I. INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, my name is Bill Blix, and I am a professional sculptor and professor of art at Lane Community College in Eugene, Oregon. As an active artist and teacher of twenty years experience I am grateful for the opportunity to testify in support of the Visual Artist's Rights Act and commend you for holding this hearing on a matter of such grave importance to artists and vital significance for the cultural history of the United States.

In the Northwest, as in other parts of this country, the evidence of the need for this type of legislation is replete. Although my immediate concern is over the glaring examples of valuable work that has been lost or nearly lost, what frightens me most are the potential problems in our future. Cities such as Portland, Oregon or Seattle, Washington have been and continue to be avid collectors of public art through their city, county and state percent for art programs. In effect, these cities have become museums with large collections of valuable work. However the curative and conservative roles they will need to play have been slighted. The healthy economy of these cities has fostered so much new construction that it is inevitable that sited artwork and development will collide. Passage of H.R. 2690 will provide the incentive to realistically deal with the museum aspect of states and municipalities and the imperative to insure preservation of important works.

II. SPECIFIC EXAMPLES

My most ambitious work narrowly missed becoming a casualty of new development. The will of former Oregon Governor Charles A. Sprague made a bequest of $140,00.00 in 1966 for the construction of a sculptural fountain to be prominently located near the Capitol Building on what is known as the Capitol Mall Greens. Mr. Sprague's vision was to symbolically celebrate the significant role flowing water plays in this area of the Northwest, his deep respect for culture and his love for the people of Oregon. Action was taken on his bequest in 1978 with the announcement of a national competition to select an artist to construct such a water feature and I was fortunate in being the one selected for the job.

Construction took place during 1979 1980 and the fountain was dedicated in September of 1980. The fountain design was site specific in that it was a permanently located piece conceived to interrelate with the pristine quality of the adjacent architecture and landscape. The "Capitol Fountain", as it has come to be called, is the largest work I've done being 20 ft. high, 29 ft. wide and 85 ft. long. It is a 15,000 lb. welded bronze construction.

Two years ago I began hearing rumors that the State was going to construct a two story underground parking facility on the two block Capitol Mall site that includes the area where the "Capitol Fountain is located. Upon inquiry I found that an architect was working on design studies for this parking structure and I was able to obtain copies of his proposal only because I knew him personally. Much to my dismay, the fountain did not appear to be considered in the design. Because I was aware of existing problems such as the high water table that should preclude the proposed construction, I didn't take the proposal seriously. However, I made my awareness of the situation known to the responsible officials in the Department of General Services and put them on notice that I should be contacted if the "Capitol Fountain" existence was in jeopardy.

I kept in contact with friends in state government to insure my notification should the parking proposal become reality. This paid off as I was notified several months ago of the impending middle of November ground breaking. My perseverance led to a request from General Services to estimate the cost of dismantling and removing the fountain and a promise that I would at least be retained as a consultant in the process. In the course of communication two new problems arose. First, General Services expressed a desire to find a new location for the fountain away from the mall and to significantly change its nature by eliminating the associated pond upon relocation. Second, rather than respect the fountain for its significance as a major work of art they proposed treating it as an architectural amenity and expressed the intent to send out general RFP's for the removal. It became apparent that I would have to fight to preserve the integrity of this important work. But more significantly, I felt it necessary to make clear to the individuals responsible for such new construction that they had a moral responsibility to preserve what was part of our cultural and historical fabric. Fortunately I'm not a total novice in this kind of battle as the initial construction of the fountain was fraught with political problems. By enlisting the help of the Oregon Arts Commission, the son and daughter of former Governor Sprague, a prominent Portland lawyer and the State Legislative Historian we were able to secure a documented commitment to not only preserving the fountain but to replacing it in its present condition at its present location. Further, we were able to convey the importance of having the artist in control of the direct work on the sculpture.

Although this is by no means a closed case until this project is complete, I was lucky. Had this sculpture been less prominently located or been in the possession of à private concern it would certainly have been radically modified or destroyed unless I spent the time keeping myself informed as to its condition. Artists should not have to spend their time mustering political campaigns to save their work nor should they play curator to their creative production. H.R. 2690 is a necessary first step

in solving this problem.

Eugene is not a large city (population 106,480) and yet a deceased colleague suffered an experience similar to mine with much less favorable outcome. Jan Zach was a professor of fine art at the University of Oregon, he died three years ago. In 1969 the Meier and Frank company commissioned him to do a 50 ft. stainless steel piece for the rotunda of their newly constructed department store in Eugene. This was one of Zach's major works and the largest and most impressive sculpture in Eugene. When the store undertook extensive remodelling early this year the piece was destroyed. The store officials contention that a good faith effort was made to relocate the work is doubtful. Had Jan been alive I feel that the work might have been saved because he was a fighter who was politically well connected and respected. H.R. 2690, with its "fifty years after the author's death" clause would have provided Jan's wife and those dealing with the estate the necessary warning and power to preserve an important work.

III. SIGNIFICANCE OF H.R. 2690

The Visual Artist's Rights Act is of the utmost importance to professional artists who build their future on the integrity and authenticity of large scale works in public and private collections and to the public for preserving it's cultural legacy. An artist's ability to compete successfully for Commissions is based on the visible record of past creations. The exposure afforded the artist by highly visible works represents one of the most powerful means of advertising at his/her disposal and is a hallmark of reputation. Any distortion of such works is automatically a distortion of the artists reputation and cheats the public of an accurate account of the culture of our time.

Passage of H.R. 2690 has the potential of influencing the quality of art in the future. Artists who spend a great portion of their creative lives on large scale commissions must sustain a belief in the importance of their work if they are to do their best. If there exists the real possibility that the fruits of this effort will be destroyed after a mere ten to twenty years the incentive to excel is diminished and replaced with a purely profit motivation. The Visual Artists Rights Act mitigates against this and again protects our historical legacy.

IV SUGGESTIONS

With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I urge you to consider the following modification to H.R. 2690:

Sentence #5 of page #2 might read "...in multiple cast, carved or fabricated sculptures of 200 or fewer." Much of contemporary sculpture is done by fabrication technique and is entrusted to qualified artisans for production in limited editions. While prints are customarily produced in editions of 200 or fewer, sculpture editions are usually much smaller unless the venture is commercial and/or work for hire.

V. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, my experience dictates an urgent need for legislation of this type. Precedents for this bill have already been set by nine other states. Since the selling of art is an interstate activity it would seem crucial that artists rights be uniform from state to state.

With respect and appreciation I urge you to vote this minimal and long overdue legislation into law.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Now we would like to call on our last witness today, Mr. Kenneth Snelson, of New York.

STATEMENT OF KENNETH D. SNELSON, SCULPTOR, NEW YORK, NY, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ARTISTS EQUITY ASSOCIATION

Mr. SNELSON. Thank you. I am very glad to be here, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to give my views on the Visual Artists Rights Act.

Artists are not usually out in the limelight like this and my acquaintance with the legal aspects of all of this are rather limited and I think I have learned quite a lot right here this morning about it.

[Slide.]

Mr. SNELSON. The story I have to tell is a personal tale of 25 years ago and, in a way, it seems to me, because of the history of this, that this act is 25 years overdue, but we are here today.

The story is about two sculptures I did for the World's Fair in 1964 in New York. It was a pavilion called the Tower of Light and there were I said in my written statement there were 40 electric power companies involved. There were 140, as it turned out, when I look back at the records.

So there wasn't a single owner involved in this, as often there isn't in commissioned work. These two sculptures weren't commissions in the sense that they were made specifically for the place. I happened to have two models which seemed to work perfectly for this site and they were selected for this pavilion.

As a younger artist then, that was my first commission and I might, in recollection, feel I probably would have walked over my grandmother to get those sculptures built at that time. When it was offered, I saw the possibility for the first time of doing really large sculptures that I couldn't possibly have afforded to do on my own. So this was a way of realizing works, which I very much longed to see done.

This Tower sculpture was 70 feet high. I said 60-I am modest about that-in the written statement. There was a second piece which I don't happen to have a slide of, but at any rate, I made them with great care and I confess to some naivete because I didn't anticipate what would happen to them after the fair closed. I guess I had the feeling that these people had paid an awful lot of money for these pieces. At the time, it seemed like an enormous commission, two sculptures were $35,000.

So the fair came to a close in 1965. I knew I had constructed the sculptures to be taken apart and put together with great ease. That was one of the problems I had to solve because they can be complicated to assemble and disassemble. So I had devised a rather simple process of disassembling them in about 20 minutes.

I probably should have stayed on the telephone constantly, but I thought whatever happens will be the right thing. I got a telephone call, finally, about 1 week after the fair closed and a man said he was the new owner of the sculpture. I said, wonderful, it was better than having than having a company owning the works, because I could deal more directly with a single collector.