Art Forum
Controversies in the SL County Art Collection

The Salt Lake County’s Brown Bag Discussion Series "Art Too! Art Not!" concluded this past month, with the final panel discussion "Controversies in the Salt Lake County Art Collection" held on Friday, October 17th.

Dave Ericson and William Seifrit, both of whom were on the committee which helped create the current Salt Lake County art collection, spoke about the genesis, life and future of what Seifrit characterized as the "largest single array of Utah art on public display in the state."

Ericson, who owns and operates Ericson Fine Art in Salt Lake City, and Seifrit, who has written on Utah Art, were both on the County's Art Acquisition Committee, which made the first new purchases for the County Collection in the mid-80s. Seifrit found the experience delightful: "We had the time of our lives, . . . going from Springville to Logan . . . meeting with artists in garages and the back rooms of galleries."

The Art Acquisition Committee was formed by the County Art Advisory Board, which, in the mid-1980s, took advantage of new percent-for-art legislation and plans for a new County government building at 2100 South State, to form a County Art Collection.

As Ericson pointed out, when the Acquisition Committee began acquiring works in 1985, they had to decide what type of collection they should create. The County already owned a small art collection, mostly early works from the WPA era. In order to avoid creating a collection only of the 1930s and the 1980s, the Committee carefully selected works done between the 1930s and 1980s while also purchasing contemporary pieces.

The Acquisition Committee imposed other guidelines, or restrictions, on themselves. They attempted to avoid any works that were controversial, religious, of a political nature, or depicting nudes. "Which pretty much reduces it to landscapes and still-lifes," as Seifrit pointed out.

These self-imposed restrictions did not keep the Committee from encountering controversy or difficulty. Ericson and Seifrit recalled Tom Barberi (local radio host) lambasting them almost weekly as the collection was being created. Barberi thought it ridiculous to spend taxpayer funds on art.

During the panel discussion, Ericson and Seifrit were eager to point out how well served the taxpayers investment has been. In 1985, $250,000 (1% of the construction costs of the new County building) was allocated to the collection. Due to the help of artists and galleries, the committee only ended up spending half that -- $150,000, or about ten cents per county resident. The collection was recently appraised at close to $1.5 million -- making the per-resident return on a ten cent investment one dollar. In addition, as Ericson pointed out, the collection has in the meantime provided entertainment, culture and dialogue.

Dialogue was certainly in the minds of Ericson and Seifrit when they helped to make the collection. It was obvious from comments from both that the fact that the collection was "public" rather than private was in the forefront of their selection process. They wanted works that would create a public dialogue, which might not necessarily be works that one would stick over one's fireplace. And dialogue does create controversy.

Despite their self-imposed restrictions, the committee did choose works which proved to be controversial.

One, a portrait by the late Danny Baxter, has received many negative comments since it was placed in the County building. In this painting, a young man lounges in a car seat, seen from within the car, leaning against the window, his face twisted into something between a sneer and a snarl. Visitors and employees have said he looks like a child molestor or murderer.

Ericson defended the painting and its inclusion in the collection. It was painted in 1969, when Baxter had been asked to watch after the young man portrayed -- babysit him, essentially. He was, in fact, a bad kid. He is pictured in a VW Bug from the era, dressed in an army jacket, with long hair.  Ericson says that Baxter "captured the time and attitudes of a member of our society at the time. . . He's painting a real guy in a real situation." The painting is what Seifrit described as "a moment of captured actuality."

Ericson thinks the piece belongs in a public collection like the County's because "in a public place it represents part of our public."

Another controversial piece in the collection, displayed and discussed during Art Too! Art Not! was by Sherrie Ernst. Three figures are seen in an interior setting. A woman ascends a staircase. A man, darkly lit, is half prone in the foreground, and a young girl is scene by the front door, holding a ball and reading some thing.

Seifrit described the piece as "a cubic ton of emotion and an endless saga of untold narrative." The figures are all in different lighting and all seem oblivious of each other. Ericson finds the work compelling because, though done in a realistic manner, it goes past mere illustration. "The artist," he said, "has given you a variety of scenarious and is asking you to resolve it yourself." He thinks the work has probably caused discomfort because "some people aren't prepared to fill in the blanks."

The County has continued to purchase artwork for the collection. All work purchased must be displayed in a public location, and much of it can be viewed at the County building at 2100 South State.

When asked if he had any advice for the present Committee in its process of purchasing new works, Seifrit had these words of advice: "Be willing to take the occasional risk from time to time . . . make a sincere effort to identify young artists with promise and encourage them with a purchase."

---