Comments on: Art Commission Acts on Dreiseitl Proposal

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:35:21 +0000

I enjoyed rereading the piece from last September and was reminded that the ArtPrize was underwritten by a private donor, not paid for by public funds.

By: Karen Moorhead

Karen Moorhead — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 15:59:23 +0000

Mary, thanks for your link. I was searching for it when I posted the comment. I will go read your take on the event now.

By: Mary Morgan

Mary Morgan — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:11:29 +0000

Re. ArtPrize: Last year we traveled to Grand Rapids and reported on the event, which also drew more than two dozen Ann Arbor area artists who exhibited there. [link] It seemed to energize the entire city, and was an amazing thing to witness.

By: Karen Moorhead

Karen Moorhead — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:57:05 +0000

This project is just amazing to me; I can't believe that in these times the artist just keeps getting paid more and more money and the budget keeps growing. Clearly he doesn't work under the same constraints most of us know so well, particularly in Michigan. I do support public art and think the things Grand Rapids have done with art competition is interesting and exciting. They estimate they had 200,000 people visit and the prize is awarded from public vote. [link] I have not visited it first hand, but it is a reminder that we will support art when it brings vitality to our community. Artprize is bringing the community together and visitors from outside as well. The Herbert Dreiseitl project seems to be tearing down our belief that art is vital to our community and is out of control with budget increases. I wonder how many of our citizens would be happy about this project and compare that to artprize in Grand Rapids? I realize you may not like the comparison of one piece of art work versus an event. But how it is received by the public is a valid comment for a piece of art. It is public art after all.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:01:10 +0000

Calling the proposed sculpture a urinal has been so popular that some people have actually been given the impression that it is one. But that has been done: [link]

By: Jack F.

Jack F. — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:02:54 +0000

Amusing Ms. Teall is proud of her endless supoort of the Giant Urinal Artwork project in her response to the AA survey but doesn’t say a word about it on her campaign webpage.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:50:23 +0000

Why, thanks, Mr. Floyd. I'm not exactly staying out of the election - I've already voted absentee and I'm Alice Ralph's treasurer. Folks reading this thread might find the Arts Alliance survey of candidates interesting: [.pdf file]

By: John Floyd

John Floyd — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 04:15:38 +0000

@46 Ms. Armentrout,

You write much sense on this topic – as on many. I regret that you elected to stay out of this election.

I share your concern for the legality – and the morality – of diverting funds, legally restricted to other purposes, to “art”.

I support voluntary contributions for public art – much like the donated benches in the city parks for a couple of other reasons: 1) if we are going to pretend that we have a city budget problem, public art may not be the first spending priority to fund; 2) no matter what are you put up, you will offend/bore many people. Art paid for with voluntary contributions will do the same, but without forcing others to pay for it. Seriously, city government’s proper role in sponsoring The Arts is to provide performance/viewing space. Controlling artistic content should not be a function of city council.

John Floyd
Republican for Council
5th Ward

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:06:03 +0000

@44, you have a point. We get too much ranting these days and too little reasoned discussion. Fortunately, most of the first doesn’t occur here.

By: a2eastsider

a2eastsider — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:31:24 +0000

@42. I truly didn’t mean to imply that numbers published by the Chronicle were fabricated. On the contrary, that is one reason I look here for good information. Numbers, etc, in articles look to be painstakingly researched and I am always glad to see corrections appear if something is found to have been incorrect. It means that people follow up and have a desire to convey facts, not repeat junk.

My point was that if you want something changed, and are attempting to go about it by addressing council, you should keep a calm head and have real, verifiable, information rather than ranting and tossing around stuff that you heard from somebody who heard it from somebody’s neighbor.

I am not a supporter of the Percent for Art program. It looks like it was very poorly thought out and should be either fixed or scrapped. I just didn’t think that “in court” was the most prudent way to do that given that we will end up paying to defend it in the process of trying to get it tossed.