Glen & Ann

For any readers who might be inclined to wonder: No, this was not funded by the city’s Percent for Art program. One could perhaps observe some editorializing here about the city’s decision not to fund temporary installations. Just a guess.

I’ve seen similar “installations” at a couple of locations in town. So i’m curious: who is behind it?

There’s another on Plymouth, and one on Huron Parkway. Amazingly well executed typographically.

Another on Hoover by Elbel Field. The only one I’ve seen that has disappeared was at Broadway Village site. I agree that the italic font is rendered remarkably consistent.

Before I had seen any of these I saw somebody early one Sunday morning putting one up on the fence across Washtenaw from Palmer Commons and wish now I had stopped to ask. (I also like to imagine the card/message people and the yarn bombing people getting into a turf war — are this town’s chain link fences extensive enough to handle it all?)

I think that font is called Cyclone.

Steve Bean wins the thread.

Mary,

There are few things in life that we know a priori, but we all know that one of them is, that the only public art that can exist in Ann Arbor is that which is authorized and funded by the Public Art Commission. Without this commission, there would be no public art in town. This is what explains why it is that to oppose the transfer of bond funds, to purposes unrelated to the purpose for which the bond was issued (“1% for ‘art’ “), is equated by the Public Art Commission with opposition to art, itself.

One of the many risks of attempting satire is that people might not get that it IS satire. Alas, such is the case here. For the record:

1) It seems to me that the BEST thing that can said for transferring bond funds from their intended capital purposes to unrelated purposes, is that it is bad policy and faith-breaking with the public. Further characterizations go downhill from there.

2) If diverting bond funds away from their stated purposes to some other long-lived use is bad policy, spending those diverted funds on temporary exhibitions or performance art is a policy fiasco. If effect, you are asking people who live here in the future to pay for things that happened or ceased to exist, say, 5, 10, or 15 years prior to their living here. Current consumption should be paid for from current revenues, not from bond funds for which the public will be paying for 25 years.

3) With public funding comes public control and accountability. This is a good thing for public spending, but a bad thing for art.

4) There is all kinds of public art – both temporary and permanent – going on all over town, right now, without any involvement of public funds or the Public ‘Art’ Commission. Besides the installation I pointed out here, others have noted “Play Regardless”, knitting and cairns around town. Maybe it’s just me, but they strike me as both more expressive of the community, and more artful (in multiple senses of that word) than the pinwheels on Main Street.

5) It does strike me as legitimate to consider aesthetics when building public amenities. The designs in the Washington/4th parking structure, and the Broadway Bridge itself, come to mind. Let’s hope that the new Stadium Bridge will be more than utilitarian – leavening all that poured concrete with some touch of design or decorative whimsey is desirable. This is quite different from using West Park drainage and renovation bonds to fund a statue at city hall – or even using them to install plastic trees near real trees, in a manner unrelated to the drainage project.

Having demonstrated that I am not Jonathan Swift, I will return to mere expository comment.