DES MOINES, Iowa (CN) — A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Monday halting the planned removal of an outdoor art installation by the Des Moines Art Center, which has determined that the structure is beyond repair and poses a risk to the public.
New York artist Mary Miss designed the piece that was installed in 1996. It consists of wooden and concrete walkways that take pedestrians around the edge of the pond behind the art center, to a pavilion and trough that allows visitors to descend to an eye-level view of the water.
Iowa’s harsh climate has taken its toll on the primarily wood installation, and parts of the site has been closed to the public for months as they pose a danger to the public. The center determined removing the installation is the only financially reasonable alternative to rebuilding the site at an estimated cost more than $2.6 million.
Miss sued in federal court in Des Moines April 4 in an effort to halt the demolition. U.S. District Judge Stephen Locher heard arguments from the parties Monday morning and issued a temporary restraining order later in the day.
“I am pleased and relieved by Judge Locher’s decision not only for what it has done for 'Greenwood Pond: Double Site,' but because it reaffirms the rights of all artists and the integrity of their legacies,” Mary Miss said Monday, according to a statement released by The Cultural Landscape Foundation, which has fought for preservation of the artwork.
The Des Moines Art Center said in a statement released Monday that while protecting public safety is "paramount" with regard to what has become a safety hazard, "we respect the court’s decision, and we will be pausing plans to remove the artwork from Greenwood Park. The sections declared dangerous and unsalvageable will remain enclosed in protective fencing. In the meantime, the Art Center will continue to provide free admission for visitors, access to the world’s finest art and architecture, educational programming, and an array of classes and camps, as we have for the last 75 years."
During Monday’s hearing, Michael Boal, an attorney with Belin McCormick in Des Moines representing the art center, told the judge demolition work could begin within one to three days.
“Based on the Court’s preliminary review, it concludes that Miss has established a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm to warrant a temporary restraining order enjoining the art center from continuing with efforts to remove the artwork,” Locher wrote. He said a hearing will be held within 14 days to decide whether the temporary order should be converted into a preliminary injunction or vacated.
In arguing for the restraining order, Benjamin Arato of Wandro Kanne & Lalor representing Miss, told the judge only a portion of the art installation is now closed to the public. He argued there is insufficient evidence that a total replacement is necessary, and he questioned the art center’s $2.6 million estimated cost of work needed to restore the installation.
“The public has an interest in the maintenance and repair of this installation so they can continue to enjoy it,” Arto said. “There is no public interest in tearing it out.”
A key issue in Miss’ suit is an agreement between the artist and the Des Moines Art Center governing maintenance and preservation of the artwork. Miss argued in her complaint that the art center violated that agreement by failing to maintain the installation over the years and by moving ahead with plans to remove it without first getting her approval.
The judge seemed to agree, noting in his order that the art center informed Miss in 2023 that portions of the work were being closed to the public and then proceeded to demolish a portion of the artwork “without obtaining Miss’s permission.”
Judge Locher quoted from the agreement between Miss and the art center, which gives Miss “significant control over the artwork,” especially a section that says the art center “agrees that it will not intentionally damage, alter, relocate, modify or change the Work without the prior written approval of the Artist.”
The judge wrote that this provision may mean Miss cannot force the art center to make repairs and restorations to the artwork, but it does not give the art center “unilateral authority to remove the artwork.”
“Under any fair reading, the demolition or removal of the artwork falls within the scope of this provision, as it unquestionably will ‘damage, alter, relocate, modify, or change the work,’” Locher wrote. “The bottom line is that [section], on its face, prevents the art center from removing or demolishing the artwork without Miss’s approval.”
Follow @@roxalaird16
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
California certifies March 5 primary election results April 12, 2024 -
