Comments on: Column: Ann Arbor’s Lumps of Art

By: Mark Tucker

Mark Tucker — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:03:00 +0000

The idea that public art may, or may not, be a necessary part of a given capital improvement is less one of semantics, than of ideology. It’s a non-traditional point of view–one that our city council has embraced– that when a public capital improvement is made in this city that a percentage (in this case 1%) of the project budget be earmarked for the inclusion of public art as part of that capital improvement. That there might not be a utilitarian purpose for the artwork to exist does not rule out the fact that there may in fact be an aesthetic justification (whether the artwork sits parallel to, or smack dab in the middle of, a given construction project), and this aesthetic/artistic function will at least be 1% necessary to the overall success of a given capital improvement project. If we were to live in a city that was simply functional (in the traditional sense), and only agree to pay for that functional part, what a dismal place we would be living in. Rightfully so, our city leaders have put in parameters to help ensure that we don’t just pick function over form every time–especially since it is often cheaper to do so–at least 1% cheaper in our town. Whether or not you could physically separate the artwork from a given capital improvement project doesn’t indicate that it wasn’t intended, or necessary to the whole. It may only prove one thing, that it isn’t “functional” and therefore it might be art.

By: TeacherPatti

TeacherPatti — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:20:54 +0000

Hey, I Brailled up The Tell-Tale Heart for the kids to read on Halloween and the beginning of this column reminds me of that story! Nice! :)

By: Alan Goldsmith

Alan Goldsmith — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:20:39 +0000

I am hoping there are four members of Council, maybe more, who will take the opportunity of the next meeting to direct the City Attorney to issue a written opinion on the Art program, as well as an opinion on the legality of restricting consideration to Michigan artists. We’ve had the written legal opinion from noted Constitutional expert the Mayor and now it’s time to request the same from our well paid City legal staff.

By: bob elton

bob elton — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:29:53 +0000

I would suggest that the current debate over the value of public art is caused as much by the ineptness and arrogance of the Art Commission as anything else.

This commission has repeatedly blocked the implementation of public art that they did not thinnk of themselves. Ann Arbor could have had a number of murals and other art pieces for little or no public money, yet the Art Commission blocked them at every turn.

This commission became so infatuated with the idea of the massive art installation at the new city hall that they lost sight of their true mission, and instead forced an unpopular and very expensive piece of art to be installed.

I am not against public art. In fact, I devoted a couple of years of my life to chairing the original art commission, CAAP. During my time as chair, we managed to create a number of art installations, including the painted water tower on Plymouth Road, with little or no public money, in part by listening to the community, and in part by being flexible and resourceful.

Had the current commission followed this course, I think there would be a lot less controversy and a lot more public art in Ann Arbor.

And no, I’m not a lunatic, even though I’ve been called that and worse, and sometmes even by city councilpeople.

Bob Elton

By: Alan Goldsmith

Alan Goldsmith — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:46:19 +0000

“[Ann Arbor city attorney Stephen Postema has for a few years now declined to offer a written opinion for public perusal explaining his view of the legal foundation for the program, which at least on its face violates the prohibition against using dedicated funds for purposes other than which they are dedicated.]”

I guess Postema, who has his sights set on a higher political office, is simply an Attorney answering the Council Party and not the people. He knows exactly what he is doing by dodging issuing a written legal opinion.

By: Edward Vielmetti

Edward Vielmetti — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 06:05:30 +0000

When I read the headline for this, I was expecting an erudite discourse on the lumps of art that grace the North Main corridor and parts of the Gallup Park pathways – those piled-high lumps of stone or concrete that show a certain balance and grace.

I’ll give you points for working a swirl concentrator into a column on public art, though.

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 05:56:44 +0000

Dialogue with a Lunatic (C)
Lunatic: What did you do last summer?
Paula: The only thing I did last summer was to ask city council to put the Percent For Art program up for a public vote.
Lunatic: What are you? Some kind of lunatic?!