Public Art Or Public Nuisance? Mound Of Dirt Art That Won’t Go Away

By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor

Those familiar with the former federal office building in Wenatchee, Washington, who have actually noticed, are familiar with the strange earthen mounds situated at the Northwest of the property. They were constructed in 1981 by Artist Stan Dolega who received $19,000.00 (about $54,000.00 today) from the government to place the dirt, a concrete retaining wall, and sod.

Anecdotally, the work faced much criticism since its inception as being the archetype of government waste through mandatory spending on artwork. It was not popular with those in the community and faced considerable ridicule as to its lack of utility, and that could credibly be claimed that the government paid nearly twenty grand for a pile of dirt.

Now the city wants to remove the mounds to make room for additional parking but discovered that it cannot due to a covenant designed to protect a problematic artwork that simply will not go away.

Signage along the mounds describe a fanciful inspiration:

“Environmental Sculpture — Artist Stan Dolega — June 12, 1980. While at first glance this work appears to be symmetrical, and therefore instantly ‘understood’ the viewer will intuitively know that such is not the case — and, in fact, the viewer will experience a sense of mystery. Earth mounds are an ancient form of visual expression. There is something mysterious about earth mounds, especially those which are obviously man-made.”

What isn’t mysterious about the mounds is the headache for which they cause.

More photos and platitudes can be found HERE. One generally must observe the mounds from above to see features of the work. For the most part it’s obstructed by itself when seen from ground level.

The mounds over the years required continual upkeep and were difficult to mow and keep grassed. At one point a FlyMo type mower tied to a rope served as its caretaker but eventually it became the task of maintenance crews pushing heavy mowers up and down nearly forty-five degree inclines during most of the year. Soon teenagers discovered the fun of using the mounds as ramps for dirt-bike stunts and wore away the grass until bare earth trails surfaced.

The mounds fell into such disrepair the GSA installed in the early 1990s a metal fence around the mounds to prevent further deterioration. The grass came back but the fence obstructs visibility.

Now, thirty-seven years later, the property was sold and a new occupant and the City of Wenatchee wants to remove the mounds to make way for additional parking–which has historically been lacking. Unfortunately, the city might have its hands tied and has faced pushback from the GSA, who formerly owned the property and claims that under the deed of sale the city cannot take down the art work.

Wenatchee Mayor Frank Kunz hired a consultant to study the feasibility of removing the mounds but so far the GSA is digging in its heals.

Chad Hutson, a GSA spokesman, claimed that if the artwork were a painting or statuary it could be returned to the government but in this case the art is immobile and therefore its return is impossible:

“The buyer of the Wenatchee Federal Building in 2017 agreed to be responsible for the protection and maintenance of the art ‘Untitled’ (earthwork with concrete retaining wall) on the property,” Hutson wrote in an email. “The deed further requires that should the purchaser sell the property, the new buyer must adhere to the artwork preservation covenants”

So that is presently the status quo of the situation. The $19,000 gift that keeps on giving. Had this mound of dirt simply been “a mound of dirt” it could have been bulldozed without much of a thought. But since it was a “work of art” it is part of the deed and hallowed ground.

I have to wonder what the penalty would be if the mound was simply removed. Would there be some form of payment required as to actual value? Could it be disassembled, poured into a dump truck and hauled to the GSA with instructions on how to put it back together? Maybe ANTIFA could tear it down as being racist and the city could file an insurance claim. Either way the story of Untitled (earthwork with concrete retaining wall) symbolizes more than just some mysterious mounds that are obviously man-made. It is the story of an art project sold to uninformed bureaucrats and the decades long consequences to their decisions. Well, at least it offered an artist the ability to hit pay dirt on the federal dime.

You have to admit, it takes a lot of chutzpah to sell a pile of dirt for twenty grand and do so in such a way the government can’t get rid of it: Kind of antithetical to Banski’s “Girl With Balloon”.

By Darren Smith

Photo credit Don Seabrook, Wenatchee World.

The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.

67 thoughts on “Public Art Or Public Nuisance? Mound Of Dirt Art That Won’t Go Away”

  1. It seems this frivolous red-meat post has the most traffic, so I’ll post this here. George H.W. Bush was a true American Patriot, war hero, public servant extraordinaire, and President of the United States who served with grace and honor. His life is an example of all that is good about our blessed country. A person who knew him well has written a dedication-style missive in the Post. It’s such good reading that I’d like to bring it here. There’s a paywall, but I think it’s possible to read a few freebies each month. This one’s worth it. You will smile…

  2. This level of taxpayer waste, impenetrable bureaucracy, and blatant OSHA violations boggles the mind. They should drag the (scam)”artist” out by his ear and make him mow it. Keeping it mowed is a safety hazard. It is patently unfair and dangerous to require grounds keepers to push spinning bladed mowers up a 45 degree incline and try to weed wack its crevices.

    Art is in the eye of the beholder. I suppose a hoarder might consider their hoard of newspapers to be artistic. But I behold no art, only a total lack of accountability.

    This is the intrinsic problem of our government setup is that there is no accountability. These government bureaucrats make such insane decisions and waste taxpayer money, and nothing happens. If this was a private business, they would be fired, or stock would decline, or there would be some sort of repercussion. But in government, everyone just shuffles along in a humorless approximation of Monty Python.

    Someone, somewhere, should take responsibility and dig it up before some groundskeeper gets decapitated or maimed trying to mow that stupid thing.

    1. Can I mail them a couple dozen of the ground squirrels and gophers who plague our land? That should take care of that tout de suite.

    2. This looks like they’re digging up a septic system. They should tag this with “septic system project” until the artist agrees to remove it, in shame.

    3. With a republican-style representative democracy, you take the good with the bad. 70% of the American public believes that abortion should be legal, yet the buffoons we elect in the god-fearin’ great state of Texxaaassss keep attempting to interfere with that constitutional right. Go figure.

      this is to “ya, but I don’t like the mounds, though” karen

      1. It is to be accurate a representative Constitutional Republic. There is no such thing in our country as ‘a Democracy.’ That outmoded form was considered and rejected nine times although some useful parts were included. The rest rejected.

        Once you add ‘representative ‘ there is no more democracy meaning every franchised citizen gets to vote on everything every time. It doesn’t exist after town mayor or county commissioners etc are selected – especially in the party that uses it for a name who, as socialists are no where near democratic.

        Republic or Res Publica or represent the public or ‘by, of and for’ the citizens was, thanks to the Romans, a step up in the evolution of governments although the path to true ‘franchise’ wasn’t reached until 240 some years ago. At least by a Contracted (Constitutional) definition known as a social contract or compact.

      2. Quote the exact article or amendment that makes it Constitutional and your source for the 70% figure. The nice thing about the social contract is it states the 100% agreed upon basic law of the land.

        As a Constitutional Centrist I look at any thing proffered and check it’s validity by that standard. Polls and wishful thinking count for nothing.If they did we would now be living in a socialist autocracy.

  3. All good art should say ‘something.’ This one excels in meeting that goal What does it say? No not how much in taxes and costs of building to subtract Not how much profit for the economics majors. Not how much in legal fees to protect it. KISS principle

    It’ says ‘Something’

    1. Michael Aarethun – I would disagree that art must say something. Look at Rothko’s art. What does it “say”?

      1. I would agree with your disagreement but really it was just a way of exposing the claims of those who project an undeserved superior talent for dictating what is art and an deserved superior talent for scoring some bucks off the scam.

        Cases in point. My first reaction to the picture was some contractor didn’t want to pay overtime to clean up some left over land fill.

        Then i recalled the famous art work in Berkeley CA where else which disappeared one day before the dedication ceremony. Finally one of the construction clean up crew said, ::”you mean that pile of garbage? The boss said clean up this junk – up some important piece of art work is going in that spot…so i did as I was told and took it to the city dump.”

        you can find this stuff on almost every university campus. But no one can explain why except ‘a percentage of grants has to go to arts or foliage or … something Which is why I chose that word.

        Eddie and the Cruisers part II had the same type of episode to follow up Part 1. So in chronological order. What kind of music?” “The real kind.” became. “She’s exhausting her reds.” Two follow on’s to “If I have to explain you wouldn’t understand.”

        But the short version is. “If you want to read it you have to vote for it. “

        1. Michael Aarethun – I went to a film festival in SF and saw a documentary called “Job” thinking it was the Biblical character. I was sooooo wrong. It was a true masturbatory effort (scenes of him masturbating in a cave someplace) juxtaposed with a female phone sex worker talking dirty on the phone while she was using a vibrator on her legs. 🙂 It was beautifully shot and had some really odd shots of someone being stabbed in the hand with a kitchen knife. The director was there for questions after and I asked him where he thought he was going with the film because I was confused. He had the standard “What did you think of it” to which I responded “It was a masturbatory effort” . He never could explain his film. The guy next to me loved the film, but explained that he was gay and it was like watching porn for him.

      2. His works speak volumes. They are opaque tales of intrigue and mystery – narratives hidden in plain sight. Look at you, Sherlock; entirely clueless. Am I right? I’m right, aren’t I?

          1. PCS, Sorry, that was contrived satire. I don’t know how to access emojis and I know nothing of art.

      3. Rothko’s “art” says what all bad art says: “no one ever lost a dime underestimating the intelligence of the American people.” “Red over black” come on!

      4. PCS, His works speak volumes. They are opaque tales of intrigue and mystery – narratives hidden in plain sight. Look at you, Sherlock; entirely clueless. Am I right? I’m right, aren’t I?

  4. Art is not “general Welfare.”

    If we presume that the Constitution holds dominion and that all Americans shall benefit from that dominion, state and local governments shall not nullify it, and Congress and inferior governmental levels have only the power to tax for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding taxation for individual welfare or any other form. Every conceivable endeavor in the domain of individual welfare is constitutional but must be pursued in the free markets of the private sector. The “artist” must have procured property and funds from private donors.

    Article 1, Section 8

    “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;…”

    1. second part is correct. First part is based on partially false premise. IF we Presume… etc. There is no need to Presume or use “If” The dividing lines between state and federal are not murky. Even those amendments I disagree with.

      The only difficulty for many most present company excepted is cherry picking one part as if you were a circuit court judge acting alone. it has to be read and taken in it’s entirety. Case in point. Money is Free Speech. That move made up a new right and in doing so negated five maybe six previous rights. Thus “I have the right without exception to all of your rights without explanation.”

      Another is replacing probable cause “for citizens” with ‘suspicion of.’

      Unlike the 16th and 17th amendments which destroyed checks and balances and established control of all citizens.

      Or the current effort to make a one man ‘deal’ out weigh the requirement to establish a treaty.

  5. This is not the only example of questionable public art.

    Folly Federal Plaza is one of the largest open spaces remaining in Manhattan. In the 1980s the FEDs paid for Richard Serra to erect Tilted Arc – a 12 foot tall, 120 long steel wall that roughly divided the plaza in two, and prevented a standing person from seeing from one side of the plaza to the other. .

    To many that public art had all the esthetic qualities of a construction zone – lacking only OSHA posters and warnings to wear a hard hat.

    Tilted Arc was eventually removed – but only after much litigation.

    Perhaps the president could gain support for his wall by presenting it as public art and funding it through National Endowment for the Arts.

    1. Only way to judge is “is it useful followed by is it moral.” It it isn’t useful the second part can be set aside.

    2. We really do need to let taxpayers vote on what, if any, art they want to pay for in public spaces.

  6. Sadly, this artwork was commissioned many years ago in much less enlightened times.

    Properly analyzed through a modern constructivist framework, the mounds can be understood as the physical manifestation of the inequitable power structures in our society. The mounds are a literal representation of the many barriers faced by persons with disabilities as members of our society. Perhaps more importantly, the piece through its use of symbolic barriers celebrates the systemic racism and othering imposed on people of color, women, the LGBTQ community, and other of the most marginalized members of society. Even more disturbingly, the placement of the piece represents the difficulties faced by the marginalized when interacting with the government, arguably the most important positive force in their lives. The pseudo-scientific jargon on the plaque expresses long discredited modes of thought that have no place in today’s society. It marginalizes the important contribution of female artists and explicitly validates a patriarchal power structure (“man-made,” really?). That the piece was conceived and implemented by a male only compounds the problem.

    Let me suggest two solutions:

    First, we could follow the model recently adopted in connection with public monuments celebrating racist symbols of the confederacy. Racist deed restrictions were long ago held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. If the federal and local governments refuse to address the issue, the piece should be immediately removed through acts of civil disobedience. Indeed, there is a strong argument that doing so is a moral imperative.

    Second is a less brute force approach that could express society’s progress and provide a positive model for change. Symmetry being a critical component of the existing work, we can build on this framework to symbolize the destruction of inequitable power structures. By superimposing symmetrical swales over the barriers of the existing work, we can modify the piece to create a level playing field. Through the use of additional symmetry, it would also be possible to create slight depressions mirroring the upwardly raised mounds of the prior piece. This would provide a powerful manifestation of the shift from outmoded barriers to more welcoming spaces. The federal or local government can and should commission a local artist (with preference to a member of a marginalized community) to give tangible representation to these ideas. The work would, of course, be accompanied by a new plaque explaining the change. In the interest of essential fairness, the artist’s commission should be at least equal to, and preferably greater than, the $54,000 paid to the male for the original work.

    1. That is a fantastic idea. I propose equal depth bioswales superimposed on the mounds until you are left with a koi pond and benches, landscaped with native plants. Perhaps a little bridge can span the water feature, which will symbolize intersectionality of global citizenry. The koi of course represent non binary and trans gender, as it is difficult for the lay person to identify male from female. You can’t really see their pectoral fins that well in the pale Northwestern light. The natural rain that falls on the art installation will represent humanity fighting global warming. And the leveling of most of the mound will signify yin/yang, male/female. all spreading out into one energy and infinite gender and sexual orientation.

      Liberal identity politics “others” minorities. Conservatives or Classical Liberals treat everyone the same and judge on character. No one besides Democrats and skin heads cares about skin color. You could look at a used bandaid and see the existential temporal struggle. That doesn’t mean taxpayers should pay thousands of dollars for a dirty bandaid installation.

      Only the most privileged, spoiled, elitist caste of society could support sticking taxpayers with the bill for a few mounds of dirt that probably causes flooding, is an OSHA hazard to mow, and then force taxpayers and the owner of the building in perpetuity to keep it.

      What kind of artist has to force a buyer to keep his artwork? If you have to fine your buyer for discarding your piece, you suck as an artist.

      1. Excellent suggestion, Karen. More proof that diversity is one of our most important societal values! Maybe we could include an empty box of koi food to represent the time that Trump was with the Japanese Prime Minister.

        To your previous comment, it does have a disturbing resemblance to a septic system. I’m wondering if the artist washed out of the septic business before changing careers.

        1. Maybe he subconsciously viewed his own work as less meaningful than a privy.

          As for Trump and the koi, that was just dishonest reporting. Trump followed the Prime Minister’s lead in koi etiquette. When the Prime MInister spooned in food, so did he. When the Prime Minister tossed in the remaining bits in the box, so did Trump. Only, through creative editing, they only showed the Prime Minister spooning his food in, and Tump tossing the contents of the box, completely misleading their viewers. It was an effective move, however, as many people believe that’s how it actually happened.

          In many ways, the Democratic media tries to defraud voters and influence elections.

          Here we see two ways in which GOOGLE actively misleads users about Republican politics and politicians. Unfortunately, everything uses the GOOGLE algorhym, which might make the anti-trust laws apply.

          GOOGLE uses misleading statements that claim it is non biased. It should be required to state that they discriminate against conservatives. There also needs to be another option than the GOOGLE algorhym.

    2. I commend your use of post-modern non-speak–the sum of which realistically signifies nothing. In order to controvert such inanities, it is imperative that we recognize it. Nice work, although I fear your intimacy with such nonsense is a reflection that you somehow are required to deal with it at some level.

      to vince

  7. Unless the artist was an indigenous person, the mounds could be condemned as “cultural appropriation” and torn down in the cause of sanitizing history.

  8. Oh, and speaking of screwing with artists, here is a prime example that I wish the government would pass some laws about:

    I noticed this on METV a few years ago when I was watching old-timey TV Shows, Get Smart, and Car 54. There would be kinks in the story line like something was snipped out. Why in God’s name would anyone do that to a classic TV show???

    Damn money-grubbing network Jews!*

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    *It’s OK for me to say that since I got a lot of Jew blood in me. Kind of like black people being able to call each other “n*gg*r.”

  9. Look up the history of Mar a Lago which was originally supposed to be a museum and then considered to be used as the southern White House. It had a covenent and Palm Beach has strange rules. All of these things made people shy away from buying the property leaving it unsold and for Trump to buy it at a fire sale price.

  10. It’s not unusual for various art pieces to be subject to ridicule. If public opinion were to be the judge of what art is “good” or “worthwhile”, there would be little left to complain about.

    Maintenance would have been much easier if the artist had selected something other than grass that needed mowing. Mown grass isn’t natural for natural mounds. Maybe the artist could make a modification.

    Albuquerque has an art fund. It’s a real delight to see the various art pieces around the city, well, most of them. There are a couple that still leave me puzzled as to why. One such project was huge clay cylinder fountains for an indoor space. It was oversized for the space – too many cylinders and the water aspect wasn’t properly installed so was ugly and splashed outside its space. In this case the artist re-scaled the piece by eliminating some of the cylinders and using only the smaller ones; she also redesigned the innards of the water. I like it now. Sometimes you have to live with a piece to understand and/or appreciate it.

    I’d like to see the mounds. Most art needs to be seen and experienced to appreciate it.

    1. bettykath:

      Do you believe it is fair to use taxpayer money for some big piles of dirt and a retaining wall that most of those taxpayers despise? Is it just to force taxpayers to not only foot the bill for something the vast majority of them hate, but to do so in perpetuity? That is not democratic. Not representative. Unjust.

      If an artist has to force someone to keep his art, or sue, he sucks as an artist.

      Art is not a blunt force object used to bludgeon people with. If most of the people who pay for it, don’t like it, they should be allowed to get rid of it. In retaliation, each and every person responsible for inflicting this deal upon the taxpayers deserves to have an offensive, ugly, “art” installation right in front of their home, ruining the curb appeal, which cannot be removed in perpetuity. Sometimes, those without empathy have to experience what they inflicted upon others to understand their error.

      1. Yes, it’s fair to use taxpayer money on art projects. Take a walk or drive around Albuquerque or the mall in DC. (I don’t like the idea of monuments celebrating war/warriors, but the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is a marvelous exception.)

        It’s not clear that “most taxpayers despise” the mounds. It’s easy to be an art critic.

        Many decades ago I had to pass a sculpture that I thought was ugly and useless. After many passes by it, I began to see something else. Eventually, I began to appreciate it. It was different enough that it was only by repeated exposure to it that I was able to appreciate it. If my initial response to it had been a vote to keep or remove it, it would have been gone. A few months of exposure to it and I would have been upset for anyone to suggest it’s removal.

        1. “Yes, it’s fair to use taxpayer money on art projects.” You answered a question I didn’t ask. To restate, my question was “Do you believe it is fair to use taxpayer money for some big piles of dirt and a retaining wall that most of those taxpayers despise?”

          Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If most of the taxpayers don’t like a particular piece of art, then I believe it is unjust to force them to not only pay for it, but to be stuck with it for eternity, paying for its dangerous upkeep.

          I also believe that it is often unfair to make people stuck forever with anything. Even the Constitution has its procedure for Amendment. If you don’t like something, you should be able to change it.

          If the community absolutely loved this art, then it’s their prerogative to keep it. If they hated it, then it was wrong to force this upon them. This is exactly why I believe that such public installations should be voted upon by the community who has to live with it.

          An example of a quirky public art installation that I love is the Fremont Troll. It is a beloved local icon. A statue that fell flat with the locals is the Surfer Statue Magic Carpet Ride ( The local community should be more involved in whatever art they pay for, have to live with, and look at every day. It’s only fair.

          Quite often, bureaucrats force their nonsense on the taxpayers, and then ignore their ire. Another example is the uproar over the stupid Tilted Arc that someone else brought up. The locals loathed it. It made it impossible for them to cross the public square directly. Having to move around the arc didn’t make them stop and contemplate life. It made them late.

          It’s not clear what the taxpayers thought? From Darren’s article:
          “Anecdotally, the work faced much criticism since its inception as being the archetype of government waste through mandatory spending on artwork. It was not popular with those in the community and faced considerable ridicule as to its lack of utility, and that could credibly be claimed that the government paid nearly twenty grand for a pile of dirt.”

          If you doubt it, then you can investigate it, as well as speak with the groundskeepers who have to mow it.

          1. I would like to add that it is great for you, personally, if you grew to appreciate a public sculpture that you are first found ugly. It is not fair if the majority of people in your community don’t like it.

            If a community pays for something, a majority of them should want it. If they don’t like it, there should be a process in place to rectify such mistakes. Government also needs to be more careful with taxpayer money. Spending thousands of dollars on something the community neither likes nor wants is wasteful, which is a sin considering the long list of needs clamoring for funding.

            I love art, and am an artist myself of very minor talent. I support programs that bring the arts to communities. I also believe such communities should have a say, and that their tastes should count. “My Bed” sold for millions of dollars. I would vehemently not want an unmade bed with semen stains, menstrual stained underwear, used condoms, half empty whisky bottles, and a used pregnancy test not be paid for by my community nor displayed prominently in a place I had to drive past every day, reminding me of the ludicrous waste of my hard earned money.

  11. this is a prime example of why government should contain itself to printing money and funding a military. There is absolutely no reason for public funding of art or artists and there is also no reason for laws that enshrine the products of such ill-spent funds. Art, as all human endeavors thrives best when government is far away and non-intrusive.

    1. I disagree. You are going to get some stinkers, some “pretend” art like this piece, and some “performance art”, which is really nothing but an excuse for talentless half-wits to pretend to be artists.

      But the amount of money we spend on “government” art is miniscule in the overall scheme of things. There are a lot bigger things we could cut the budget on, like housing vouchers for unwed mothers, and medicaid for illegal aliens, and illegal aliens in general. Cut out HIV/AIDS research. Quit reviving overdosed junkies with Norcam, and just let them ease on out of this world. Stop housing prisoners for life, and start executing them, thus saving on food, medicine, and guard costs.

      Some of the great art in America came about during FDR’s years and even NPR, which is like A Great Bastion of White Privilege is wonderful at bringing classical music to America. And PBS.

      Theoretically I guess, government should not be in the art business, but I think more good has come of it, than bad. I wish we did like Canada (if they still do it) and replace stupid masturbatory commercials (those which are ads for other shows on the network) and repetitive commercials (like Progressive Insurance) with art videos, and music.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. Did you know the President of Progressive and principle owner is bilionaire buddy of it’s leader and fellow supporter of the socialist progressive movement whose main stated goal is to replace our system of government?

        Do not try to diagram this sentence it will spoil the art videos and music.

      1. Article one section 8 “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures…

        1. Allan – the key word there is “coin” not “print” and follows with weights and measures. There is nothing about the government putting a printing press in the basement.

          1. Paul, I don’t agree with our monetary policies but in essence coining money and regulating value sounds to me adequate for the government to pass laws and coin or print money.

      2. An interesting comment. What should we do instead? The barter system? Every state/city/village print its own currency ? Everybody lug around chunks of gold ? – and who would assign value to it ? Maybe adopt (say) the Canadian “Loonie” as our currency, rather than issue our own ?

        1. Jay S – I grew up in Montana with silver dollars. It was great. You always knew how much money you had in your pocket. 😉

  12. I say bulldoze them down in the middle of the night just like Daley did in Chicago with Meigs Field Airport. Then pay the GSA some dough to shut them the hell up. This is government at it’s worst.

    1. I rather liked Meigs Field, and was sorry to see it go. It was always fun to fly out from it, in Flight Simulator. I’m not sure why Daley had such a vendetta against that airport.

  13. The aerial photograph of said mounds shows they have some art value. It sounds like they were modeled after Native American mounds in the region. They might have ‘worked’ better in a campus setting where viewers could have looked down on them; from a library perhaps.

  14. Tear a hole in the fence. Tell the kids that there is gold in them there hills. It will go down.

  15. There is a philosophical linkage to Jim Acosta, here. And, one of the reasons why America will fail. We can no longer do sensible things without excessive worrying about the legal aspect.

    As a nation, we can not boot out rude, obnoxious reporters from a press conference without the intervention of a Federal judge.

    As a nation, we can not bulldoze a mound of dirt, without first contacting the lawyers.

    As a nation, we can execute criminals in large numbers to clean up our cities because SCOTUS.

    As a nation, we can not arrest vagrants for loitering because SCOTUS.

    As a nation, our men should probably get a signed consent form prior to trying to kiss their date.

    See where this is going?

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Yeah, Squeeky, we see “where this is going”. You would like the U.S. to be a lot more like China.

  16. Or just hire an artist to “install” a counter-exhibition depicting the inexorable transition from the pure and lush earthen mounds of pre-historic artists to the utilitarian and unfathomable gray expanse of modern artists: i.e. pave it.

    1. You’re on the right track. The mounds represent missing the point. Typically mounds are ‘mysteriously’ there in a broad empty expanse of prairie or forest. The trenches and mounds created by WW1 are left as reminders and carry this ‘vestige’ of a past with them. These mounds are out of place, forced, ill conceived, and open for ridicule or better still, artistic/social comment. Yes, pave them and put parking stripes on the pavement. Turn the hardscape into a fountain that only works when it rains. The contradiction of ‘artifacts’ or ‘traces’ made by the retaining wall could sport an ever changing canvas for graffiti. A skate park for very little super skate boarders? Spend another $50K, have a contest, immortalize the ‘artist’ who started this by keeping the corner alive.

      1. “The mounds represent missing the point. Typically mounds are ‘mysteriously’ there in a broad empty expanse of prairie or forest.”

        Something is wrong with time and space today. I agree with Issac. Perhaps Issac and I agree on art.

  17. They need to do what they do in Arizona and have an “accident” in the middle of the night for which no one will be held responsible. Thus destroyed, it will have to be removed since it represents a safety hazard. Voila, you get a parking lot. 😉

Comments are closed.