Comments on: What’s Ahead for Public Art in Ann Arbor?

By: John Floyd

John Floyd — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 06:48:05 +0000

Our built environment matters – that’s why we care about public art. The best use of public art funds at this moment (assuming that cops and roads don’t matter) would be to preserve our beautiful historic homes on 5th street in Germantown. This would have a strong visual impact, indicate that Ann Arbor is progressive enough to understand the importance of history while other parts of central Ann Arbor are “densified”, and be better for our individual souls than yet another rusting-metal sculpture.

By: Alan Goldsmith

Alan Goldsmith — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:09:34 +0000

You mean like made for tv movies on Hallmark television?

By: Jenny McKillop

Jenny McKillop — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 12:02:37 +0000

“Commissioners listed certain factors that would determine how high a priority a project should be, including the fact that it is not knowingly offensive, appeals to a broad audience and is community-focused, among other things.”

This is not describing great art; it is describing decoration. Great art is usually offensive to somebody, doesn’t appeal to the masses, and brings the community out of it’s comfort-zone. And it can be beautiful at the same time. That is it’s job.

By: Alan Goldsmith

Alan Goldsmith — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:00:52 +0000

The two groups, from this article, have a different view on how the art topic should be handled. To suggest one person should be hired for those duties at both groups appears to be another step in stacking the DDA with ‘yes’ people who won’t question the Mayor,in the same way Rene Greff and Dave DeVarti won’t/weren’t allowed to serve on the board.

Especially considering this quote from Judy McGovern’s Mlive blog about the ‘disaster’ the AAPAC was involved in with the Court-Police Building:

From Judy McGoverns M Live blog cut and pasted);

“In a March 16 exchange with Council Member Margie Teall, Council Member Leigh Greden dealt with a political hot potato while council guests and rank-and-file citizens stood at the mic and talked about community events and problems.

The subject is Ann Arbor’s public art program and the move to spend perhaps three-quarter of a million dollars for an installation at city hall. (Previous coverage.)

7:29 p.m. Greden to Teall – “Did Taylor call you? The art thing is a disaster. We need to find a way to clean it up.”

7:31 p.m. Teall to Greden – “…stop calling it a disaster.”

7:35 p.m. Greden to Teall – “Margie, I have *very* good instincts. We haven’t had a PR mess like this in quite some time. This has stretched into the masses. Taylor says Ned and Bernstein were complaining. The public sees it as a very simple analysis: Cops before art. Roads before art.”

That’s not the analysis Greden offered when he complained about News’ coverage of the issue. Instead, he argued that there was no controversy… and certainly no “disaster.”"

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 16:31:51 +0000

“This would be an outright conflict of interest.”

How so?

By: Alan Goldsmith

Alan Goldsmith — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 13:14:00 +0000

“At one point, Parker recommended that the DDA hire Katherine Talcott as a part-time administrator. Talcott currently works 20 hours as administrator for the city’s Percent for Art program. If she worked an additional 20 hours for the DDA, Parker reasoned, Talcott could help coordinate the two groups.”

This would be an outright conflict of interest. The DDA should reject this suggestion out of hand.

Still waiting for public release of the administrator’s contract (why not post it on the AAPAC website(s) and it would be a positive thing for the AAPAC address the DDA question they spent too much on administration and not enough of their budget on art.

Thanks.