Skip to content
The 32-foot-tall sculpture  "Blue Mustang,"  by artist Luis Jiminez, rears up at the entrance to Denver International Airport.  (Denver Post file)
Denver Post file photo
The 32-foot-tall sculpture “Blue Mustang,” by artist Luis Jiminez, rears up at the entrance to Denver International Airport. (Denver Post file)
PUBLISHED:

Okay. I’ll reluctantly admit it. I think Blucifer rocks.

I love that creepy, devilish blue “Mustang” statue you drive by on the way to DIA. It is powerful and eerie.

And, in full-on Steven King-like glory, this spawn of evil literally killed its own creator. Seriously. While building the monster, Luis Jiménez had the artery in his leg served when the horse’s head came crashing down on him. Family members had to finish the malicious beast after the artist’s death.

Air travel is unsettling to begin with, but to be forced to pass this obviously possessed demon creature, with its burning red eyes, leaves the weak-kneed traveler happy if they only lose their luggage, rather than their souls. And how can you not get a kick out of that?

It’s one of the rare pieces of public art that most people have a strong opinion about. This makes it unique and arguably successful. Most public art goes completely unnoticed by the taxpayers who shell out for it.

Denver has a well-intentioned but wasteful policy of spending “1 percent for the arts,” meaning every time we pay for some public-works project, 1 percent of that cost doesn’t go to expand the project, fix potholes, or shelter the homeless. It goes to buy art that some committee decides will improve our quality of life. And when you’re building stuff that costs billions, like an airport, that’s tens and tens of millions to spurge on getting us all cultured.

Denver spent $14.5 million on its new arty DIA welcome sign, the one that looks like a snow fence on an acid trip. While it might also be art, it’s mostly a government owned billboard that runs ads. Who knew the city was getting into the billboard business on Pena Blvd., while barring private sector businesses from doing the same.

The Science and Cultural Facilities District taxes us on every purchase we make. This funds the zoo, botanic gardens, art museum, preforming art center, you know, the stuff that makes us feel big-city-ish and sophisticated. It also funds different “tiers” for such important art projects as the Boulder Bach festival, which we all attended, and the Denver Museum of Miniatures, Dolls & Toys, which we all knew existed.

Every so often the SCFD tax comes up for renewal, and the local media has to find some callous Scrooge to quote in opposition. Since they can’t find anyone so heartless they of course they call me.

I tell them it’s not a question of if we should have great public art. The question is should taxpayers, not art enthusiasts, pay for it?

Forget that it’s not a core function of government, art is too important to be left to government.

It’s worth doing the mental experiment of what will happen, over decades, when government takes over the role of arts benefactor. There are three possible long-term outcomes.

First, art will slowly become propaganda. Artists might be in touch with their inner passions, but that doesn’t mean they don’t understand who pays their bills. Like researchers going after government grants, they’ll learn the key to funding is to give those who are spending other people’s money just what they want. It doesn’t take a Hitleresque tyrant to push art as propaganda. Over time inertia will pull art towards what government wants us to see.

Second is less dangerous, but maybe sadder. As government grows its role as arts funder, it will get boring and tepid. Look at state-funded colleges and their speech codes as a predictor of what government does to expression that some vocal minority finds objectionable. And anything that goes through the endless trouncing of committee evaluations loses its uniqueness and daring.

And finally, as government becomes the arbiter and funder of art it discourages private citizens from reaching into their own pockets to donate and share it. Of course, this is true of all aspects of the cradle to grave welfare state. Americans give more to charity than any other country. But why give to public art if you’re giving to it via your high taxes? It’s little wonder why Europeans give less to charity. And it’s daring individuals who can fund the daring art governmental committees might forgo.

Art is a byproduct of humanity. When interfered with by government subsidies, how does it not become part of the crony system?

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.