Meeting for Sufferings: The Skyspace
The James Turrell 'Skyspace' decision was discussed at Meeting for Sufferings
An Area Meeting, in the wake of the decision not to proceed with the James Turrell ‘Skyspace’ at Friends House, has requested that the terms of reference of Britain Yearly Meeting (BYM) trustees be reconsidered.
West Kent Area Meeting asked, specifically, that ‘items concerning “Vision and Values” are to be the province of BYM and Meeting for Sufferings’.
This concern was prompted by the way in which they felt the proposal for a ‘Skyspace’ for Friends House, designed by the distinguished American Quaker artist James Turrell, had been handled.
Their minute, from a specially convened Area Meeting, states: ‘We do not feel that there has been proper consultation or communication on the matter of the Skyspace, but reluctantly fall short of asking for the decision to be re-opened. We are asked to “live adventurously”. We have missed an opportunity for something special at Friends House.’
West Kent Area Meeting were responding to the minute of a meeting of BYM trustees in Friends House on 10 May. It announced that a decision had been made not to proceed with the ‘Skyspace’ and gave reasons for it.
James Turrell had offered to give his design work pro bono and, in addition, expressed a willingness to donate the proceeds of the sale of artworks to clients to a level sufficient to cover the cost of the installation.
In presenting his report of the 10 May trustees meeting to Meeting for Sufferings Jonathan Fox, clerk of BYM trustees, talked about the ‘Skyspace’ decision.
He said ‘trustees had not found it easy to reach a decision’ and realised that whatever course of action was taken ‘some Friends will feel disappointment and even dismay’, and that Friends would ‘need to uphold each other with love’.
James Turrell had said ‘you’ve got to want to do it’. Jonathan Fox admitted that trustees, after a long discernment, had reached a decision that ‘they did not want to do it enough’.
Jonathan Fox apologised that communication on the subject had not been as good as had been hoped. He explained that a number of factors, including that of ‘timing’ and the pressure to make decisions at inconvenient times, had contributed to this.
He then explained some of the reasons behind the decision made by trustees not to accept the offer. They are very clearly expressed in the minute of the BYM trustees meeting on 10 May.
While the central importance of light, both natural and artificial, in the installation resonates with the long standing significance of light in the expression of faith of Quakers, the minute states that ‘we have also heard of concerns that the installation does not necessarily reflect our concept of the Light being from within, reflecting our experiential approach to spirituality and faith.’
Simplicity was another important factor. The minute stated that ‘some of us have an anxiety that the installation might become more important than the Meeting house itself and this would not sit comfortably with Quaker views on simplicity.’
The environmental impact of proceeding with the ‘Skyspace’ was also highlighted in the minute of BYM trustees. The operation of the installation would, it was stated, ‘undoubtedly risk increasing our carbon footprint and require a long term commitment to its maintenance and management’, which would be in conflict with minute 36 of Yearly Meeting in 2011. An enormous amount of work has been done, and is in the process of being done, to achieve sustainability targets for Friends House. The minute stated: ‘We are conscious that the legacy of maintenance and resource needed to manage the Skyspace may become a burden to Friends in the future.’
The trustees also pointed out that to install a feature that costs such a substantial amount of money, even if donated for the purpose, would ‘run counter’ to the commitment of Friends to economic justice expressed in minute 23 of Yearly Meeting in 2011.
The minute stated: ‘We perceive a risk to our reputation as a body which upholds and works to support the disadvantaged in society and globally. To many Friends, to accept the gift would compromise our witness to those suffering under an inadequate economic system, particularly at a time of austerity, and would send the wrong message about our commitment to equality and the right use of money.’
Comments
Perhaps the link to the BYM Trustees Terms of Reference on the Quaker website could be provided
By John & Sally B on 19th July 2012 - 20:20
Please login to add a comment
