=================
R. Michael Rich
I am writingconcerning my encounter with Brad Erickson and reporters from the Los AngelesTimes at the Japanese garden, at noon on 18 January 2012. Ericksonwas initially upset at me for having photographed the improper removal of astone fountain on 17 January. However, we were able to have aconstructive conversation following the initial exchange, and that conversationwas illuminating. It raises some questions about the recollections ofevents, and therefore I share it with you. Erickson permitted me to tourthe gardens without cameras or cell phone (I had wanted to record the wonderfulsound of the water), but forbade LA Times photographers from photographing me(but they may have photographed me without my being aware). I wasimpressed that Erickson was polite and sensitive; I was given time to bidfarewell to the gardens - these are my recollections.
Erickson insistedthat both the Academic Senate and the Bel Air Association Board were informedof UCLA's intent to sell the gardens in April of 2011, by then EVCMorabito. I have heard that many Senate members were unaware of an suchcommunication. He insisted that the sale would go through and that itwould not be stopped. Erickson then indicated that the Lohan stone(Buddha in 16 positions) would not be removed. Evidently, my photographsof the removal of the stone fountain may have had an impact.
Erickson insistedthat both the Academic Senate and the Bel Air Association Board were informedof UCLA's intent to sell the gardens in April of 2011, by then EVCMorabito. I have heard that many Senate members were unaware of an suchcommunication. He insisted that the sale would go through and that itwould not be stopped. Erickson then indicated that the Lohan stone(Buddha in 16 positions) would not be removed. Evidently, my photographsof the removal of the stone fountain may have had an impact.
It is interesting that on17 January 2011, the workers who were removing the fountain told me that theydid concrete work for UCLA (they had just removed the pagoda) and thataccording to them, the Fowler museum did not want to remove the objects. The Fowler's position on this matter should be explored as it appears to meimproper interference with the museum, by administrators. The sameworkers informed me that on Wednesday 18 January, the Lohan Buddha stone, acenterpiece of the garden, would be craned out. Erickson told methat the removed objects were not important to the garden, but it had just beenrealized that the Lohan stone might be damaged in removal, and was important.He compared the removal of objects to "saving a lock of hair" andstated that UCLA had to sell the gardens out of extreme financial need. Isuggested that photographs might be a better memorial. What if I had notbeen there on Tuesday to take photographs and protest? The Lohan stonemight be damaged and the garden's remaining integrity compromised evenmore.
I pointed out toErickson that the State gives UCLA a block grant to maintain grounds, but heindicated that they needed a highly paid gardener to maintain the site,especially since there were many rare and endangered plants that requirespecial treatment for disease, from time to time, and that one had to carefullydo this, as treating one plant potentially harms another. One ofthe objects removed was a Chinese hand carved Buddha from the 18th C, taken fromthe hokora near the crest of the hill. Erickson showed me that a gardenerhad carved a wonderful wooden Buddha that was gold leafed and left where theother had been removed. In front of the Buddha were candles. It wasstriking how much power the gardens have on those who work there, as well asthe highly educated scholars. This also raises potential religiousaspects to this site that I had not previously considered.
I began to becomesympathetic to Erickson's comparison with retaining a lock of hair, and hisassurance that facsimiles of lesser value would replace the objectsremoved. But then I remembered the brochure/catalog written by the laterenowned Prof. Koichi Kawana. I realize that as an astronomer not acurator, I cannot evaluate the importance of objects. But Prof. Kawanahad the qualifications to do so.
Indeed, the removedobjects are obviously important enough to warrant specific entries in hisbrochure:
"7. Thestupa, a five-tiered pagoda, stands above white stones representing Buddha'sbones. There are five elements-sky, wind, fire, water, and earth, andfive cardinal virtues-humanity, justice, politeness, wisdom, andfidelity. Above the stupa stands a deciduous spring-flowering Chinesemagnolia." Need I state that these cardinal virtues would be agreat model for all of us in the campus community. Witness, for example,the insensitive youtube posting by a UCLA undergraduate shortly after thetragic 2011 earthquake and tsunami.
The stone basinremoved by truck on 17 January is called out as part of site 16: "Thestone water basins, or tsukubai, are for ritual washing before entering. A dry streambed of white stones runs beneath the house. At its sourcebehind the house is a symbolic arrangement of 16 carefully chosen large stonesin an area especially conducive to intense meditation" (the fountainwas at the center of this composition).
We next turn to thewooden Buddha:
"10. Like the main gate, the hokura or family shrine is made of Cryptomeria wood andthe roof is Cryptomeria bark (my note: the roof is perfectly restored by UCLAgroundskeepers). The materials are deliberately left unpainted to mellowwith age. The antique hand-carved Buddha inside the shrine is decoratedwith gold leaf. The two stone lions are carved in China during the 18th C."
Prof. Kawanaidentified these objects as special and integral to the garden, and thereforebased on scholarship and curatorial objects, these objects should be conservedand replaced.
In closing, pleasenote that our family has strong connections to the art world. We aredonors and lenders to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, and my sister inlaw is an Associate Curator of contemporary art at the Metropolitan Museum ofArt in New York. Having been involved in installations of art andsculpture, I was truly horrified at the improper handling of objects that Iwitnessed on 17 January 2012, as I have told our children that art objects arefor all humankind; we are brief curators of every object in our hands, but theybelong to the generations.
In my opinion, theJapanese garden should be handled along the lines of deaccessioning animportant object from the Fowler or Hammer collections. An appropriatescholarly committee should consider how to do this - not an administrator withno education in art history or conservation. Erickson stated that"when Hannah Carter donated the garden to UCLA, she could never foreseehow valuable the property would become.” This can be fairly statedabout many of UCLA's priceless collections, from its artwork in museums, to itslibraries, and to departmental collections. Do we auction all of theseobjects off? The argument for grave financial need does not ring true. The proceeds are to be used to endow professorships in the business and medicalschools, which are very well off and are not in danger of closing their doorsdue to lack of funding.
The administrationinsists that the gardens will be sold, likely into private hands. Thiswould be regrettable. First, I am deeply concerned that only anorganization can commit to curating this very complicated assemblage of livingplants and ancient objects. Witness Erickson's statement that a highlypaid, experienced senior gardener is required to maintain the site. Second, it is clear that an afternoon spent here teaches one more about theculture of Japan than the reading of numerous volumes. As I said in anearlier missive, the decision to write off Japan is a grave error, and I amhappy to write a lengthy essay on why this is so. This garden speaks to amillennium of high culture and refinement that is at the core of Japanesesensibilities and its loss to UCLA collections is potentially devastating.
In the aftermath ofdevastating floods of 1969, the garden was restored thanks to many significantgifts beyond Carter's bequest. How do we deal with those individuals, whobelieved they were saving a garden in perpetuity?
If UCLA wished tokeep the gardens, the institution could raise an endowment that could meet theroughly $150,000/yr in operations cost. If the $500,000 endowment weresupplemented with an additional $2,000,000, the gardens would be selfsustaining. Admission fees and gift shop sales (very lucrative) couldoffset some costs. If UCLA cannot keep the gardens, perhaps aninstitution like the Getty or the Huntington can be found, but this willrequire approaches by the proper individuals and a faculty committee tooversee.
I deeply hope thatUCLA will rise to the challenging retaining and curating its art treasures, butif it cannot do so, I hope that the gardens will be carefully conveyed to anorganization capable of curating them. I fear that a private individualmay have commitment today but that their heirs may not. These gardensdeserve to be curated for the generations, just as all great Japanese gardensare.
Update: Latetoday I spoke with Emily Young of the LA Times who indicated she had been in touch with one ofthe Carter heirs who was upset with UCLA's decision; he was evidently told itwas a "fait accompli." (See below for a link to her piece on the Garden and the removals.)
Soundfamiliar? Perhaps this train can be stopped as well.
I pointed out toErickson that the State gives UCLA a block grant to maintain grounds, but heindicated that they needed a highly paid gardener to maintain the site,especially since there were many rare and endangered plants that requirespecial treatment for disease, from time to time, and that one had to carefullydo this, as treating one plant potentially harms another. One ofthe objects removed was a Chinese hand carved Buddha from the 18th C, taken fromthe hokora near the crest of the hill. Erickson showed me that a gardenerhad carved a wonderful wooden Buddha that was gold leafed and left where theother had been removed. In front of the Buddha were candles. It wasstriking how much power the gardens have on those who work there, as well asthe highly educated scholars. This also raises potential religiousaspects to this site that I had not previously considered.
I began to becomesympathetic to Erickson's comparison with retaining a lock of hair, and hisassurance that facsimiles of lesser value would replace the objectsremoved. But then I remembered the brochure/catalog written by the laterenowned Prof. Koichi Kawana. I realize that as an astronomer not acurator, I cannot evaluate the importance of objects. But Prof. Kawanahad the qualifications to do so.
Indeed, the removedobjects are obviously important enough to warrant specific entries in hisbrochure:
"7. Thestupa, a five-tiered pagoda, stands above white stones representing Buddha'sbones. There are five elements-sky, wind, fire, water, and earth, andfive cardinal virtues-humanity, justice, politeness, wisdom, andfidelity. Above the stupa stands a deciduous spring-flowering Chinesemagnolia." Need I state that these cardinal virtues would be agreat model for all of us in the campus community. Witness, for example,the insensitive youtube posting by a UCLA undergraduate shortly after thetragic 2011 earthquake and tsunami.
The stone basinremoved by truck on 17 January is called out as part of site 16: "Thestone water basins, or tsukubai, are for ritual washing before entering. A dry streambed of white stones runs beneath the house. At its sourcebehind the house is a symbolic arrangement of 16 carefully chosen large stonesin an area especially conducive to intense meditation" (the fountainwas at the center of this composition).
We next turn to thewooden Buddha:
"10. Like the main gate, the hokura or family shrine is made of Cryptomeria wood andthe roof is Cryptomeria bark (my note: the roof is perfectly restored by UCLAgroundskeepers). The materials are deliberately left unpainted to mellowwith age. The antique hand-carved Buddha inside the shrine is decoratedwith gold leaf. The two stone lions are carved in China during the 18th C."
Prof. Kawanaidentified these objects as special and integral to the garden, and thereforebased on scholarship and curatorial objects, these objects should be conservedand replaced.
In closing, pleasenote that our family has strong connections to the art world. We aredonors and lenders to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, and my sister inlaw is an Associate Curator of contemporary art at the Metropolitan Museum ofArt in New York. Having been involved in installations of art andsculpture, I was truly horrified at the improper handling of objects that Iwitnessed on 17 January 2012, as I have told our children that art objects arefor all humankind; we are brief curators of every object in our hands, but theybelong to the generations.
In my opinion, theJapanese garden should be handled along the lines of deaccessioning animportant object from the Fowler or Hammer collections. An appropriatescholarly committee should consider how to do this - not an administrator withno education in art history or conservation. Erickson stated that"when Hannah Carter donated the garden to UCLA, she could never foreseehow valuable the property would become.” This can be fairly statedabout many of UCLA's priceless collections, from its artwork in museums, to itslibraries, and to departmental collections. Do we auction all of theseobjects off? The argument for grave financial need does not ring true. The proceeds are to be used to endow professorships in the business and medicalschools, which are very well off and are not in danger of closing their doorsdue to lack of funding.
The administrationinsists that the gardens will be sold, likely into private hands. Thiswould be regrettable. First, I am deeply concerned that only anorganization can commit to curating this very complicated assemblage of livingplants and ancient objects. Witness Erickson's statement that a highlypaid, experienced senior gardener is required to maintain the site. Second, it is clear that an afternoon spent here teaches one more about theculture of Japan than the reading of numerous volumes. As I said in anearlier missive, the decision to write off Japan is a grave error, and I amhappy to write a lengthy essay on why this is so. This garden speaks to amillennium of high culture and refinement that is at the core of Japanesesensibilities and its loss to UCLA collections is potentially devastating.
In the aftermath ofdevastating floods of 1969, the garden was restored thanks to many significantgifts beyond Carter's bequest. How do we deal with those individuals, whobelieved they were saving a garden in perpetuity?
If UCLA wished tokeep the gardens, the institution could raise an endowment that could meet theroughly $150,000/yr in operations cost. If the $500,000 endowment weresupplemented with an additional $2,000,000, the gardens would be selfsustaining. Admission fees and gift shop sales (very lucrative) couldoffset some costs. If UCLA cannot keep the gardens, perhaps aninstitution like the Getty or the Huntington can be found, but this willrequire approaches by the proper individuals and a faculty committee tooversee.
I deeply hope thatUCLA will rise to the challenging retaining and curating its art treasures, butif it cannot do so, I hope that the gardens will be carefully conveyed to anorganization capable of curating them. I fear that a private individualmay have commitment today but that their heirs may not. These gardensdeserve to be curated for the generations, just as all great Japanese gardensare.
Update: Latetoday I spoke with Emily Young of the LA Times who indicated she had been in touch with one ofthe Carter heirs who was upset with UCLA's decision; he was evidently told itwas a "fait accompli." (See below for a link to her piece on the Garden and the removals.)
Soundfamiliar? Perhaps this train can be stopped as well.
=================
Thephotos originally taken by Dr. Rich are at: http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2012/01/removals-of-objects-began-today-from.html
The LA Times piece is at: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/home_blog/2012/01/ucla-japanese-garden-sale.html Excerpt:
...“We’re extremely disappointed that UCLA didn’t come and tell us there was a problem and ask how we can deal with it,” said Jim Caldwell, one of Hannah Carter’s five children, who lives in Woodside in the Bay Area. “My mother really loved that garden, and my stepfather was extremely generous with UCLA. I’m hoping the university will step up to its original commitment and keep the garden open in perpetuity.”
The LA Times piece is at: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/home_blog/2012/01/ucla-japanese-garden-sale.html Excerpt:
...“We’re extremely disappointed that UCLA didn’t come and tell us there was a problem and ask how we can deal with it,” said Jim Caldwell, one of Hannah Carter’s five children, who lives in Woodside in the Bay Area. “My mother really loved that garden, and my stepfather was extremely generous with UCLA. I’m hoping the university will step up to its original commitment and keep the garden open in perpetuity.”
UCLA has signed a listing agreement with real estate broker Coldwell Banker Previews International in Beverly Hills, Erickson said. The garden and adjoining home are expected to be listed for sale during the first week of February, with sealed bids to be accepted through May 1.
The Garden Conservancy and the California Garden and Landscape History Society have written a letter to Block expressing concerns about the sale. The Bel-Air Assn., a homeowners group, and the Los Angeles Conservancy also have called for alternatives.
“We want to have a conversation to determine whether there’s a potential win-win situation here,” said Adrian Scott Fine, director of advocacy at the Los Angeles Conservancy. “There are a lot of creative things that might be possible to bring in the revenue necessary to run the garden.” ...
No comments:
Post a Comment