The Utah Supreme Court went overboard on abstract expressionism and now regrets it.

That was the message last week when a dark curtain rolled across a modernist mural that once rose 19 feet behind the Supreme Court bench at the Scott M. Matheson Courthouse.

Officially, the five justices released a statement saying the court received complaints from attorneys distracted from doing their job.

But a spokeswoman for the court couldn't quantify the complaints, and others wondered privately if some justices had lofty ideas about the courtroom's aesthetics but couldn't stomach the reality of modern art.

V. Douglas Snow's 300-square-feet mural, titled "Capitol Reef," shows a desert scene baking in the sun after a thunderstorm. Vaporous clouds rise in an arch from the cliffs and domes, a symbolic representation of resolution after conflict.

"There is nothing subtle about that mural," said Supreme Court spokeswoman Jan Thompson. "Covering it doesn't have to do with them liking it or not liking it, but about the appropriateness of the setting, whether it's overpowering the room and court proceedings."

Painting's cost to taxpayers: $80,000.

Mechanized curtain to cover the painting: $26,000.

Several justices objected to the mural in 1998, issuing a public statement criticizing the work. Irritated at not being consulted in the design, they said the size and intensity of the piece detracted from the judiciary's business.

"While recognizing the talent and reputation of the artist, Snow, it is our opinion that the painting is not appropriate for a backdrop to the bench in the courtroom," wrote Chief Justice Richard C. Howe.

But a survey of 5,000 visitors taken shortly after the $70 million courthouse opened showed 65 percent approved of the mural.

"It seems that it was removed from the realm of art and became an internal struggle between some justices," said Bonnie Stephens, director of the Utah Arts Council. "People have strong opinions about art."

Visibly moved by the grandeur of the painting, visitors to the courtroom have described the design as any number of things: an exploding hamburger, a phallic symbol, an angel with flapping wings or a puff of whipping cream.

In Utah, television cameras film inside the Supreme Court, and court employees speculated that the mesmerizing painting dwarfed the justices and their words.

Former Chief Justice Michael Zimmerman approved the painting while on a committee that helped design the building. But in what he now considers a political failing, he did not consult his colleagues.

"It was one of 10,000 things we were thinking about," he said. "If it had been smaller, if it weren't modern art, it would be less controversial. But are people distracted when practicing law there?" he asked. "I think it unlikely."

Bob Olpin, former dean of the College of Fine Art at the University of Utah, said covering the painting is a loss to the whole community. "I hope Utah can catch up someday. People should be able to deal with abstraction."

An ACLU attorney who argued in front of the curtain Monday said it was absurd to think the painting would distract any lawyer focused on arguing in front of the Supreme Court.

"If anything, a painting of that scope, majesty and power would only underscore one's passion and conviction unless he is so unsure of the argument he can't honestly present the case," ACLU attorney Stephen Clark said.

View Comments

The green curtain will cover the mural when the court is in session, only four days of every month. Glass doors allow visitors a view of the mural during other times, but the courtroom remains locked.

Snow said he agreed to the curtain because he grew tired of arguing about it.

"I thought long and hard to create something that would dignify that space and that would give a sense of hope," Snow said. "So obviously I'm not happy about it. I think basically they (justices) are not aware of what's been happening in the world in terms of architecture and design and art."

The painting can't be removed because a crane lowered it into place in two parts before the roof of the building was put on.

Join the Conversation
Looking for comments?
Find comments in their new home! Click the buttons at the top or within the article to view them — or use the button below for quick access.