Dear George:

Harry Tenney, in his response to the little diabribe I wrote about public art in Charlottesvile, misreads said diatribe totally (and strangely). He puts me in the camp of those conservatives who despise all that is new and innovative and revolutionary in the arts -- and, warming up considerably to his subject, ends by comparing me to Hitler and (infinitely more damning, of course) Jesse Helms on that score.

On the contrary, my piece clearly champions the new, the innovative, and even the revolutionary in the visual arts -- and calls for more of it in tax-supported public art. Its complaint, rather, is that the local art scene "talks the talk" of artistic innovation and daring while providing us with art that is anything but -- and lobbying to have us pay for it. My piece calls for those in control of buying the art, both our public officials and our local owners/managers of galleries and other art-displaying businesses, to insist upon a higher standard for both innovation and excellence in the art they buy, put on display, and thus make part of our visual environment.

The horrible truth is that Jesse Helms, if he were to visit Charlottesville and take a look around, would LOVE what he saw here in the visual arts. He'd applaud all the washed-out, poorly executed, generic landscapes and cityscapes on display around here, as well as all the lame copycat abstractions and the wholesome childlike "structures" now springing up at a frightening pace in outdoor settings, here and elsewhere, that would look much, much better without them.

In fact, Helms, based on what he'd see here today, would doubtless urge City Council to increase its public-arts funding level dramatically.

Leo Daugherty (electronic mail, February 15, 2002)