I wanted to write to you in regard to the rock work and your project
at 6525 Ellis. When I spoke with you on the day that you were working
here, I understood (perhaps incorrectly on my part) that you were
going to restore the building. Later I learned that you have plans
to remove the rock.

I don't know if you are aware that the Slog at The Stranger ran some
items about it yesterday. An incorrect email was published and,
after I was contacted, the quotes attributed to me made it sound as
if I am angry and confrontational. That is not the case.
It is more sadness and concern about losing this part of Georgetown
that has stood for so long. Although, as I understand it, there are
some other pieces done by Louie Moss still standing, including the
house on Flora and a piece in South Park, some are already gone.

Several people came to me to ask questions about your project, not
knowing what was planned. I spoke with folks in the neighborhood,
including a brief chat at The Georgetown Community meeting last
night, and a majority feel that this rock work has a place here in
Georgetown. Some of these people knew Louie and remembered Mr.
Perovich having it constructed. In some ways the depth of feelings
surprised me. It is very well liked. There is no objection by anyone,
including myself, to your project. There is just hope that this rock
work can be preserved as it stands and incorporated as part of your
installation.

I know that it may not be possible to save this work of Louie's.

"An incorrect email was published and,
after I was contacted, the quotes attributed to me made it sound as
if I am angry and confrontational."

Did you not send that email? Were the quotes inaccurate? You're using language to distance yourself from what you said, trying to blame the reporter instead of explaining why you said what you did.

And who are these other artists who back you? Where do you get the notion that "a majority" back your position?

I have no particular attitude about the work, but I do about folks who claim to have a legion when they don't.

I was beginning to Lawrimore jones heavily and reach for my art world methadone. Please stop toying with me like this, Jen.

A work funded by the public, for a public space can certainly be rejected for not meeting specified goals of intent, but that would be a contractual, rather than spirtual obligation. For example, if a group commissioned an equestrian statue and got something quite different the contract would be broken. I have always thought that artists have an obligation to be honestly intent on communicating but that message does not always have to be pleasing. Richard Sera's Leaning Wall comes to mind: the placement of that piece caused great outcry because it was perceived as being inconvenient to movement. Was Sera spiritually wrong? I have always thought that the very inconvenience and the annoyance it cause was an intrinsic part of the work.

I would enjoy hearing from you on why you hold this opinion.

First of all, Glenn Fleishman is absolutely right. Ronald, you can try to make the messenger the bad guy, but the better option for you might be to admit that you've softened a little in your position since yesterday morning. There's no sin in that. There is sin, however, in broadly claiming I acted irresponsibly and misrepresented you. I'll thank you to take that up with me personally if you feel that way, as you do have my phone number and email.

Second, you make a great point, inkweary. I also believe that artists have no spiritual obligation to please the public—simply to take its presence into account when making work, if the work is, in fact, publicly oriented. The artists decide from there what the public's presence will mean to them; they're simply obligated not to ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist. Serra is a perfect case. His sculpture was fascinating because of its hostility: it intended to obfuscate and redirect, rather than to be clear and open and expected and easy. It's not terribly surprising, then, that it met the fate that it did—but it was not unsuccessful, nor was it disingenuous.

My point was simply that in this case, in creating a public amenity—a tiny little new park!—SBC would be disingenuous to ignore entirely, or complain too loudly, about public opinion that happens to be inconvenient to their intentions. Does that make more sense?

And thirdly, I'm sorry to all of you who are complaining about these posts. I'm trying a new experiment where you get to see a story unfold on the blog. If you have suggestions as to how to make it work better, I'd like to hear them.

That said, I do agree keeping the story updated in one post might be helpful for readers trying to keep a narrative grip on the unfolding drama. Maybe put the newest bit in the visible spectrum and push the older stuff behind the link/cut/canyon/cataract/ abyss/Mariana Trench.

Carry on.

She did not misquote me.

In my email to the artists I just wanted them to know that I am not angry and don't want this ramped up to "confrontation". If there was an implication of bad reporting, I apologize.

In regard to the emails - there was some confusion at the time about how to send everything and an unedited, incomplete one was sent by mistake (not even including the photos). No one saw the mistake until it appeared on the Slog and so we sent the complete one which included the photos. I guess that the lesson is do not let several people near a computer at the same time.

I need to use the "preview" option.