Most of the time it seems pointless to decry the continued uncontrolled urbanization of the violet crown. You can’t stop progress, the old saying goes, especially when there is money to be made. And in the Austin art scene, a shift from local to cosmopolitan points of view was inevitable.
Nevertheless, when millions in grants and life-changing opportunities are at stake, and when our homegrown talent is overlooked in favor of big names from distant concrete jungles, it strikes me as disrespectful and negligent.
As part of Austin’s Airport Expansion and Development Program for the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (ABIA or AUS), artists will be commissioned for large-scale installations to be placed in the airport. Among the artists approved for the $10.6 million project are:
— Saya Woolfalk (New York), $5.8 million, Tunnel (Phase I)
— Jim Campbell (San Francisco), Terminal-Tunnel Interface, $2.4 million (Phase I)
— Yvette Mayorga (Chicago), Concourse B-Tunnel Interface, $2.4 million (Phase I)
— Jasmine Azalea Zelaya (Houston), Arrivals Baggage Claim, $1 million (Phase II)
— Steven Parker (Austin), Arrivals Curbside, $512,000 (Phase II)
— Gil Rocha (Laredo), Departures Ticketing, $1 million (Phase II)
— Stephan Hillerbrand and Mary Magsamen (Houston), Elevated Pedestrian Bridge, $540,000 (Phase II)
— Raul Buitrago (New York, Austin), Lower-Level Pedestrian Crossings, $416,000 (more on this later..) (Phase II)
— Anahita Bradberry (Austin), Lower-Level Pedestrian Crossings, $832,000 (Phase II)
— Virginia Lee Montgomery (Houston, Austin), Midfield Concourse, $400,000 (Phase II).
A digital rendering of the planned tunnel at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, connecting the existing Barbara Jordan Terminal and future concourse B
Phase I
Phase I was open to local and international artists, was a limited entry competition, and was selected by a panel (Brian J. Carter, Justine Ludwig, Ingrid Spencer, Coka Trevino, J. Gibran Villalobos, Jennifer Williams, and Robert Mercado) appointed by Constance Y. White, the AUS Arts Manager, a position within the arts and music division of the City of Austin Department of Aviation Guest Services. Prior to White’s post as manager of Art in Public Places in Austin in 2022, she managed art programs in Dallas, San Diego, and Charlotte. She moved into her current role last year.
The reality of non-Texas artists being awarded these coveted contracts is rubbing the local art community all the way wrong, and has citizens outside the art world scratching their heads in dismay.
Independent advocate for Austin artists Jen Robichaux spoke at the Austin City Council regular meeting on June 5, urging them to revoke the contracts in favor of Austin-based artists. She said, “The selection process — a limited-entry competition — invited 46 artists, only five eligible from Texas. Yet, neither the primary nor the alternate picks are Texans […] Local artists live, pay taxes, and spend here, strengthening our economy. Sending funds out of state weakens our community.”
In the early days of the development of the Airport Expansion plan, White appeared on a podcast, where she addressed a desire to “cultivate the talent here, and to provide opportunities to the talent that’s here.” She spoke of “recognizing that the cost of living for everyone, including creatives, can be a little prohibitive to your creative process, and thinking about a livable wage. Our talent is leaving the city proper and moving out to the suburbs, or leaving the region, just for affordability. If we can contribute to some of that talent retention by offering more projects that are appealing, we can contribute to the bottom line of the artists that live here.”
But that support is lacking, and according to Mayor Pro Tem Vanessa Fuentes, local artists may not be capable of installations of this scale. “[The airport art installation] is going to be integrated in the building’s design. These are not paintings going on a wall. We’re talking architecturally designed elements in a way that’s immersive and experiential,” shesaid in response to the pushback.
This sentiment excludes a portion of the community. Translation: “We want to think bigger than the pool of artists available to us in Austin. We’re reaching beyond that scope.”
In the words of one local artist, “My assumption is, the art that gets made is secondary to the name.” If so, what we have here is a case of snobbery, and of discrimination.
For some reason, that old Pace Picante commercial keeps coming to mind while I’m writing this. If we favor global artists with their elite connections, clout, and opulence with the goal of making Austin a legitimate art destination, we’re promoting a lifestyle far from our own, and debasing the eccentricity of our fair city we’ve long strived to maintain. Get a rope.
A fresh approach to the selection process would be to help Austin artists make themselves a more enticing prospect. Perhaps that’s in line with the mission of the newly formed Office of Arts, Culture, Music and Entertainment (ACME). According to ACME director Angela Means, ACME’s purpose is “to expand access, reduce financial and geographic barriers, and encourage collaboration between artists, businesses, nonprofits, and educational institutions.” But, since ACME has only been around a few months, it might be too early to put all of our eggs in that basket just yet.
The goal of elevating Austin in the realm of art to global prominence is not news. But let’s define global prominence. It implies a desire to elevate how Austin is viewed by the world; it doesn’t have to do with elevating local artists. The powers that be are not seeing a way to market that.
The prestige of big city artists seems to have been a higher priority over supporting local artists to realize a major contract such as the ones awarded to Saya Woolfalk et al. And according to one local artist, “Dang, [neglecting to select local talent for this large-scale project] is unnecessary bad press for a thriving airport, like a self-inflicted wound. Also, historically the airport has flubbed some bucks on several projects.”
Vito Acconci, “Seedbed,” 1972
A Site-Specific Emission
An endeavor the city should wish to avoid is a repeat of the 2013 debacle with one Vito Acconci.
Vito Acconci of New York was hired to create a sculpture at CONRAC (Consolidated Rental Car Facility) at ABIA in 2013. While it’s not clear why, Acconci’s contract was later terminated.
One thing the artist was known for were his unfinished works. He even said he never had a “goal of built projects.” The other thing he was known for was an unsettling installation in 1975 in SoHo. Patrons entered an empty gallery with an elevated floor. While confused dandies wandered around the blank space with speakers on the walls, Acconci lay on his side under the flooring uttering odd requests to the art enthusiasts above while pleasuring himself. Presumably he finished that project.
A work by Raul Buitrago
Phase II
Phase II was an open competition designated as exclusively forartists based in Texas, yet — as Robichaux related before the Austin City Council — New York-based and Houston-born Raul Buitrago registered an LLC for his company, Wolf Council Productions, Inc, with an Austin address, the day after he was approved by the panel for the project. This particularly egregious development suggests the cat was already in the bag. He even has a photo on the home page of his website of a gentleman getting a haircut in front of a bitchin’ Oldsmobile Cutlass with Texas plates.
In the words of one Austin expat, “What is an Austin artist? Could I do the work even though I live elsewhere now? I’d love to travel and get so much money for one project.”
City of Austin’s Mayor Pro Tem Vanessa Fuentes
Phase III
Which leaves Phase III as the only portion of the proposal specified as open to Austin resident artists only. It covers 18 restroom entryways at $40,000 each, two spaces for children at $546,000 each, and two Mobility Assistance and Sensory Amenity Lounges at $546,000 each. Phase III boasts a total budget of $3.19 million.
In another bit of bone-throwing, the artists selected for the expansion will be required to work with 10% of local talent in creating and building their large-scale installations. According to Mayor Pro Tem Fuentes, “What better way to bring in art from all over the world and still ensure we’re including local artists?” But others draw a different conclusion. As one local artist stated, “Definitely has a sting to it. It’s an airport, not a destination, so why not infuse the total budget into the local creative community and showcase the local talents? Who is this Fuentes? Is she a transplant?”
I reached out to multiple artists about the proposed plan, with mixed results. One supported the decision to outsource the work, citing a “scale and budget too big for inexperienced public artists. Some local artists considered have no or very minimal exposure to public artworks designed to be installed for a minimum of 20 years. That span of time requires years of experience and understanding a narrow set of materials in depth.”
“I served on a selection panel a couple of times and it was a very interesting process. It seemed pretty fair to me,” said another.
But the experience left a bad taste in the mouth of a number of insiders who had something useful to bring to the conversation but did not want their comments to be shared in this context.
I get it. They don’t want to rock the boat. Maybe the boat needs rocking.
Constance White addresses the Austin Arts Commission
A Site-Specific Mission
One last note on the mission of AUS. At the August 19, 2024 Regular Meeting of the Arts Commission, Constance White introduced something called the Journey With AUS Vision and described its mission as: “Meet the current and future needs of our growing region while staying true to our roots and elevating the passenger journey with an authentic Austin and Central Texas Experience.” AUS Arts, she said, “would contribute to the Journey With AUS Vision by elevating the passenger experiences through presentation of experiential art and culture that reflect the character of communities local to Austin and, more broadly, to the Central Texas Region, that cultivate a unique airport environment and broaden the perspective of world class travel featuring AUS as a gateway to the world for all.”
How can we possibly preserve our rich culture and “stay true to our roots” while simultaneously pandering to a global arts community and ignoring our own most valuable and unique resources? How can local artists hope to achieve success on a global scale when they are denied opportunities in their own city?
This land is our land.
****
Author’s note: I posed these questions directly to White and Mayor Pro Tem Vanessa Fuentes. Fuentes responded:
“Austin’s creative scene stands proudly alongside the best in the country. Which is why from the start, the airport expansion was designed with dedicated sections for local, state, and national artists, with Austin’s talent accounting for over half of the project contracts.
Thanks to direct community feedback, AUS is also ensuring that state and national artists hire local talent and connect with the powerhouse that is our creative scene. To me, that’s a true showcase of Austin’s vibe — a local spirit rooted in collaboration, engagement, and creative ambition.”
Constance White did not respond to my request for comment on the ongoing backlash to the lack of inclusion of local artists for the big-money phases of Austin’s Airport Expansion and Development Program for the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport.
The post Open for Discussion: How Austin City Council Keeps it Weird at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport appeared first on Glasstire.
Pop Art in the Age of AI 
Top Five: July 10, 2025