Charleston, W.Va. — A mural project within the historic State Capitol Building in West Virginia has sparked legal action, prompting discussions surrounding the intersection of public art, political influence, and historical legacy. Amidst political tumult, the West Virginia Department of Arts, Culture and History faces a lawsuit that aims to halt the installation of murals, commissioned to John Canning and Co., a Connecticut-based company. The controversy primarily involves objections to the artistic content and the manner the artists were chosen.
Attorney Michael Hissam, representing the West Virginia Department Department of Arts, Culture and History, filed a motion for dismissal on Thursday, labeling the lawsuit as baseless and politically motivated. The lawsuit, initiated by West Virginia residents Gregory Morris and Tom Acosta and led by attorney Harvey Peyton in August, seeks to annul the contract for the murals, demand the removal of the completed works, and halt further installations.
The legal challenge asserts that the Capitol Building Commission, which oversees modifications to Capitol properties, did not approve the mural designs beforehand. Yet, the commission ratified the ongoing mural project by a vote of 4-1 on October 16—an approval that came after scaffolding for the murals had already been erected in April.
Costing more than $509,000, the initiative did not undergo a competitive bidding process. Instead, it was classified under an exemption category for items considered “impossible-to-bid,” such as artwork and historical artifacts, as stated in the state Purchasing Division Procedures Handbook.
The artistic endeavor aimed to fulfill unfinished plans by famed Capitol architect Cass Gilbert, whose original visions for the decorative Capitol artworks were thwarted by financial constraints during the Great Depression. The first series of murals unveiled for West Virginia Day on June 20 captures pivotal moments and figures in state history, from the Civil War’s Battle of Philippi to representations of the state seal.
These mural installations have not been devoid of controversy, particularly regarding the inclusion of a depiction of Babydog, Governor Jim Justice’s English bulldog, a decision made abruptly by a few cabinet officials and the Governor’s staff members. This element added to the murals has been criticized as whimsical and undermining the otherwise historical narrative the artworks intended to convey.
The revival of this project did not originally emerge until 2019 by Secretary Randall Reid-Smith, operating on a previous 2010 Capitol Building Commission’s endorsement which had lain dormant due to lack of funds. Critics, including Peyton, have suggested that the revival process was opaque and even labeled it a “civil conspiracy” to evade a legitimate bidding process. Nonetheless, Hissam contends that the plaintiffs lack standing and should not utilize the judiciary to settle political disputes about public art standards.
As the case progresses, the project continues with workers putting finishing touches on the last four murals of an eight-mural project. The completion of Gilbert’s envisioned artistic enhancements, nearly a century later, attempts to resolve unfinished historical expressions through the modern lens of commission-approved public art.
This article was automatically generated by Open AI, and details including characters, facts, statistics, and other specifics might be inaccurately presented. For requests regarding removal, retraction, or corrections of the content, please reach out to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.