Oregon Arts Commission celebrates 50 years of public art and artists

This summer, the Oregon Arts Commission is marking the 50th anniversary of the Percent for Art program, which has helped 900 artists create 3,000 pieces of public art. The 1975 law requires that one percent of the cost of new and renovated buildings go toward a piece of art that’s accessible to the public. The arts commission and Travel Oregon launched a “50 for 50” program in August, highlighting 50 pieces in the collection that span across the state and encourages people to get out to see them. We talk with the Oregon Arts Commission Public Art and Artist Programs Coordinator Ryan Burghard about the campaign, along with artist Christine Clark. She is one of the 900 artists included in the collection. Her piece, “Gathering Panes and Shapes,” is installed at the Eastern Oregon University library in La Grande.

Note: The following transcript was transcribed digitally and validated for accuracy, readability and formatting by an OPB volunteer.

Dave Miller: This is Think Out Loud on OPB. I’m Dave Miller. Fifty years ago, the Oregon Legislature created the Percent for Art program. It says that 1% of the cost of new and renovated buildings has to go towards art that is accessible to the public. Over the course of five decades, that money has helped 900 artists create about 3,000 pieces of public art. The Oregon Arts Commission and Travel Oregon launched a project to celebrate this milestone – it’s called “50 for 50.” It highlights 50 pieces in the collection from all around the state.

Ryan Burghard helped choose these pieces. He is a public art and artist programs coordinator with the Oregon Arts Commission. He joins us now, along with the sculptor and installation artist Christine Clark, who has taken part in this program. Her piece “Gathering Panes and Shapes” is installed at the Eastern Oregon University Library in La Grande. It’s great to have both of you on the show.

Christine Clark: Thank you.

Ryan Burghard: Thank you so much. It’s great to be here.

Miller: Ryan, what’s the big idea behind Oregon’s Percent for Art in Public Places program?

Burghard: Oregon was one of the first states in the nation to pass Percent for Art legislation. And the general idea of the percent program was that it’s attached to the renovation or construction of new state buildings. And really what we’re trying to do is make sure that in the development of new infrastructure for the state, that culture and art is part of that infrastructure; that anytime we’re investing in new facilities, we’re also ensuring that artistic voices are part of that experience.

Miller: How does it actually work? How much coordination is there between architects, program managers or, say, the director of a library that is being renovated or built, and artists?

Burghard: There’s a lot of collaboration throughout that process. In fact, the legislation in 1975 really built up a collaborative infrastructure that is a community-centered selection process. I often tell people our job is to shepherd the process along. For each project, we establish new art selection committees. Those committees bring together representatives from the commissioning agency, building users, community members, as you mentioned the project architect. We also bring in professional artists, so that the decisions that we make for acquisition or commissioning will reflect a wide range of voices and expertise within that community.

As I said before, we coordinate that process. But the committee really drives the decisions behind any new acquisition to our collection.

Miller: Christine, I’m curious, as somebody who’s gone through this process, what that’s like? And maybe we can talk about this through that piece I mentioned, which is at a library at Eastern Oregon University in La Grande. Can you just tell us what “Gathering Panes and Shapes,” the final piece, is like?

Clark: Well, it’s a large piece that is situated over a light well. And the light well opens up the library from downstairs. Half of the library is in the basement and the architects did a really nice job opening up some light that comes through. It makes it feel a little bit more airy. The committee wanted a piece that hung over that and to kind of celebrate that opening, and I felt like that was the perfect place in this particular library.

This library is very, very open, it’s completely open. And there’s three levels, so there’s the lower level, the main level and then there’s a mezzanine that goes across the top. So it’s a long narrow piece, it’s about 50 feet long and it hangs about 25 feet in the air. And my idea was to situate it over the light well, so when you were underneath on the lower floor, you could look up and see the piece from underneath. It consists of a number of woven wire volumetric forms, some big steel hoops and some rectangles, and then there’s a chain column. So I wanted that to be scattered through that 50-foot space. But I wanted it to be somewhat transparent or translucent, so it’s all woven wire so you can see through.

My main inspiration were the windows of the space. This is a 1940s art moderne building, which is a streamlined version of a deco building. And these windows are absolutely gorgeous, so I wanted to really showcase those windows. That’s part of what I did with this piece. I wanted to make sure that people from underneath could see up, so there’s all these floating rectangular panels that hang horizontally in the space, that are the same shape and size as the panels of the windows in the building, so when you look up you can see those panels from underneath.

Miller: I love that the way you were forced to think about the different perspectives people could have, given that this is public art in this building that people can see from three different vertical levels. Had you worked on something like that before, where there would be such a variety of viewpoints?

Clark: No, this was the first thing that I did that used that idea. And actually, the other public art projects that I’ve done in the past don’t really include that feature either. But it was perfect for me, because I wanted to use those three vantage points. I wanted to use the lower floor, the main floor and then the upper mezzanine. And that’s one of the reasons why I made the work very transparent-ish, so when you walked around the space, even if you were just on the main floor, you get a different viewpoint whether you’re sitting … like there’s this wooden sort of counter that goes around the piece, around the light well, that you can sit at. So if you sit, you get one point of view. If you stand you get another point of view. And then if you walk around to the other parts of the library, you get other points of view, including up in the mezzanine where you can see the whole thing.

Miller: Ryan mentioned the unusual setup, a committee that is put together for every single public work of art that’s going to be commissioned, going to be part of a project. This is in statute and it involves a whole bunch of people. That committee sounds really different than what I imagine some kind of hoity-toity MFA committee of artists to entail. This has people who are not necessarily tied to the arts community at all, in this case, it might be library users, a library director or the architect. How much conversation did you have with the members of your committee?

Clark: Well it’s interesting. The Oregon Arts Commission does a really great job putting together these committees, and you’re right, it’s different people from the community. They try to put an artist or two on the committee, but it’s mostly users of the building, whether it’s a citizen at large or the library staff, and then the architecture firm always has a couple of people on the committee. And I just feel like you’re right, it’s just very open and it’s not necessarily all artists.

The selection process was interesting in this case in that it wasn’t an open call – Ryan, you should correct me if I’m wrong. There were a few of us that were chosen kind of as finalists, so it kind of fell into my lap. And I think that my work in the past had been looked at and that’s how I was chosen as one of the finalists. I think normally the projects call for an open call where you can apply.

Burghard: Yeah, you applied through a request for proposal process, that’s correct Christine. We have a couple different acquisition processes we can do. Sometimes the process that a committee might select is very focused, so it will seek a specific type of work for a specific space. Oftentimes, it’s also broad or an open call, where we encourage a wide pool of artists to apply to any given opportunity.

One thing I’ll say about the selection process, as I mentioned before, we help coordinate that process. But the committee really helps establish possible sites. They help us set up project goals and values before we invite artists into the discussion process. There’s a lot of pre-planning that happens with the art selection panel before any call goes out to an artist. I’ve been working in the Percent for Public Art program for quite some time, and any new committee that gets put together, the first thing I’ll tell them is that we’re not there as the Oregon Arts Commission to tell them what good art is. Our job is to listen and to help them identify who the right artist is to further tell their story. So it’s really important that we understand who the users of that building are, what their values are and how that can be conveyed through the hands or the eyes of an artist.

Miller: In general, do you find that those committees want the art that’s going to end up in the building to say something specifically about the building? Or is it enough for it to just be beautiful, or interesting, or engaging? Does it have to be thematically tied?

Burghard: It’s a great question. Each project is different, Dave. I think in the case of Christine’s, there was a real desire to respond to the architectural uniqueness of Pierce Library, and as Christine pointed out, that 1940s art moderne style. One of the things that the architect and the committee was particularly interested in was both the historical aspect of that building, but then the renovation process that was undertaken actually opened up the space and created a lot of airiness, large open vast expanses. So that was a particular interest for that project.

We do have other projects that might have scientific research happening in the facilities. Committees want to see that research conveyed publicly, they want to see it through the hands or the interpretation of an artist. Other times there is a beautification aspect to the work as well, they want something that can be enjoyed for aesthetic purposes as well. So each call really establishes those particular needs.

Miller: Can you just give us a sense for the variety that is in this enormous set of works?

Burghard: That’s a great question. So obviously for the “50 for 50” project, we’re looking at 50 specific works of a nearly 3,000-work collection. But that collection runs anywhere from drawings and paintings to large scale installations, benches, carved stonework, lighting installations, murals, suspended artworks, mosaics. We really run the gamut in material, size and scale of projects.

Miller: Ryan, how did you and your collaborators go about choosing 50 works to highlight out of nearly 3,000 pieces?

Burghard: Yeah, it was a challenge, to say the least, to narrow things down to 50 select pieces. We did go through kind of an exhaustive review review process. We put together a nine-member panel that was comprised of both current and former program staff – that included past managers of the program. We have a team of public art coordinators who helped inform the selection process. We carefully reviewed the entire collection to identify works that represented the program’s mission.

We asked that that review process really take three key aspects into consideration: one was accessibility [and] the other was geographic representation. We wanted to make sure that we had all seven regions of Oregon represented, and we wanted to have a wide range of institutions and state buildings hosted throughout this program as well. And then the last was connection to place, we wanted works that really showcased the program’s ability to bring art into public space in ways that connected with diverse communities or highlighted the creativity across the state.

Miller: I wonder if you could tell us about a couple of the ones that you chose. One of them is called “LIFE with LIFE” and that is at Oregon State University.

Burghard: Yeah, “LIFE with LIFE” is a work at Cordley Hall by artist Ann Hamilton. It’s a large-scale public artwork in the newly renovated Cordley Hall. The installation is inspired by LUCA, which is the last universal common ancestor. It’s meant to symbolize the unity of all living things. As I said before, it’s set in the building’s central courtyard, but the work incorporates a genetic code that’s shared by all organisms and it’s stamped into over 20,000 individual concrete pavers. Over time, that piece is meant to grow moss, have other organisms that will grow among the pavers. Also, it will allow the work to evolve and take on shape with natural processes of Cordley over time.

That piece was developed in collaboration with OSU faculty, researchers and students in the building. Ann Hamilton really focused on the diversity of life that was studied within Cordley Hall, and she wanted to reflect that. The building is both representative of integrated biology, botany, plant pathology, and she wanted that all of that life research reflected in something that could be universally celebrated, between both departments and within each of the individual research labs in the facility.

Miller: You also chose a very recent work, this one is at the Oregon Institute of Technology in Klamath Falls. It’s called “Shoal of Returning Hope.” What is this?

Burghard: Yeah, “Shoal of Returning Hope” is by artist Kana Tanaka. It’s an immersive suspended installation. It incorporates over 700 dichroic glass fish that are suspended in a two-story light well, kind of similar in form or space architecturally to what Christine’s space was. It’s a multi-level installation. But it represents the return of salmon to the Klamath Basin after the historic dam removals in 2024. The piece that Kana developed was meant to symbolize migration, resilience and renewal in the Klamath Basin, and it was developed in conversation with the Klamath tribes.

Miller: In the pictures, it looks like all of these hundreds and hundreds of glass fish are sort of swimming through the air, I imagine above you or even with you depending on where you’re viewing it from. It looks extraordinary.

Burghard: Yeah, that’s exactly right. It can be seen from below and also seen from the second mezzanine level as well. It is meant to mimic a salmon run.

Miller: One more that you chose – it’s called “Orphan.” That is in Salem at the Oregon State Treasury. What did you like about this?

Burghard: What’s not to like about “Orphan?” We love the piece. It’s by artists Clayton Binkley and John Grade. It’s a large-scale kinetic, which means moving sculpture, and it’s actually at the entrance of the Oregon State Treasury’s resiliency building in Salem. That piece was specifically inspired by the seismic history of the Pacific Northwest. It draws on our shared experience of earthquakes and tsunamis, and the stories of the Pacific Northwest landscape.

The piece is actually at the main entrance of the building and it’s powered by human interaction. So every time a visitor goes in or out of the state treasury building, a mechanical system will capture a fraction of that energy and it transfers it into the sculpture. So it sets these really large sculptural forms into incremental motion. So literally, as you engage with the building, you’re also engaging with the sculpture.

The movement of that piece is very, very slow, so it’s not something that you would recognize or see on any individual visit. But over weeks and months, the sculpture gradually shifts and brings one small element either towards or away from the other in a repeating cycle over time.

Miller: Christine, what does it mean to you that one of your works was chosen as an example of public art to celebrate from the last 50 years of this program?

Clark: I was really surprised. I feel very honored. I don’t know what else to say. I do think that it is important to showcase work in different areas of Oregon, cause there’s a lot of work in the Portland area and areas that are a little bit more highly populated.

I’m very proud of this piece, especially because it’s a reflection of the work that I normally do in my installation art. And there are other public art projects that I’ve done that doesn’t necessarily reflect exactly my style of working, because I’m responding to some kind of theme or requests from the committee. But this one definitely does that for me. And it photographs really well, so I’m very pleased that it was chosen.

Miller: Does it feel different to you to make art that is for a public space and is going to be owned by the public, by you and me, as opposed to, say, an apartment building or a private commission?

Clark: Yes, it does, because there’s a lot of things to respond to. And you need to pay attention to that, to all the different things that the committee is interested in seeing, at the same time keeping within your sensibility as an artist. And then there’s committee members often who are very vocal, so you’re constantly shifting your ideas from what you really want to do to making compromises with the committee and then being happy with what you come up with.

I think that private commissions are similar, but not quite as difficult because there’s usually not this huge committee, and also they’ve chosen you because they like your artwork or they’ve chosen you because you have something that you’ve already made that they want to purchase.

And then the last level is just doing your own work, my own speculative work or my own installation artwork that I do just to satisfy my desire to express myself as an artist – which I can do anything I want, and not worry about sales and not worry about that kind of thing. It’s challenging to find that balance between what the committee expects, what the community would like to see and what I would like to make as an artist in keeping with my artistic sensibility.

Miller: Ryan, there’s close to 3,000 works of art that have now been created, commissioned or included in this collection as a result of this law that’s half a century old now. Has there been talk about, now that this collection is so big, redirecting some of this money towards something else? An emergency fund for arts organizations, or arts education, or anything else when money is tight?

Burghard: Yeah, it’s a good question. At 50 years, there’s definitely a recognition that our collection is growing, so care and maintenance of the collection is something that we talk about quite regularly. But one of the things you’re talking about is, how do we value the collection? And I don’t think that’s necessarily about the quantity of works within the collection, it’s really about the relevance and the resonance of the works that we are commissioning or purchasing over the last 50 years. One thing that’s really important to remember is that any new work that we commission is specific to that place, it’s for a specific community that we’re working with and it reflects a very specific moment in Oregon’s history. So that’s why I think our collection feels alive and not necessarily static.

But also to your point, in terms of when funding is tight, thinking about arts organizations or arts education; the funding structure for the percent for public art also really matters when you consider that discussion. The Percent for Art legislation dedicates a really small fraction of the construction budget, so this money wouldn’t otherwise be going to arts education or arts organizations, which I might add the Oregon Arts Commission does fund through other grant programs that we offer. But the percent program really ensures that when we invest in our civic infrastructure, that we’re also investing in culture. And it’s a way of really saying that our public spaces deserve more than to be just functional, they deserve to be meaningful as well.

So I think, at 3,000 works, quite frankly the story of Oregon is still unfolding. And as I mentioned before, each becomes part of this open air museum that we’re hoping we can share with the state.

Miller: Ryan and Christine, thanks very much.

Clark: Thank you.

Burghard: Thank you, Dave.

Miller: Ryan Burghard is the public art and artist programs coordinator for the Oregon Art Commission. Christine Clark is a sculpture and installation artist who created the installation at the Eastern Oregon University Library. Through this program, the Oregon Arts Commission and Travel Oregon have chosen 50 of the 3,000 or so works to celebrate and to encourage all Oregonians to see all across the state.

“Think Out Loud®” broadcasts live at noon every day and rebroadcasts at 8 p.m.

If you’d like to comment on any of the topics in this show or suggest a topic of your own, please get in touch with us on Facebook, send an email to thinkoutloud@opb.org, or you can leave a voicemail for us at 503-293-1983.