I think if “art” is replaced by “art fairs” the sentence would be correct.

But is public art part of Ann Arbor’s image? Even if you allow the art museum included, and our handful of galleries, I don’t think “many, many” people would think of A2 as a city of art in any way, shape or form. Dreisetl’s expensive thingy is a conceptual statement, a values statement. Maybe even a political statement. Is it art? No more than the little Liberty Square park is art.

People should really take a look at some other cities like Berkeley or St. Louis to see what can be done with art in an urban environment.

Oh. I forgot. We do have all those bike racks with the word “art” on them.

I believe that a property tax proposal for the purchase of art for public display would pass. Why we didn’t take that approach at the outset would be interesting to examine. Whether this council will take corrective action will be even more interesting to see.

Search for Herbert Dreiseitl and you will find his projects are parks or other landscape architecture. For example in the March 2006 Issue of Metropolis Mag.Com.. “With a new block-size park by Herbert Dreiseitl, Portland restores a piece of its natural environment.”

Dreiseitl received a commission from Triad Development for Seattle’s new Civic Square. From their press release; “The lead Landscape Architect will be Atelier Dreiseitl ….”

The point is Dreiseitl is known for innovative use of water in park designs. The Ann Arbor project is different in both size and scope. It even includes indoor wall art.

I believe that this stretch from landscape architecture to multimedia artist was was just too great and the resulting design shows it. Even the material is a poor choice. Ann Arbor is buying an average product but paying for a designer name brand. We are buying designer jeans when we cannot afford essentials.

We are paying very heavily for these designer jeans. The extra $100,000 to Quinn Evans should be considered the first overrun on this project. We will pay almost $1,000,000 for something that should cost about $100,000.

The Headlee amendment to the state constitution laid down the precept that voters must approve any new tax. (It also provided for reducing millages yearly, which we call “Healeeization” and leads to measures for “Headlee overrides” to bring millages back to their originally authorized levels.)

The Michigan Supreme Court, in a decision titled and described as
BOLT v CITY OF LANSING:Docket No. 108511. Argued October 6, 1998 (Calendar No. 4). Decided December 28, 1998.Court of Appeals, Saad, P.J., and Wahls, J. and Markman, J. (Docket No.912944). 221 Mich App 79; 561 NW2d 423 (1997). (I have put the URL on my Twitter feed but have not been successful in pasting URLs in for these comments) said basically that governments may not raise fees beyond the cost of service, because “fees” as apart from “taxes” are payment for services and generally are payments at the cost of delivering services. Otherwise, if a “fee” is just raising money for revenue, it is in essence a “tax”, hence falls under the Headlee amendment.

Bolt brought a lawsuit against the city of Lansing.
The court found that they were charging for water (stormwater) fees above and beyond the cost of the service. (Ironically, I’ve been told that Sue McCormick, who lives in Lansing, was then working for that department.) The Supreme Court found for the plaintiff.

According to the Bolt decision, users may only be charged according to the unit cost of the service they are receiving. Any amounts above and beyond that are in essence taxes, thus subject to the Headlee amendment (require a popular vote).

I think we (Ann Arbor) have a number of suspect practices in this regard. Replanted street trees, for example, are being charged to stormwater funds (and thus to fees).

The Percent for Art is a particularly egregious example of fees being charged for activities not related to the usage rate of the service being provided. My usage of water and sewer, for example, has no relevance to my usage of public art.

The amounts involved are really large. Most of the money for Percent for Art is, in fact, coming from water fees. It is adding up into the millions.

What is interesting is that so many refer to the fire department or some “essential service” to make their argument but if you have followed this issue at all, you know the money can’t be spent for any of that.

It would return to the sewer fund, etc. Maybe you want that but it is disingenuous to say it would pay for the fire dept. etc.

Or how about the “local” argument, not as easy to make when 80% of the funds go to Michigan companies and workers.

Which was the “braver” vote? Agree with the vocal, outraged opponents and vote NO, or vote yes. The answer is clear from the posts here; it’s 10 to 1 against. You proved it with overwhelming opposition to the art piece. What’s brave about going along with the outraged majority?

Is it art? Is Dreiseitl an artist? That is always a good question about any piece. Well, a number of other cities and institutions in the US and abroad must think so, they bought a piece.

The panel of “local” artists, business people, environmentalists, downtown advocates etc. who selected it seem to think so. Now it looks like Alan is accusing them of being on the take, he wants to investigate their finances.

Is Art part of A2′s brand? The city is highly ranked by arts organizations, one of the largest art fairs in the country is here and the arts economy is huge.

I believe art adds an essential ingredient to life here or anywhere. I think it adds a lot to the city’s image and its ability to recruit some very talented people to work here. Others feel the same way, maybe you don’t.

Is his proposal art?

Is it esthetically pleasing. A leaning rusty monolith? Not in any normal sense.

Is it so difficult that only he can do it? This is standard behind most famous paintings. This was the standard of the polish of Michelangelo’s carvings. No, many Michigan companies can produce this “art” In fact Mr. Dreiseitl has said he will locally contract the production.

Is is awesome in size or other manner? It is only 12 or 15 feet high. How can a a rusting blob 1 story high be awesome?

Is the Dreiseitl proposal a new way of seeing or understanding an image or experience? Perhaps there is some support for the proposal in this definition of “art”. But if LED’s on a surface is art, Christmas trees, street lights and commercial LED signs are more impressive “art”. Just look at the Holiday light display on Huron near Revena.

Will the work endure for centuries like Michelangelo’s marbles? No. It is to be constructed of Corten steel. The United States Steel Corporation, the holder of the patent and trade name of Corten steel, has said for 20 years that this steel is not recommended for exposed architectural uses. The arch on Sculpture Plaza near the Farmers Market was made of Corten steel. It corroded so severely it was considered unsafe. It was removed, new plates welded in, and now painted a very uninteresting black. The Dreiseitl will be subject to running water. How long will it last?

The proposed Dreiseitl project is not art. Of course, the city must call it art to qualify for the 1% for art program. But we should not. It is designer jeans. We are paying for a name, not art. And we are paying $1 million to cover someone’s ass.

Regardless, my beliefs are that when the belt is tightened, you first kill non-essential programs. Don’t get me wrong, I love art. I enjoy art. Art helps me relax and stimulates me. Art is not essential service for me. If you take away art, I can still function.

On the other hand, fire suppression and emergency response is an essential service to me.

In a time of economic issues that the city complains about, there simply is no reason to fully fund a non-essential service/program.

Ms. Parker has taken the lead since day one for this fiasco so she should be able to face any critical comments about her failure in leadership. She met privately with the ‘artist’ and then pushed the project through the pliant AAPAC, there’s been little project management control with timelines and budgets, she complains anyone who opposes her vision is ‘anti-art’ and has used the AAPAC as a vehicle to enhance her own art career. Personally, I think people in her position and all members of council including the Mayor should release financial disclosure statements–attorneys, real estate agents, U of M employees and artists alike. I’m not holding my breath for that but wasting tax dollars, perhaps illegally might not raise your blood pressure David. Apparently the majority of Council is right on board with you on that. But, like the Library Parking Structure lawsuit, this lack oversight could end up costing all of the taxpayers even more money to defend. Oh, that’s right, we have a HUGE city legal department for this, who apparently aren’t facing any cuts either.

A just wish a few of the Council members and member of the ‘arts’ community would shed a few less tears over not having a oh so famous German artist staying at their houses and missing out on his genius and a few more tears over the brave men and women who save lives. But I guess that doesn’t fit into neat little NPR soundbites that Mayor can parrot back when he’s run out of arguments and political courage.