A local artist is crying foul over a decision to replace his work with advertising at the Indianapolis International Airport.
James Wille Faust received notice in late July that his piece, "Chrysalis," would be removed from a bulkhead wall that overhangs a busy escalator in the midfield terminal by Aug. 16, his wife and business manager, Martha Faust, said Tuesday morning.
James Faust declined the airport's offer to have him modify and move the piece to the Indiana Convention Center. "It's bastardizing his piece, No. 1," Martha Faust said of the suggestion. "It was never meant for any space other than that wall."
Shown here during installation, "Chrysalis" will be replaced with digital
art and advertising. (IBJ file photo)The airport will remove "Chrysalis" by the end of August, said Carlo Bertolini, spokesman for the Indianapolis Airport Authority. He said the video display of digital art and advertising will go up next month.
The video art/digital advertising unit replacing "Chrysalis" is the only one planned at the terminal, at least for now, airport officials said. Officials said they didn't know how much the wall would generate in advertising revenue.
Airport officials in recent years have been working harder to generate more revenue and slash expenses amid the stagnant economy that brought a downturn in air travel starting in 2008. That's the same year the airport opened the new passenger terminal that included a highly touted $4 million collection of public art by 17 commissioned artists and six poets.
Faust won't be the only artist to see his work moved or replaced. Airport officials said they determined from the start of the public art program that work eventually would rotate. Bertolini said that policy was disclosed in the contracts with the artists.
“It’s part of the natural evolution of our art exhibits,” he said.
Martha Faust said she and her husband had a different impression. James Faust was eager to do the project, even at a reduced
commission, because he thought his piece would hang in a prominent location for at least a decade.
"They got a lot of good will and good publicity on the backs of the artists," she said of the airport.
The airport paid $150,000 for the piece, which took three years of planning and building, Martha Faust said. About $85,000 of the commission went straight into materials and production, she said. The piece weighs more than a ton and required extra support to be built behind the wall. It's constructed from 14 shaped canvases, aluminum and six glass panels.
In December, the Indianapolis Museum of Art replaced Blackburn Architects PC as manager of the airport arts program. The airport signed a $100,000, one-year contract with the Indianapolis Museum of Art. That will come into play on the digital advertising. Airport officials said they are using the IMA to identify local and international artists to provide digital art content.
IMA spokeswoman Katie Zarich said IMA Art Services was hired to "review thoroughly the current arts program and to ensure the balance of commercial and public art spaces within the terminal and the airport’s gateway, among other responsibilities."
Faust, who was initially informed of the airport's decision by an adjunct curator from the IMA, bristled at the museum's
role in replacing her husband's work with advertising.
"It just seems the arm of a museum shouldn't be getting this done," she said.

















IBJ Conversations
47 Comments
Add Comment
Given the nature of the IMA Art Services consulting contract to curate digital art and advertising, I'm sure one will not have to look far to see the involvement of Jacqeline Buckingham Anderson, wife of Maxwell L. Anderson, The Melvin & Bren Simon Director and CEO of the IMA. Jacqeline Buckingham Anderson seems to have a thing for the installation of video monitors that disenfranchise professional artists. The Directors of the museum might want to ask if Jacqeline is a paid consultant to IMA Art Services.
When the new terminal was being imagineered and "sold" to the taxpayers, the unique artwork and design were the primary features utilized in the campaign.
It's very disappointing that the space will now be more advertising. How about painting signage on all the the floor areas and hanging giant neon signs in all the window areas ?
It's a giant step backwards Indy!
The AIRPORT is the owner of the artwork. The AIRPORT has decided to remove it. The AIRPORT would remove it without any involvement from the IMA. The IMA is simply helping with the selection of a digital display replacement, whether the IMA cooperated with this selection or not, the AIRPORT would hire another consultant and still remove the piece. The AIRPORT has decided it needs to raise additional revenue, and so the piece must be removed. Also, I am sure our dysfunctional CONGRESS did not help the AIRPORT's financial position by allowing over $400 million in FAA taxes to go uncollected while the members of the House and Senate decided to play partisan games.
In any event, if you are so OUTRAGED (all in CAPS), then contact the AIRPORT, not the IMA. Again, the AIRPORT owns the artwork and the AIRPORT is the only entity with the authority to decide to remove it or not. Perhaps, your OUTRAGE will lead you to donate money to the AIRPORT to cover its budget shortfall so the artwork can stay up.
Therefore, I would assume it will go into storage, or else be destroyed.
As for the art, if it is repurposed for display at the Convention Center will it not be serving in the same capacity it does now (welcoming visitors to Indianapolis)? All that will change is the location.
As for WhiteOut, virtually the entire $1 billion airport was built with taxpayer dollars forked over by Bush and Daniels, there's some OPM!
Get a clue people, advertising is everywhere because there is a lot of money to be made.
Art is a product. The market will accept or decline that product on its own terms. The artist can choose to participate or find another endeavor, just like any other occupation. I am not saying artists should donate their work, rather, they must determine if their chosen pursuit will pay the electric bill.
I agree that I would personally prefer the artwork and kill the ads. It appears Hope and Change is kicking the airport in the crotch like everyone else, and they are making (what they believe) is a needed business decision.
Your comments about Indianapolis people is indicative of an arrogant, uninformed way of thinking. If the artwork is so iconic (I happen to agree it is a wonderful piece), then it will find it's way to it's rightful place (the best galleries, the trash heap, or somewhere in between). You or I or may not like it, but the market will make it so.
If you are so passionate about saving the piece, then go find the right private donors, get on a board, whatever, but figure out a way to do it without using OPM (Other People's Money).
By the way -- the artist netted ~$60k on this one piece over three years. I dont know if that is a good deal or not, but the seller and buyer did, and that's really all that counts.
I'm betting that millions of struggling artists out there would love to have the opportunity to have their work prominently displayed even for a short time at the airport. And to get $65K after expenses in addition! To complain about that, and to turn down the offer to have it displayed at the Convention Center where it would get a TON of attention just makes the artist sound like a spoiled brat.
That is not a great representative of great art from Indiana. I think he an his wife need to gracefully step aside, read the contract and move on.
Alpha Blackburn blew a lot of money in mediocre art, I'm glad the IMA is stepping in and bringing the airport to the 21st century. Part of the bitterness is about a lack of acceptance of digital art. Have you heard of a computer? It's all around us...
would not be tolerated by a city that truly wants to be
recognized as being a special place to do and grow business, pursue excellence, raise families and celebrate a better quality of life. Looks like a few manager types can dash all of that for a few bucks and betray what was perceived to be a covenant between artists, fans and their home community. If this is allowed to happen then "dumb" wins.
My only complaint to the airport is paying $150,000 to start with... I would prefer using that money to reduce parking fees. My guess that local artists would "lend" their work to the airport for a short duration of time free of charge if artwork is desired for the walls. Good publicity for the artist and art for the airport walls.
Surely they could find another location in the airport terminal for advertising. Who wants their first impression of Indy to be a big TV with adversising? Removing this brilliant artwork will make the Indy airport just look that much more like every other bland commecial space. Keep the art! It's part of the essence and spirit of Indy.