A Statement On the New Public Art at the Durham Police Headquarters
July 23, 2019
What does Art Ain’t Innocent mean?
The phrase “Art Ain’t Innocent” means that art can be used in ways that perpetuate violence, in ways that disempower. Art is not inherently good. It’s crucially important that we stay aware of how we’re using art, how it’s being presented, who it’s actually for, and how it’s functioning.
Art is important and powerful. It can allow us to examine our world, to see it, to reflect on it, to transform it. In a practical way, it can bring people together, and enrich our lives. It can boost our economy and signal care and thoughtfulness. We need art and we need more of it. We need more artists and we need those artists to be better supported and sustained.
But art can also be used to cover up problems, such as violence or inequity. It can be used to distract and divert us from troubling realities about our world that we need to look at. Those of us who love art need to recognize it’s power and reflect openly and honestly about how that power is being used.
New Public Art at the Durham Police Headquarters
As an example of all of this, we can look to the new public art recently installed at the Durham Police Headquarters on East Main St. This includes three new installations, two by out-of-state artists—Shane Allbritton and Norman Lee of RE:site and one by Durham artist David Wilson. This public art was organized by the City of Durham and more specifically by the city’s Cultural Advisory Board and Public Art Committee which are currently housed under the Arts, Culture and Sustainable Communities division of the General Services department led by Stacey Poston.
The stated intention of the original call for public art circulated by the City of Durham was to “create artworks [that convey] ideals such as peace-keeping and public safety, valor and integrity, professionalism and resolve, camaraderie and commemoration, transparency and inclusion, citizen engagement, community service and goodwill, and research and technology.” It also states that selected work “should be respectful of the values and mission of both the Durham Police Department and Emergency Communications Department which include minimizing crime, promoting public safety and enhancing the quality of life in the City.” The city’s call for art does not, however, mention how the art should be respectful of our community, of the people who are affected by the police and their impact. For example, the city’s call does not mention accountability. Most troublingly, this call for art does not say that the art should reckon with how the Durham police impact Durham’s Black and brown communities. Instead, the city’s call for art prioritizes the police department’s perception of itself and their ideals, rather than prioritizing the lived, embodied realities of how their ideals fall short.
The art pieces by Shane Allbritton, a white woman, and Norman Lee, an Asian-American man are entitled “Woven Shield” and “Sewing Peace” and both are, essentially, pretty and colorful and reference aspects of the police shield in the former and of the Oath of Office in the latter. The piece by Black artist David Wilson is also, essentially, pretty and colorful, though it is entitled “Culture of Transparency.” The title of Wilson’s piece does not match what the piece visually shows. Visually, his work is an overlapping patterns of faces and the word “Durham,” interwoven in a quilt-like pattern. It is not clear from the actual art itself what, if anything about it, has earned the right to be entitled “Culture of Transparency.” And the Durham police department, likewise, has not earned the right to have a piece of art with that title in their headquarters, certainly not one funded by public money.
These three works were funded by through the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Funding approved by City Council. The original budget was $200,000, all of which went to pay for the two pieces by RE: Site. An additional $25,000 was recommended to Council and funded through the CIP in order to pay for Wilson’s piece. Even with only one eighth of the budget of Allbritton and Lee, Wilson was able to involve some level of community engagement around the work, something that Allbritton and Lee did not accomplish.
There are more effective ways the city could have used this public money to create art that would actually help all Durham. For example, instead of this art, the city instead could have commissioned huge portraits of the people that have died in custody or who have been killed by DPD so we never forget and are held accountable for the lives in their hands.
Who is this art actually for?
When we put public art in the Durham Police Headquarters without reckoning with how our police function in our community, then we fail. The Durham police, like police all across our country, still disproportionately target and kill Black and brown people and communities. While this reality may not be the result of police officers who consciously intend to do that, the fact remains that it is our reality. Intention is not the same as impact. This reality means the police are functioning in violent ways that maintain current power structures.
When we place art in the police department—art that doesn’t directly reference or discuss this violent reality—then we fail. In this instance the art functions as a cover, as a veil, meant to falsely signal innocuous, uplifting messages. In this instance, art is functioning to maintain current power structures and we must ask ourselves the question, “Who is this art actually for?” And, what does it mean that this art was publicly funded? Who will be showing up to enjoy public art at the police headquarters? And for the sake of what? The possibility of a glimpse of healing justice through art is lost.
Black and brown communities, in particular, are not welcome in the police headquarters. These communities are disproportionately targeted and arrested. Since one of the goals of the project was to “activate” the police headquarters as a public space, we have to ask the question of who genuinely feels comfortable “activating” the police station?
As it stands, the city spent $225,000 to make the building aesthetically pleasing for the police officers, administrators and for the people who are already relatively comfortable in the space, who are primarily white people. Doing that while saying that this art will “improve every day livability” for everyone in our community is disrespectful and irresponsible.
This project was funded by the city, which means it was funded by the citizens. And not just the citizens that would feel comfortable walking into a police station but citizens that are routinely mistreated, harmed and their lives upended by the institutional practices of the Durham Police Department. Those citizens paid for this public art too. And we hope they never have to see it.
We need to do better
It’s important that those who love our artistic and cultural community consider how art functions. Yes, we still need people willing to work to put art in public places. Yes, we still need artists of every race, gender, sexuality, etc. Yes, we still need places to exhibit and present art and culture. Yes, we need public and private funding to support the arts. Yes, we need more of all of these things and we need the people who make these things happen. But we can’t assume that anything we do to support art is good, because it’s not.