Chris Drury’s “Carbon Sink” as installed on the University of Wyoming’s campus. The 36-foot diameter sculpture, composed of scorched wood felled by pine beetles, was removed earlier this year.
A week after May’s commencement when no one was looking, the University of Wyoming caved into political pressure, removed a shelf of books from the library, stacked them on Prexy’s Pasture and set them on fire. The book burning was done to appease those who believed that writing about environmental issues threatened the extractive industries of the state.
OK, there was no book burning at the university, but there was something every bit as horrifying to those who value free speech. In May, the art installation “Carbon Sink: What Goes Around Comes Around” by Chris Drury was destroyed and its remains consigned to the dump and power plant (of course, the coal was burned). The only evidence of this compelling and controversial artwork that implied a connection between fossil fuels, climate change and dying forests is a circular patch of sod.
A central purpose of a university is to foster discussion of important issues. Drawing attention to the consequences of how modern society fuels itself seems perfectly aligned with the goal of promoting intelligent, civil discourse. So why would the University of Wyoming destroy a powerful piece of art that had catalyzed such lively conversation about one of the vital issues of our time?
With no explanation forthcoming, a rumor arose that “Carbon Sink” had been dismantled to repair a broken sprinkler. It says something that such a patently ridiculous rationale could get traction on campus. Of course, the institution did not destroy a politically problematical piece of art because of a plumbing predicament. The official explanation is even more absurd.
According to UW, “There was never the expectation that ‘Carbon Sink’ would remain in place for an extended period of time.”
Really? Less than a year earlier, Susan Moldenhauer, director of the UW Art Museum, said, “There are no plans to uninstall it.” And the artist, Chris Drury, said that the piece was “intended to return to nature through decay and will probably be gone in 5 to 20 years.”
In a recent interview, Drury responded to the destruction of his work: “I was led to believe the piece would be up until it had deteriorated.” What deteriorated was the university’s courage to stand up for intellectual and artistic freedom.
The other part of the university’s explanation is equally implausible. The artwork was removed “because there was not a permanent source of funding to maintain it.” “Carbon Sink” was part of a larger program and some of the other pieces might have needed some upkeep. However, decay doesn’t require a whole lot of maintenance.
By my calculations, the total annual costs would have been around $200. If anyone had asked, I would have paid this bill myself to keep a compelling piece of environmental art on campus. For that matter, the removal cost of $3,037 was greater than 15 years worth of care-taking.
Given the extraordinary generosity of the legislature to UW, the institution is indebted to the politicians who are, in turn, beholden to the energy industry. Even though the piece was as much about individual responsibility as corporate accountability, legislators from energy-rich counties were unhappy with “Carbon Sink.” The declining demand for coal and the falling prices for natural gas made a fossil-fueled state government grumpy. Commonsense, experience with the “Wyoming Way” and conversations with legislators leaves little doubt that the university administration traded free speech for political pacification.
People on the inside of Wyoming politics say that the day the artwork was destroyed a servile email was sent to the carbonophilous legislators. Whether or not this bit of obsequious icing was added to the humble pie, our leaders should consider the warning of Somerset Maugham:
“If a nation [or university?] values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that, too.”
Maybe I’m just paranoid. But like Kurt Cobain (not a favorite of conservatives) said, “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.” And in this case, what might otherwise be a conspiracy theory became an explicit political policy during the 2012 legislative session.
