May 062008
 

May 2008
Stowe Reporter
Feature: Artist Profile

 

Permanence in a Perennial Landscape

The Life and Work of Sculptor Chris Curtis

 

Just off the Mountain Road in Stowe, behind the notorious Rusty Nail Bar and Grille, stands a squat, aluminum-grey building, its roof rusted, its parking lot a rutted disaster of dirt and stone. To the casual eye, the West Branch Gallery and Sculpture Park may look like nothing more than an old warehouse incongruently and without thought plopped down in the middle of a field. And that is, in fact, exactly what it is. Or at least that is what it used to be. Its siding is an industrial metal. Its architecture boxy and dull. And yet, inside the gallery and on the rolling three-and-a-half acre lawn out back, the aesthetics are incomparable.

The West Branch Gallery and Sculpture Park is the artistic home of sculptor Chris Curtis and painter Teri Swenson. The couple opened the park in 1997 and originally used the warehouse as a studio. In 2004, they then renovated a portion of the warehouse and opened the gallery. Renovations are now again under way, which will nearly double the gallery’s current space. An undulating landscape of man-made berms, rolling hills, stone patios and a manicured lawn leads from the back of the gallery, down to banks of the West Branch River. Further on, a flood plain of knee high grass and spindly birch tree melds with the distance mountain.

As the name denotes, the West Branch Gallery is made up of two spaces, disparate yet connected, inside and out and separated by a large retractable glass door that stands, floor to ceiling, at the center of the gallery’s rear wall. Over 40 artists now display their work here, and that work varies from the more traditional portraits by artist Susan Hoffman to the Asian-styled, ink and rice paper paintings of Swenson. In the park, 25 sculptures sparsely populate the lawn and range from the powerful steel pieces of Claude Millette to the weighted, stone works of Curtis.

Chris Curtis sits in a small office just of the main gallery. A bank of tall windows faces the park. He turns, on occasion, to glance out across the lawn. He is 56. His clothes are worn and dusted with flecks of granite. His hands are coarse from decades of work. His hair, once a dirty blond, gives way now to a encroaching grey. In another time and place, and one, in fact, not so far from here, Curtis may be mistaken for a quarryman, and it is a comparison he is proud of.

Curtis’s office is cluttered. His desk, several tables and nearly the whole of the floor are cover with the literal rubble of his art—stone pieces still in process, others still awaiting his hand, and others still long ago abandoned to his latest inspiration. A two-foot long, orange object constructed of wood protrudes up and out of the rubble on his desk. It is close at hand. Close enough for Curtis to reach out and touch. What it “is” exactly, is not immediately clear. “This is one of the first pieces I ever made,” Curtis says, “nearly forty years ago.”

Curtis sees himself as in the prime of his life. He considers himself fortunate to have the things he does — the gallery, his studio in Barre, good health and the tools he needs to do his work. He recalls a time, long ago, when he got his first diamond saw blade. It was a moment of great joy, and it changed the work he was able to do. Today, Curtis works with a massive, room-sized, belt-driven table saw, capable of cutting stones that weigh in excess of 16,000 pounds.

The primary medium of Curtis’ work is stone, though he will often venture into similarly timeless materials, such as bronze and stainless steel. When he speaks of his work, he treads cautiously between their “meaning” and their “essence.” Does he work with a particular message in mind? “Yes,” says Curtis, “ sometimes.” But he is quick to dismiss this as being the only criterion through which to value art. Some of his pieces are very much about their meaning, while others can be simply be “beautiful or cool.” He tells the story of a gardener asking a sculptor for the meaning of his work, to which the sculptor replies, “What is the meaning of your flower?”

Curtis says that at times he wishes he could convey to the viewer the importance of the content he has worked into a piece, but, he adds, “There is also part of the intellectual content which is subjective, where people put their own meaning into (the work).” For Curtis, the connection between his art and its meaning is as solid as the stone from which it is carved. It has been said that art is a dialogue that exists between the artist and the audience, and for Curtis, this dialogue is rooted firmly in his philosophy of time and man’s place within in that time. Curtis is not so much a traditionalist saying ‘Look here, see this,’ as he is asking his audience, the viewer, to ‘connect with and understand.’

In many of Curtis’ pieces, the outer edges of the stone are left unaltered, with rudimentary shapes, like circles or rectangles, cut from their centers. Curtis does not, like many sculptors, choose stones that he will then alter in their entirely, creating something new and unrecognizable from the original stone. Instead, he chooses stones that lend to the finished work. He speaks of the stone with an almost religious-like awe, of the millennia it took to shape and form each stone and of the chemical processes and glacial shifts that brought the stone into being. “You walk by stones by the millions on the ground,” he says, “but when you begin to look at them more closely… if you elevate them into people consciousness, they become different objects.”

This is the element of time that pervades all of Curtis’s works. It is a time immemorial, extending as far back as the origins of the earth and on for centuries, if not millennia, into the future. The shapes that Curtis cuts into these stones are the human affect upon that time. He says that he often muses over humans 20,000 years from now mulling over his pieces and wondering what they might have meant — the same way he now muses over sculptures that have survived for more than 25,000 years. “Even at that time, (sculptors) were applying pretty high skill with crude tools and put a lot of effort into (what they created),” Curtis said. “Boy, when I look at that stuff, I get shivers.”

One of Curtis’ more sculpted pieces, “Luna’s Disk,” is a large granite disk set atop a flowing base of bronze. It is nearly six feet tall and stands on the crest a small knoll, set apart from the center of the park. Its base was created by liquefying bronze and then spraying it into shape, as if spraying paint. The result is that of a drapery like fluidness to the hardened metal. The disk is reminiscent of the small jade disks Curtis saw in museum in Chicago more than 16 years ago. Two circles are cut from the disc, one large center circle and another smaller satellite off to the side. A long channel opens the center circle to the outer edge of the stone, which Curtis explains is a representation of fertility, evident, he hopes, to any person past, present and future who has experienced the magic of birth. Where the sculpture stands and set against the back drop of wispy spring clouds, “Luna’s Disk” evokes a feeling of isolation, not lonely but solitary, like an image of the virgin and her child— the circle and its satellite, the life of one wholly dependent on the other.

Another, more crudely defined piece by Curtis is one titled Garnet in the Rough.” When approaching the stone from the center of the park, the pieces appears to be little more than a massive, three foot stone stood on edge. Curtis rubs his hand over the stone and points out the pebbled-sized chunks of maroon garnet that protrude from the surface. Time, again, is an important element in the piece, namely the thousands of years it took for the stone to form, forever trapping the garnet within it. As one moves around the stone, however, Curtis’s impact upon it is startling. Facing away from the park and out of immediate view is a large, open wound in stone, the inner stone polished smooth. The dark, earthy tones of the outer stone stand now in sharp contrast to rich, velvety blue interior, evoking a sort feminine eroticism—the trapped garnet now like freckles in the blue-smooth skin.

Toward the back of the park stands another of Curtis’s work:“The Portal, a towering 12-foot by 4 foot slab of green granite stood lengthwise on its edge and set against the back drop of the river and the flood-plain forest of slender birch trees behind. The outer edge of the granite has been left as it was found, abraded and coarse. Down the center, a long, slender rectangle has been removed, the inner edges of the hole polished smooth. It is one of Curtis’s more rudimentary sculptures, and yet there is something about it that encapsulates the whole of his artistic philosophy. The piece is massive. Immovable. Out of place yet evoking a sense of permanence. Without time, Curtis explains, the stone would have never formed, and without man it would have never stood, never been disturbed, never been venerated as work of art. It is a timeless as the river behind it, yet beautiful, now, in this time, because we are here to see it.

This powerful sense time is captured yet again, and perhaps unwittingly, in another of Curtis’ pieces. The work is the “Window,” a large round stone with a scoop taken out of the top and side, as if by a giant melon baller. What remains is a polished wave of stone, with the outer surface of the stone left coarse. Imbued, as one can’t help being, with Curtis’s powerful sense of time in all his work, there is one particular aspect of this piece that catches the eye. It is Curtis’ signature, a small and subtle “C. Curtis ’06,” carved near the bottom of the stone. Stone lasts forever, Curtis tells us. His pieces will live on, reflective of man’s temporal place in the millennia of time. To us the ’06 means something, its sets this stone, this sculpture, firmly in the history of our lives, personal and real, connecting us to it in time and place, perhaps even in emotion, as we reflect upon our place in time. And yet, what will it all mean for others in 500, 1,000, 10,000 years? How many ’06s will have come and gone?

It is, perhaps, in understanding this contradiction of time and in grasping the humble richness of it implications, that one a better chance understanding, as Curtis wishes us to, the depth of meaning he carves into all his work. As Curtis says, “People say that we are in this together. Well, we are in this together. We are in this with people who have been dead a long time, and we are paving some kind of path for all our unborn generations.”

 

Jan 312008
 

January 2008
Stowe Reporter
Public Policy: Economic Analysis

 

Old Is Gold

How Graying Populations Brings More Money to Vermont

 

Joe Mooney, 63, of Stowe, bought a house in Vermont in 1999 to “escape the scorching Florida summers.” Three years later, he and his family moved here full time. Mooney works as a government manager and securities consultant for Florida municipalities, and he realized that the nature of his work allowed him to live anywhere. For Mooney, that anywhere was Vermont. The reason they moved, Mooney said, was for their quality of life. “Better medical care, better air quality, better water quality, lower crime rates — that all went into it.”

This is a familiar refrain. Quality of life is one of the main attractions for people—young and old—who move to the Vermont. But for some state officials, this appeal has a few worrying consequences. Joe Mooney, like so many Vermont transplants, demonstrates Vermont’s appeal to an older and often wealthier demographic, which, accompanied by an apparent decline in school age children and early adult populations, has caused a sharp increase in average age of the state’s population. Vermont, as is often cited, is the “second-oldest” state in the country.

Gov. Jim Douglas, in 2006, quoted these statistics and suggested that Vermont’s rank as the second-oldest state in the nation indicated a looming economic crisis. The assumption is this: With more and more young people leaving the state and a rapidly aging population, Vermont faces a progressively shrinking tax base. The population figures “painted a fairly grim picture,” said David Mace, communications director for Vermont’s Agency of Commerce and Community Development. A report from the Ethan Allen Institute, a conservative policy research facility in Concord, VT, paints an equally dire scene. “It is clear that, as the number of senior citizens grows and the number of workers decline, there will be a significant reduction in the growth rate of total income earned by Vermonters,” the report says. It cites a projected rise of the “dependency ratio” — the number of working adults in relation to children and seniors— and asks, “How will state government raise the revenues needed to pay for public programs?”

Tom Kavet, a consulting economist to the Democrat–led Vermont Legislature, said that this assumption—that Vermont faces a looming economic crisis— is entirely unfounded. Recent studies have supported Kavet’s assertion. “One of the silliest ideas,” Kavet said, “ is that somehow there is a brain drain of 20-something-years-olds that we’re losing, and we have to somehow keep them. For 40 years, Vermont, and almost any small rural state that has a demographic profile like Vermont, has had losses in the age group of 20- to 35-year-olds, and in-flows from about 35 to 50.”

Research conducted recently by the New England Public Policy Center in Boston added even more nuance to these numbers. The center’s research found that the actual number of young adults in New England, including Vermont, was neither decreasing nor increasing, but rather had remained fairly stable. The perception that the population was aging, it found, was not due to a mass exodus of young adults but rather due to those adults aging out of one demographic cohort and into another. The baby-boomer generation, in short — the largest demographic bubble in US history— had entered middle-age and was, for statistical purposes, no longer counted as young adults. Seen merely through the eyes of demographer, this change might seem alarming, while on the ground the actual population shift might only represent a few, albeit statistically significant, years.

And so: Is Vermont’s population growing older? Yes. Vermont’s 65 and over population by 2030 will increase by 112 percent by 2030, according to projections from the U.S. Census. But, this is only marginally higher than the nationally projected rise of 104 percent over the same period of time. While Vermont’s is indeed growing older, so is the rest of the country. What has aided in the slightly higher rate in Vermont is both its appeal to older residents, as well as its statistically low birth rate. What all this means for the state, however, remains a bone of contention.

Pursuing Vermont

The Douglas administration, not convinced by the findings of Kavet and others, continues to maintain a number of policies directed at staunching the state’s loss of young adults. Keep the workers — maintain the tax-base, the administration contends. One key initiative, “Pursue VT,” under the direction of Vermont’s Department of Economic Development, plans to spend $100,000 this year alone on efforts to attract young people to Vermont. The department has also offered million of dollars in tax incentives to businesses looking to expand in or move to state. And, said Mace, it is also seeking ways to add more affordable housing.

Kevin Dorn, secretary of Vermont’s Agency of Commerce and Community Development, said there remains this telling fact: Vermont is ranked No. 1 in the country with 50- to 54-year-olds per capita, but is also ranked No. 51 with 25- to 29-year-olds.“You cannot ignore the lowest birth rate. You cannot ignore the second-oldest state,” Dorn said.

True, said Kavet, you can’t ignore the numbers, but what those numbers say is a matter for debate. To offer tax incentives to businesses, Kavet said, is playing to state weaknesses. The state, he adds, should emphasize its strengths. “Our comparative advantage in Vermont has to do with quality of life, not necessarily paying off a company more than another state is going to pay them off. The tendency is for (young) people to go to big cities and urban areas. Then, when they get a certain level of professional skill, independence and flexibility, they are looking for quality of life.”

Again, Kavet said, it is these fairly consistent losses and gains that naturally trends Vermont toward an older population. “The idea that somehow that’s bad or wrong or needs to be changed,” he said, “is almost laughable.”

Bigger Tax Base

The key question in this debate, no matter what the population statistics reveal, is if, indeed, Vermont faces an economic crisis as the state’s population grows older. The key assertion from conservatives is that as the population increasingly ages into retirement, there will be less and less workers paying taxes. This, argues Kavet, is a fallacy, and a recent report from the Public Asset Institute, a liberal think-tank in Montpelier, bolsters Kavet’s position.

The Public Asset Institute studied the average income of Vermonters leaving and entering the state in 2005. It found that the average income of those entering Vermont was almost 20 percent higher than those leaving. An approximate 16,637 people left Vermont in 2005, the report found, taking with them a cumulative, adjusted gross income of $410 million. At the same time, 16,279 people moved to Vermont, bringing in a cumulative income of $473 million. Despite a migratory loss of 358 people, Vermont added more than $60 million of personal income, which means bigger tax revenues for the state government.

“The net economic impact of having people with high skill levels, high productivity levels, and high levels of assets moving back into the state is much more beneficial than having 20-something-year-olds staying,” Kavet said. “And that’s the kind of dividend that we get from having a high quality of life.”

As for Vermont’s rapidly aging population and its impact on the state’s tax-base, Kavet also takes issue with the reasoning. “This idea that somehow wealthy old people — and if you look at the mix in Vermont, we have a lot of wealthy older people — represent a burden, and that the workers in the state are floating them, is completely wrong,” Kavet said. “The people who aren’t (working) often have savings that are substantial. They have wealth that is substantial. Sometimes, they are supporting the people who are working.”

According to Vermont tax record, Kavet is right. The average, per-capita income of Vermonters 65 and over was $33,000 in 2005, according to the Vermont Department of Taxes. And those Vermonters paid an average of $1,086 in income tax. Inversely, the average income for Vermonters under 65, during the same year, was only $25,000, with an average income-tax burden of $794.

“If they have kids and the kids are in school, that’s expensive,” Kavet said, “but none of these folks have kids. And most of the health services that are provided are (provided) at the federal level. It doesn’t look like it is a net fiscal negative at all.”

A further look into the numbers supports Kavet’s assertions. Of all state revenues in 2005, just 3 percent were obtain through corporate taxes, while 78 percent were earned through income, property and sales tax — all of which Vermont’s 65-and-over population continue to pay, even after they retire.

Population Diversity

Mike Quinn, commissioner for the Vermont Department of Economic Development, said the state, along with other concerns, is looking to not only maintain an available tax base, but also needs to maintain the diversity of that base. It is for this reason that the department has developed the “Pursue VT” campaign, along with state tax incentives for businesses.

According to the U.S. Census, the median age in Vermont is projected to rise from 39.5 in 2005 to 43.9 in 2030 — an increase of 4.3 years. This is what has given the state the distinction as the “second-oldest state” in the country. The national median age is expected also to climb but only from 36.2 years old in 2005 to 39 years old in 2030. Based on these projections —as the New England Public Policy Center found — the majority of this shift in Vermont demographics will be due to a sharp increase in the 45 and over populations, coupled with very minor declines in the population under 45. The baby-boomers, in short, are getting older.

Another concern facing the state, however, is its slow rate of population expansion— a selling point to some; a concern for economists. Vermont’s population is projected to rise only 12 percent by 2030, representing one of the slowest growth rates in the country. Quinn contends that this will, again, put pressure on the state’s tax base, and it is for the reason that the state needs to spend what it does on tax incentives and other programs designed to attract both workers and business to Vermont.

Once more, Kavet disagrees. He estimates the statewide business tax credits will amount to $5 million to $10 million per year, with nearly $100 million distributed so far. “It is a lot for a small state,” Kavet said. “If you’re granting $100 million in tax credits, that’s a big chunk of money.

“If you believe that none of the investment would have taken place but for the subsidies,” he adds, “if you really believe that, then you could say, ‘Well, the thing pays for itself, because we wouldn’t have gotten anything without it, and with it we got some income and jobs. But, the fact is, a lot of these things would have happened anyway, and it is just sort of gravy for the companies and represents an expense for the state.”

The Vermont companies Husky and IBM are a perfect example of the type of businesses Vermont attracts, Kavet said. “It wasn’t business incentives that got them to come up here. Both of those major corporate investments, which are beneficial to the state, came because senior executives were reacting to quality of life.”  Tom Watson of IBM and Robert Shad of Huskies, Kavet notes, came first to vacation in Stowe, and then later, only after they experienced and grew to appreciate the state’s “quality of life” did they decide to move their companies here.  “So maybe,” Kavet joked, “what we should do is give free ski passes to CEOs, or free ski packages.”

Nov 222007
 

November 2007
Stowe Reporter
Feature: Business Profile

 

Miracle on 110th Street

The Making of a New York Christmas

 

On a frigid day in early December 1974, George Nash, a carpenter from Wolcott, Vermont, was driving a flat-bed truck of balsam-fir Christmas trees south along Vermont’s Interstate 89, bound for Boston. At the same time, Kevin Hammer, a 19-year-old Brooklynite in a cargo van was heading in the opposite direction. Hammer, having spotted Nash’s truck in the on-coming lane, swung his van around and followed Nash to a gas station outside White River Junction. “This crazy guy pulls up behind me in a van,” Nash recalls of their first meeting, “this little guy with a thick Brooklyn accent, and asks me where I got those Christmas trees.

“The next thing I know, I am jammed into a phone booth. It is freezing cold. There is ice forming on the phone booth windows.(Hammer) is feeding me quarters, and I’m making phone calls back up north to the grower I got the trees from.”

Hammer had an idea. He wanted to sell Christmas trees in New York, and he had set out from Brooklyn that morning with the hope of finding a supplier. Little did Nash know then, but that “crazy guy with a Brooklyn accent,” was not only about to revolutionize a New York City industry, he would also introduce Nash and his family to a passion that would last them a lifetime. Hammer’s idea was simple: He wanted to sell trees. What was revolutionary about it was how he proposed to do it. Due to a then little-known loophole in New York City law, vendors are legally allowed to sell Christmas trees on city sidewalks, without a permit, throughout the month of December. Hammer had discover this loophole and was looking to capitalize. “He had this brilliant inspiration,” Nash says. “Up until then, all the trees in the city were sold at little florist shops or in front of delis. They were all bought at the terminal markets out in Brooklyn or the Bronx, and were shipped in by railroad cars. They were really poor quality and very expensive.” What Hammer wanted to do, he told Nash, was truck high-quality Vermont trees direct to the city and then sell them from stands along the street.

Nash and Hammer shook hands that day. Promises were made. Hammer agreed to call. And Nash drove off convinced that he would never hear from Hammer again. But, a couple days later, Hammer called and ordered from Nash his first 250 trees to be delivered the following evening. Nash delivered the trees, and a few days later Hammer call again. And then again a few days after that, setting in motion what would quickly become a mainstay of Christmas in the New York— the literal forests of trees, garland and Christmas lights that now pop up from the city’s sidewalks the first week of December.

Ups and Downs

Nash, now 59, is a small, thick-shouldered man with a dark, simmering gaze and palms as coarse as lumber. He sits at the kitchen table of his Garfield, Vermont home. It is a home he and his wife built themselves. Beefy, hand-hewn beams form the home’s structure. A knotted tree branch, polished smooth, stands in as a handrail for the stairs. The warmth and smell of a wood fire fills the air. Nash is soft spoken and chooses each word as if picking berries from a branch. He smiles wryly. He has spent the past 33 years selling Christmas trees in New York, and his tales of the business are an equal mix of woe and wonderment, all of which he now views through that gloss of passion that has kept him at it all these years. “It gets into your blood,” he says, “and once it does, it’s terminal.”

That first year, Nash and Hammer ferried small truck loads of trees into the city, until by the second season they had outgrown Nash’s flatbed and began hiring private truckers with increasingly larger trucks. By the fourth year, they had moved up to tractor trailers and were having to seek out additional and much larger suppliers in New York and Canada. Nash designed, built and maintained the small 4ft x 6ft booths they set up at each stand. By the seventh year, they had more than 40 stands scattered throughout Manhattan. Nash arranged for, bought and organized the trucking of the trees. He managed up to 20 stands and maintained his own stand on the corner of 110 Street and Broadway—one of the most successful stands in the city. It was this stand, along with three others, that Nash, at the encouragement of his wife and business partner Dr. Jane Waterman, bought from Hammer. The two men had worked together for ten years, but increasing tensions and a final dispute over “employee relations” spurred Nash to go out on his own.

Waterman and Nash then formed Gopher Broke Enterprises, and those first few years were some of the best and worst for their fledgling business. The couple decided to expand their market, and along with their four retail stands, they looked into selling trees wholesale. They rented a spot in the massive parking lot of the Bay Plaza in the Bronx and the height of their business sold more than 29,000 trees. What the Vermont couple had failed to realize, however, was that by deciding to sell trees wholesale, they had unwittingly veered into one of the most nefarious sides of New York City. Over the next few years, Nash experienced some of the worst that the city had to offer. He and his workers were mugged several times. Nash faced repeated attempts at extortion; was the victim of a massive, well-organized armed robbery that cost him an entire year’s profit; and at its worst, was all-too-close to the Soprano’s style murder of a fellow marketer.

Paranoia set in. Nash started carrying a weapon. And though they held on for another two years after the murder, the couple soon realized that that was not the life they wanted to live. “Needless to say,” says Waterman, “we got out of the (wholesale) business,” deciding instead to shrink Gopher Broke back down to its four original stands and something that Nash could easily manage on his own. Slowly, the couple then built Gopher Broke up to 11 and then 13 stands, making them the second largest retail tree seller in the city.  Hammer is still the first, and a lot, notes Waterman, has changed in the city since those early days. Neither the city nor the business is anything like it used to be.

Benjamin Hatfield, Nash and Waterman’s youngest son, is one of the 30 sellers who travel with Gopher Broke each year into the city. Small groups of sellers, typically assigned two to a stand, cram into various city apartments, most, if not all, of which are unfurnished. The sellers crash on the floors in sleeping bags and swap out long shifts at the stands. One cover days. The other keeps watch at night. Nash supplies them with bikes to get around and cell phones to keep in touch. It is hard month of work, but it is a month that Hatfield greatly enjoys. He likes New York and finds many New Yorkers to be as friendly as, if not friendlier than, most Vermonters. People stop and talk to him at the deli counter and in the street while he’s working the stand. “I have to say, there is a high level of friendship in New York,” he says. “I actually miss it when I come back up here.”

Waterman attributes this both the season and to the work they do. “It is a magical time of the year,” she says. “Everybody is in good spirits. You can’t get better human contact than hanging out in Harlem on a nice day. If the whole world could be like New York during Christmas, it would be fabulous. Everybody in that neighborhood (110th Street) gets along with each other. They all just get along, even with all their differences.”

 

Gopher Broke Enterprises: By the numbers

20% of this year’s trees come from Vermont

10,000-12,000 trees trucked down per year

30 employees

13 tree-selling locations in the city

$10-$250 cost for trees

8-10 years average age of 6- or 7-foot tree