion 6 de- 141

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix III

Contract flo. p^ca I c f 29

GH.N£?AL SERVICE ACM:,Ti5T%\TIC;i

PUBLIC EUILBIflGB SE.BVICE

ca;n?Acr for Firic arts sbrvicbs

(A rtis t;

(Artwork)

(Fee Arcunc;

(Building Project)

(Project Location)

negotiation Authority: Section 302 (c) (A) of the Federal Property and Ad.ninistrative Services Act of 1943, as anended.

Accounting Data: Appropriation Hunter ______Act Hunter Project Control iluncer

142

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 143

Contrect N'o. Page 2 cf 29

CCtlJnACr CLAUSES

T IU E ARTICLE HG.

definitions ...... - 1

Scope of Services ...... 2

Changes ...... 3

Inspection and Cars...... 4

Time fo r Ccmpietion ...... 5

Ownership ...... 6

Fee and Payreent...... - ...... 7

Travel ...... S

Responsibility of the A r t i s t ...... 9

Suspension of Work ...... 10

Tenrilnatlon ...... 11

Disputes ...... 12

Pricing c f Adjustments ...... 13

Payment of Interest on A r tis t’ sClaims ...... 1-1

Assignment of Claims ...... 15

Examination of Records by GSA ...... 15

Examination of Records by the Comptroller General ...... 17

O ffic ia ls Hot to Benefit ...... IS

Covenant Against Contingent Fees ...... 19

Equal Opportunity Clause ...... 20

A ffirm ative Action for Handicapped Workers ...... 21

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Contract No. Page 3 of , 29

Tm.£ ATTia; ho.

Afffm ativs Action for Disabled Yaterans and 7scanans of tna Viatram ana --• - - 2-.

U tiliz a tio n o f îicall ausir.asa Concomo ...... - ...... 23

U tiliz a tio n o f Minority Businass E n ts rp rls a s...... 24

Convict Labor - ......

Contract Work Koors and Safety Standards Act — Overtime Ccmpensatian ...... 23

•Clean Air and W atar...... 27

Buy American ...... 23

Representations and C e rtific a tio n s , Clausas 1 t.Vroogh 7

Modifications of Representations and Certifications) Clauses 1 (c), 8, and 9.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 145

Contract No. Pacî 4 of 29

Cn th is ______day o f ______, 1975, tha United Statas of America (h arain afta.- refarrad to as tea Gavarnmar.t), acting by and t.nrocgh the General Servicas Adnrinistratisn, and ______(hareinaftar refarred to as tha A rtist), an indiviouai wnosa aodress is

do hareoy mutual iy agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1. Dafitriticns

(a ) The tarer 'head o f tha agancy* as csad harain inaans tha Administrator of Ganaral San/icas. and tha tarn “his duly authcrfaad representative" means any parson or persons or board (other than the Contracting Officer) authorized to act for tha head of the agency.

(b ) Tha ta rn "Contracting O ffic e r" as used herein mee.ns th a •person executing th is contract on b ehalf of the Covercment and includes a duly appointed successor or authorized representative.

ARTICLE 2 . Seeoa o f Ser'/ices

(a) tha Artist shall perform all services and furnish all su p plies, material and equipment as necessary for the design and execution cf ______r— —I ______(hereinafter referred to as "the work"j to ba placed in ______

a t the location shown on Contract D.-awing Ho. attached hereto. The Artist shall execute the wor.k in an artistic, professional manner and in s t r ic t compliance w ith a ll terms and conditions of this contract.

(b) The Artist shall determine the artistic expression, subject to its being acceptable to the Co'/erncsnt. The A rtist shall sub,mit to the Coverrmant a sketch o r other document which conveys a meaningful presentation'of the viork which he/she proposes to furnish in fulfillm ent of this contract; he/she shall allow calendar days for the Goverr.xent to determine acceptab: 1 ity of the proposed artistic expression.

(c ) The work shall be of a m aterial and s iz e mutual Iy acceptable to the Government and to the A r tis t.

(d) The Artist shall install the work, in the location shown on the attached drawings.

(e ) The A r t is t shall be responsible fo r prepayment of a ll m ailing o r shipping charges on sketches, models o r other submissions to the Coverr.nant.

( f ) Upon installatio.n the artist is to provide viritten instructions to the contracting officer for appropriate maintenance and preservation o f the artw ork. The Government is responsible fo r the proper care end maintenance of the work.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 &A

Contract Ha. S cf 23

(9) Tha A rtist shall furnish tha Gcvarrmant wi ûh tha fallcrwi.- photcgraphs of tha finishad work as in s ta lla d :

One black and vhita naaativa 4“ s 5“ Hi Cne color nsoativa 4"x 5‘‘ Two black and white prints S"x 10" Hi Two color prints 3" x 10" 51 One color transparency 4 - % 5 " i 6 ) Five rspresantative 3Sen! color slides

ARTICLE 3 . Chancss

(a) Tha Artist shall maka any ravision necessary to ccnrply with ("such recocrendatlans as tha Contracting Officer may make for practical (non-aesthetic) reasons.

(b) If the Contracting Officer makes any recoc.rendations within the scope of paragraph (a) above, after approval of any submission by the A rtist, the Artist’s fee shall ba egoitebly adjusted for any incrsase or dacroasa in the A rtist’s cost cf, or time required far, performance of any services under this contract; the contract shall be m odified in w ritin g to r e fle c t any such adjustm ent. Any claim, o f the A rtist for adjustment under this clause must be asserted in writing within 30 days from the data of receipt by the Artist of the recommendation, unless tha Contracting Officer grants a further period of tine before the date of final payment under tha contract.

(c) If tha Contracting Officer rakes any reccirmer.datio.ns within the scope of paragraph (a) above, prior to approval of any submission by the A rtist, the Artist shall make the revisions necessary to cc.m.ply w ith these recommendations, a t no additional co st to th e Government.

(d) Ho services for which an additional cost or fee w ill be chargad by the Artist shall be furnished without the prior wricter. authorization of the Contracting Officer. •

ARTICLE 4 . Inspection and Care

(a) The Artist shall furnish facilities for inspection of Che work in progress by authorized reprasentativas of the Contracting Officer. The Cciverr.tent will contact the Artist in advance of any inspection to arrange a mutually convenient tim;e.

(b) The Artist shall be responsible for the care and protection of a l l work performed by him/her u n til ccmpletion c f th e in s ta lle d

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 147

.r n o Contract fto. Page S o

work and acoaptanca by the Contracting O fficer and shaTi re p a ir or restore any damaged work; provided, hcviever, that the Arcioc shall not be responsible for any damage which occurs after installation is ccmplete and before acceptance by tha Contracting O ffic e r wnich is not caused by any acts or coiissicns of the A r tis t o r any o f h is / her agents or aoiployees.

(c) The Artist shall give the Contracting Officer at least 1 0 days advance written notice of the data the work •rill be fully completed and ready fo r fin a l inspection. Final inspection w ill be started within 1 0 days from tha data specified in tha aforesaid notice unless the Contracting O fficer determines that the work is not ready fo r fin a l inspection and so informs tha A rtis t.

ARTICLE 5. Time fo r Ccmoleticn

The A r tis t shall complete a ll work as follows:

(a) The preliminary submittal as rsquirsd by Article 2. (b); calendar days after the receipt of notice to proceed.

(b ) The completed work in p la c e : ______calendar days a fte r receipt o f notice to proceed.

ARTICLE 6 . Cwfiershin

A ll designs, sketches, models, and the work produced under th is Agreement fo r which payment is made under tns provisions o f th is contract shall be the property of the UfliTEO STATES OF AMERICA. All such items may ba conveyed by tha Contracting Officer to the National Collection of Fine Arts-Snithsonian Instituticn for exhibiting purposes and permanent safekeeping.

The Artist shall neither publicly exhibit the final v/or.k, nor shall he/she make exact reproductions or reductions of the finished work except by written permission of the Contracting Cfficer.

ARTICLE 7. Fee and Payment

The Government shall pay the a r tis t a fixed fee o f S ______, which shall constitute full co.opensation for all services and .Tocerials furnished and supplied, under the terms of this Agreement. The fee shall be paid as fallcws, and each installment shall he in full and fin a l settlement fo r a ll work performed thereunder :

(a ) S ^______upon aporoval o f the proposed a r tis tic expression as required by A rtic le 2. (b ).

(b) S______when the work is completed, approved, and reaay for in s ta lla tio n .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 148

Contract No. Page 7 of 29

(c) S ______upon completion, and acceptance by the Government, or a il services required under this co n tract.

Tha Contracting Cfficar shall advise the Artist in writing of the approval or reasons fa r disapproval within 30 days a fte r ( i ) receipt of the dacu.ment(s) showing the a r tis tic expression, ( i i ) receip t of the notice th at the work is cccpleted and ready for in s ta lla tio n , or (iii) after inspection of the installed work.

Upon approval and/or acceptance {whichever is applicable) of the work performed under this contract, the amount due the A r tis t shall he paid as soon as practicable after receipt of a correct billing frcm the Artist. Prior to the final payment the Artist shall furnish the Government w ith a relaase of a ll claims against the Government under .th is Agreement, other than such claims as tha A r tis t may except. _ The A rtist shall describe and state amount of each excepted olairi.

' ARTICLE 8 . Travel

All travel by the A rtis t and his/her agents or employees as nay be necessary for proper nsrforma.sce of the services required under this contract is included in the fee amount sat out in Article 7. above, and shall be at no adoitional cost to the Government.

ARTICLE 9. P.esccnsibility of the Artist

(a) Neither the Government's review, approval or acceptance o f, nor payment fo r, any of tha services required under th is contract shall be construed to operate as a -waiver of any rights under this contract or o f any cause of action arising out of the performance of th is contract, and the A rtist shell be and remain liable to the Gover.n.ment in accordance w ith applicable la-.v for a ll damages to the Goverrmant caused by the A r tis t's negligent performance of any of tha services furnished under this contract.

(b) The rights and remedies of the Government provided fo r under this contract are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law.

(c) Tha a r t is t guarantees a ll work to be free from defective cr inferior matériels and workmanship for one year after the date of final acceptance by the government. If within one year the contracting officer finds the work in need of repair because of defective materials or work­ manship, the a r t is t s h a ll, without additional expense to the go/erriment, promptly and satisfactorily make the necessary repairs.

ARTICLE 1C. Suspension c f Work

(a) The Contracting Officer may order the Artist in writing to suspend a ll or any pare of che work for such period of time as he may determine to be apprcpriata for the ccn-.-enience of the Govern,r.ent.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 149

Centrée: ;io. 3 ,,,-2 ?

(b) I f tha parferrence of a ll or any par: o f tha work is f ; r an unrsasonjoli period of tima, suooandad or da'ayed oy an ice af tha Contracting Officar in tha acniniatration of this ctntraot, :r by his faiiura tj act within cna time apeoifiad in tnis contract (or if no time is spacifiad, within a raasonaoia ti.ta), an aojest:ant iha H be trade fo r any incraasa in cost of parfo.—anca of this contract (axoioding p ro fit) ngcessard'y causad by :oc.n unraasonahia suspension or delay, and the contract cocifiad in w riting accoroingiy, Ko-wr/er, no adjustoenc shall ba made under this clausa fo r any suspension or delay to tha extent (1 ) that perfortanca would hoc been.suspended c r delayed by any other cause, including the fa u it or nagligenca of the. A rtis t or (2) fo r which an ecu: table adjusz^nt Is provided fa r or excluded under any other provision cf th is contract.

(c) tio claim under this clause shall be allowed ( 1 ) fo r any costs incurred core than 20 days before the Artist shall have- ratified the Contracting Officer in writing of the act or failure to act involved (but this requirement shall not apoly as to a claim resulting frca a suspension o rder), ana ( 2 ) unless the claim , in an amount stated, is assarted in writing as soon as practicable after the termination of such suspension or delay, but not la te r than Lie date of final payment. Ho part of any claim based on the previsions o f this clause shall bamllcwed i f not supported by adacuata evidence showing that the cost would not have been incurred cut for a delay within the provisions of this clausa.

ARTICLE 11. Termination

(a) Tr.“ Contracting C ffic e r may, by writta.n notice te the A r tis t, t=rmirrtt’ this contract in whole cr in par: at any time, either for td;e Government's convenience or because o f-th e fa ilu r e of the .A rtis : to f u l f i l l contractual obligations. Upon recaip». 0 « such .,0 u. ce, ...a r»r.,s. s h a l l immediately discontinue all sar/icas affected (unless the nctica directs, otherwise).

(b) I f the terminaticn is fo r the convenie.nce c f the Govarrmer.t, the Artist shall at his/her option have the right to either:

(1) An equitable adjustment in the price (withcut alIcamce for anticipated p ro fit cn uncerfcrmed servicas) in which event the Goyerc.me.nt shall have the rig h t to possession and transfer of t i t l e to a ll sLetc.nas, designs, models, the work (whether ccmolated or uncompleted) and a ll ot.-.er itams produced by the A rtis t in the course of performing the contract prior to the date of terminaticn, which right may be exercises cr not at Lie soie discretion cf the Contracting Officer; cr,

' (2) The possession Of all sketches, designs, medals cr ether documents cr materials produced and submitted to the Govern.r.ent in the course c f the A rtis t's performance of the wcr'< p rio r to tem i.-.atien in Vihi'h cose the Artist shall remit to the Govern.m.ent a su.m equal to all pa'/rants (if any) made pursuant to this contract prior to t.he te.ninatio.-..

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 150

CONTRACT no. Page ? of 29

(c) If-tha'tarainatic.o is due to the failure of the Artist to fu lfill his or her contract obligations, the Government shall return to tha Artist all sketches, designs, models or other docu.tents or materials produced and submitted to the Government in the course o f the A r tis t's performance o f the work p rio r to termination in which case tha A r tis t shall rem it to che Government a su.m aqua! to a ll payments ( i f any) made pursuant to this contract prior to the termination.

(d) I f , after notice of termination for failure to fu lfill contract obligations, it is determined that the Artist had not so failed, tha termination shall be deemed to have been effected for the convenience o f the Government. In such event, the provisions o f paragraph (b) of this Article 11 shall be deemed applicable.

ARTICLE 12. Disputes

(a ) This contract is subject to the Contract Disputes Act o f 1972 (41 D.S.C. 601, et seq.). If a dispute arises relating to the contract, the A rtist nay submit a claim to the Contracting Officer who shall issue a written decision on the disnute in the manner specified in DA?. 1-314 (FP.R 1 -1 .3 1 3 ).

(b ) "Claim” means:

(1 ) a written request submitted to the Contracting Officer;

( 2 ) fo r payment o f money, adjustment o f contract term s, or other r e lie f ;

(3) which is in dispute or remains unresolved after a reasonable tin e fo r its review and disposition by the Govern.ment; and

^ (4) for vjhich a Contracting Officer’s decision is demanded.

(c) In the case of disputed requests or amendments to such requests for payment exceeding 330,030, o r with any amendment causing t.ha to ta l raques in dispute to exceed 339,000, the Artist shall certify, at the time of submission as a claim, as follows:

I certify that the claim is made in good faith, that the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of my know­ ledge and belief; and that the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the Artist believes the Government - liliable.

( A r t is t ’ s Name :______)

( T it le :______)

(dj The Government shall pay the A rtist interest:

(I) on the amount found duo on claims sub.mitted under this clause;

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 151

CO.’fTRACt HO. - • TO o f 29

(2) at the rates fixed hy the Secretary r f the Treasury, under the Seesgatlaticn .Act, rublic Law 52—4Î ;

(3J frca tha dite the Gi.itractin? Officer received the cTeiz, until t t « GoverTTzen: zakei,»• payzent. (e) The décision af tha Ccntractirg O fficer shall he final and ccncluafva and net scbjacc ta review hy any faruz, trihcnal . cr Gcve.-n.cent anarcy unless an acpeal or action is timely ccrcancac within tha tfcas stacifiad hy tha Ccntract Disputas Act af 1573.

(f) The A rtist shall prsceed dll 1 gently with parfarrznca af this ccntract, pending final resolution of any raquest for re lie f, claic, aqqaal cr action rslated to the contract, and comply with any dacision of tha Contracting Officer.

ARTICLE Pricinc cf Adfastzents

îiîien czsts are a factor in any datarrrinaticn of c contract price adjust- cant pursuant ta tha “Changas” clausa or any other prevision cf this Contract, scch casts shell be in accordance wi th the contract, cost principlas and prcoaduras in Part 1-13 of the raderal Procurscent. Regulations (41 CPR 1-15} in effect on the date of this contract. ’

ARTICLE 14, Percent of Interest cn Artist's Clains

( a ) I f Drj appeal is filed by the A rtist frcz a final decision of th e Ccr.trecti.ng Officer under the Disputes clause cf t/iis contract, denying 2 claim arising under the contract, simple interest on the amount cf the cla ia fin a lly determined owed by the Gc/er.-ooe.ot shall he payee 1 e to the • A rtist. Such interest shall be at the rate determined by the Secraêary o f th e Treasury pursuant ta Public Law 52-41, 33 Stat. 97, from the cete the A rtist furnishes to the Contracting Officer his/her ï/ritten appsel Under the Disputes clause cf this contract, to tha date of (1) a final judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction, cr ( 2 ) nailing to the A rtis t of a supplesental agressent for sxecotio.n cither ccnfirzf.no co.z- plated negotiations between the parties cr car.-ying cut t cecisio.-, o.‘ a board of contract appeals.

(b) Hotwitbstending (a), above, ( 1 ) interest shall be applied only frcsj th e date payment was cue, i f such date is la t e r than the fiii.o g c f appeal, and (2 ) interest shell not be paid for any period of ti.ne thet tha Contrecti-j Officer detemines the Artist has unduly delayed in pursuing his/har raoaJies before a board cf con tract appeals or a court of CGcpata.nt jurisdiction. . - •'

ARTICLE 1 3 . AssioTment o f C la-z-

(a) Pursuant to the provisions cf the Assignment cf Claims Act cf 1940, as ame.sded (31 D.S.C. 203. 41 D.S.C. 13}. if this contract provides f o r payments aggregating 31,CC0 cr more, claims f a r moneys doe c r to become due the A rtist from the Coverrmcnt o.ider this contract may be assigned to a bank, tru s t cocpar.y, c r other financing in s titu tio n , including any Federal lending agency, and cay thereafter be further assigned and reassigned ta any such in s titu tio n . Any such assig.-.cc.'.t cr reassig.crent shall caver all auconts payabla under this ce.atract. and ret already paid, and shall r.at he made to more than cne party

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 152

Contract Ho. Page 11 o f 20

except that any such ascigrrrent cr rcissicrmact ray be made to cne party as agancy or trjstae fcr “.lO cr mere cart:es participating in such financing. Unless other.iisa -ncvidad in this ccntrccc, ca^m.ancs to an assignee of any moneys doe or to tectre due under this co.ntrac; shall not, to the extent prcvidad in said Act as at ended, :e scbject to reduction or sec o ff. (The preceding sentence acpiias only i f this ccntrect is made in tins of w ar or naticnal atergancy as defined in said Act; and is with the Cecartnent of Gefe.nte. the Services Adtinistracfcn, the Energy -esaarcn ano Ceveicement Adoii.nistreticn, the National Aeronautics and Soace Administration, Che Federal Aviation Administration, or any other deoerc-ant cr agency of the United States designated by the rresident pursuant to Clausa 4 of the proviso of section 1 of the Assignment o f Claims Act of 15—9, as amended ty the Act of Hay 13, 1931 , 53 3tat. 41.}

(h) In no event shall ccoies of this contract or of any plans, s p ^ f lea tiens, cr ether similar dccuments relating to work under this contract, if marked “Top 3ecrst,“ "Secret." or "Confidential ba furnished to any assignee of any claim arising under this contract or to any other person not entitled to receive the same, rcwaver, a copy of any part or all of this contract so marked may be furnished, or any infornation contained therein may be disclosed to such assignee upon the prior writtan authcrizaticn of tne Contracting O fficer.

•ARTICLE IS . Examination of Records bv G3A

(a) The Artist agrees that the Administrator of General Servicas cr any of his duly authorized represantativas shall, until the • expiration of thrze years after final payment under this contract, or of the time periods fo r tha particu lar records specifiad in Part 1-20 of the Federal Procurament F.agulétions (41 CFR Part 1 -2 3 ), whichever expires e a rlie r, have access to and the rig h t to examine any books, documents, papers and records of the A rtis t involving transactions related to this contract or ccrcliance with any clauses thereunder. .

(b) The Artist further agrees to include in all his S'jccor.tracts hereunder a provision to the effe ct that the subc.onCractor agrees that the Administrator of General Services or any of nis duly authorized representatives shall, until the expiration cf three years after ' fin a l payment under the subcontract, or c f the time periods fo r the p articu lar reccrds specifiad in Part 1-20 of the Federal Procurament Regulations (<:i CFP. Part 1-20), whichever expires ea rlier, have access to and the right to examine any books, dccumants, papers, and rccorcs of such subcontractor, involving transactions related to the subcontract or compliance with any clauses thereunder. The term “subcontract” as used in this clause excludes (I) purchase orders not exceeding 32,300 and (2) subcontracts or purchase orders fo r public u tility services at rates established for uniform applicability to tha general public.

ARTICLE 17. Exaninaticn of Records bv the Co-strclTe- General

(a) This clause is applicable if the amount of this contract exceeds SIO.CCO and was antarad into by means of nacotiacion, including s.rall business restricted advertising, but not asoi icaote i f th is contract was entered into by means of formal acvertis'ng.'

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15;

Contract No. Pans fz of 29

(b) The A rtis t agrees that the Cc.rptroHer General of the United States cr any of his duly authorized representatives, shall until the expiration af 2 years a fte r fina l payrent under this contract or such lesser time specified in either Apoer.dix of the Armed Ser/ices Procurament Regulation or the Federal Procuremant Regulations Part 1-23, as appropriate, have access to and the right to e.xamine any d irectly pertinent hooks, docu.mants, pacers, and records of the Artist involving transactions related to this contract.

(c) The A rtis t fu rth er agrees to Include in a ll of h is /h e r subcontracts hereunder a provision to the effect- that the subcontractor agrees that the Ccmptrollar General of the United States or any of his duly authorized rapresentatives shall, until the expiration of 3 yaars aftar final payment under the subcontract or such lesser time specified in either Appendix M of the Armed Services Procurecent or the Federal Procurement Regulations Part 1-20, as appropriate, have access to and the rig h t to examine any d ire c tly pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of each subcontractor, involving transactions related to 'the subcontract. The term "subcontract" as used in this clause excludes ( 1 ) purchasa orders not exceeding $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 and ( 2 ) subcontracts cr puMhase orders fo r public u t ilit y ser/ices at ratas established fo r uniform applicability to the general public.

(d) Tnc periods of access and examination described in (b) and (c ), above, fo r records which re la te to (1) appeals under the "Disputes" clause of this contract, ( 2 ) litig a tio n or the s e ttls re o t c f claims arising out of the performance of this contract, o r (3) costs and expenses of this contract as to which exception has bean taken by the Comptroller General or any of his duly authorized represantativas, shall continue until such appeals, litigation, claims, or exceptions have bean disposed of.

ARTICLE 18. O ffic ia ls Not to Benefit

Ho member of or delegate to Congress, or resident cormissioner, shall be admitted to any share or part of this contract, cr to any benafit that may arise therefrom; but this provision shall not be construed to extend to this Agreement i f made with a corporation for it s general benefit.

ARTICLE 13. Covenant Acainsfc Ccntincant Fees

The A rtis t warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to s o lic it or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding fo r a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fe e , exception bona fide employees or bona fide established ccnmercisl or selling agencies maintained by thacArtist for the purpose of securing business. For breech or violation of this warranty the Govern,Te.nt shall have the rignt to ennui this Agreement without lia b ility or in its discretion to deduct fro.m the Agreement price cr consideration, or otherwise recover, the fu ll amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage or contingent fee.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 154

Contract flo. Page 12 of -9

ARTICLE 23. Equal Oooortunit-/ Clause

During the performance of this contract, the A rtis t agrees as follows:

(a) The Artist will not discriminate against any erployae or acoTicar.t for employitrent because of race, color, religion, sex, or naticnal origin. The A rtis t w ill take affirm ative action to ansure that aool icants are am i eyed , and that esraloyees are treated during e.-rploymant, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be li.mitad to the follcwing: Ecployrrent. upgrading, demotion, or transfert recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; ratas of pay or other forms of compensation; and sal action for training, including apprenticaship. The A rtis t agrees to post in conspicuous places a'/ailahle to employees and applicants for emplcyrent, notices to be provided by the Contracting Officer setting forth the provisions of this Equal Cpocrtur.it/ clause.

(b) The A rtis t w il l , in a ll so lic ita tio n s or advertise-cents for employees placed by or on behalf of the Artist, state that all qualified applicants w ill receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex or naticnal origin.

(c) The Artist will send to each labor union or representative of workers with which he has a collective bargaining agraament o r other contract or understanding, a notice, to be provided by tha agency Contreccing O fficer, advertising tha labor union or workers' reoreser.titive of the Artist's comcritments under this Equal Opportunity clause, end shall post copies o f the- notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants fc r employment.

(d ) The A rtis t w ill comply with a ll provisions o f Executive Order tIo. 112'IS of September 24, 19S3, as amended by Executive Order Ho. 11S7S of October 13, 1567, and of the rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor.

(e) The Artist will furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order Ho. 11245 of September 2 t, 1S55, as amended by Executive Order flo. 11373 of October 13, 1957, and by the ru les, regulations, and orders of tha Secratary of Labor, or pursuant the.'-ato, and w ill pe.-mrlt access ta his books, records, and accounts by the contracting agency and the Secratary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain cc.rpiiance with such rules, regulations, and orders.

( f ) In the event of the A rtis t's noncompliance with the Equal Opportunity clause of this contract or 'with any of the said rules, regulations, or orders, this contract may be canceled, terminated, or suspended, in 'whole or in part, and the Artist may be declared ineligible fcr further Go'/emment contracts, in accordance with procedures authorized in Executive Order do. 11245 of September 24, 1555, as amended by Executive Order No. 11375 of Cctcber 13, 1567, and such other sanctions may be imposed and re-edies invoked as provided in Executive Order No. iTi'r of September 24, 1555, as amended by Executive Order No. 11375 of Cct.qber 13, 1557, or by rule, regulation, or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise provided by law.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CGifTRACT .’la, Page 14 o f 25

( 3 ) Tha Artist win inciuda the pravisicns af paragraph (a] thraugh (g] in every subcontract cr purchasa orcar unTass axsr.pzed by rules, ragulatiens, or ordars of tba Secratary of Lahcr issu ad pursuant to sactian 2:4 of Exacutiva Order No. 11245 o f SepcscSar 24, IScS, as amandad by Sxacutiva Crdar No. Î1273 o f October 12, 1S57, so that such provisions w ill ba binding upon aach sub­ contractor or vendor. Tha Artist will taka susn action with rasp act to any subcontract o r purchase order as tha contracting agency ra y d ire c t as a saena of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for nonccrolience; Provided, hc.vever, that in tha event tha Artist baccres involved in, or is threatened with litigation vritli a subccntractcr or vendor as a result of such d irec tio n by tha contracting agency, tha Artist may request tha united Statas to an tar into such litigation to protect tha intarests of tha United S tates. '

^ARTICLE 21,- Affirretfv- Action for Hgndiceooed "onkers

. (a) Tha Artist will not discriminate against any erployae or applicant f o r employment because o f physical or mental handicap in regard to any position fo r which the employee or applicant fo r employment is q u a lifie d . The A rtist agrees to take affirmative action to employ, advance in employ­ ment and otherwisa treat qualified hardicepped individuals without discrim­ in a tio n based upon th e ir physical or mental handicap in a l l employment practices such as the follo-wing: employment, upgrading, demotion, o r transfer,- recruitment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation,.and selection for training including apprenticeship.

(b ) The A r tis t agrees to comply w ith the ru les , reg u latio n s, and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act o f 1973, as amended.

(c) In the event of the A rtist’s nonccmpliance with the requirements of this clause, actions for noncompUance may be taken in accordance v/ith the rules, regulations and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to the Act.

(d ) The A r tis t agrees to post in conspicuous places, a v a ila b le to employees and applicants fo r emolcymenc, notices in a form to be prescribed by the D ire c to r, O ffic e o f Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Department of Labor, provided by or through the Contracting Officer. Such notices shall state the A rtist’s obligation under tha la-w to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment q u a lifie d handicapped employees and applicants fo r employment, and the rights of applicants and employees.

(e) The Artist will notify each labor union or representative of workers with, which i t has a c o lle c tiv e bargaining agreement or other contract understanding that the Artist is bound by the terms of section 503 o f the A c t, and is committed to take a ffirm a tiv e action to employ and advance in employment physically and m entally handicapped in d iv id u a ls .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 5 6

CCNTRACT W . Page 13 o f 29

(f) Tne Arcist will Include tha previsions of this clause in a/a.-y suhcctrtracS o r purchase ordar a f SZ,£C3 or care unless exaspced by ru le s , regulations, or orders of tha Secretary af Labor Issued pursuant to section E03 of tha Act, so that such provisions w ill ba binding upon each subcontroctcr . or vendor. Tns Artist will take such action with respect to any subccncract or purchasa order as the Director of tha Office af recerel Contract Cc-csliar.ce Prograas cay direct to enforce such provisions, including acticn for r.cr.- ccnpliancc.

aSTTn g 2 2 . A ffirm ative Action fo r OisebTgd '/e te re.is and '/-iter-ns i f the Vietnam Era (This clause is applicable if the contract is for $10.000 or more.)

(a) The Artist w ill riot discriminate against any enployee or applic?.nt fo r employrrent because ha o r she is a disabled veteran c r veteran of the . Vietnam Era in regard to any position fo r which the onployee or applicant fo r employment is q u a lifie d . Tlia A r tis t agrees to ta.ks a f f im .it iv e action to ^employ, advanca in employment and othar.aisa tre a t q u a lifie d disabled veterans and vetarans of the Vietnam era withcut discrimination based upon their disability or veterans status in all employment practices such as tha follewing: employment upgrading, demotion qr transfer, rscruitmant, adver­ tising. layoff cr termination, rates of pay or other forms of cc.T.pansation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship.

(b ) The A r tis t agrees th a t a ll su itab le enployme.nt openings of the A rtist which exist at the time of the execution of this contract and those which occur during the performance of th is contract, including those not generated by this contract and including those occurring at an establishment of the A rtist other than the one wherein the contract is being parformsd but excluding those of independently operated corporate a ffilia te s , shall be lis te d a t an appropriate local o ffic e o f the State employment service system wherein the opening occurs. The Artist further agrees to provide such reports to such local o ffic e regarding employment openings and h ire s as may be re q u ire d .

State and local government agencies holding Tederal co.mtracts of $10,000 or more sh all als o l i s t a ll th e ir suitable openings w ith th e appropriate o ffic e ■ of the State arplo^^ant service, but are not required to provide those reports s e t fo rth in paragragraphs (d) and (e ).

(c ) L is tin g of employee.nt openings v/ith the employment service systsm pursuant to this clausa shall ba made at least concurrently viith the use o f any other recruitment source or e ffo r t and shall involve the normal obligations which attach to tha placing of a bona fide job order, including tha acceptance cr referrals of veterans and r.cnvetarens. The listing of employment openings does not require the hiring c f any p a r tic u la r job applicants, and nothing herein is intended to relieve the Artist frc.m any requirements in Executive Orders or regulations regarding nondiscrimination in employment.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I D /

CONTRACT HO. Page ^5 o f 29

(d) UI» repcrcs reqtiirod by paragraph fb) of this clausa shall ir.cluda, but not ha 1 ini tad ta, paricdic raparts which shall ba filsd at least cuartarly with tha apprcoriata local o ffic e o r, where the A r tis t has cora than ere hiring location in a State -.-Hth the central office of the State eaolc/mant Ser/ice. Such reports shall indicate for each hiring Iccation (1) tha nucter of individuals hired during the reporting period, ( 2 ) tha number of r.ondisaaiad vetarans of tha Vietnam era hired, (3) the number af disabled vetarans hired. Tha reports should includa covered vscarans hired fo r o rrth a -jo b train ing under 33 DSC 1737. Tha Artist shall sucait a report,’.rithin SO days aftar Che end o f each reporting period wherein any performance is cada cn th is contract id e n tifyin g data fa r each hirin g Icceticn . The A r t is t shall maintain at each hiring location copies of the reports submitted until the expiration of one year after final peyrr.enc under tlie ccntrect, during which tica these reports and related decuman be tion shall be rads available, upon raguast, for sxenination by any authorized rspresantitives of tha Contracting O ffic e r o r of tha Secretary of Labor. Documantation p/ould includa parsonnsl records respecting job openings, recrui tmant and placement.

(e) lihensvar the A rtist becomes csnti-actvally bound to the listing provisions of this clause he/sha shall advise the employment ser/ice system in each State where he/she has establishments of the name and location of each hiring location in the State. As long as the Artist is contractually bound to these provisions and has so advised the State system, there is no need to advise the Stats system of subsequent contracts. The A r t is t r t y advise tha State system when it is no longer bound by this contract clausa.

( f ) This clausa does not apply to the lis tin g o f employment opanir.gs which occur and are filled.outside of the 50 States, the D istrict of Coliznbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin' Islands.

(g) The provisions of paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) of this clause do not apply to openings which the A r tis t proposes to f i l l frcm w ithin h is own organization o r to f i l l pursuant to a eusternary and tra d itio n a l employer-union hiring arrar.gament. This exclusion does not apply to a par­ tic u la r opaning once an employer decides to consider applicants outside o f his own organization or emplayer-union arrangement fo r th a t opening.

(h) As used in th is clause: (1) "A ll suitable azployine.nt ope.sings" includes, but is not lim ite d to openings which cccur in the fallcw ir.g jo b categories: production and nonproduction; plant and office; laborers and mechanics; supar/isory and nonsupervisory; technical; and executive, ad m inistrative, and "professional openings as are ccmpe.ssated on e salary basis of less than 525,COO per year. This tern includes f u ll- t im e Employment; temporary employment of more than 3 days duration, and p a rt-tim e employment. I t does not include openings which the A r tis t proposes to f i l l from w ith in his own organization or to f i l l pursuant to a custo.mary and tra d i ticnal cmployar-union h irin g arrangame.it nor openings in an educational in s titu tio n which are restricted to students of that institution. Under tha rest

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. .58

CO;rTRACT flQ. P a g . 1 7 o f 2 9

ccmpening cirzumsZzr.ces an ampTaj-ma.-.c zaenzr.c may r.at ba suitable far listing including sucn sitnacicn: whars tba na=ds af tna Gcvamnant ca.n- n c t rsisonaaîy ba acharwisa sapai iad, wnsra lis tin g vjculd ta cznzrzry ta "naticnal s a c a rity , or whara tha raguiramant a f 1 isting wcuid ctbamisa not b« far che best intarasc cf tha Gcvarrzanc. (2) "Appraariata offica of tha Stata =r.alojm;ant sar/ncra syszarf' naans tha local office of tha rsdaral-State naticnal systzi of tha public arrcioy- aa.nt offices with assig.nsd respcnsibil ity for sar/ing the araa .hare the Cioloysant opaning is to ba filled , including the D istrict of Colucdsia, Suaa, Puerto Rica, and tha Virgin Islands. (3 ) 'Opanings which tha A r tis t proposas to f i l l frcm v ît ,bin h is C/nr organization" naans esployzant openings fo r wnich no consideration w ill ba given to persons outside the Artist's organization (including any a ffilia te s , su h s id ie ria s . and tha parent companies) and includes any openings uhic.h tha A rtist proposes to fill frca regularly established "racall" lis ts,

(4 ) "Openings which the A r tis t proposes to f i l l pursuant to a custo rary and trtd ltio nal esiployar-unicn hiring arrangemant" means ewploymer.t cse.iir.cs which the A r t is t propcses to f i l l freer union h a lls , which is p a rt o f the customary and traditional hiring relationship which, exists bezveen tha A rtist and reprssantatives of his ‘enployses-

(f) The Artist agrees to cc.mply with the rules, regulations, and ralavant orders of tha Secretary of Labor issued pursuant tc the Act.

(j) In tha event cf the Artist's noncocpliance with the rrqu:remits "of this clausa, actions far noncomalience nay ha taken in accordance w ith- the rules; regulations relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor issued to tha Act.

(k ) Tha A r t is t agrees to post in conspicuous places a v a ila b l? to e.mployeas and applicants fc r employment, notices in a form to be prescribed by tha director, providad by or through the Contracting O fficer. Such notice shall state tha Artist's obligation under tha law"to take affirm ative action to employ and advance in employment q u a lified disabled ve teran s and v e tc n n z " o f the Vietnam era fo r employment, and the rig h ts o f a p p lic a n ts and enplcyees.

(1) The Artist will notify each labor u.nion or representative of workers with which i t has a collective bargaining agreement or otier contract Understanding that the Artist is bound by the terms of the Vietnam Er.a Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act, and is cc.mmitted to take affirm ative action to employ aid advance in employment q u a lified disabled veterans and veterans of the Vietnam Era. ....

(rni) The Artist w ill include the provisions of this clause i.i every subcontract or purchase order of 510,000 or .more unless exempted by rules, régula tio,IS. or orders of the Secretary issued pursuant to the Act’, so that such provisions w ill be binding upon each subcdntractcr o r ver.do.-. The Artist w ill take such acticn with respect to any succc.mtract or purchasa order as the D irecto r o f the O ffice c f Federal Cc.icract Cc.rn.pliance Progra.r.s may direct to enforce such provisions, including acticn for .ionccmpiier.ee.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 159

Contract No, Page 13 o f 29

ARTICLE 23- U tiliz a tio n of Smalt Business Corcanc (This clausa is applicable if cne contract is for ilO.CCO or rora.)

(a) It Is the policy of the Gavem.ment as declared by the Congress that a f a ir proportion o f tha purchases and contracts for sucplies and sar/icas for the Government be placed with small business concerns.

(h) The Artist agrees to acccnplish the maximum amount of subcontracting to small business concerns th a t the A r tis t finds to be consistent with the efficient performance of this contract.

ARTICLE 24. U tiliz a tio n of M inority Business Enterprises (This clause is applicable i f the contract is fo r 5 ) 0 , 0 0 0 or more.)

(a) It is the policy of the Government that minority business ♦enterprises shall have the maximum practicable cpooriunity to p a rtic ip a te in the performance or Government contracts.

(b) The Artist agrees to use his/her best efforts to carry out this policy In the award of his/her subcontracts to the fullest extent consistent with tha efficient performance of this contract. As used in this contract, the term "minority business enterprise" means a business, a t le a s t 50 percent of which is owned by m inority group msn'hers, o r. in casa of publicly owned businesses, a t le a s t 51 percent of the stock of which is owned by m in ority group mameers. For the purposes of th is d e fin itio n , m inority group members are Negroes, Spanish-speaking American persons, A m erican-O rientals, Amarican-Indiar.s, American-Eskimos, and American A leuts. The A rtis t may rely on written representations by subcontractors regarding their status as minority business enterprises in lieu of an independent investigation.

ARTICLE 23. Convict Labor

In connection with the performance of work under th is c o n tra c t, the A r tis t agrees not to employ any person undergoing sentence of imprisonment except as provided by Public Law 53-175, Seotember 10, 1955 (13 Ü.S.C. 4032(c) (2)) and Executive Order 11735, December 29, 1973.

ARTICLE 25. Contract Vork Hours and Sefetv Standards Act— Overtime Ccmser.sation

This contract, to the extent that it is cf a character specified irr the Contract '«ork Hours and Safety Standards A ct (40 U.S.C. 327-333), is subject to the following provisions and to a ll other applicable

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 6 0

- Contract No. Page to of 29

previsions and exceptions of such Act and tha regulations of tea Secretary o f Labor thareundar.

(a) Overtime requirements. No Artist or subcontractor contracting for any part of the contract work which may require or involve the emoloyment of laborers or machanics shall require or pa n i t any laborer or machanic in any wor'cveek in which he is emoloyed on such work to work in excess of 3 hours in any calendar day or in excass of 40 hours in such worfcvaek on work subject to the provisions of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act unless such laborer o r ir.achanic racaives ccmpensaticr. a t a rate not lass than one and one-half times his basic rate c f pay fo r a ll such hours worked in excess of 3 hours in any calendar day or in excess of 40 hours in such workv/sek, whichever is the greater number of overtime hours.

(b) V iolation; l ia b i l it y fo r unpaid wages; liquidated damages. In the event of any violation of the provisions of paragraph (a), the Artist end any subcontractor responsible therefore shall ba lia b le to any affected employee fo r his unpaid wages. In addition, such Artist and subcontractor shall be liable to the United States for liquidated damages. Such liquidated damages snail be computed with respect to each individual laborer or mechanic employed in vio latio n o f tha provisions o f paragraph (a) in the sum o f SIC fo r each calendar day on which such employes was required or permitted to be employed cn such work in excess of 8 hours or in excess of the standard workweek o f 40 hours without payment of the overtime wages required by paragraph (a ).

(c) 'withholding fo r unpaid wages end liquidating damages. The Contracting O fficer may withhold from the A rtis t, from ?jiy Eoneys payable on account of work performed by A rtis t c r subcontractor, such sums as may administratively ba determined to be necessary to satisfy any liabilities of such Artist or subcontractor for unpaid wages and liquidated dz-mages as provided in the provisions of paragraph (b ).

(d) Subcontracts. The A rtis t shall insert paragraphs (a) through (d) of this clause and the preamble in a ll subcontracts, and shall require their inclusion in all subcontracts of any tier.

(e) Records. The A rtis t shall maintain payroll records containing the information specified in 29 CFR 515.2(a). Such records shall be preserved for 3 years frcm tha ccmpletion o f the contract.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 Al

- Ca.Tü-ac: .'!o. fa g : gO or 29

ARTICLE 27. Clqort A ir and Watar

(Applicable only i f cbe contract e.tcaaco âTCC,CC7, o r t.ia Contracting Officer has detamined that orders under an incafioite quantity contract in any one year will exceed SIGO.CCO, or a ficilizy to be used has been the subject of a conviction under the Clean A ir Act (42 U.S.C. iaô7c-3{c)(l)) or the Foiirzl %ater Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1319(c) and is listed by E?A, or the contract is not otherwise exanpt.)

(a) The A r tis t agrees as follows:

(1) To comply with a ll the requirements o f section 114 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1397, et saq., as amended , by Pub. L. 91-SOi) and section 303 of tha Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1231 et seq., as amended by Pub. L. 92-500), respectively, relating to inspection, monitoring, entry, reports, and information, as well as other requirements specified in section 114 and section 303 of the Air Act and Water Act, respectively, and all regulations and guidelines issued there­ under before tha award of this contract.

(2) That no portion of the work required by this prime contract w ill be performed in a f a c ility lis ted on the Envirc.s-en:el Protection Agency List of Violating Facilities on the date when this contract was awarded unless and until the £?A eliminates the name of such facility or facilities frcrj such listing,

(3) To use his best effo rts to ccmoly w ith clean e ir standards and clean water standards a t the f a c ility in which tha contract is being performed.

(4) To insert the substance of the provisions o f this clauce into any nonaxempt subcontract, including this paragraph (a)(4).

(b) The terms used in this clause have the following meanings:

(1) The term "Air Act" means the Clean A ir Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1557 ct seq., as amended by Pub. L. 91-504).

(2) The t e n "Water Act" means Federal Water P o llu tic n Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et sec., as amended by Pub. L. 92-500).

(3) The term "clean a ir standards" means any enforceable roles, regulations, guidelines, standards, limitations, orders, controls, prohibitions, or other requirements which are contained in , issued under or otherwise adopted pursuant to the A ir Act or executive Order 11733, an applicable implementacicn plan as described in section 110(d) of she Clean A ir Ac: ['-Z U.S.C. l£S7c-5(i)), an approved imoiementation procedure or plan under section 1 1 1 (c)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 162

Contract No. Page 21 o f 2?

or section 111(d), respectively, of the Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1S37C-6 (c) or (d )), or an aporovsd imolamentaticn procedure under section 112(d) of the A ir Act (42 U.S.C. 1337c-7(d)).

(4) The term "clean watar standards" means any enforceable limitation, control, condition, prohibicion, standard, or other racuire.cent which is promulgated oursuant to the Watar Act or contained in a permit issued to a discharger by the Environmental Protection Agency or by e State under an approved program, as authorized by section 402 o f the Watar Act (23 U.S.C. 1242). or by local goverrxant to ensure ccmoliarcs with orccreatmas.nt regulations as required by section 207 of the Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1317).

(5) The tara 'co-ciplianca" means compliance with clean e i r or watar standards. Compliance shall also mean compliance vn th a schedule or plan ordered or approved by a court o f competent ju ris d ic tio n , the Environmental Protection Agency or an a i r or water pollution control agency in accordance vri th tha requirements of the Air Act o r Water Act and regulations Issued pursuant thereto.

( 6 ) The tera ’facility" means any building, plant, installation. Structure, nine, vessel or other floating craft, location or site of operations, owned, leased, or supervised by a contractor o r subcontractor, to be u tiliz e d in the performance of a contract or subcontract. Where a location or site cf operations contains or includes more than one building, plant, installation, or structure, tha entire location or site shall be deemed to be a facility except where the Director, Office of Federal A c tiv itie s , Environmental Protection Agency, determines th a t indscendenc fa c ilitie s are collocated in one geographical area.

ARTICLE 23. Buy American

(a) Agreement. In accordance with the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. lO a-lO d), and Executive Order 10532, December 17, 1954 (3C.-R. 1354-53 Ccmp. p. 230), as amended by Executive Order 11051, September 27, 1952 (3 CFR, 1959-63 Comp., p. 635), the Contractor agrees that only domestic con­ struction material will be used (by the Contractor, subcontractors, materialmen, and suppliers) in the performance o f this contract, except fo r nondomestic material lis te d in the contract.

(b) Domestic construction m aterial. "Construction m aterial" means any article, material, or supply broughc to the construction site for incorporation in the building or work. An unmanufactured construction

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 163

Contract Ho. Page 22 o f 29

material is a "domestic construction material" if it has bean mined or proGucad in the United States. A manufactured consturcticn material is a “domestic construction material" if it has been manufactured in tr.s United States and i f the cast of its components which have been mined, praducsd, o r manufactured in the United States excaeds 50 perçant of the cost o f a ll its components. "Componenc" means any a r tic le , m a te ria l, or supply directly incorporated in a construction material.

(c) Domestic component. A component shall be considered to have been '“mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States" (regardless of its source in fact) if the article, material, or supply in which it is incorporated was manufactured in the United States and the comoonent is of a class or kind determined fay tha Government to be not mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States in s u ffic ie n t and reasonably available commercial quantities and cf a satisfactory quality.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 6 4

Contract No. 23 Of 29

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set th eir hands the day and year firs t above written.

WITNESSES: ARTIST:

(Harcaj (lieraej

(Signature) ('signature;

(Address) (Address;

(Kane)

(Signature).

(Address)

-Tilt UNITED STATES CF iVE.NrO.A AOMlNiSTRATCR CF GENERAL SERVICES

By Contracting Crficer-

This contract is negotiated pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 252(c) {-).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 165

Page 24 of 29 ! «•-'îf'vcc - if f? ■*' REPRESENTATIONS AND CESflrlCATICNS

0*4 Ar«hif«4^S.T^!«f«p C 4 b ^p o «>)

( P * f 9 4 « Hamdmf4 form* If, 71 o .ij 2Î21

//T itt^otiatid pm'^rrmfrrtt, ’’bid” J n d “ HitLitf' ihjll b t CsnstrutJ l9 /tetin iinj '" orftn* ” Th* bi«id«r rn.ikrt ch* following Tçanufttiûant inà Cfrr:ir>;afiofij aj a pj.*T o f : h f b jJ id

1. 5 MAU. aCSINLiS H e ^ ti, Q L» H O C a »mall bm«n«nj conrcm. (A «mail buJinw* concern for the purpove of Govrrrt.-nrnf prbcarecfn: it a concent. inclu

2. M INORrrY SCSlNïSi SNT£R?R152 K « Q »>• Q ia not t .■nirority bujinrta entetprije. A miroeiry buiifee* entetptùe ia denned a* a “buiinei*, ac ftnie *0 perctat o f wh i c h it ow n e d b y mirtoncy g r o u p m e m b e r * or. in ca»e of publicly o w n e d buiinntr». ar In** 4 i percene oe the (fock of which i* ow n e d by minority ^roup r*ember*. ' For the purpoi# of thia d?Anixon. minority group in<»r:cm are Negro**, spanieh *p*akinj American penona. Amefion-OrienriU, .Vm fHcin-lnduma. Amt:ic.a.i.t iltuee*. jnJ .'vnencaa- Alruia."

3. CONTINGENT FÎ6 /ej H o Q] ha*. [22 not. employed or retained any c o m p a n y or {-erjun (i»c!ief than a fuil t.rir bon» *dr «moluyer wofiaamg awleiy for *ne b»«id«r> to »oi«C** or >ecure in»» Coni.'aCC. and ha ha*. []1 ha* not. paid uf _ J a m ar.r ft». comm',uur?. parentage or broWemee fee. eoniingeoe upon or rwuliin* from the award of (hi* contrari: and agree* ty I'urn-.n imor rij. lion relating (o f*e> and /b} above a* re*]u«*ted by the Conrracing OftceP. fF*^ 'if tht r/pre ee/arya,*. imif.ij- JjTj /Ae "hatti fiJ* r#*p/«yer," jrr CoJ» nf FtJtrA Krr«/j/t»ei. Vttit .*(, Suh^^'t i-i.i.j

A. TY?5 O? ORGANIZ.ATION H r operatrt ai an[]indieiduaL[]parenef»hip.Qj joint emiurr.ricorporaiiun. incorporaied in St»:» vf

3. INDbPSNDENT PRICE D5TER.M1NATIO.N f.a) B y aubmi>*K»n of (hi* bid. each bidder ce.mAe*. and in the c**r of a joint bid e» bid ha* r not Sr-rn k n o ^ i r tî* di*clo«ed by (he bidder and will not knowingly br di*clo*rd by the bidder prior to opening, m the c:»e of a brrpr»»i»v»». /h) Each perion *igning th * bid Certihe* dial: (l> H e I* (he pefton in the bidder * nrganiranon re*pon*,bI# within tS:i organiration for :he decoiun ai .o t‘‘r prier» being bad herein a n d that lie hi* nut participated, and w,ll roi participate, i.' any a:tmjn conif.ry to i w, ( 1 1 through |o)l>) above; or ( 2 ) ( » ) H e »* not the perjon in (he bidder * organitaiion re>pon»ible w ithin that ot<»ni.*atron :‘or the deCi*-.on a* (o (he price* b *irj bhj herein hu: that he ha* been aurhofited in w riting to act at agent for the .leno.t* 'f»p*»n« »ible for *uch deC»>»on m Cettifym a th*t *uch perton» have er.» pjrticipaied. and w ill no* parricipaie. i.n ,,i* action contrary to (u) ( I 1 tnrouyh |u ) 13» iS»»e. and a* th rif agent Jce* herrb* w> Cemty; and (t.* he ha* n.x parocrp»:?»!. and W ill not parrifipair. in ane action contrary (O u»tt» t h r o u g h i^»tjt a b o y e /rj Thi* cefTifiCarKin i» not applicable to a ioreign bidder »ubi^:itin< a hid tor a contract % hich reuu».'e» prrfi«r-~arce O f drlrerfe g u c u d e the C'nited )(*(*-*. it* po**e**ion*. ard Puerto Ricu. tdf .\ bid will out b- C on aide red tuf a'* arJ w h«*re ixaitl. t.»>>*>. or i *1 aSo*e. ha* he r n drirtr* ut r*i»d*r.rd. 'X'hrre fj||i> atx*r-. ha* been deleted of modineJ. the bid »»H not be conaidrrqd .'or jwj?j unie*» :hr b.durr fjrnuhe» with (he bid a n ^ n r d »fatem»nt which »et* forth in detail the c.rcur*»r*nce* of the d»«ch>>ure and (he irxl ot the açînc». Of hi* ûe*,gnee. determine* that *uCh di*»i'lo»ur# *a* no# m . d e for the pufpuae ot reiir.cting co m petition.

.SOTk. — Sflt mnit a.f It'/b fitll. jcn'jf.'. .luit »«/np/,7t »nf,»"r .r.i*»# .i ntfHi'rJ A i f/»,i inr if.,.»* e »>» v.,', r »... w.vng ur/jrfim r•»(»/. T/'e p, wdf* ft* /w/»e »/-.’e^rer. .« ,% p«ei.r»é«,/it i* ( ( I '•»

s r a s a a a o icai.i *9-^ ,u*i=-r'g X ^ t'Cn C r N ; 9 a u 3 = a v 'C = à P£0 i Q C J 4 = 3 at :-^v * • • -C- * Æ *-:» 73»

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 166

25 cf 29

THE fOO.OW'rv^; S E E O 3 d CHzC-Cfa 0>'LY IF 3'.3 ZXCZIVH f>- A.VOCNT.

6. EQO'AL OPPOaTLNITY He Q hJJ. Q h»i not. p»rt;npatml ;;ia pr.-rio-Ji cor.mcr or twbcon:r:ci »ub*fçf to •>•.• Oppcrran.ry >?rr-r» ;“t cli zse 0Ti4>n:'i*.y çoonmM in v-rrioni ' j \ of Ejrrutive Order Na. :0';iî. or tre c'.ai-ie ;5.-*.ui.-.ed m :J1 ort x - r r z 'i - r O-'crr No. 11 : b? '□ hjj. 2 baa r.-x. £1H ail required («porta; i,i«i rr?tir)er:rition* Ju3C^>»ioft Ot rrqjitr; conoui.'-*.? rc/vrJ. li.ried be procoxd vaixootrJirton, be ooramed prrot fo «uocJiirrtc; 3^(zs. (The abovfl rrprrwocanoaa ae*d cot be «ubcutrrd ia cooaecuga *ira cooiracu or jgboatrocu w L J a art crc— pc frtn dit equAl oppctTtiTuie clauat)

7. PARENT COMP.'i.VY ANT3 EXPtOVtR CZNTZFICATION VJM3ZR Fj/’j» h U J f T tb*U fm'milf ih^ /a//oi»r*_j by fdlinj rt iht é.'jgir.*

f j ) U the bi&iff owaed or cootroUW by » pquTStt cjrapaay u de*cnb<-d bc'.o»** _J Ye* |_J No. of thii bid, » p*rn*t (Ompsnj h Ze/tegj uj one ei/irm otime oe ea-ttrail iht setiaiiitt uij .'■uuie D-u'rtitt pdliiirt Jf toe j, T o or*’* ■ntmthr* fomyo'vy wee** fie tO'^p*’*y m>t$t ot#»» gJ //oj.’ e .-r4fan:j (mr^f t.rar 50 P*ref-rî) o f is* v o l : " ^ 'r^e.r m c o m p l y . T o tattryi eomp.nr*, stcb »vn%mh\p tj .not mjji*id: ,f ^otr*r (stp^tj n uihi, ta /jr-rw-'oue, mimt. Of ra/o SAttt polity dttit'uttu af lb» biiLîtr, Sneb other eo'tyiiry it comuirtrd the ptre

m*w( oef*o(#rc3*f*<*r fâincfr CC «co^îli r.>4.. C.r/, ./.nr. --J .’/g Cj -V-

Biddor ihall ituert ia th# appfiablo » ? ^ s b d o w , i{ he hta o p*.*fot c o m p a r r/. hi» own Empiovr'i limbi:; too N u m b e r (E.L No.) (Ftderd SatUi St*uriiy C^'rmbr* t»i«d an Bmplajer^i Qut^lrny Fiir’iL Tax Rtlam, [J-a. T*tai*ry Dfptrl' mtiti Fo r m 0*1), Of, if h« hxa a pv t n t compaay, tho £ X No. of Li» p*rroi cotnpioy. IOlf»n»lC*r;ct*Ctn.O'^ca muwaia Qf

8. c i m n c v ' n s N o ? n o n s e g r s c .U c O F A c a r r n s (Appiioblo zo (I) cootrtcrv (Z) iubegprjat*d faciliüe» at any of bij eitabliahrcrru, azd d'.i: be d o n oo( perrX r;i «-rplcmi to p r r f o m thrif armices at atiy iocacron, uoJer hi» coouol, where ug.-eyit.ni faciiitte» are miicjuctd. H e ru-.*-.q«; that hr W ÜI coe oaiotaia or provide for hi» snoployem atiy jegrrçatfd facUitica at ac/ of hi» einblitinenti. a,*.r: d-.cc >r will DOt permit hie rmployree fo perforo their lervir-i at acy locitioo, uoJrr hi» cocl-oÎ. t*h;;e «s.-s^j.-rd iitil.iits i:i maintibexL T h * bidder, oÉeror, applinor. or tubcootracor a crew that a b-'mcS of th:i ct.-jccc;i70 it a vialanc.i g: l-.s £(|-ual Opportuniry d a w * in tbî» coot.-acc. Aa u>ed in thi* certljCJ'Jon, the c « m "iejrrj-icrd ."cUitiea" c-.r-aca a-.» wiiucg .-ro.-ii, work arraa, m f room» aed »rtij room», r m i m r m c » and o'Jj-f ratis; irras, tivc; cfcco, !.x x ;/ room» acJ c.cef ?r drrtîLnj arru, p c k i o g low, dfiitkioj fouocûoi, fcçreiüoo or e.nceftjinarrt ireu, trmiporadom, acH hccicJt .‘icU-tN* pry y'ldni for caployer* which are jegrejai-d by rtplidf dirercive or K r h fa*: i r ^ g a c d r: th: biti* of rate, cj’.o.*. criig.oc. of tutiooal Ofigim, befaua* of habit, local cjjcosa, or cihervive. H e furthe.' a^rrci tha; (eicrpc where be bia c'rtcxrd ic?:(:r»l crrtiâcation» from prapoied sobcootmsron for tpeciâc cLae pcrioia) he wiLI obmla idectical cerdEratoa.» f.~n p n p ^ r i v»> contractor» prior to cSe award of rtixooi.-agtofj rtcrribg kW.OA) which i;e cot f c m p t frC3 lie 7rovi,\,j» of the r.r-.a: Op- pofCuaity ctauae; that hr will recaia jatb cetcücatîcxia in hi» £ln; aad that be w tU for^ird ûie faUowLng codce rr» ».:j p r y poi?f Vibcootractori (ctcepc where the prap o r d juborotracajo have jubairtri tdt^c'JcaJ ce.~Jicaboiu for ipeciis :Lae p-r-cd»):

NOTICE T O PHOSPHCrrVc St.TCONTTTACTOP? OF PiQLClF.V2.NT FO?. CERIIFIC.\T:CN: Of NONSZGREGATZO FACtimcS

A Cerdicicoa of Nonv-;jrepac«l Fadlities m w t be iubciir«d prior to the awigdcf a njbc?ntxact «-.tcrrdlc: JlO.O-.-O which f< ool rterjpc frt»ri the pm-iiiom* of tbe E«;u a 1 O p p o r r m i ? c!*u»r. The cerdjotion m a y be ci;ber ior each TuïX-na. tract or h t all jub

9. C L E A N AIR A N D V7.ATHR (Applicable if th* bid or oiîer eaerrd» 3100.000. or the corttracdnq o â c r t ha* drtecai.-.rd that Cfd-ra unde- an iadcirufj quantity co o t m a in any year will rrceed 5100,C“>>. or a ficdiry to be u»«J haa :-e-n the ijb,er; rJ a ccnviui' n uzder -he C l e u Air A ct (42 US.C, l3J/c-0(<)(:)) or 6 * Federal Cater Pollution Comtnl Act ()J U S.C IJl^fc)) iod *i I:».rd bv 2PA. or ia oor otherwi** earapL) T h e bidd«Tor oderor CTtinea a» follow»: (a) A n y facility to br utilized in the prtbrjiioce of thia propoud coocnct haa 0 > ha* cot C. b r m lit.-H on the •ud.TP> oc n à l P.mtectio*» Agency Li»t of VJolatiag Facilities. (b) H e w:II pratnptly nr.tify the cnnf/actia; ndicrr. price to award, c: ihs ;ee-tp: ot a.iv coouai_sicaf;oO frory -jj? DLrrc'or. O S c e oi Federal Acnv,he% E a v i n n m m W P.-o».-crioo As««T» iaio'iJZ Zuc ^ y fac.liry which he ?.-o?»w»ei o c u h r the p-r- f o m m c e of tb* cootmct ia under conaid^ratio* ro be liatrd oo th* Ç?.\ L.u oi /lOiaun; r acu,Le\. (c ) H e wiU Lodwd* lubtcunialiy thia ccrtccicoo, indudic; thi* pu-igrapo (c). la fvrry ooortarDpt aubvPotrist.

STasCAPO «cnu i?-B f3*«#l JUN5 nrs EJmC>l

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 167

Page 25 of

Sc=c: ZzCai:

?L3::c =:.t/:c: 3c??u::^i7 ro 3:.v:3a?j rrxy :)-3 RE?FC3 2:rAr:::(3 aiio czz-ri.xi^::::-: 'iAVED u:3 :o:r:::n

Ir3::uG:i]ri3 fo: Os*

I,. Add orrs of the follcwing tjrdqcaaha to that contai.-.sd '.n rt2 "i 1, 3Lj.;i-jg. Add the f i r 11 T i f s r 3 3 7 helf.* wnentvec Jft aGalyt I a of the #& ttoatad cons trucf.on cost dlscZaoei toat 7i ?e : cent oo 3io;e cf toe uoc'c to ra ds.te on tnts czr.zzs.cz s one of the Lnduotry, ouai.-.iuatty, oc rlssa of prodccta I'.at-d tn r?a l.TO 1-’. Chi cIJ . In all othei cases add tne second o-ir to r t jo heiou.

first cdojqcsph:

•Sr-cy bidder who bids on th la cor.t0 2 0 o ~.ca.t tee: tee to.-.jsL :-c-i?t c : l:;olan for a •Soec'jl Trade Ccncrsctoc*. The aoolicjtle e/.nuj: rtcaiot cotf.ricn fro s 'SpecUl Trade Crr.trsctor* In the aoea of corstcuctccn is a ctncern that had s. era;? annual ceceiots for tne yrocodir.q thc^a fiscal yea: 3 roc eac^tdirq S5.0CQ,'3CO, Th? average annual receltte of concerns which derive 30 percent or raore oi annual salt: or recèlera frcn tuainess activity witnin AlaaX a, Eawali, the Vi;;i.n Irltncs, Puerto Rico or Ccan, are schject to red-jctlcn by tne applicatle tetrenti'js Cs) =r~- * scribed by 13 CTR Part 121, as aoendsd, for purposes of d«cac.aj.r.i.-.5 z:.-*.z :.;a.l business status.*

Second paragraph:

•The aoollcjole annual tectlot crlttricn for a stall business cunrern In tie area of construction la a concern tnac had average annual receipts for tha srac-uin: three fiscal years not exceeding 512,000,203. The average annua?, reraipts of ron- cerns which derive 50 percent or ,nore cf annual sales cr recelpta irtn bus. r? 3 a .activity within Alaska, Hawaii, tre Viroin Islands, Puerto Rico or Cuao, are sub;ect to reduction by the applicable percentage (a) prescribed by 13 C*R Part 121, as aaended, for purposes of detee.olnir.g their aoill business starus."*

2. Iten 11 - Celete Iteo 11 If (1) the ccntracr is to be swjrdad by the adv-rtl procurement method, or (2) the contract is to be awarded by the negotiated c cureoant methcd (a) la expected to be under S1CC,333, or (bj is a stall cun set aside.

3. A vertical line In the maruin Indicates a chance c: an addition. The vertical lire In the ojcgin should be deleted before including tnia ocdificatio.a in the ccntract specifications.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 168

?agd Z~! 02 i.9

3apec : ; :ea. Sa=7la-r«'.t 1?- Ju-/ 1373 T3 ST.V-'TAPO 13-3 :cr7ZCZ:TM::M5 a:;d crhr:r:-w:i:*3 (CAT:3 JCN: 1373

1, 3:-îAli 9C3::C33, is supplemented as follow*:

2. TZ: mi:7C7fc :TZx lo :s A::::;

•15. The bidder, Its officer* or agent;, { ) have, ( } ha/e not, refused to furnish to any Government agency or any eatjalLsnment in the legislative or Judicial branch of the Cc/ernment Infsrmaticn or record* reaaonsbly rertinens to any Govern- ment contract in connection with which the Oidcer ha* cerfo:ced work or durnishei materlalo or sccolie* or undertaken to do ro." 3. THE r0L10vr:iC IZZA l l rs ACZZO:

"11. CC3T a c g 3 c:;t ::;g srA::aAR=s cr? r : r : - \ r : c N - ;;o:i3û-=:û: a ?? i :c \3: i :t v

Any neçotleted contract In exce** of 5150,503 resulting from thii stllrlt:t1st shall be subject to the reculrements of the cl acre* entitles Cert Arrcunting Standard* - Ncndefenae Ccntrasc (Z?A 5 1-3.1154- 2 ( a)) and Adminiatmicn sd Co-it Accounting Standards (r?R S 1-3.1204-1(3)5 if It la awarded to # contractor': ouoi- nes* unit that i* rerfornir.g a national defense contract or auhcontrac: -ntrn is subject to cost accounting standard* tursuan: to 4 C"?. 331 at the tire of avjrd, except contract* which are otnorwioe e.carrot (jse T 72 5 1-3.1203-2 (a ) and (t ) ( I) ). Othecvise, an award resultlnç from thi* soiicitatioh shall be subject to the CGculrementJ of she clause* entitled Conaiatency of Cost Accounting Practices - îiondeîense Contract (r?A 5 1-3.123 4-2(0)) and Administration of Cost Acrcunslng Standard* (??A 5 1-3.1204-1(b)) if tne award is (I) the firs: negotiated contract over 5300,000 In the event the award ia to i contractor’s business unit that .c not performing under any CAS covered national defense cc nondefense ccntract or subcon­ tract, or (ii) a negotiated contract over 5122,CGJ in the event she award I ; to a contractor's business unit that i* c-rforoing unde: jny CAS cov-red national . defense or nondefense contract or subcontract, excect contracts whicn are otherwise exempt (see T ?7 Î 1-3.1233-2 (a) and (c)(4j). This solicitation notice is not applicable to snail business concerns.

ccpTirzcATZ c? CA3 AppL:cAa:i::'f

The offeror herecy certifies that :

f I I: is currently performing a negotiated national def?ise contract or subcontract that contains a Goat Accounting Jtrnuards Clause (4 .TTR Part : 31; , and It^l* currently recuired to accept that clause in any new negotiated nat.cnal -e.ense contracts it receives t.tat are suoject to cost accounting atandardJ.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 A Q

Page 23

3. f i :: i3 C - r : » n : l 7 ÇTClorz:.-.-; 3 r.:cz-.: -.3: 33- 3: or rordrrr.r:» contract or tucccntract that ccntai.'.a : coat acccuntir.g utancarca clauae r'*tuir-;a tv ; CTR P r: cr jj2 or :/ -"PAiucoart rut : : r aoi to iccepc She 4 CTR 331 clause in c-w nugotiatac naticnal d-ftr.s- trcta or sucacctr ;c rs vhtcia is receives tnit are sccject so cost accou.-.tt.-g attr.-ijrc:.

C, [ I It is not ocrfoccîictg any CA3 co*/ered national df f anse or n o ndefense coctcacc or subcontract. The offeror further certifies tnat itwill i.ocedlately notify contracting officer in wrisih? in the event that it is awarded any negctioted national cefenae or nond-iense contract oc sutcontract containing any cost ac­ counting attndacds claus# suosecuent to tne fate of tnia certificate out prior to tr.« data of to- award oi a contract resulting froa tnlo solicitation.

D. I 1 Is il an educational inacituticn receiving conrract awards subject to r?" Sueas-t 1-15.3 (DC 71-3, CTX Circular A-Zl) .

S. C I It is a State or local government receiving contract awarda subject to TTR Subparc 1-13.7 (7:1: 74-4. :X3 Circular A-37).

r. [ 1 It la ^ hcsoital.

SOTS; Certain firm fixai price negotiated nondefense contracts awarded on the tasi; of price co.iaoQtiticn m a y ce detec.ained by the Contract : ng Office: fat the tine cf award) to bn cxonct from coat accounting standards (T?R 5 1-3.1133-2(0 (4){iv)l.

Ah3:T:3xac. - o c c.-rccc?-;

G. ( I The offeror, subject to cast accounting standards but not certifyl.^g under D, 2, cr r abcve, furt.ter certifies the: practices used in esti.eating costa in pricing this proposal ace consistent with the practices disclosed in the O.sciojtre Stacer.er.t la) where they have teen submitted oursuant to C;z32 régula tiens (4 G7.3 ?irt 351).

DATA aZCGZRZO - C\3 CCVl.-£3 CTrEFCRô

The Offeror certifying under A or 3 above but cot under 0 , Z, or 7 above, is required to furnish the nvt-, address (includi.ng agancy or fesartment csnccnent) , and c-1-çhone number of the coj.eirar.t contracting officer ad.T.ni5 t?r'i.-e the offeror's CA3 covered ccntrtcts. If A above is cn-c\‘>d, the offeror wii:' icentify thoae currently effective cost accounting standards, if any, which --on award of the next negotiated national daf-anae contract or succoncract will t— --- effective upon the offeror.

VJ>:C C? C3: ______

T2iz?zc:.'z :m:f3ZR:

STAS3A.RTS ::0T TIT AFPLICAaiZ:

4. The followlrg Item 12 io added:

•1 2 . VC:(A.'l-0:v;r23 3 L 3 I\Z 3 3

Ccncer.n Is /_^/ Is not a -.coan-o’^ned business

A 'woftan-cwned business is a business which, is, jt least, 31 tert-nc owned, controlled, and operated by a wcna.n oc w-.---,. Ctnt:oll;d is define ! as exercising the power to .oa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 170

19 o : 2?

*3-3 M 1 : :n 137?

'o c tce CUCCCCJ oc c c i j d - c i c.c , cj Jc.ccic.o -n.cn je ; T.Jlccly cr.-i., ;c .ne jcocn JJCJO cjcccr.J. :.-.J cccc.-;ij nccccc J:c j.tnnccnn. Zcenccnd ccccnjjc.n -j/ voLcn-CJCcly CJOCcje.nt C.-.CC cc.n/ jc s , cc : ! -JC . < o j-n j-r.-n a -i v-.cc Infocsacir.-. i* a/ailabla. "

The foIlTwirg itea 12 la îddsd:

•13. PZrCCIT 07 rORZlGI :=':T3C

The offeror/contractoc will repces-ris fus an e.ttiojte), immediately after tne award of a crr.eract. the percent of toe fore ign content of the or service being oeocured exoresoed u a Odrcent cf toe coticracc award price (accuracy witblri clao cr oir.ua 5 percent la accepcaol ?/. *

Tb.a follcwir.g Itea 14 ia added: "14. CRr:r:c\T:o;i-'-i.Æ a.n3 ?.va: sT.\:i0A.c5 (1 3 75 JA.U)

(Applicable to awards In etoecs of S5 m i l icc, and awards cf Indefinite deliver'/ tv ce contracts under wnio.n cumulative orders are espeoted to atceed 55 million'.)

(a) 3y sub.nlsnLon of this bid or offer, the bidder or offeror certifies that he Is in coxplia.-.ce with tne %ag a and Price dtc.edariu issued by Lie C c u n c : 1 on Wage and ?ric« Stability ( i C r . k Part 70 3, Appendix, a.id 7art 733).

Cb) The clausa entitled, 'Gertificatior-.-Wage and Price Standc.'cu,’ sec far: elsewhere In this solicitation, snail be Incor-ccated in any resulting conttiot except where waived by agency head involved.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix IV

CONSULTING .SERVICES AGPXSMSN'l

Between

(Ar hist)

incl

CXTÏ OF CHIC.RGÜ (Dspartiroint of Public Works)

for

dated

171

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 172

CITÏ Oi’ CHICAGO

CONTRACT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES

FOR

PART I - AGREEMENT

THIS ACREZMFNT, entered into as of this by and between the City of Chicago, a Municipal Corpocation of the State of Illinois, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and

authorized to do business in the State of Illinois, hereinafter referred to as "Artist";

WITNESSETH THAT:

WHEREAS, the City’s public art progroia as sot forth in Ordinance, Chapter 26 of the Municipal. Code of the City of Chicago, requires the-setting aside of-certain funds for the purchase of-, artworks--im or' at public buildings, and authorizes the City Architect to - select artists, works of art and suitable sites for the placement of the works of art, and

I7HEREAS, the city’s "% for Art" funds have been allocated for the selection, purchase and placement of artwork to be located at for the Department of herein­ after referred to as tha "Project"; and

KHS-RE-AS, the Artist was selected by the City Arc'nifect through procedures duly adopted by the City; and

V/HEREa's , both parties wish the integrity and clarity of the Artist’s ideas and statement in the work to be maintained;

WHEREAS, Artist is able and desirous of performing such services;

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows:

- 1-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 173

i- Scope of Services. The Artist shall perform all services prcvrded-under this agreer.ant in connection wizh and respecting the Project hereinabove noted and shall carry out and perform.in n satisfactory manner, an shall be determined by the City through the City Architect or his duly authorized representative, the following services:

a. Design of Proposed Work of Art. The Artist shall renaer. professional ser-zices for the design of a as requested by the City, which shall consisc of but net be'limited to all of the following:

X. Description of Proposed Work of Art,

Title:

Dimensions:

Materials:

Additional Information:

II. A scale model of the proposed work of art.

III. Additional materials which the City rray request or the Artist deems proper for the presentation of the proposed work of art.

The above shall.be hereafter referred to as the "Design",

b. Changes in the Design. Upon submission of the Design, the Âartist agrees to make minor changes which both Artist and the City mutually agree will enhance the overall effect of the work of art.

c. Notification to Proceed. Upon mutual agreement concern- . ing chances in the Design and upon written notification by the City Architect, the Artist shall begin to execute tlie finished work of art hereafter referred to as the "Work", a full and complete description of the Work shall be prepared by the Artist and submitted to the City Architect and shall become part of this agreement.

- 2 -

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 174

d. The Artist shall perform all structural design and technical work required for safe and permanenz inszal- lation of the Work, complete, the finished Work in substantial conformity with approved design, and provide all labor, materials, and all other incidentals as necessary to produce and install a complete finished work.

e. Rejection of the Design. If the Design does not meet with tne approval of the City an.d is rejected, further negotiations shall be cancelled and this agraemsnt shall be declared null and void. The Artist shall be paid a Design fee of $______and shall retain all rights to the concept and Design including the right to complete, exhibit and sell the Work.

2. Time o£ Services. The services of the Artist will begin upon written notice to proceed by the City Architect or his designated representative and shall be prosecuted to completion withijiTrthe_following, scheduler'

a. The design of-the proposed Work including drawings, - - scale model and any additional material necessary to - illustrate the proposed work of art shall ba submitted to the City on

b. Completed Work to be delivered to and installed at the site on or by after receipt of the Notice to Proceed with trie finished work.

c. A reasonable extension of contract time will be granted in the event there is -a de lay-in the part of the City, in the event that delays in progress are due to strikes, unusually severe weather which makes final installation impractical, impossibility of procurement of needed materials, or Acts of God.

3. Basis of Payment. The City will pay the Artist for services performed as follows:

a. The total fee for the design, fabrication, shipping and- installation services described is ______in­ cluding all labor and materials for work and design, which shall be payable as follows:

$______'______upon completion and approval of the Design.

$ upon completion of the Work.

$______Upon installation of the V-ork .

- 3 -

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 175

4. Method of Payment. The Artist shall submit to the City an invoice on f o r m furnished by the Department of Public Xorks. The invoice shall ba for services completed as noted in Section Z "Basis of Payment.”

5. Cooperation by the City. Tha City will furnish tha Artist witii ths toliowing:

a. All necessary cooperation of City personnel, as required to facilitate the Artist's execution of the services required under this Agreement.

S. Notice. Notice as provided for herein shall be transmit­ ted to the City Archizect, Room 600, 320 N. Clark Street, Chicago, Illinois 60610, and to Artist by first-class prepaid mail addressed to

Any notice to Artist shall be deemed received vhen - . mailed,, . .

7. Fund Chargeable- . Payments will ba made from Account No.

E. Payment for Changes (Amendments) . If modifications to the Scope of Services resulting from changes made in accordance with the provisions set forth under "Changes" in Part II, General Conditions, cause an increase or decrease in the Artist's cost of, or time required for, performance•of the contract, an equitabls adjustment'.’shall be made .and the contract amended; Any claim by the Artist for adjustment under this clause must be submitted in writing to the City Architect-within.30 days of receipt by the Artist of the" notification of change unless the City lurchitect grants a further period of time.

The City will pay the Artist for approved additional services on a mutually agreed on hourly basis (plus authorized reimburs- ables), and invoices for payment shall have these costs tabulated separately.

Also accompanying each claim the Artist shall submit a state­ ment indicating the impact these changes have on the time and cc.st parameters of the*Project.

9. Review of Work in Progress. The City or its representa­ tive shall have the right to make re.isonable inspection and review of the Work and progress of the Work upon request. The Artist shall cooperate and make the Work aivailable for viewing by the City when such requast is received.

-4-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 176

Addendum Co rirn p ra p h 13

la the event that the City uses or licenses the use of the copyright, the C shall do 3 0 only vlth the -.-ritter. consent of the Artist a n d then u p o n such teres and conditions as are mutually agreeable to the Artist and City.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 177

10. t\on-àestruc~ ion/Ai ter at ion/Ha intenanc". The City agrees that it will not intentionally destroy oz alter the Work in any way whatsoever during the Artist's life time, without the Artist’s written consent. If any alteration of any kind occurs to tha Work after it has been finally completed and installed, whether such change is intentional or accidental and whether done by the City or others, than tiia work will no longer be represented to be the Work of the Artist witiiout his/her writtar. consent. The City agrees to see that the Work is properly rrc.ir.- tained and protected, and the Artist shall be notified if the Work is to be relocated.

11. Repairs - To the extent feasible, all repairs and restorations which are made during the lifetime of the Artist sh.-.ll ha-za his/her approval. To the extent practical, he/she shall be given the opportunity to accomplish said repairs and restorations at a reasonable fee.

12. Waiver.~ The Artist agrees to notify Uie City of changes in his/her. address-and-failure .to-do:uso .shall'.be deemed-'-a waiver - of the Artist's rights in paragraphs 10 and 11 above.—

13. Copyright: Upon completion of the Work the Artist shall transfer all reproduction rights to-the City. The Work shall be clearly identified with the Artist's signature.

In the event that the Artist wishes to use the copyright, the Artist may petition the City.

14. Disposition. Wnile.recognizing that the City doss not currently.:haya the legal .mechanismrpermitting the. sale of works . of art, the City .agrees .that .if in..the future the City does ssll the Worki-the City shall pay the' Artist".a 'sum equal -to Fifteen Percent -(153) of the increase in'value of the Work

15. .Guarantee. The Artist does hereby guarantee that said Work shall be free from any and all defects of any kind and nature in materials or workmanship, and the Artist shall provide the necessary materials and labor for, and shall bear any exn-=n.se in' connection with, repair of any such defects of which 5ie is given written notice by. the City within two years from the date of cc.m- pletion. Excluded, from said guarantee is any damage caused solely by vandalism, acts of God, which are not in any way in any part caused by defects in materials and workmanship.

IS. Ownership of Documents and Models.' Drawings and ir.cdals which relate to the design of the Work including all preliminary studies shall become the property of the City upon request.

— 5 —

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 7 8

17. Insurance. The Artist will provide a policy of insur­ ance in the full face amount of the work, covering all risks and hazards against any damage to or loss of the Work while it is being made and installed. The City shall be named as an additiorel insured or. said policy. The risk of damage to or loss of the Work during development and through installation shall be solely that cf the Artist. The risk shall transfer to the City only upon transfer of title to and ownership of the Work which shall occur after installation is complete and the Work is finally approved by the City.

13. Original Work. The Artist warrants that the Work de­ signed for purchase under this Agreement is a unique and original product of the Arti.st's creative efforts. That it is an addition of one, unless otherwise stated, and that it has not been accepted for sale, or installed elsewhere.

19„ Terms and Conditions. This agreement is subject to and incorporates the provisions attached hereto as Part II, "Contract for Professional-XloasultantrServicesp^-General- Conditiohs, "- except. ’ for the following modifications: --

The paragraphs entitled "Insurance" and "Ownership of Docu- ■ ments" are hereby deleted.-.:.

The term "Professional Consultant" means the "Artist" and tha term "Commissioner" means the "City Architect of the Cicy of Chicago."

— 6 —

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 179

IN WITNESS V,'HEREOF, the City ? n c the Artist have e x e c u t e , this agraeiranz as - of tha date written above.

CITY OF CHICAGO

By, hayor

By Comotrolls

By_ Purchasing Agent

Approved ■ ■ ______Commissioner of Public Works

Approved as-to form and legality:"

By ______A.ssistant Corporation Counsel

(Artist)

By

Attest

SUBSCRIBED AND SHORN to before me

T h i s ______day of______, 19

notary Public

—7-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix V

lOAN ACREû.:-::'?

r.tiS 03 ij.âiüiTiüiJi fOBStvr s. i:n;oki;.j jo.ni EXàiEctio:;. Ta 1 art objocN; to 1 3.-jur.I:r (tha 'art cb.i’cto") r.ra itsoirod :r.i dcr,cr;h;i in Sthiidule attachai hara-.o,

ZA..SS: A jsiioJ. of lv;o to thrca ;.-=t:- 3 , subjtot '-a haxoi.'a: tor prf'td'd, c.-.ru =nclcj, ■.;'.th tha iat'J ho root,

LEI.'vaS’S hh-ElS (a .3 i t s h o u ld ctp-ar .in o.-italo;,-::'};

hit:. Rohort J). Mayor an.t t'-.o Zn 'ate r>f tha lata Rob art IL Eayar.

AI).5?T2S: 175 S. 3.a.l:,varr P.l.ic.a, Apt. ?".Cj Chicago, Illinois 60S11 ('T o la p .ana : ,5?iT-SOp3.' (Aaraa tola; 312

CATA1C0U3 Alii) ?U3LICm: Tha la r .io w ill uaka availahio 3 5 .am color 8 1 3 1 3 3 of tiiS) art objaota, which slides r.ay ba usai ih r photopr.tphic raproductior. and for publicity in connection with th* o-chibi Lio;:. Additional photo graph o nay ba cada and dist/iiutod l;y tha university or Ziureua and its doaignsao fo.r j ta odi catior.a.I use.

. ZNôulZECE: Irsur-inoa valuation of tha art oh jests is sot f:>.-th v itii tha desci'iption of each art object in .Schedule A. Taa University o r Huseuc, at its c.'/n etipecse, w ill c.iuoa the art objects to b-e ii’.s-jrei. ■froa tha tiae Vffeon the Univw.-si ty or buooui.'- coaoer-cus p a c k i.e z i 21S.l-y.r-ir>g-.nsiî u n til tfca art objecte are returned to and received 0 1 -the plaça. or'places designated by the lender at the c-o.sci'.-oion o3' tha' 'y.'rA'oii,

-SPECIAL IJiSTStlC'flOfS: The Uni'varsity or îtusa;m wi.ll ha’.'e all o.f the o.rt. objecta On exhibit at least £0;a of the period of the lo-::i e;<3;ihi.io.-,.

L'.AkLY Tbdt'.IîraTIDÎI, OF XXSIBIT: The lendor reserves tbs right :o laminate •ine ceihibition period prior to the oxpiratio.n of the two to th-.-ee year .poriod by giving notlftess Ihir. 60 (sixty) day:;' v.'tittan iiotlcu to the ITwivO fslty or liuaetm . '

PACEKiO AND SciPPIuC: Tha Ünivewo.lty or fusoiuj, r.i iio c.',n u::oewill C3U09 tho art objects to bo p.acked and nh.ipp-ed frvn their rras-e;;; lor.atioj to th a University or Huseuaj at a t:u o or tvees to be cutually agreed up'Ji; by the lar.dor and the University or ,’;usctur>, but :_n rn event later than locostsr 3 0 , 1975,' and upon t.ainicJit.ion cf the f:-;.hib:llion j ariod -will likavlsa, at its own expense, causa the art objecta tn ba r.ruoerly packod and ehipasd to tha place or places ir. ta:i U n ite d Status or Canada, tlesigaatacL by th a lo-aler.

3.09 iidditional cor.ditio::s on tha following p-age.

■ D A T E : ______1575 ' h-f ______

IdoVinZl: / V/'O^/g 'O //■/■■///O'- S o a t r i c o C . il.ay-or, i n d i v i d u a l l y n.sd

u .1 Executor of the Estate ci'f v.cl’sr t 31. Isaysr

180

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121

.U);;.' f.

ca.::iT:o:T, uuùzz •■vz :.c:î ar t Aiv

1 , ïi’.e ■7r;ivwrsit„/ Eu 3 a ce v;i!J. exerclca sua car» ■..\tb *o the art o s j 111 _ froTt th J z i a v v/can it c t m t t : t j.r.'ir.g 3:%. ôhlttirg -î"d -JT'.tii tho art cejjctù arc rizurr.o:'. ta arl tjtéjvjd dt the pîast cr places de.iigr.atai by tra lordir at tse coioa of tha Exhibit, a:id v/ill further take ctsczut ir:-.'. with r-jr.r. ;,.t theracQ rot itss the;: tho-jo taken •.vlth reopen t to co.notr'. a i-v objects ir. its ov.n f ira zrfcn noil-jatio.n, but shill nob otbe-.visa I't) liable "tor thoir sni'e'tet oiug or pr.w: :rv.itio.n. It uvor ratoir.t. Of any art object ary ■Jan ’.-.-j 1- noted by the university o : .h.r: .-ur., i t will r.o tify the leudor dr. aoc.n a;i poojiblu,

?. Aftsh return of the art object;., tho Ij-.ler v-ill report any d-nreagè. thereto within u rue-roniolo tino .after circorery,

3. Tr.e Univoraity or Jluas’.La w ill insure bbo .ait objectr wi t'l ...a insurance carrier or carriers raascnably saticiactory t.v la.nl .-z- for the anounta ir.dicaled in Schedulo A, niuir.g the lender an tha .inaurad party, and w ill promptly c-ausa it he issua'i -a cariit’icata of r.uch insurancg covarag-a. Such inturanc.? w ill pro ride covarago against a. 11 risks of pay.sicel loss -or dasm-g-a- from any eztamnl cnuss during tha period of tho Univ-s-rsi ty ' u ov Knsavm'n ran so.is ib il.l ty huraundar, and w ill cor.'.a In tho usrsl exclusions of loss or (ir.:.ia;;u duo to such cs'.see as graduel doterioration, inherant visa war, invasion, ucstilitia:;, in- surr.octione, corf.isc.nti-.ui by order of any f.ove-.rsent or public authority, rinks of contraband or ille g a l tru.-.syortation .'■.r.i/sr trade and nuclear reaction and contamination.

'!• In the ovent of any loss, tho londor agrees to co.ona.'-a tv .'.r..i n.iko f. full and frank disrlosuta of all pertinent details rct.^ria.un. v.aluis cssignad, including axn'raisala, ijurccsse price and tho existcncâ of -other valid insurance.

5 . Tha b’nive.. j i f.;,- or kuacuua is authorised to eeaa.uiza bp- rad to graphic and othev photographic nean.s enl lo pho togrn.ph, .ske tch c. r ot'.oT.vir.e roprodurs in .any media .ary of the art objects for record or edacation-al purposes, publicity', or for .sal o by t ho U.-iiV:.; si ty oi- ku'seuja, tinier tha seme iu.li.s ar.d roguletior.s as now pci-tr.ir. te o r may horeafter be p r o m u igat.-.d with référença to objects in the Gallery's collections, u.-.lass a.n.l until r.sr.oissi'Sn ba do so is -at a r y time specifically rtonisd in v.riti.nç by the lender,

6 , Iho term lender as used herein shall include l.!-.e heirs, perso::al rcpresontstivas, successor.; cud assigns of hea trice C. dayer, individually end as hicc-it.or of tha Estate of rohert il. "layer.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Bach, Ira, Chicago on Foot, New York: Rand McNally &

Company, 1977. Burg, David F., Chicago’s white City of 1983, Kentucky: the University Press of Kentucky, 1976.

Burnham, Jack, Beyond Modern Sculpture, New York: George

Braziller, 1978. Craven, Wayne, Sculpture in America, New York : Thomas Y.

Crowell, 1968. Duboff, Leonard D ., The Deskbook of Art Law, Washington,

D. C .: Federal Publications, Inc., 1977.

Fundaburk, Emma L. and Davenport, Thomas G ., Art in Public Places in the United States, Bowling Green,

Ohio: Bowling Green University Popular Press, 1975.

Horowitz, Helen Lefkowitz, Culture and the City, Kentucky:

The University Press of Kentucky, 1976. Meltzer, Milton, Violins and Shovels, New York : George

Braziller, 1978. Redstone, Louis G ., Art in Architecture, New York: McGraw-

Hill, 1968.

Robinette, Margaret A., Outdoor Sculpture, New York:

Watson-Guptill Publications, 1976.

182

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 183

Thalacker, Donald W . , The Place of Art in the World of

Architecture, New York: Chelsea House Publishers,

Magazines and Newspaper Articles

Artner, Alan G., The "Bather," Chicago Tribune, Chicago,

11 April 1974. Borgzinner, Jon, "Chicago's New Picasso," the ARTgallery

magazine, March 1975. Carpenter, Edward K., "Urban Art," Design and Environment,

Summer, 1974.

Elliott, David, "Making It Big in Chicago, Sculpture's

New Showcase," Chicago Daily News Panorama,

18-19 June 19 77.

______. "Outdoor Sculpture: From Programmed Nostalgia

to Prisoners of the Pigeons," Chicago Sun Times,

23 July 1978.

Format Art and the World, Interview with William Morrison,

St. Charles. 111., Seven Oakes Press, July 1979.

Geracimos, Ann and Marzorate, Gerald, "The Artocrats,"

Art in America, July-August 1978. Goldman, Judith, "Collecting in Chicago : Love Affairs

with Art," ARTnews, February 1979.

Kuh, Katherine, "The Fine Arts," Saturday Review,

28 December 19b8.

McFadden, Sarah, "Going Places, Part II: The Outside

Story," Art in America, July-August 1978.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 184 Metz, Robert, "The Corporation as Art Patron: A Growth

Stock," ARTnews, May 1979. Miller, Nory, "Rolling Meadows Gets Ready for Big

Picasso," Chicago Daily News Panorama, 4-5 January

1975. Rose, Barbara, "Public Art's BIG HIT," Vogue, July 1977.

Schulze, Franz, "Chicago: Bigger and Livelier, but . .

ARTnews, February 1979. _ . "Polishing Chicago Art Images," Chicago Daily

News, 24 April 1973.

_ . "The Chicago Art Institute : Power, Politics

and Lost Integrity," February 1979. Tomkins, Calvin, "Look VJhat I've Got Here," New Yorker,

December 1977.

Unpublished Materials and Catalogues

Chicago, 111., Art Institute of Chicago. Catalogue,

"Sculpture in the Park," 1974.

Chicago, 111., Art Institute of Chicago, Junior Museum. Jane Clark, "Forms in Space I,", 1979.

Chicago, 111., Art Institute of Chicago, Junior Museum.

Jane Clark and Lois Raasch, "Heritage Hike I,"

Chicago, 111., Chicago Council of Fine Arts. Guidebook

publication, "Chicago Public Sculpture." Washington, D. C., National Endowment for the Arts,

"Annual Report, 1979."

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 185 Washington, D. C., National Endowment for tfe Arts Guide

to Programs, 1977-78.

Theses and Dissertauions

Law, Hazel Jane, "Chicago Architectural Sculpture."

Dissertation, the University of Chicago, Chicago,

111., 1935.

McGuire, Mary Lee, "U. S. Government Support for the

Arts; The First Two Hundred Years." Thesis,

American University, Washington, D. G ., 1976.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.