Comments on: Public Art Projects Move Forward

By: Lenadams Dorris

Lenadams Dorris — Wed, 26 May 2010 14:25:55 +0000

Has anyone besides the committee seen the horse sculpture? Are there any pictures anywhere? It seems a fine opportunity to see whether or not to trust their judgement! :-)

By: Tricia

Tricia — Tue, 18 May 2010 15:49:55 +0000

I can’t believe there were no jokes about looking a gift horse sculpture in the mouth!

Concerning the sun dragon: I wonder if the pool manager even realized it was considered “public art”?

By: Mary Morgan

Mary Morgan — Sun, 16 May 2010 15:42:56 +0000

Steve, I believe it’s because AAPAC is responsible for overseeing maintenance of city-owned public art. For example, AAPAC coordinated the restoration of the Arch at the Kerrytown Sculpture Park. Their bylaws state that AAPAC must provide an annual report to city council – one of the required items in that report is an update on maintenance. From the bylaws:

(ii) A maintenance report on each work of public art presently under City management detailing maintenance costs for the preceding fiscal year, anticipated maintenance costs for the next fiscal year, and any significant future maintenance concerns, including prioritized recommendations for the maintenance, repair or renovation of particular works;

There’s also a section on maintenance in AAPAC’s guidelines:

VII. Maintenance and Conservation

The City of Ann Arbor will own all works of art created or acquired with Public Art Funds. Every public art project funded with Public Art Funds will reserve (10%) of the proposed budget for long term maintenance and conservation of the work(s) of art unless a different amount is required for a particular work of art.

Artists selected to create and provide permanent and temporary works of art will specify the maintenance that will be required for the work of art and submit a maintenance schedule as part of their contract with the City of Ann Arbor. If the work of art is a gift of a pre-existing work of art, the donor will be asked to specify, if possible, the maintenance that will be required for the work of art and to submit a maintenance schedule. If known the contract should provide that the artist(s) will be responsible for the first full year of project, including all corrections and/or repairs of the work(s) of art.

If the work of art is a gift of pre-existing work of art, the City and the donor will determine the maintenance responsibilities of the City and the donor during the period of time ending one year after the date the work is successfully installed.

For all, the City will be responsible for the maintenance of the work of art and follow up with the specifications and schedule, submitted by the artist/donor.

AAPAC will advise the City Council in the annual Public Art Plan:
• When the services of a professional conservator are required to evaluate the status of the public collection.
• The City will, in consultation with AAPAC, decide any and all remedies necessary to restore the works to their desired condition.

Should maintenance or conservation be necessary, the City will:
• Follow the recommendations and instructions of the professional conservator.
• Inform AAPAC of these recommendations in writing.
• Consult the artist(s) or the estate of the artist prior to executing these recommendations of allocating any monies accrued to the Public Arts for this purpose.

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Sun, 16 May 2010 15:30:05 +0000

“The pool manager, Dan McGuire, wasn’t aware that AAPAC should be contacted before doing any repair work that involves public art, Parker said.”

Mary, do you know the reason behind the contact requirement that Parker referred to?

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Sat, 15 May 2010 13:27:24 +0000

I hope everyone here has filled out the survey. Note that although the form element for free-form comments, where you can air all your gripes and suggestions, seems to be a one-line text box about 60 characters wide (not exactly a warm invitation to comment), you can actually put a fair amount of text in. The survey seems to be very focused on concrete goals and locations, and avoids asking questions about process, which is I think where they need to hear feedback… but that little text box can hold a lot of process feedback.

By: Alan Goldsmith

Alan Goldsmith — Sat, 15 May 2010 11:15:55 +0000

“There are still unanswered questions regarding two interior pieces, she said – they still don’t have a new pricing estimate, for example. That prompted commissioner Cheryl Zuellig to observe, “He’s lost interest, maybe?” Parker replied that they chose someone who has an international reputation, so of course he’s very busy. They expect to have answers in early June.”

Now that the check has cleared, Mr. German artist a VERY busy man, so busy he can’t return phone calls. And ‘international’ reputation indeed. I’m guessing he returns the Chinese government phone calls a bit more quickly.

By: Tom Whitaker

Tom Whitaker — Sat, 15 May 2010 04:15:50 +0000

Hanover Square, which has been there from the earliest days of the City, is a city park several blocks outside the DDA boundary. So, how about starting with the Parks Advisory Commission in terms of what should be done in this city park? Not AAPAC or the DDA.

As a nearby resident, I would prefer to see a planting that helps buffer the park from the busy intersection of Packard/Division/Madison. While you’re at it, how about turning down the wattage on those new streetlights at that corner, too? Despite what the new DDA sign across the street says, and what all those new (and barely used) parking meters along Division tell you, Hanover Square is NOT downtown.