Amen. Seattle often mistakes schlock for quality. The Kenny G. comparison was right to the mark regarding Chihuly's work. A Chihuly
museum would be an upgrade from bumper cars and thrill rides. But surely we can do better.

I love the idea that EMP is a later day Jones Fantastic Museum. However, EMP, the proposed Chihuly exhibit, and the Master plan itself all lack the element of goofy low brow fun the Jones and the Fun Forest had. Plus the Chihuly manages to keep one of the worst buildings added to the Center.

You're correct to question turning the Center into Central Park west. The Center lacks the size necessary to truly isolate one from the city as Central Park can and all of the buildings act as barriers to it being used as a park. Further the Master Plan simply envisions a big lawn, or Brewster's idea of a bigger lawn by removing the Center House. Such a lawn isn't inviting as it always looks empty and an old but simple rule of public design is that people won't go where there aren't other people. It is proved on any sunny summer weekend with lawns being nearly empty and some 20 years of declining revenue and attendance.

For all the protests that there was a public process to the Master Plan, the reaction to the Chihuly plan over at the Times website plus anecdotal evidence suggests that (in the absence of a public vote) most dislike the Master Plan and dislike the Chihuly idea even less.

I really miss editing Mossback.

Sorry, that should read "dislike the Chihuly idea even more,

The fair was planned by a group of business persons from all walks of life. Joe Gandy and I put together the United Way with several others prior to the concept of the Worlds Fair. He was an economic and social genius who suffered from a great physical handicap. These were all very different economically and socially contributing Seattle Citizens as compared to many of you something for nothing U of W refugees. Wake up Crosscut and provide a Judo/Christian freedom of profit motivation and not your present editorializing something for nothing just to have the control power of being elected to an office to provide ones royalty status to Lord over others. Young Wright is following in the footsteps of his Great Grandad and creating another wonderful opportunity for others to observe and rise to their dreams fruition. Take a look at Doris Totten Chase and her work displayed at the Center. Frankly, the present Center beats the hell out of the former houses of prostituion that it replaced.

jim thompson
age 86 and damn proud of it

What is it that when an artist or crafts person becomes successful commercially, his or or work becomes Schlock? I don't own his art, but there is a lot that goes into creating each piece, and someone finds it beautiful enough that he has several hundred employees, and his art continues to increase in price.

Art IS subjective, but when no one but the very rich can afford it, why not at least allow others to display it for those who want to pay to see it?

And the pragmatic use of exsisting space more people to the Seattle Center and generate revenue for a cash starved city unit is a good use of space.

Look at the open space plan and you see the area was drawn in as a precision spaced forest. Anyone got a budget to plant them and maintain that? No.

As someone who has spent many evenings at the Seattle Center, I suspect the "open space" semi-forest would quickly become a mens restoom in the late evening unless fenced off.

Open Space fans were unable to convince voters to support the Commons Plan. I wanted it, and voted for it Twice. But more said no. We have lots of open space that works well, and I welcome more of it... if it makes sense. In the most recent plan, it does not.

My taxes and my city land supports theatres and halls that often present programs that are not of my personal interest, but I would not tear down their building or denigrate their art just because it does nothing for me.

I don't care for Monster Truck Matches, but I am thrilled to see Key Arena used that night as it means tax revenue. I Prefer Seattle Men's Chorus to Wagner, but I will not diss those presenting either... I am happy to see the space generating part of what makes a city a place to live. Not to mention the revenue and creating jobs part.

Save the debate about Kenny G, Chihuly, Heart, Dave Mathews Band, The Ring Cycle for other pages. The question here is best use of public space, not if you think Chihuly Seafoams make a great punchbowl.

AND for the Record: The Museum of Glass in Tacoma is NOT a Chihuly Glass Museum. There is more Chihuly on display at our Aquarium than at the Museum of Glass.

The Tacoma Art Museum has a good sized collection of Chihuly's work. The Museum of Glass has a variety of glass art in many forms on display, and presents the opportunity to see work being created daily by local and national artist. You should spend some time there... you might really like it.

Hacknflack, I concur!

If some multi-millionaire now has a house/storage locker full of Chiluly glass and now wants to store it where other folks can some see it for a price, that fine with me. But putting the building in the city park, is not fine. Find some parking lot in the area, the one at Republican and Mercer comes to mind, and build it there.

As for attendance, I doubt there are enough people to come see two glass museums within 30 miles of each other, but maybe if we got 2 more, we'd be a glass museum center and then folks from elsewhere would come.

@hacknflack, I notice you're not saying that Chihuly's glass work is art because it really does something powerful for you. You're saying that no one has the right to call it schlock because it's a financially viable operation. Where's the fun in a rule like that?

To borrow from Emily Dickinson, who said she recognized good poetry by the way it made her feel physically as if the top of her head were lifting off, I challenge you to find anyone who feels that way about a Chihuly. I think it's fair to call Chihulys schlock because I cannot imagine feeling that my head's been levitated by one of them, and I don't think I've ever met anyone who has felt that way either. A Chihuly has never made me see the world or myself with fresh eyes. I have seen a zillion Chihulys and don't clearly remember a single one; it's all a blur of glass fronds waving cutely in invisible waters. Chihulys are safely whimsical and expensive decor, not art.

It doesn't matter how that piece of crap building is dressed up with wings and added rooms, the pedestrian infrastructure surrounding it detract from the park experience. It should be razed. If another building is desired, its footprint should be smaller and less boxy to enable pedestrian flow around it including landscape and plaza amenities more appreciable than ass-frickin-phalt. It could be more stories with glass windows to enhance the view. It could include similar entertainment features, dining, quiet indoor space for relaxation. Seattle's high art community is insane.

For my money a Chihuly museum is an indication of how uninspired Seattle is becoming. The Museum of Glass in Tacoma, with it's hot studio, is a real event and shows inspiration. George Russell's support and civic leadership gave Tacoma a gem which we should respect--not attempt to feebly copy.
And really, how much longer are we going to treat one of our few downtown open spaces like cheap real estate for the rich boys to use for to indulge their personal interests? If we are serious about promoting downtown living and density we need spaces for families who live there to recreate and perambulate.

In the SeaTimes, Chihuly's flak said the proposed museum would be filled with "$50 Million dollars worth" of glass art. That says it all. Chihuly is right up there with Thomas Kincaid in the pricey schlock sweepstakes.

My kids love the Fun Forest. If they have to tear it down, why not replace it with green space and a mega-playground, something like the "castle playground" near the Rose Garden in Portland? That would be the civic thing to do. But no, in Seattle it's always about the quick buck.

These people (Wright, et al) must know what they're doing but it does make me wonder if the idea of having a big glass room full of Chihulys will be such a great experience. The ceiling treatment at the Belagio works pretty well probably because it's maybe 200 sq. ft. in a huge (acre?) room that is busy but visually not arresting. The pieces are carefully arranged to overlap and the effect is a single composition framed within (as I recall) a relatively bland ceiling. What the Wright people are proposing is very different, it is a huge area, walls and ceiling transparent, with an unrelenting series of objects (maybe some combinations where they touch and dominate a wall, maybe not).

A museum of all tiffany lamps does exist I think and maybe a few museums dedicated to a single artist (Rembrandt?) but can you imagine a museum dedicated to Oldenburg? interesting for maybe five minutes. I hope they have done their design studies.

Tacoma's glass museum thing, which takes about 10 minutes to walk through (a dollar a minute for your price of admission, an experience not unlike walking through a medium-sized Fred Meyer), recently lost out in convincing Chihuly to expand there - emblematic of the woefully poor management that has run that place since its inception - including the first director who boldly and brashly severed ties with Chihuly in favor of going it alone, and alone it has been, right through to the current directator, who drives his empty bus with a little tin cone on top in a lonely town that always seems sadly out of step with reality, a town filled with the giant sucking sound of a culture and imagination vacuum. A Chihuly museum does belong in Seattle, because of the glass movement that Chihuly helped found (co-founder of the nearby Pilchuck Glass School - a mecca for glass artists worldwide), an artistic movement that lives and thrives in Seattle. However, I think if Chihuly is at the Center the admission price needs to be reasonable. If only there was a residency test - locals go free, tourists from Dallas and Berlin and Tokyo pay ten bucks?

Yarrow, as a point, I DO enjoy some of his installations - The Bridge Of Glass in Tacoma is something I always enjoy and spend time at. The point of fiscal success is just to point out that he must be moving SOMEONE enough to gain all the various commissions and installations and PBS Shows and so on.

“Nighthawks at the Diner” is not art in my book, and to me, some Calder looks like a welder’s practice. We are not here to debate if Chihuly Glass is High Art, Low Art or a Craft. We can use the facts that enough of the art world credentials it, most glass artists in Seattle have to credit him with making Seattle a Glass Nexus, and his work hangs in museums world wide. The point being there is enough interest that a repository that covers the breadth of his work would be a major attraction.

We already paid for the building. If a pragmatic use can be found that generates attendance, jobs and revenue while creating a destination that draws, what is wrong with it?

Bobo is correct - the Tacoma Glass Museum is a real event and destination. But the concept of a Chihuly collection on display actually compliments rather than competes.

As to open space, please again look closely at what was planned. A Metropolis version of spaced trees and field that would become a urinal for crowds after sporting events and late night shows get out, and a dog restroom by day. But if you want a serious sized space, push for funding of parks to keep the current parks open and push for additional space where it makes sense. Other than the fountain, most of the open space at the center is underutilized until festivals occur.

Lastly, there are single artist museums around the country based on an artist having lived there, such as The Charles M Russell Museum in Great Falls, Montana; The Wyeth Center at the Farnsworth Art Museum (one of only two centers in the country dedicated to the three generations of Wyeths: N.C., Andrew, and James Wyeth). Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh; Salvador Dali Museum, St Petersburg, FL; or the Isamu Noguchi Garden Museum, Long Island City, NY. and of course The Kubota Gardens feature the hard work of one man and his vision...

as a Tacoman, my big issue with this is that Chihuly owns a good chunk of real estate in downtown Tacoma that has been waiting patiently to be redeveloped for years and years. i think it's a bit of a slap in the face that Chihuly can't use buildings he owns in his hometown for this project.

with that said, if Seattle has already paid for this and wants to get rid of more of the precious little green space you have left downtown: go for it.

Seattle has been criticized as being unfriendly to families and children. Tearing out the fun forest and building this "museum", which will only be accessible to those able to pay the exhorbitant admissions fee, underscores that criticism.

Agree with Seattle Observer. We lost the Waterfront Streetcar to the Olympic Sculpture Park. Will we lose the Fun Forest to this?

To Seattle Observer... As a parent, the fun forest was not that much fun and 5 rides cost more than admission to the Seattle Children’s Museum, which my son enjoyed quite a bit.

We also spent a lot of time at the center with events, the Science Center, the IMAX Theater, and the Space Needle. He is just at the age where EMP is now of interest. The Center has been a source of entertainment from Age 2 to his current 14th year, and we still at the Seattle Center at least twice a month.

Seattle not children friendly? I don't buy it... Maybe it takes a bit more research, but between the many parks, the programs run by the Parks Department, the Community Centers, Y, Boys and Girls Clubs, along with Neighborhood associations, and various other social orgs, we are always trying to decide what to do. The list of Cheap Events in the Times, the list of events here... There are a number of great books.

Supposedly, there are more dogs in the city limits than children, but there IS a lot going on that is kid friendly.

And Bill in Shoreline, I hate to disappoint, but from everything I have read, the amusements go bye bye no matter what.

Oh, and we are BIG fans of Free Third Thursday at SAM, SAAM, the BUrke, MOF, and Wing Luke. Free.

I happen to hate Chihuly's work, the colors, the shapes, and don't much care for the medium of glass except when the light comes through in churches, yet I can't but appreciate the sheer technical ability in producing a stylistic agglomeration such as the Glass Bridge in Tacoma, which fits right into Avatar,
but am evidently very much in the minority when it comes to the body of politic at large, but not with a surprising majority of the posters here.
I think Chiluly's appeal is a case of the weird and different, the ultra odd cute, becoming the beloved of the body democratic whose bad taste, as far as I can tell, is boundless. Thus Chihuly really belongs into a kind of "Believe it or not" Museum for items of that kind. At the heart of the taste for this sort of thing are the Nordic dwarfs that used to adorn the lawns in Norway and Germany, Garten Zwerge, artsy craftsy... Best as I can tell, what is proposed at Seattle Center is a commercial venture to enhance the value of the manufacturer and collector's product. My guess is that the fickle public will soon tire of its gimmicky nature. So the Mossback with so much moss of Seattle experience on his pelt is probably properly cynical, even more cynical than I in smelling a big hustle at the expense of the public. i cannot speak to the best use for Seattle Center, but if there are things there that kids enjoy I imagine they should be kept, turning it into Central Park? First of all the area is far too small, and Seattle has wonderful large parks and ample green spaces galore.

Mossyback surely provoked the gang with this article. Buried deep in the subtext is the subtle question, what is art? The glass community has faced this issue since the beginning. Whether or not you like Chihuly's work, the huge production of marvelous glass work created in Seattle since the 1970's has convinced me that it is much more than the ever-repeating work of crafters and that it is capable of that Dickensonian effect Yarrow cited above.

Much of time Dale Chihuly's work leaves me cold. In 2000, I stumbled on an installation of Chihuly's work in an ancient fortress of the Old City of Jerusalem. It was that city's millenium exhibition. It was simply stunning. It blew me away how Chihuly had integrated a huge variety of glass forms in pits, pools and the craters of abandoned buildings. I will even admit to naive enthusiasm about seeing the work of this home town boy excite people thousands and thousands of miles from my home Seattle. Frankly, the attribution of kitsch, did Mossyback call it schlock?, is really full of holes and not worth talking about.

Didn't anyone notice that this would be yet another 'single' collector's vanity museum being built on public land? Didn't anyone notice the proximity to the Space Needle and the possibility that the museum might have been conceived with the idea of assuring an audience for that attraction well into the future? It is frankly wonderful that a local artist could be that great a draw. I disdain giving away public land so that a rich man can flaunt his wealth and line his pockets even more. It is not the (W)right thing to do.

I think the discussion here is healthy. MJH's comment about a vanity Museum left me musing if there is any major collection, singular or multifaceted that was NOT conceived without the help of a wealthy artist or patron, and with the issues of flaunting wealth, ego or public relations goal?

How many museums are named on behalf of the wealthy benefactor?

Most are non profit, but many are sited on public lands or receive some funding or subsidy. The Frye Family shared it's collection with no one wondering if their hotel or packing house got promotion from it. A single collector's vanity? Did the Burke Family profit from space on a state funded University campus? I think not.

McCaw Hall's amazing remodel was made possible by taking a tax funded and built hall and naming it for one of the most fiscally successful local families. Had it been dependent solely on tax funding, the remodel never could have happened. The building on city land and operated by the city, was initially payed for by a private developer who left his fortune for the city's use if it found the land.

The University of Washington Campus has more than 200 million private dollars in development of its buildings. Naming the law school for the family also benefits the Law firm of the same name. Shall we not accept the new building? Would you rather that we built it only with state funds?

Keep in mind also the land here is NOT being given away... There are revenues from the property rental, and the ongoing admissions taxes that come back to the park and the city. It is NOT a give away... it is a decision of what use do we want on that land.

I strongly feel turning this quadrant into open space that would be underutilized, expensive and not very sucessful due to it's proximaty to all the other attractions. The semi proposed open space idea would be limited in scope, and has no funding for development let alone ongoing care and maintainance.

On the other hand, the proposal discussed offers the the rental and remodel of a building tax dollars built, and would hopefully generate attendance, revenue, and jobs while advancing making some of the most expensive glass art accessible to the general public instead of locked away in private offices and collections.

To the naysayer/nimby bleeting masses, answer me this: if you are so concerned with the sanctity of Seattle Center, a place, as pointed out above, was founded on, and has thrived on, schtick, schlock, kitsch, tchotchkes, etc., etc., cotton candy and bits of souvenir plastic, why not ban every bit of souvenir/tourist-interest commerce going on there? Space Needle elevator attendant condescendingly wags finger at unsuspecting family from Kansas who failed to carry their regulation Canon 7D with the long lens because we all know the Needle tour is only about silently gazing at the Olympics and saying a prayer. Entire container ships bound from China turned around at the Port, everything has to be made in Seattle by artisans using goats to turn the steam-powered Giligan's Island pedal-car machine. I mean really, Seattle Center, and humanity sold out long, long ago, and the same goes for much of our city's venerated Pike Place Market, which survives with a veneer of authenticity, obscuring heaving piles of tourist crap. How would honoring a local artist and cultural icon who, along with many others, helped reinvigorate and develop an art form, be wrong? At least his stuff is made in Seattle, he employs Seattle people, and if we're talking about a multiplier effect, it has to be reasonably large over the years for the dollars his efforts have brought to the city in terms of employment and services, etc. Can the trinket peddlers in the Center House really say the same thing of their products?

Seattle Center was chihulied long ago; this would simply make it Official. How about a shrine to the Seafair Pirates? I can see them now perched on a bigger-than-life model of the Miss Budweiser, smiling and nodding, waving to no one in particular

I'm waiting for the Elephant Car Wash Museum.

p.s. I'm not being sarcastic--I really like the Elephant Car Wash sign. It doesn't blow my head off, but it's the kind of kitsch I like--unpretentious and surprising.

I think there are two separate questions-- a policy question, Should the Chihuly Museum Be Stopped? and a question of taste. I'm personally not going to do anything to try to stop it, but I will fight to the death to protect the right to call it kitsch if that's how one sees it. I also respect others' views that, for them, Chihulys are spine-tingling art.

I am a former employee of the Pacific Science Center. I care deeply about the economic viability of the Seattle Center and its various venues and events.

The survival of the Seattle Center depends on visitors, both local and out of town. What will attract those visitors? A field of grass or a museum of significance?

Is Seattle a better place because we have the Pacific Science Center or would we be better off tearing it down for open space? What option will generate revenue through admissions, sales, and educational programs? Those who think the citizens of Seattle are willing to accept higher taxes for more open space have been proven wrong, a couple times.

Fifty years ago Seattle had a group of visionaries with names like Eddie Carlson, Ewin Dingwall, et al. Where are today's visionaries?

If I wasnt already a Karate/Cargo Cult believer, I would seriously consider joining that Judo cult.
But regardless, I pledge to go out today and practice my freedom of profit motivation.

My problem with Chihuly, though, is he is nowhere near schlocky enough.
I, too, miss the old Food Circus and Center House, the Jones Museum and the machines that squashed pennies, and the wonderful trinkets you could buy after you rode the Bubbleator down.

Compared to the old Seattle Center, Chihuly is downright classy- way too classy for me.
Oh well, we are supposed to be due for a plus 8.0 Earthquake- that ought to fix it.

Ries- 54 and damn proud of it.

I'm not opposed to the idea of a museum, if it were to add value to the community. However, this proposal is not a museum. It is a self-described "attraction." A for-profit attraction, at that. Whether or not you like Chiuyly's art (really having to resist using quotes here), the definition of a museum is so much more than a one-man-show.

If the goal is to make money, why not take proposals from all of the rich people in town that want a showroom? If the goal is to engage the community, this is way off base. If you build a place that locals want to visit, the tourists will visit too (Olympic Sculpture Park is a great example). If you build a place for tourists, the locals will shun it and you will have long-term issues with funding and public image (see: EMP/SFM).

Also, I really have to ask why we had a Century 21 committee spend two years researching and drafting a proposal for the use of this public land, if we were just going to sell out to the highest bidder without any concern for community input? If Mayor McGinn approves this plan, I'll really question his claims of respect for "community process."

MJH appears to think that Mossback has a sub-text and that his submarine's query is the famous "what is art." I wouldnt presume to knowing a subtext in this instance where the question is not even a question in the declaration of Chihuly as pure schlock, a word that derives from "Schlacken", what's left over after coal has been burnt to a cinder and is only good for overwhelming a valley in Tennessee during the rains there.

But let us compare Chihuly with an artist whose colors and medium are even freakier - after all, the freak-factor is one reason Chihuly is beloved by the masses. The artist I have in mind, no matter his far weirder colors: there is stillness, whereas even a single piece of Chihuly is always "busy busy busy", not a one I have seen has proportion, not a one has consonance. These are qualities that adhere even to petroglyphs, not contemporary art, but are a commonality of all art that last, that is these works - cave paintings in Spain, I know them very closely from Baja California - appear to have qualities that are appropriate to arresting the viewer's attention, they have rather mysterious qualities in common. That is what Mossback and I appear to miss in Chihuly: here a link to Dan Flavin's work: http://images.google.com/images?client=firefox-a&rls;=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel;=s&hl;=en&source;=hp&q;=dan%20flavin&um;=1&ie;=UTF-8&sa;=N&tab;=wi

I really enjoyed Jim Thompson's response to this article because at age 86 he has been around and connected long enough to understand the true dynamics which put together the Century 21 Exposition.

The slam on Joe Gandy was uncalled for and while your at it you might as well throw the late Eddie Carlson under the bust too because he started life as a busboy on the way to ascending to the CEO positing of Westin and UAL.

You may have fond memories of the fair or you may not but the type of civic activism that existed in those days still shines bright in comparison to the lethargic group of self interested leadership that exists in the City of Seattle today.

As far as Chihuly is concerned art is in the eye of the beholder.

The inspirational landmarks at Seattle Center are the Space Needle and the International Fountain. The former can be said to represent technological grandiosity while the latter represents common pleasures of society writ large, by far the more memorable landmark. It's too bad that park attractions generally are dedicated more to the cheap thrills Space Needle than the free-for-all fountain. The proposed Chiluly Museum would less inspirational than the Fun House it absorbs like an amoeba. The outcome of the war between rank capitalism and bleeding heart socialism favors the living. After the wealthy have wasted their heritage on baubles, most of us will continue to find respite meaningfulness in simple, common pleasures.

Edit: The proposed Chiluly Museum would {be} less inspirational than the Fun House it absorbs like an amoeba.

Chihuly doesn't make art. He makes money. Recall a couple years ago when he sued one of his former employees who had the audacity to go off on his own and sell his art under his own name instead of continuing to have Chihuly selling it under his name. Chihuly sued him claiming he was using Chihily's style which Chihuly claims is nature inspired.

Chihuly owns all shapes found in nature!

So Chihuly doesn't make the ("art") glass objects that he sells. he doesn't sign them. He isn't an artist. he is an old school capitalist running a factory. Now, he wants the city to provide him with a free warehouse for his overstock, while charging the rubes an entrance fee to look at $50,000,000 of artwork.

The guy is a friggin genious.

OK-anyway to get money for the center will get serious consideration and ORA is a very creative and gifted design firm. Can't blame them for offering something here for the "Chihuly" collection. I really wish they could move the museum to nearby if at all possible. I'm waiting for the "Center" folks to initiate a world class design competition for the entire Seattle Center, one that take the Century 21 plan to an even higher level.

POWERS THAT BE - HAVE YOU HEARD THIS BEFORE?

Seattle should let a Chihuly museum reside in Tacoma and not try to do another one here. Certainly NOT at the Seattle Center. The Seattle downtown needs all the open space it can get. Turn the old Fun Circus into grass and trees for urbanites to enjoy.

-turtle

We need more carnies in Seattle. Keep the glass in Tacoma.

I am not a glass artist but had the opportunity to watch the crews make months of Chihuly Glass over 20yrs ago. Believe me,back then most weeks Dale is nowhere to be found. They can crank that glass out w/o him forever. It is good because the blowers are good. There were piles of unsigned pieces sitting around waiting to be signed and sold. Its a factory. I love the stuff if its lit well but it is just product for the rich. Another museum for that stuff? Really?

I can't wait to be the first on my block to sport the bumper sticker, "I Saw Elvis at the Chihuly Glass Museum in North Tacoma." By the way, the Space Needle's PR machine is rallying the troops. The "Chihuly at the Needle" Facebook fan page currently lists 1,150 fans, while Dale Chihuly has 9,679 fans on his Facebook page. The glassmeister is not so hot on Twitter: he's protected his tweets, and it's by invitation only. Tsk-tsk.

Boycott the Space Needle. The message is simple – no loss of planned open space at Seattle Center.

http://lightandair.wordpress.com/