IBJNews

Mass Ave fine art gallery G.C. Lucas set to close

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Greg Lucas will be the second fine art gallery owner in Indianapolis to close shop this year.

Lucas announced Tuesday that he will close his gallery at 884 Massachusetts Ave. by year’s end. He will follow longtime gallery owner Mark Ruschman in exiting the business, which has been hard hit by the recession. The Ruschman Gallery on Alabama Avenue closed at the end of July after 25 years in business.

"There just isn't enough business to sustain the overhead," Lucas said.

G.C. Lucas Gallery, which opened in November 1994, represents a mix of traditional and contemporary artists. Lucas said he has a strong base of collectors in Indianapolis and will try to organize small private showings. He also plans to launch a Web site, gclucasgallery.com, next month. He will continue to represent several artists, including Karen Chevalier-Smith, Lorraine Sack and Red Rohall.

Lucas also is the representative of the estates of Hoosier Group artists William Forsyth, Constance Forsyth and Robert Selby.

The gallery is currently hosting a solo show by Sack and will open a new show in December with etchings and paintings by Montana artists Nick Oberling and Jennifer Li.

Lucas said he also has struggled to attract traffic at the east end of Mass. Ave. since this summer, when a Cultural Trail contractor put up traffic barriers.

A sale on all merchandise is under way and will continue until the gallery closes.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT