Questions and Answers about the Project

Q: Were state tax dollars involved?

A: No! The legislature approved $150,000.00 in state tax money, but the Governor vetoed the request. The grant received from the Nebraska American Revolution Bicentennial Commission did not include state tax money.

Q: Were federal tax dollars involved?

A: Yes

Federal tax dollars total %20 of the total budget, the remaining %80 was private donations of money, services, equipment, and materials.

Q: How much money did you get from the Nebraska Arts Council?

A: None. The Nebraska Arts Council granted $2,500.00 to the Sheldon Gallery, not the Bicentennial Sculpture Project, for an extension program. Norman Geske, former Director of Sheldon Gallery, and Reinhold Marxhausen, Professor Emeritus of Art at Concordia College in Seward, held public sessions on sculpture in each of the host communities. The sculptor in residence was the third panel member at each meeting. The purpose of the meetings was to discuss sculpture - its history, and development; how to look at it, what to look for, and the sculpture being completed in the community. It provided an opportunity for Nebraskans to learn more about sculpture in general as well as the pieces being done in Nebraska.

Q: Why are there no Nebraska artists?

A: Because all but one of the Nebraska artists who applied (13 originally) were not selected by the preliminary jurors to submit proposals and the one who did submit a proposal was not selected by the final panel of jurors.

Q: How were the pieces selected?

A: 121 artists applied and were rated from 1 to 5 (1 being the best and 5 the worst) by three jurors (from New York, Colorado and South Dakota). Those above 3 in the rating system were asked to submit specific, original proposals. These proposals were juried by another set of three jurors (from Massachussettes, Chicago and Texas) and by representatives of the host communities. The responses of the jurors and the community representatives were tallied and matched and 16 pieces were recommended for review by the Department of Roads. The Department of Roads reviewed the pieces for safety, maintenance and liability and in this process approved twelve pieces. Because two of those pieces were by the same artist and our goal was to have each piece done by a different sculptor, we decided to have 11 pieces. When our request for state tax dollars was vetoed, the corporation decided that a maximum of 10 pieces could be built (eight were eventually completed). The initial plan of placing sculpture, all across the state was not disturbed by the decision.

Q: Why don't the pieces reflect our heritage?

A: One of the purposes of the project was to construct the best sculpture possible. The Bicentennial had three themes - Heritage, Festival and Horizons. This project was always aimed at Horizons - celebrating the completion of 200 years and the stepping into the third century. Many sculptors in 1975, including many Nebraskans, worked in a modern idiom rather than a representative one. None of the proposals was representational. For all of these reasons, none of the pieces depict our heritage in representational terms. However, the sculptures do relate to Nebraska, past, present or future. The thought that accompanied their design was a combination of Nebraska, and the artists' experience and feelings.

Q: Could the money have been used for a more worthy cause?

A: The monies received from the National Endowment for the Arts, the American Revolution Bicentennial Administration and the Nebraska American Revolution Bicentennial Commission were monies allocated to the agencies for the support of arts and bicentennial activities respectively. These monies could only be used for other arts or bicentennial projects if not used for this project.

Q: What are the artists' credentials?

A: All the artists have constructed large-scale sculpture previously and have had their work shown. Some have more experience than others. The quality of their past work and ability to create large-scale sculpture were of primary importance in the original screening. In the final selection attention was given to the specific proposal rather than the artist who created it. In this way, the most well-known artists did not have the advantage over lesser-known, but equally competent artists.

Q: Why did the artists come to live in Nebraska?

A: The artists were living in Nebraska because the project organizers felt that Nebraskans would want the opportunity to meet the artist and to discuss his or her work. This facet of the project was called the "artist in residence" program.

Q: What was the significance of the artist-in-residence program?

A: The significance of the artist-in-residence program was that it provided Nebraska the unique opportunity of meeting the artists, discussing their sculptures for Nebraska as well as other works, their philosophies about sculpture and their profession, and the opportunity to watch some of the work necessary to complete such sculpture. This interchange provided Nebraskans the opportunity to learn more about sculpture, and also provided the sculptors the opportunity to learn more about Nebraska.

Q: How were Nebraska communities involved in the artist-in-residence program?

A: Committees in ten Nebraska communities agreed to provide room, board, work space, transportation and coordination of the residency program. When the number of sculptures was decreased, eight of them became the host communities for one of the artists. In return for this important support, the artist spoke to groups, went into the schools and generally was available for any who wished to meet and discuss the art of sculpture.

Q: Does this project enhance tourism in the state?

A: Yes! This is an important byproduct of the project. There have been articles in many newspapers outside the state of Nebraska and the national media also covered the project as it progressed. As a result of the publicity and interest in the project, Nebraskans and visitors to the state were made aware of the sculpture and stopped to look at it. This means that some people travel Nebraska's interstate rather than that of another state and they spend more time in Nebraska. This enhances tourism.

Q: How were the rest areas selected?

A: Tom Yates and Norman Geske met with the Department of Roads to make this decision. The primary considerations were:

1. That the pieces be spaced all across the state.
2. That the site be conducive to the placement of sculpture.
3. That the sculpture would not create a conflict (i.e. the Sutherland eastbound rest area was not used because it was felt the sculpture would conflict with the Oregon Trail ruts and memorial.
4. That the sites be as evenly divided as possible between the eastbound and westbound lanes. (When the number of works in the project was reduced, the two eliminated were both on the east-bound side, resulting in more works on the west-bound side.)

Q: Was the Department of Roads involved in this project?

A: Yes! The Department of Roads agreed to placing the sculptures at the rest areas. They reviewed the selections based on maintenance, safety and liability to insure that none of them would create undue problems. They were satisfied that all the pieces could be maintained within their current system and that very little, if any, extra dollars would be required. They have people responsible for maintaining each area who is able to handle the necessary work.

Q: Were there any Roads building funds involved?

A: No! The Department of Roads did not pay for any of the construction expenses or the artists' commissions. They agreed to participate only on the basis that they would not expend funds needed for road construction.

Q: Was the Federal Highway Administration involved?

A: Yes! They too reviewed the project organization and the proposals to insure compliance with all federal regulations and laws. They gave approval to the concept and the pieces selected in so far as their policies dictate.

Q: Isn't vandalism a major problem?

A: The experience in other states having sculpture projects has been that vandalism is not a major problem and that if anything, vandalism seems to be least at the areas in which the sculpture is located. The size, structural design and materials are of such a nature as to be highly resistant to damage. Steel, stone, aluminum, concrete and stainless steel all being strong, heavy materials. Due to the artist-in-residence program, many people have a feeling of respect and pride for the sculptures. We feel this reduced the emotions that cause vandalism.

Q: Why are all the pieces abstract?

A: 121 artists submitted credentials for the competition. Through the jury process, 46 were selected to submit proposals that: reflected Nebraska and/or the Bicentennial; were of such a scale as to be consistent with the concept of outdoor sculpture, and that were designed so as to be highly resistant to vandalism. The sculptors were not told what style to use because it was felt that the design of the sculpture was the artist's province only. None of the proposals submitted was traditional or representative. They were all abstract or contemporary. In fact, of the original 121 artists, only 2 or 3 submitted examples of past work that reflected the representational style. Of the ten Nebraskans who submitted, only one did so in a representational style. Therefore, even if the representational artists had been selected, most of the pieces would have been abstract. The reason the overwhelming number of submissions were abstract is that at that time sculptors creating large-scale public art tended to do so in a nonrepresentational style. Therefore, it is logical that abstract sculptors, rather than representational sculptors, would show the most interest in the project. There were at least two representational sculptors who withdrew their names from consideration because they felt their style to be incompatible with our stated goals.

Q: Is all art controversial?

A: Yes! Not everyone likes everything. Therefore, not everyone will have the same opinion about any one work of art. When more than one opinion exists, controversy also exists.

Q: Are the eight sculptures of good quality?

A: Those who like the sculptures would answer yes. Those who dislike them would answer no. The test of time is probably the only "final" answer. Some people like the sculpture today, but might dislike it tomorrow. Others dislike it today, but will like it tomorrow. Every step was taken to insure that the best possible pieces would be selected without bias. We feel confident that 8 excellent pieces were selected. We leave the final determination up to each individual and future generations.

Q: Do people change their minds about art?

A: Yes! Generally the changes occur because a new stimulus has reached the viewer. This can occur only if the viewer is willing to look, listen, discuss and learn. This is why the artist-in-residence program was developed.

Q: If you dislike a work of art does that make it bad?

A: No. Nor does liking a piece of art make it good. What makes art good or bad is a question with more than one right answer. It has to do with people's aesthetic interaction with the piece, the integrity of the concept, design materials, location, scale, etc. It is also related very importantly to the criteria used in making the judgment. Judging contemporary sculpture on the thesis that it must look like something you have seen before is a little like judging a football team on the basis of how well it plays basketball.

Q: Can Abstract art be understood?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you have to understand it to enjoy it?

A: Yes, but each person's understanding will probably differ. Abstract art does not have just one explanation. As we look at any art, we see it through our own eyes and our own experiences. Our judgment stems from our own background, just as the sculpture stems from the artist's. One might like a sculpture because of the material it is made of, another because of its size, the shadows it casts or how it looks in a snow storm.

One of the joys of abstract sculpture is that because it is not intended to represent something else in perfect detail, the observer is free to view it from a variety of perspectives rather than being forced to relate it to something he or she has seen before.

Q: Who was for this project?

A: Many individuals in the state and in the United States supported the project. In addition the following groups or organizations supported it: National Endowment for the Arts, American Revolution Bicentennial Administration, Nebraska American Revolution Bicentennial Commission, former Governor James Exon, former Lieutenant Governor Gerald Whelan, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Roads, Nebraska Arts Council, Nebraska Art Teachers Association, Nebraska Art Association, Business Committee for the Arts, University of Nebraska, Sheldon Art Gallery, committees in each of the host communities, and many local Bicentennial organizations. In addition, businesses and individuals donated money, services, materials and labor to the project and many arts organizations in the state voiced their support.

Q: Was any attempt made to inform Nebraskans about the project?

A: The news media first reported the project in August of 1973. In October of 1974 and January of 1975, members of the organizing group met with representatives of the host communities to explain the project and ask for support. Each community agreed to support it at that time. In May of 1975, the State Department of Roads held public meetings in Gretna, York, Kearney, North Platte and Sidney. The purpose of the project and the Department of Roads involvement was explained in detail. Slides of 8 of the proposed 10 sculptures were shown, and those in attendance had the opportunity to ask questions and make comments, which were recorded and are on record at the Department of Roads. The attendance at those meetings was as follows:

Q: Should the project have been stopped because it was controversial?

A: No! The controversy existed because of freedom of expression. If this project, or any other were halted because everyone did not agree, nothing would ever happen. Controversy is not necessarily negative. In this instance, controversy was positive because no matter which stand was taken, people became involved in the arts and in sculpture. The project had the support of many people in the state--more people than most of us are aware of. In addition, the project was well thought out, and all rules and regulations were followed. An immediate negative reaction is normal for art projects. As people met the sculptors and saw the pieces completed, feelings changed.

Q: Should the project have been stopped because it was controversial?

A: No! The controversy existed because of freedom of expression. If this project, or any other were halted because everyone did not agree, nothing would ever happen. Controversy is not necessarily negative. In this instance, controversy was positive because no matter which stand was taken, people became involved in the arts and in sculpture. The project had the support of many people in the state--more people than most of us are aware of. In addition, the project was well thought out, and all rules and regulations were followed. An immediate negative reaction is normal for art projects. As people met the sculptors and saw the pieces completed, feelings changed.