art might be affected by language that read "distortion, mutilation, or other alteration thereof" has been alleviated in Section 3(c)(2).

Still at issue, however, are possible implications of the use of the word "distortion." Interpretation of this term might be so extended as to apply to the manner of installation or framing of an art work in an exhibition setting, or even the color of the wall upon which the work is placed in a museum exhibition space. In the Senate version, a revised draft of last year's bill the word "distortion" was deleted. This was an important adjustment and we would respectfully suggest that the word be deleted here as well. Similarly, we also note that the phrase "other modification" is now included in the descriptions of actions that would be construed as a violation of the artist's moral rights. Like the phrase "distortion," and perhaps even more so, the term could be interpreted broadly and have the same effect the ambiguity of the term "distortion" has on display or installations of works of art.

Regarding section 9(b), we are pleased that a subject as important and complex as resale royalties is to be referred to the National Endowment for the Arts and the Register of Copyrights for a thorough examination before any action is taken. The economic impact of this measure on most American art museums would be significant. As nonprofit organizations, art museums operate with limited acquisition funds. The imposition of a seven percent resale royalty, as contained in last year's bill, could lead to a reduction in the acquisitions by museums of contemporary art works by American artists.

As resale royalties is an extremely difficult and complicated issue, deferring it until its consequences can be accurately measured is indeed a major improvement.

In closing, I would like to thank the subcommittee for allowing me the opportunity to appear before you today and for recognizing the important role of America's artists. I applaud the efforts of both Chairman Kastenmeier and Representative Markey to enhance public recognition of our nation's creative individuals and to protect their contributions to society.

The intent of the Visual Artists Rights Act is most admirable. I hope you will consider the clarifications I have discussed. On behalf of the art museum community and the three organizations on whose behalf I speak, we look forward to continuing to work with you, Mr. Chairman, and this subcommittee in providing this much needed protection for our nation's artists.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Now we would like to call on the next member of the panel, professor and sculptor from Oregon, Mr. Bill Blix, whose early training and life experiences occurred in Wisconsin, I am pleased to note.

Mr. Blix.

STATEMENT OF WELTZIN B. (BILL) BLIX, SCULPTOR AND PROFESSOR, LANE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, EUGENE, OR, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ARTISTS EQUITY ASSOCIATION

Mr. BLIX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to thank you for sponsoring what I consider a very important piece of legislation.

My name is Bill Blix, actually it is Weltzin Blix, but too many people have difficulty with a first name of Weltzin, so I go by Bill. I think this legislation is not only important for artists like myself individually, but goes beyond that to preserving our cultural heritage and can have an influence on the quality of work that will be done in the future. I will explain that at the end of this little show-and-tell I have, which discusses a particular case I have been battling this summer and I will go into a case of a colleague. [Slide.]

Mr. BLIX. This slide shows one of the largest bronze constructed pieces that I have done to date. It was done 11 years ago. It exists on the Capital Mall Greens in Salem, OR, our capital. It is about 15,000 pounds of welded sheet bronze. It is 85 feet long, 20 feet high, 29 feet wide.

It was made possible because of a bequest by a former Governor, Charles Sprague, who left in his will $140,000 for the commissioning of specifically this kind of piece and specifically on this location, either of the two blocks that you see in the slide.

I was chosen, in a national competition to do this piece. We had some political battles in the process of constructing it, but the State accepted it. It got built. It was dedicated September 1980, and has been functioning ever since. About 2 years ago I began to hear rumors that they were going to place underground parking on both of these blocks, dig this whole area up, remove everything, put underground parking in and put the top back on and relandscape it. I was lucky enough to know personally the architect in Eugene, where I am from, who was doing preliminary consulting work for the State on the design and when I looked at his plans, I found out that this piece would no longer exist there.

I also learned during construction, that the underground water table happens to be very high, so I didn't take the underground parking project seriously. About 3 or 4 months ago, it became serious.

This fountain has a high profile and I am politically aware so that I was able to keep track of what was going on. I have some friends in the Capital who kept me informed. At the time, I asked General Services that I at least be consulted when decisions regarding the fountain were made.

As it turned out, I was informed that I could act as a consultant, but they would probably put out an RFP to find somebody to remove it. They began to treat it like it was an architectural amen

ity rather than an original work of art. They also indicated that if it was located elsewhere its form might be changed.

Obviously, because of the size of this fountain, removal involves more than just picking it up. It must be cut apart because that is how it was placed there. I would be upset if somebody else were to cut it apart.

As a result of political battling and a letter-writing campaign— we got the son and daughter of former Charles Sprague involved-

[Slide.]

Mr. BLIX. We got a commitment from General Services and Capital Planning to restore the piece to its original condition in its original place after the parking structure is completed. I would act as a consultant, and do some of the dismembering of the piece.

As I say, I was really lucky. Had this been in private hands in another set of circumstances, unless I had kept on top of it—and it is really difficult to keep on top of something like this when it is in a private circumstance-I mean, I can't be my own curator-then chances are it would have been cut up and moved somewhere else well before I ever got word of it.

A colleague of mine, a professor at the University of Oregon, who died 3 years ago, had less fortunate results. Twenty years ago, he was commissioned to do a 50-foot stainless steel piece for the rotunda of the Meyer & Frank Department Store in Eugene. In April, the store decided that it wanted to do extensive remodeling. With little contact with anyone, they cut it up and removed it. No one will reveal where it went or what happened to it, but it disappeared and has admittedly been destroyed.

An inquiry by people close to Zach revealed that the removal was done at night. I think there was an awareness of what the repercussions could have been had the destruction been more visible.

There are numerous other cases I know of. What this bill does for us is it at least puts public organizations and private parties on notice that they may be in possession of something that will eventually involve our cultural heritage. It may be something that might have a future value. It certainly is something that would have a value to me professionally.

My ability to obtain future commissions like the fountain depends on the existence of these past commissions. I have to submit a portfolio of slides in order to get more work. It is certainly to my benefit to have people able to see these past works, not just in slide form because some of these works are impossible to photograph. It is really different seeing a slide verses walking around the actual piece.

So I urge you to continue to support the bill and I certainly hope it passes. I have a couple of comments regarding the issue multiples, as it is written in the bill.

There seems to be some problem with what multiples means in reference to prints and multiple castings of sculpture. In regard to prints, it is customary to make multiples and it is also customary that those multiples are signed and numbered by the artist. As such, they are each originals.

It is also customary with sculpture castings-if the artist doesn't do the castings personally-to approve a foundry person, use their hallmark, and also sign numbered editions of those castings.

Consequently, in the case of editions of prints and castings that we are dealing with-in fact, we are dealing with originals, artistauthorized, signed and numbered editions. I would also request that you add fabricated and carved editions for sculpture. Most sculptors today work in fabrication technique, or many do, and it is more dominant that casting. They have authorized fabricators, who are artisans and specialists in this area, who make limited edition fabricated pieces of sculpture. I think it is a major omission, in the case of sculpture, to focus on just the casting process and not the fabrication process.

One last point that I would like to make. Cities like Portland and Seattle in the Northwest have been in the process of collecting works through their arts programs, both municipal, State and county. They have major collections, and in fact, they have gotten themselves in the position of being, in effect, museums. But as such, they haven't taken care of the curatorial and conservatory aspects of the collections that they have.

The economy in both of those cities is booming and there is bound to be a collision between the public art collection that is in and around the buildings and the new building that is going on. I think this bill will at least put arts commissions and cities and municipalities on notice that they have an obligation to treat their collection with respect, as a museum would, and somehow or another, come to grips with the problem of conservation of the works of art that they have within their collection.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Blix. [The prepared statement of Mr. Blix follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WELTZIN B. (BILL) BLIX, SCULPTOR AND PROFESSOR, LANE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, EUGENE, OR, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ARTISTS EQUITY ASSOCIATION

SUMMARY

Passage of this bill is of the utmost importance to professional artists. Many of my major works are public commissions and my professional standing, growth and future depends on their integrity and authenticity. The evidence of my public works of art is what makes possible the potential for future such work and is testimony to my reputation in the field of sculpture. Loss of the best of these works done by our artistic community is a degradation of our cultural heritage.

A recent battle over the impending removal and future of the most ambitious of my public works, one of the largest fabricated bronze fountains in this country, has made the need for The Visual Artist's Rights Act all the more urgent to me. In this case I was lucky and prevailed because I had sufficient early warning, political savvy and an extremely strong power base.

My experience is neither unique nor less likely to occur in the future. The work of a deceased colleague did not fare as well. In May of 1989, one of his most important works was destroyed by a private owner to make way for remodelling. Because of burgeoning public art collections in cities such as Portland, Oregon or Seattle, Washington, coincident with their healthy economy and new construction, it is inevitable that this sad story will be repeated time and again unless a uniform nationwide law is in place to protect artists.