Regardless of your political views it is an eye sore piece of art. To me it looks like a fraternity decided to have a bonfire in the middle of the lawn. I wouldn't chose that piece of art to being with.

I am a journalism student at the University of Wyoming. I read the New York Times article about the Carbon Sink art piece immediately before I read this one. Did you bother to do your own research? Everything you said was just stuff paraphrased from the NY Times. While I believe that there is a lot about this article that is poorly done, the one thing that both you and the NY Times failed to do was check the facts on one little tiny tidbit of information, not that it matters now that the article has been published and the "truth" is out there. I have been here for two years and I am unaware of any newly renovated recreation center. If you are referring to Half Acre Gym, which is a gym in every sense of the word and NOT a recreation center, remodeling and renovations do not start on that until the summer of 2013.

Reading Lubnau comments clearify the situation as of what exact role he played in the matter. The issue here I believe is not how the money was spent because that decision was already made. The artwork was produced and put in a public part of the University. That committee already had to know somewhat what the artwork was going to be before it was produced. The topic here comes down to interpretation. The artist shared his ideas but as a piece of artwork you are free to think whatever you want and free to interpret the meaning of the art. I can think of several different ideas how to intrepret that specific artwork without spending much time on it.
Which brings me to my next point of that if the concern is to show Wyoming culture and how it has shaped the state then how can someone say that representation is wrong? Mining coal has had an effect on our earth. Period. That fact is there and no one is getting rid of it. So pine bettle kill is also part of wyoming's history. Thats another fact period. So saying that you need to take down this work of art to acurately represent wyoming is saying you don't want to acurately represent wyoming culture and effects. Bottom line is that when it comes to censorship on anything the important key to keep in mind is what is the motive to censor and is that motive truthful or not? You can be the Judge of that.

From the Billings Gazette, October 13, 2012:

Emails: University of Wyoming officials sped up, touted removal of anti-coal sculpture

Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/emails-university-of-wyoming-officials-sped-up-touted-removal-of/article_68e9f7a3-76fb-5378-9ca3-0f0170e0bbc5.html#ixzz29O8jjdcx

First some clarifcation, and then some commentary.

1. No legislator had any hand in removing the Carbon Sink sculpture. The University of Wyoming had an outdoor art program. According to the UW museum director, the entire program was slated to end, and the art removed. Multiple other sculptures were removed, solely at the discretion of the University of Wyoming. The only one that received any commentary was the one with a political statement. All of the other works quietly were dismanteled.

2. No legislator ever called for the removal of the Carbon Sink sculpture. No legislator ever commented publically on the artistic merit. Art is supposed to stir discussion. The discussion I offered was that I thought it hypocritical to use carbon dollars to fund an anti-carbon sculpture. But . . . since the discussion was not politically correct, that is, validating the anti-carbon them, my speech must somehow be limited.

3. I'm not the Speaker of the House. We have a very good person serving in that role. I'm the Majority Floor Leader.

Now the commentary.

1. Had the funds been Sierra Club Dollars used to fund a sculpture extolling the virtues of coal mining, would the commentary have been so criticized, or is that hypocrisy somehow justified, but the counter not so justified?

2. Who is qualified to determine how public dollars are spent for art? Elected officials? Unelected art czars? Art scholars? the General Public? Donors to a public institution?

3. The statutory language which is the subject of criticism is that the University shall add in only one building (and not the whole campus) which is being remodeled artwork which displays the historical, cultural and current significance of transportation, agriculture and minerals in Wyoming’s history. The University selects the artwork subject to the approval of a committee of folks. Now, if the artwork suggested was for wilderness areas or the protection of wildlife, would the criticism be different? If the panel to judge the artwork was not comprised of Wyoming's major employers, but of a panel of wildlife enthusiasts, would the standards be different? Would the criticism be different?

The real battle, here, is who gets to choose how public dollars are spent for artistic endeavours. Is it the elected officials, their designees, a bureucrat, an academician, or just some interested person off the street? And . . . who gets to choose the choosers? In Wyoming, we spread that choice around, sometimes.

Tom Lubnaus expressed his opinion, which is apparently shared by many. But not all. That's freedom of speech. A public university, even one of its buildings, should not represent any viewpoint without allowing a corresponding viewpoint in proximity. His opinion is valid, his power to exorcise opposing viewpoints is appalling. Republican? Does he represent a Republican viewpoint? Is there room for anything else?

“What’s wrong with allowing … [the] industry [to] have approval, or the veto power on a few pieces of art in this one building?”

Mr. Nestoff, this is not about lawmakers just removing a piece of art they approved. It's about allowing a donor to the university a say in what is expressed there.

I just listened to this interview on the radio. J (from Portland), Kurt Anderson kept exactly the right note: cool. He did not have to badger Tom Lubnaus, who was upfront about his opinion. Lubnaus' remark in the above paragraph as well his noting that the majority of the university's funding came from the energy industry both point toward corporate-led censorship.

Lawmakers should not have removed the artwork to spare the discomfort of the gas and coal industry. Universities receive funding from many sources, including taxpayers, corporate sponsors, alumni, and more. If any of these were able to control expression on campus because of that funding, there might not be any art or free discussion in classes.

Art takes many forms, including the thought-provoking, controversial form. Art is often one of those few areas from which we hear alternative points of view to the commercial, which has a monopoly on airtime.

So, I believe that industry may help fund university programs (directly or through tax dollars), but that funding is a gift not a purchase of a certain point of view. At my university, we have an area called "corporate giving" not "corporate buying."

Really, the discussion thus far is a bit far reaching. Politics and censorship are interesting concepts as applied here, but the bottom line is that a donation is a gift, and once something is given, the recipient is free to do whatever they wish with the item received. While there may be social contracts regarding reciprocity, legally, a gift is given with no strings attached. Give me something and I can either use it, sell it, give it or throw it away despite any displeasure the donor may display. A "gift" with either an implicit or explicit expectation from either the donor or the recipient constitutes bribery, and that is exactly what is going on here.

I found you interview with the Speaker of the Wyoming Legislature interesting and like the look of the artwork in question. All public art is approved or denied by someone. If I understood the Speaker's point, this one piece in this one location was removed by lawmakers. So the lawmakers had the authority as opposed to the university president or art director. How don't see what's wrong with that. Overwrought comments by others that this is censorship, seem to show a lack of understanding of the definition of censorship.

I have listened to inane, cowardly interviews of political liars over NPR for too long. Today was the turn-around. Kurt Anderson subjected us to the Speaker of the Wyoming Legislature's faux humble rantings, but THEN!!! but THEN!!! he followed up....what a concept.....with, "Yes, I have heard other very powerful people use similar terms to describe themselves." Of course, this guy was one of the minions of Big Oil, Big Business, who obey their masters and ordered THEIR minions at the Univ of Wyoming to 'disappear' the sculpture made by this brave artist and displayed by the equally brave, if powerless, Art Dept of the Univ of Wyoming. Thanks for revealing to the public what we know: Money rules!! Truth in Art will be destroyed just as surely as Diega's mural for the United Nations was destroyed.

C'mon. It's straight out censoring by the power of the fossil fuel industry. The University should be ashamed.

We are terrifyingly close to the end of civilization because of our addiction to dirty energy and cheap goods. I am surprised artists are not using their skills to raise awareness of our predicament!

This isn't the first time the University of Wyoming has practiced censorship. They were sued in 2010 for banning a speaker. The student won.

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_78f84292-4ce4-500f-a50e-05de6a8070cf.html

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2010/04/william_ayers_speech_universit.php

Here's the student:
http://cognitivedissonance.tumblr.com

your interview with tom lubnau was very disappointing. why didn't you question him harder when he was spouting nonsense. or is this program journalism-lite and I should listen to something else if I want to be mentally stimulated?