University of Michigan visiting artist's 'vessels' a temporary part of Huron River
William Dennisuk came to Ann Arbor last spring as a finalist for the University of Michigan's Roman Witt Residency Program.
He left with the inspiration to make an artistic gesture that would bridge not only the town-gown gap, but also the gap between art and nature.
William Dennisuk's sculpture "Valence" is in the Huron River at Gallup Park in Ann Arbor.
Lon Horwedel | AnnArbor.com
Dennisuk's gesture became a part of the local landscape Wednesday when the artist installed his sculpture in the Huron River at Gallup Park, where it will remain through October.
A native Detroiter who has spent his last 20 years in Finland, Dennisuk was eager to return to Southeast Michigan and bring public art to the Huron River for the first time.
Dennisuk said he's bracing himself for the public reaction. After a local media outlet reported Dennisuk's works would be installed in the Huron, the artist heard the outcry from community members under the mistaken impression the installation was permanent.
He's encouraging the Ann Arbor community to approach his vessels with an open mind.
"A lot of people like their nature as nature and their culture as culture," Dennisuk said in his studio at the U-M School of Art and Design on North Campus. "I don't see a need to choose between the two."
The Vessel Project
"This isn't 'plop art,' where you kind of just install it then walk away," Dennisuk said of his works, which he's calling the Vessel Project. "My works are meant to interact with their surroundings, to make you think about the interplay between yourself and art and nature."
The Vessel Project is Dennisuk's three-pronged effort.
Part I is already installed in the North Campus reflecting pool.
Part II was installed Wednesday afternoon at Gallup Park.
Part III will be installed in the Nichols Arboretum when water levels drop - likely at the end of next week, the university said.
Employing bronze wire to make vase-like sculptures embodying organic shapes, Dennisuk created three works during his fellowship. Dennisuk initially wanted between four and six, including another sculpture on North Campus and one at Riverside Park, but the permit process for the Huron River installations was too arduous to do more, he said.
Vessels also presented Dennisuk with an artistic challenge, which Zack Jacobson-Weaver, coordinator of the fabrication studio at the art and design school, helped navigate.
"Every college kid thinks their idea is the best ever," Weaver said Tuesday, when he was in the studio putting on finishing touches. "I had to help channel some of their energy for the project at hand."
Dennisuk pushed himself by using bronze rather than his standby, iron. He said he also learned to use the high-end design software at the art school, which led him to bend and twist the bronze in ways he hadn't imagined at first.
Everybody loves the Huron
Making the vessels was the easy part. Obtaining permission to install them in Ann Arbor's waterway, the Huron River, was a much tougher process, Dennisuk said.
Before Dennisuk could mount his vessels, he had to obtain permits from the University of Michigan, the City of Ann Arbor, and the State of Michigan. That process started last fall when Dennisuk arrived and was only resolved recently.
"That said, if I had to do it over again, knowing what I know, everything would go much quicker," Dennisuk said.
Chrisstina Hamilton, director of visitors programs at the U-M School of Art and Design, said the Witt Fellowship is for mid-career artists who can not only produce solid work, but can help U-M students develop as artists as well.
"We wanted a project that could build the bridge between the university and the Ann Arbor community," Hamilton said when asked why Dennisuk was awarded the fellowship. "The vessels will help re-initiate that dialogue."
Ann Arbor resident Mike Kelley, an Arboretum regular who makes the "Heart of Jesus" rock formation in the Arb riverfront - and claims to have tagged the infamous "PRAY" train-bridge decades ago - said he wouldn't mind sharing the Huron with another work of art.
Depending where it's located.
"If they put the sculpture near the parking lot near the hospital, that'd be fine," Kelley said. "But it would be an abomination to put it near the Heart of Jesus - that would just ruin the viewing experience."
Next year, Hamilton said, the Witt Fellowship will host the Kartoon Kings, Christopher Sperandio and Simon Grennan. The two will work alongside the community to create a scale model of Ann Arbor.
James David Dickson can be reached at JamesDickson@AnnArbor.com.
Comments
BikerMatt
Sat, Jun 12, 2010 : 11:56 a.m.
It's just north of the southeast-most pedestrian bridge, north of the path you took. BUT, as of 6/12 it has collapsed into the river, perhaps as a result of either vandalism or flooding.
MSU0284
Wed, Jun 9, 2010 : 8:22 p.m.
Can someone please tell me exactly where at Gallup Park I can find this? I followed a path from Mitchell Field to the Dixboro Dam and did not see it. Thanks.
K2
Tue, Jun 1, 2010 : 1:11 p.m.
Its Pretty! Prettier than I expected!...light and airy...looks like a hot air ballon powered by the river current. 1) Its only there for THIS summer... 2) its quite tame for public art... 3) no tax payer $ was spent... 4) it adds to the Uniqueness of AnnArbor...which, i think, we all agree, is Unique. I was born and raised in the a2 area, but ive traveled to many Unique cities where public art, people AND nature all get along...these are CITIES after all! Not pristine wildernesses. A little art + nature + citizens = great Cities! Enjoy!...at least until October...and to all of you who like to grump, winter will be settling soon after its gone and you can start in on the people who build snowmen!
SonnyDog09
Tue, Jun 1, 2010 : 9:33 a.m.
I saw the light bulb while I was walking my dog on Monday. It looks stupid, like most modern art does. I did like the fishing lure that was stuck to it, though. I thought that was a nice touch.
AAJoker
Mon, May 31, 2010 : 12:47 p.m.
Knowing that this is solitary and temporary, I respect it and admire the art for what it is. As for the totems and the "heart of Jesus", I enjoy taking those apart at every opportunity. I'm amazed the audacity with which Mike Kelley seems to feel the river belongs to him and only him for his boring and overdone creation.
bs
Mon, May 31, 2010 : 10:43 a.m.
I'll be ok with people putting "art" in my river when they say it's OK for me to put my river in their galleries.
J. Sorensen
Mon, May 31, 2010 : 3:10 a.m.
"Heart of Jesus?" "Pray" train bridge? Bronze light bulb? I haven't been to Gallup park in a year or so, but now I have to pray to Jesus AND see the light? What park can athiest's go to?
jane arnt
Sun, May 30, 2010 : 9:20 p.m.
I love it. I have sat at the reflecting pool and watched the piece change throughout the day as the sun moved through it. It was mesmorizing. thank you for sharing your art with us.
free form
Sun, May 30, 2010 : 9:05 p.m.
Like D has pointed out, Gallup Park and the Arb are not some pristine pieces of nature untouched by the hand of man. As the art installations are temporary and not intrusive I think they can fit well into these parks. I think it's important to protect our wild places where necessary, but I just don't see the issue here. I have more of a problem with a man rearranging rocks in the river, diverting currents and causing kayaks and canoes to consistently get stuck near the Arb. But maybe that's just me...
fobhammer
Sun, May 30, 2010 : 7:24 p.m.
temporary placement is responsible. sure wish all the idiots who stack up rock "totems" along the river were aware of how disturbing that is to MY view of nature.
D
Sun, May 30, 2010 : 3:18 p.m.
Rocco, I agree totally. If the view or place is truly an untouched site then better to leave it that way. My thoughts were aimed more at the anti-art/anti-intellectual "You-call-this-art? Ha-ha." crowd. It is a given that any work of art is going to elicit different responses; nothing new about that. However, there are informed opinions and then just plain venting. I think it is important to distinguish these kinds of responses. I also think that there are some contradictions in some peoples views about the environment and notions of purity, and how art might fit into that. I think people like to hop in their cars drive over to a park and get their daily dose of nature, and then go home pop some clothes in the washing machine, turn on the oven, while have the TV going at the same time. Then maybe the next day hop on a plane for a vacation in the Caribbean. I guess I am struggling with this notion of purity and why we compartmentalization things like nature, urban places, art and so on. I think there are examples in history where people have been able to infuse and integrate those elements in ways that they aggrandize each other... as opposed to diminishing each other. I would like to see more of that kind of linkage in urban spaces, park spaces and so on. I think some people see artists like Golsdworthy as a good example for how art and nature can intermingle. While I like his work, and feel he has opened an important door for artist working in the landscape, I think it would be limiting to think that all artists should follow that lead. Even Goldsworthy uses big equipment on some of his projects. Other projects are permanent, and some projects are done in urban settings with a lot of energy-intensive machinery (look at the work he did in New York for a memorial for victims of the Holocaust). I think the point is that some people hold him up as the example of where art should go. They like the idea that his art melts back into nature and in that respect is a kind of model for how art should be. Here again is the contradiction...we expect that of art but then don't demand that for cars, boats and other modern conveniences we find in the city parks.
rocco
Sun, May 30, 2010 : 1:49 p.m.
D, I agree with one of your major points that there is little that would constitute pristine landscape in our area. However, this is not automatically an open invitation to encourage the creation of public art. Even in our small, non-pristine world of Ann Arbor and environs there are wooded areas and places along the river where you can look in all directions and not see evidence of human intervention. These places are meaningful to people for a variety of reasons whether they are little known hiking trails, wildlife observation areas, meditative or inspirational settings, or even secret fishing holes. If you have lived in the area long enough, you know where some of these places are and you value them. They are the antidote to public parks that are well-designed but highly congested. And while these places might be owned by the city, county or state, and defined legally as public space, it would seem reasonable to make some of them off limits to human intervention, including public art.
Khurum
Sat, May 29, 2010 : 11:30 p.m.
I liked it and now feel even stronger reading the usual bloggers saying they didn't like it.
Patricia Cockrell
Sat, May 29, 2010 : 10:23 p.m.
This whole assertion that nature is nature and art is art and they shouldn't mix is just so silly. Human beings interact with every single thing so it all becomes a matter of who gets to control that interaction. Those with no imagination at all seem to miss the obvious fact that everything is impacted by art and art is impacted by everything. Without art there would be no buildings, except that someone somewhere sketched out an idea for it. Even the most rabid naturist has his attachments affected by art. Bicycles were invented and design changes made with the help of human technological inventions, Shoes were designed by someone acting upon a crazy idea s/he had.. Everything! I do not get those concrete thinkers who want to control how and whether art gets appreciated in our lives. Such weird and narrow thinking is not something you would want to pass on to your children. In fact, spend more unstructured time with your children and re-learn how to appreciate the gifts artists bring to all our lives.
citrus
Sat, May 29, 2010 : 10 p.m.
fine surprise. I'd rather have bronze, questionably organic shapes interjected into my nature view, than Jesus and pray. Again, to each his own. River art, river grafitti, river preaching...all part of the flow.
Patricia Cockrell
Sat, May 29, 2010 : 9:45 p.m.
I think one of the hardest things to keep in our lives as we age, is the natural connection we have to whimsy. Taking the mundane to the smiling, chuckling moment, get harder. Art is the key. This is unexpected and marvelous!
genericreg
Sat, May 29, 2010 : 9:18 p.m.
He could have at least made it functional and put a bug zapper in it to kill some mosquitos. It would have gone good with the light bulb shape.
braggslaw
Sat, May 29, 2010 : 9:01 p.m.
I thought it was a tomato planter that somehow got stuck in the river. To each his own. I hope no taxpayer money was spent on it.
D
Sat, May 29, 2010 : 7:36 p.m.
Rocco, I was trying to make a point - perhaps not too clear - that there seems to exist an attitude that nature (especially in AA parks) should not be tampered with; that it is somehow pure and therefore no artworks should be allowed intrude into this pristine landscape, when in fact it is anything but a pristine landscape. Without going to a national forest you can find in the Arb (along the north bank of the Huron River) nature in a more primitive/natural state. However, I don't think you would find many people willing to get muddy and full of scratches to see that more pristine state. In this respect I feel that a number of the comments made about the artwork reflect a double standard, because I do not hear from these same people complaints directed at the other intrusions to peoples view, such as the use of boats, people fishing on the shoreline, swing sets and the rest of the objects/activities we find in the park. To me this sets up a situation, or double-standard, where activities like sports are somehow allowed in parks, but not art. And as I mentioned in my first comment we are talking about a public space. To me that implies the whole public has a right to suggest - and if approved, implement - non-traditional uses of the space. I don't think that cultures or democracies should be static; there has to be a way to interject new concepts into the overall dialogue of who we are and where we are going. In this case I see art in the park as a catalyst to raise these very issues. So my comment was directed at the attitude that would like to exclude art from the park and put it in places that some people feel more comfortable with. Having said that, obviously the people who run the parks have shown some willingness to take a risk and see what the public reaction is. I think the question about whether or not art should be placed in more pristine wilderness is for another discussion. Obviously, if anything like this were to be proposed I would hope that all care and thoughtful consideration would be given. I dont know if it is even possible. I know Christo has been trying to realize one of his projects along the Colorado River (for decades) and has still not received permission.
a2me2
Sat, May 29, 2010 : 6:35 p.m.
Just someone else trying to make a name for themselves by shoving their so called "art" down everyone elses throat. The beauty of nature is that it is NATURE, not a backdrop for someones ego. I wish he would take his light bulb shaped mess of metal out of the water, it is surely scaring the fish...
Veracity
Sat, May 29, 2010 : 6:19 p.m.
When I first saw this I thought that I was looking at a light bulb and wondered how it would be turned on and off and why we needed additional lighting in that part of the river. Now I know better but am no happier. I believe in minimizing any changes to nature as the effects on the functions of nature are not known. This "artwork" may scare birds and other animals who would visit or live in that area. Its presence will alter the routes of canoes. I believe that we do better to incorporate art into useful fixtures that are needed to allow us to enjoy and utilize nature in a non-destructive manner. Let's make our bridges and support buildings attractive and even decorative. Let's assist nature in producing its own art by facilitating nesting and feeding areas for birds and mammals. Artificial structures designed as pure art and then lodged almost anywhere just doesn't fascinate me.
rocco
Sat, May 29, 2010 : 5:52 p.m.
D, are you suggesting that because our local natural environments are not pristine they are more likely candidates for public art if, as you say, we have a set of filters that allows for selective artworks to be placed in the public realm? So where you might have reservations about placing public art in pristine environments, such as Denali in Alaska or remote parts of the Amazon river basin, no such reservations apply to our river areas and parks. Public art often works so well in towns and cities precisely because there are clear expectations of human intervention on multiple levels. In natural settings, there are fewer such expectations. In fact, the more typical expectation is modest human intervention as with the national parks. You might be onto something helpful when you speak of public space. Main Street AA is conceptually not the same public space as waterways along the Huron River. The river has more appeal with less intervention. It is the case of less is more, whereas in the city more might be just what is required.
D
Sat, May 29, 2010 : 2:26 p.m.
The nature we see in Gallup Park is not some kind of pristine nature; it has been tamed, trimmed and shaped by humans. The laws are manicured, the trees selected, vistas cleared and so on. This is a very particular view of nature and by no means is it natural in the sense that an ancient forest is natural. If we think of Japanese gardens, Italian gardens, or French 17th century gardens, they all embody a different views of what nature is, and in doing so, also commented on our place in the broader scheme of things. All those gardens/parks incorporated sculptural elements into the overall design. In that respect having a sculptural object in nature is not a new concept. What is more interesting is how these objects shed light on our relationship to nature and how they embody issues, concerns or understating of our place in the landscape and the wider cosmos. Since we are talking about a public space we have to keep in mind that that space or its views are not owned by any one person. We see plastic and fiberglass boats, some boats even have motors.. We also see cars in the parking lots and sometimes lining the pathways. There are restrooms, trashcans and playgrounds, paved pathways and shelters. We see people fishing, playing sports and games, cooking, walking dogs and so on. In all of these activities and objects I am sure we could find detractors; people who just dont like sports, or boats or whatever. However, it is the public space so there are compromises and we try to accommodate different tastes and demands. In this way we live and treat each other in a civil way. I think in this overall picture there should also be room for art, which after all is a very ancient human activity; found in all cultures and through all periods of history. Having said that I dont think just anything should go into the public space. I think there should be a set of filters that allows for selective artworks to be placed in the public realm. Since this work is only temporary it could stand as model for how to accommodate both the desire for art in the public space, while taking into consideration those who would prefer not to see it all the time. I am familiar with Goldsworthys work, as well as Nil Udo and a whole range of artists working in the landscape. While I like their work I find a spectrum of other artists who are also making interesting contributions and insights into our relationship to nature and the public space. I think the work in Gallup Park will turn more green as the patina ages. This process is part of a natural reaction to the elements and time.
garrisondyer
Sat, May 29, 2010 : 1:31 p.m.
@ Malorie I completely second your thoughts. Art and the natural world work together perfectly, if done the right way. To me this looks really unnatural and out of place... I'll add, too, that there already is a ton of art within nature. We all just need to look for this natural art to see it.
M.
Sat, May 29, 2010 : 1:07 p.m.
Sam, and others - You should note that the article explains very clearly in multiple statements that these pieces are NOT permanent. They are temporary and will be taken down in October. I feel strongly about nature and also about art. I believe in the idea of bringing the two together, but I really wish this one had used a more natural looking medium. My opinion could change after seeing this in person if it looks drastically different from the photo, but using shiny polished metal as the medium when your purpose is to "bridge the gap between art and nature" doesn't work for me. What organic shape is this supposed to be exactly? It instantly reminds me of a light bulb or hot air balloon - neither of which is organic.
daytona084
Sat, May 29, 2010 : 1:02 p.m.
I saw it in the river and could not for the life of me figure out what it was. I thought maybe it was some sort of protective cage for some wildlife restoration project. I would never have guessed it was an art project.
rocco
Sat, May 29, 2010 : 12:12 p.m.
Andy Goldworthy is one of the few artists whose interventions into Nature work for me. Nature has a voice of its own and doesnt need prosthetics or supplements.The reason Goldworthys art is so compelling is that it is constructed of natural materials found in the landscape and is built to self destruct in time as part of a naturally occurring process. In contrast, the piece by William Dennisuck, while elegant in its own right, is like clip art, pasted onto a natural scene. Its interest to me is in its not so subtle contradiction to Nature not its harmony.
A2Susie
Sat, May 29, 2010 : 11:02 a.m.
Oh good grief. You Separation-of-Art-and - Nature people are so rigid. If you find this piece so abhorrent, you can look in a slightly different direction. But it is interesting and graceful and looks fine on the river. And it's in a spot where it's more likely to be seen and appreciated by those of us, especially children, who don't get to an art museum that often. With all the cutbacks taking place in arts education, I think any opportunity to showcase good art should be encouraged. Thank you to the powers that be who made this installation possible and thank you to the artist.
DwightSchrute
Sat, May 29, 2010 : 10:17 a.m.
I echo Craig Lounsbury's sentiment. It looks silly. If he wanted to fuse nature and art, turn that contraption upside down, build 2 or 3 levels inside it with 4 or 5 holes, paint and cover it and hang it in a tree along the Huron River as a bird's nest.
Sam
Sat, May 29, 2010 : 10:17 a.m.
One given is that artists don't have to be terribly eloquent when they talk about their work. The works are supposed to speak for themselves, after all. Still, it is a chore to listen to them spout their clichs and lame efforts to justify what they do. In this case it's the same old story of visual artists trying to compete with nature. They stick their stuff up outdoors somewhere to interfere with our views of rivers and sunsets or whatever, and nine times out of ten they muck it up; witness the goofiness that is taking place in Grand Rapids these days. There, at least, the only thing that usually suffers is the drab city-scape. The only time it really works is when it gussies up some deficient architectural landmark. No matter, they will continue to try. Let's just hope that it rusts away after a few years.
Tom
Sat, May 29, 2010 : 9:53 a.m.
Nature, especially here in SE Michigan, is nearly always "framed" by something human made - bridges, buildings, people in boats, etc. These things intrude whether we like it or not. Artists and designers have, for centuries offered a way to frame nature more deliberately. Consider gardens, parks, pathways, back yards. Perhaps some commentators here don't need this kind of referential tool, but it has a long history and I for one appreciate the artist's attempt to give me a different perspective on nature and beauty.
AlphaAlpha
Sat, May 29, 2010 : 9:36 a.m.
Well done Mr. Dennisuk. What an interesting idea. It merits a special visit to appreciate; perhaps a food vendor will locate nearby, or a photographer, or a tour boat. Allusions aside, this concept could grow substantially. We now have a fine new piece of art. It will become even nicer as the bronze attains a green patina (hmm...see the light, go green). The future Ann Arbor River Art Festival could be a significant beneficial addition to our region. Sculptures, students, visitors, talent, tourists, supporting vendors, entertainment, dollars, and yes tax revenue. Perhaps the Dennisuk Awards for special works. We are lucky to have a talented and courageous artist here. Hopefully this concept will grow and improve for many years.
tdw
Sat, May 29, 2010 : 8:59 a.m.
like most modern art its kinda stupid
Bookbag
Sat, May 29, 2010 : 8:27 a.m.
LOVE IT! LOVE IT! Can't wait to go see - don't think I can make myself wait for Part 3 - I'll want to go back and see them each in order again. The picture is beautiful. It looks like you've succeeded in not "interrupting" the nature; your work doesn't seem to stand in counterpoint to nature. It looks like another "natural" being (human) visited this place. Your "natural form" reminds me of the delicate netting of a red-winged blackbird's nest.
dairy6
Sat, May 29, 2010 : 8:20 a.m.
I agree. I was fishing from my boat in Gallup last night and saw this thing. As I went by I said to myself, "What is this stupid thing and why is it here?
Craig Lounsbury
Sat, May 29, 2010 : 6:58 a.m.
"He left with the inspiration to make an artistic gesture that would bridge.... the gap between art and nature." The "gap between art and nature" needs to remain in place. "Art" is subjective and should not be forced on people enjoying nature. That isn't "art" to me its river graffiti. If Mr. Dennisuk wants to incorporate nature in to his art I say go right ahead. But do not incorporate your art in to my nature.