Comments on: Art Commission Plans Survey, Public Event

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 00:06:38 +0000

I thought it was Madison we were supposed to be aping.

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:01:59 +0000

On second thought, no point in widening any divisions that already exist. If I had an idea for how to move toward consensus, I’d suggest it. Even so, I don’t anticipate that a single event would be sufficient for that.

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:57:49 +0000

From the section heading, my initial impression was that the means of “Getting Public Input” was to hold “A Debate” as an event. Wrong impression, obviously, but I wonder if that idea might be worth considering.

By: mr dairy

mr dairy — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:36:59 +0000

If the AAPAC wants more than 30 people to come to their PR party, they should go to council and ask for a few million more for another fountain by a foreign artist expressly designed for the Valiant Project. Then they should go to the blogs and really talk it up.

I would love to attend an AAPAC party and bring my own “artwork”. Sorry I missed it last year, but it was probably invitation only and on a very short notice to avoid the riff raff.

By: mr dairy

mr dairy — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:07:58 +0000

No offense meant to anyone who is blind, of course.

By: mr dairy

mr dairy — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:06:36 +0000

The relationship between the AAPAC and City Council is a great example of the blind leading the blind.

By: Alan Goldsmith

Alan Goldsmith — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:27:45 +0000

If this is what ‘makes Ann Arbor ANN ARBOR’ then Ann Arbor needs to reinvent itself. And this is no longer just a group of local art insiders and their love of Big Money Art World projects. The current city council, except for two members, have bought into this ideal and they should be the ones held responsible. The AAPAC does need new leadership and if they group can’t attract more than 30 people to an open house meeting, with all of the art lovers and groups in this town, it’s yet another indication of how out of touch they are with what this city really wants. This group has learned nothing from the Dreiseitl fiasco.

By: John Floyd

John Floyd — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 04:19:54 +0000

One way to get the public’s attention on the Public Art program is to focus on what could be done with the money if it were available for other purposes. That is, if bonds were only sold to cover the cost of the primary construction object, what could the city do with the resulting funds? Or, are there other things the city could do with the 1% of construction funds, e.g. start squirreling money away to rebuild Stadium Bridge.

As long as the commission is not willing to hear and act on the idea that the public may not agree with what they want to do, then there is no point for people to talk to the commission. Not everyone holds that, being asked to tweak what someone else intends to do anyway, constitutes “seeking public feedback”.

Public art can be fun, but everything has its place. The idea of “1% for public art” allows for no discretion regarding the timing (during a tax-revenue recession?), the amount spent, or the intrinsic appropriateness of the projects (sewer-related art every time a line is re-built?). The impulse to ape Seattle, which apparently has swept over our governing class like typhus, is leading to silliness – and makes the governing class deaf to citizens. Maybe there is a reason that “John Q. Public” is not on fire about public art in this context.

By: [Name]

[Name] — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:37:28 +0000

Editor’s note: This comment, which was a short all-caps rant, has been deleted.

By: anna ercoli schnitzer

anna ercoli schnitzer — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:04:24 +0000

In Bordeaux, France, there is a wonderful water park, le Miroir d’eau, located in Place de la Bourse, that is inspired by Venice’s St. Mark’s Square. It has natural flooding in winter, is 3.000 square meters in size, and contains a thin layer of water with a mist effect when the water disappears. The whole point of this, however, is that the fountain is set along the Garonne River against a backdrop of 18th century restored burgher houses and surrounded by numerous side gardens with low maintenance, native plants. If this water park/fountain were not in this particularly lovely historic setting, I don’t think that it would make the impression it does nor attract the delighted use that it garners. To me as well as to many others, the beauty of the object lies in the context of its setting.