• Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

Great Art, and Art That Grates

July 18, 2011, 3:00 pm

A British artist is constructing a sculpture at the University of Wyoming that implicates coal in the region’s mountain pine beetle epidemic, and the state’s powerful mining industry—which has been generous to the institution—is not happy about it.

Titled “Carbon Sink,” the outdoor sculpture “will consist of a flat whirlpool of beetle-killed logs spiraling into a vortex of charred, black wood and studded with large lumps of Wyoming coal,” the Billings Gazette reports. The sculptor, Chris Drury, said students and faculty members had told him that the beetles had destroyed more than 100 million acres of forest in Wyoming and other mountain states and that there was no effective way to stop them.

Most scientists agree that humans are contributing to climate change by burning fossil fuels, and that the resulting drought and rising temperatures are creating conditions favorable to the destructive beetle, the article notes. But linking the two in a piece of art and then displaying it on a campus that gets major support from the industry being criticized is “really disappointing,” Marion Loomis, executive director of the Wyoming Mining Association, told the newspaper.

“They get millions of dollars in royalties from oil, gas and coal to run the university, and then they put up a monument attacking me, demonizing the industry,” Mr. Loomis said. “I understand academic freedom, and we’re very supportive of it, but it’s still disappointing.”

The Wyoming Cultural Trust Fund and a private donor are financing the university art museum’s continuing exhibition of large-scale sculptures.

“I just wanted to make that connection between the burning of coal and the dying of trees,” Mr. Drury told the newspaper. “But I also wanted to make a very beautiful object that pulls you in, as it were.”

Mr. Loomis would not say whether the mining industry would limit its donations to the university as a result of the sculpture.

“I’ll have to see what it looks like, I guess,” he said. “And maybe they’ll put up a sculpture commending the affordable, reliable electricity that comes from coal on the other end of Prexy’s Pasture,” the campus’s central mall area.

This entry was posted in Arts. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • fiddumbabe

    Projects such as “Carbon sink” offer opportunities for debate. Rather than thinking about cutting funding or removal of the sulpture a colloquim or series of discussions about global warming and its effect on the region would be a far more effective way to turn a critical statement for some into a moment of learning for everyone. After all isn’t that the reason the mining industry supports the university in the first place, to support the creation knowledge. We all need energy and we all want a healthy envronment. The more we know the better decissions we make regarding necessities that are in conflict. 

  • solidagojuncea

    Federal mining laws will probably allow Mr. Loomis to lease mineral rights under the sculpture and wipe it out in his search for more coal.  

  • dmoser5

    FULL DISCLOSURE (Sort of . . .) — I have a close affiliation with Pronghorn University (I say that tongue-in-cheek because there are more pronghorn antelopes in the area than students, total. Yes, we see them in town on the way to the local Big Box Store).

    First up, I have serious concerns about the leap of faith that is being made to connect the mountain pine bark beetle infestation that is inexorably devastating the surrounding forests here with the coal industry that admittedly does provide much to the economy of the state. Quite simply, either Chris Drury has been misquoted or misinformed (he could have come to my office; we spent the last year helping with a project by one of the University’s Bristol Scholar’s—he did a photo-reportage, with audio interviews, of the people bearing the impact of the pine beetle infestation and nary a lump of coal insight).
    Second, I am deeply saddened to see the rush to judgement on the part of the Wyoming Mining Association in their condemnation of this project. @chronicle-3d4cf264a045538cf252e719e74b68f5:disqus has nailed it quite well in saying that this is an opportunity for debate and education, all the way around (especially if I am right about #1 above!).This campus desperately needs such opportunities for open debate; we have learned nothing from the debacle here last year if we do not take this one. 

    Or perhaps Peter Garrett was right after all and “And nothing’s as precious, as a hole in the ground . . .”

  • thedoctorisin

    The problem I see here is that the sculpture is permanent and therefore the anti-mining statement will endure for generations.  Even if this could be turned into a “learning moment,” the Wyoming Mining Association can make its defense but one time.

  • lexalexander

    I like the idea of constructive debate around the issue and, to the extent that the university community and the taxpayers of Wyoming care what I think, I strongly encourage that debate.

    That said, if Mr. Loomis truly understood academic freedom, he wouldn’t have brought up his association’s financial support of the university in raising his objections, and it is disingenuous for anyone to claim otherwise.

  • thedoctorisin

    I don’t buy your premise regarding academic freedom.  It does not mean you can ride roughshod over opposing viewpoints.  It appears that Chris Drury was made aware of several facts regarding the pine beetle epidemic and chose to ignore them.  Academic freedom requires intellectual honesty.

  • lexalexander

    I agree, and I did not intend to imply that Drury was blameless or that his positions should go unchallenged if there is a factual basis for challenging them. I’m simply saying that by bringing financial support into the conversation, Mr. Loomis weakened his own position.

  • thedoctorisin

    Understood.

  • dank48

    Heaven knows I’m not up to speed on this controversy, but the numbers seem odd. “. . . students and faculty members had told
    him that the beetles had destroyed more than 100 million acres of forest
    in Wyoming and other mountain states. . . .” Okay, “and other mountain states” is an out, but is this accurate, or even credible?

    Wyoming itself has a total area of 97,818 square miles. One hundred million acres is 156,250 square miles. Perhaps the beetles really have destroyed mountain-state forest equal in area to 1.6 Wyomings. But could someone point me toward the evidence that “100 million acres” is actually anything more than a SWAG?

     

  • The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • 1255 Twenty-Third St, N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037