A New York artist has won a court injunction temporarily blocking the planned demolition of a 30-year-old outdoor art installation in Des Moines’ Greenwood Park.
At the same time, however, the court has refused to order the repair and restoration of the project, leaving the eventual fate of the deteriorating art installation in the hands of the city rather than the Des Moines Art Center.
The installation – which consists of a pavilion and walkways surrounding a pond — was commissioned by the Des Moines Art Center in 1994 and was designed by New York artist Mary Miss. Greenwood Park is located just south of Grand Avenue and the art center.
In 2023, the art center announced that because the installation had fallen into disrepair it posed a threat to public safety and would be demolished due to the high cost of repairs and ongoing maintenance. Since then, Greenwood Park neighbors and individuals within the art community have protested the decision.
Last month, Miss filed a lawsuit against the art center in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa in an effort to block the demolition.
U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Locher issued the injunction late Friday.
“Although judges should never shy away from deciding difficult issues, there are some problems that the legal system is simply ill-equipped to solve,” Locher wrote in his decision. “This is one of those problems.”
Locher noted that both the center and Miss agree that the ravages of weather have altered the installation to such an extent that both are dissatisfied with its current appearance. “They disagree, however, on what to do about it,” Locher noted. “The art center believes the artwork is in poor enough condition that it presents a safety risk and must be demolished, while Miss believes it can and should be restored or repaired… Neither side is entitled to what it wants.”
Locher found that the center cannot demolish the artwork without Miss’ consent given that it promised in writing not to do so. “The court therefore must grant Miss’s motion for preliminary injunction insofar as it seeks to prevent the art center from tearing down the artwork. Miss cannot, however, force the art center to repair or restore the artwork to its original condition because the same contract gives the art center unilateral discretion to decide whether to undertake repairs or restoration, and the art center has reasonably decided the cost is too high.”
Locher observed that “the end result is, therefore, an unsatisfying status quo: The artwork will remain standing, for now, despite being in a condition that no one likes but that the court cannot order anyone to change.”
He added, however, that “the City of Des Moines can — and presumably would — override Miss’s position and order the site to come down if the risk to public safety is as severe as the art center claims.”
The current dispute grew out of citizen complaints that the installation had fallen into such disrepair that it posed a safety hazard. During an October 2023 inspection, the art center staff concluded the freestanding arches, cantilevered boardwalk and pavilion were damaged by rotting wood.
The arches, in fact, were so structurally unsound that they could be moved several feet by one person simply pushing against them. Within days, the arches were taken down — without the permission of Miss — and the center’s director informed Miss that portions of the artwork were being closed to the public due to deterioration. A permit for demolition was then secured from the city.
All parties agree that Miss’ original contract with the art center stipulated that the “Art Center agrees that it will not intentionally damage, alter, relocate, modify or change the work without the prior written approval of the artist.”
According to a structural engineer’s report, the cost to fully repair and restore the artwork would exceed $2.6 million, which equals one-third of the center’s annual operating budget.
In her lawsuit, Miss has argued the center is contractually obligated to protect the installation from the effects of time and weather, and that demolition would be in violation of the Visual Arts Rights Act of 1990.
That law, which is part of the federal copyright law, provides artists with certain rights in preventing the destruction of works of “recognized stature” even when ownership of the works has been transferred to others.
“The project is an original work of art and cannot be found anywhere else on planet Earth,” the lawsuit states. “Its destruction is its extinction.”
In his ruling, Locher found that it is “unlikely” Miss would prevail in a lawsuit based on the Visual Arts Rights Act of 1990.
At the same time, however, the court has refused to order the repair and restoration of the project, leaving the eventual fate of the deteriorating art installation in the hands of the city rather than the Des Moines Art Center.
The installation – which consists of a pavilion and walkways surrounding a pond — was commissioned by the Des Moines Art Center in 1994 and was designed by New York artist Mary Miss. Greenwood Park is located just south of Grand Avenue and the art center.
In 2023, the art center announced that because the installation had fallen into disrepair it posed a threat to public safety and would be demolished due to the high cost of repairs and ongoing maintenance. Since then, Greenwood Park neighbors and individuals within the art community have protested the decision.
Last month, Miss filed a lawsuit against the art center in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa in an effort to block the demolition.
U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Locher issued the injunction late Friday.
“Although judges should never shy away from deciding difficult issues, there are some problems that the legal system is simply ill-equipped to solve,” Locher wrote in his decision. “This is one of those problems.”
Locher noted that both the center and Miss agree that the ravages of weather have altered the installation to such an extent that both are dissatisfied with its current appearance. “They disagree, however, on what to do about it,” Locher noted. “The art center believes the artwork is in poor enough condition that it presents a safety risk and must be demolished, while Miss believes it can and should be restored or repaired… Neither side is entitled to what it wants.”
Locher found that the center cannot demolish the artwork without Miss’ consent given that it promised in writing not to do so. “The court therefore must grant Miss’s motion for preliminary injunction insofar as it seeks to prevent the art center from tearing down the artwork. Miss cannot, however, force the art center to repair or restore the artwork to its original condition because the same contract gives the art center unilateral discretion to decide whether to undertake repairs or restoration, and the art center has reasonably decided the cost is too high.”
Locher observed that “the end result is, therefore, an unsatisfying status quo: The artwork will remain standing, for now, despite being in a condition that no one likes but that the court cannot order anyone to change.”
He added, however, that “the City of Des Moines can — and presumably would — override Miss’s position and order the site to come down if the risk to public safety is as severe as the art center claims.”
The current dispute grew out of citizen complaints that the installation had fallen into such disrepair that it posed a safety hazard. During an October 2023 inspection, the art center staff concluded the freestanding arches, cantilevered boardwalk and pavilion were damaged by rotting wood.
The arches, in fact, were so structurally unsound that they could be moved several feet by one person simply pushing against them. Within days, the arches were taken down — without the permission of Miss — and the center’s director informed Miss that portions of the artwork were being closed to the public due to deterioration. A permit for demolition was then secured from the city.
All parties agree that Miss’ original contract with the art center stipulated that the “Art Center agrees that it will not intentionally damage, alter, relocate, modify or change the work without the prior written approval of the artist.”
According to a structural engineer’s report, the cost to fully repair and restore the artwork would exceed $2.6 million, which equals one-third of the center’s annual operating budget.
In her lawsuit, Miss has argued the center is contractually obligated to protect the installation from the effects of time and weather, and that demolition would be in violation of the Visual Arts Rights Act of 1990.
That law, which is part of the federal copyright law, provides artists with certain rights in preventing the destruction of works of “recognized stature” even when ownership of the works has been transferred to others.
“The project is an original work of art and cannot be found anywhere else on planet Earth,” the lawsuit states. “Its destruction is its extinction.”
In his ruling, Locher found that it is “unlikely” Miss would prevail in a lawsuit based on the Visual Arts Rights Act of 1990.
