Comments on: Art Lobby Averts Temporary Funding Cut

By: Mark Tucker

Mark Tucker — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 23:27:28 +0000

I guess it did kind of sound like I was making a pitch for contributions. I'm not sure this is the correct forum for solicitations, however, suffice to say, we try to make sure that FestiFools fundraising efforts do not interfere with our "product", so that when you attend one of our events, or come to a FoolMoon Luminary workshop to make your own luminous sculpture, you should not have to pay to participate. Some of those free offerings may have to change in the future, but for as long as we can, we'd rather work at getting a small, but reliable funding stream from those who can afford it, and ultimately make a case for getting some sort of ongoing (small) city funding on an annual basis and encouraging the U-M to hopefully replace funding they have reduced from our program. Additionally, of course we are always indebted to the kindness and generosity of friends and strangers alike. To learn more please go to our donation page: [link] btw there is plenty of evidence that art can be used as an economic development tool as well, I'm just not sure it's the main reason for adopting a public art program. Since the 1960's many cities in this country, beginning with Philadelphia, have done so.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:20:19 +0000

Mark, I’ll send a contribution. Should I look on the website for information? I haven’t seen anything about a fund drive yet. It is certainly worth supporting as a community event. (I don’t know whether you know that I also praised both events on my blog – they are a fine example of what public art events should be.)

I’m not the one promoting art as an economic development tool. I was attempting to point out the fallacy of that argument. Actually, my argument was a bit tongue in cheek, since I consider any effort to measure the effect of such marketing ploys fallacious. We see a lot of impact (of various programs) being alleged without any substantive proof. When you are describing human behavior, there are so many variables that it would take a pretty solid experimental design to isolate one.

No, I’m not implying a causality link between the metal trees and the flooding in West Park. I was merely, as I said, pointing out the irony.

By: Mark Tucker

Mark Tucker — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:53:57 +0000

I don’t think the main reason for supporting public art (with public funds) is primarily because of its direct economic impact or marketing appeal. I just think that argument seems to come up as a response for those people who demand to see metrics over any kind of innate faith that public art is just plain good for a community—and therefore, as a public good, public art should be supported in kind.

How a broken storm water system can be blamed on the addition of a new sculpture–a sculpture that amounts to just 1% of the overall capital budget–is beyond me. Do you really think they had to skimp on the other 99% of what this project cost, just because 1% was set aside to attempt to bring some aesthetic beauty to the overall project?

By the way, thank you Vivienne for your verbal support of FestiFools. This is an example of an annual public art “performance” that hangs by a thread each year as we wonder if we’re going to be able to raise enough money to put the event on again. Believe me, the amount of toil we spend figuring out how to raise money for FestiFools (and now FoolMoon) would be better spent on what we artists do best: Creating the artwork. Unfortunately, creating a funding mechanism always tries to take precedent over creating a spectacular public art event. However, with more public support (since the public seems to appreciate “free” events like FestiFools) this wouldn’t have to always be the case, I hope. But either way, we’ll be asked to provide metrics each and every time we go looking for funds, so if you could tell me how best to put a measuring stick on something like FestiFools, I’d be the first to get on my knees and thank you.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:15:13 +0000

Mark, I completely agree that Ann Arbor’s cultural offerings, including the visual arts, are part of the appeal of our community and add to its richness. It’s one of the reasons I like to live here. Your own program, FestiFools, is one I would celebrate.

I was addressing the very narrow case of where public (i.e. taxes and fees) money is being used in an attempt to create a marketing tool, which seems to be a reasoning behind such programs. I question its effectiveness as well as its legality and fairness.

And we have plenty of public art that is privately donated. I hope that continues.

Has anyone picked up the irony in what happened in West Park, where some of the money used to redo the park’s stormwater management system was used to purchase metal tree forms (art), while the actual stormwater management system failed and caused flooding in nearby residential areas? Something skewed there.

By: Mark Tucker

Mark Tucker — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 05:16:38 +0000

Vivienne, obviously there will never be a direct line that can be drawn between public art and direct proof that owning and displaying it helps to make a city more economically viable. But there are many respected publications and annual lists/reports that rank Ann Arbor consistently high in terms of livability– and most of these publications include our arts and cultural offerings as part of its supporting evidence. In fact the AACVB recently commissioned a report which stated that more tourists visit Ann Arbor annually for its arts and cultural offerings than for all of its sporting events combined. Public art also helps to make the invisible visible. We may have great art offerings, and art producing and presenting venues here in Ann Arbor, but a visitor wouldn’t necessarily be able to know that judging by our relative lack of public art on display. Public art serves as a cultural beacon that attracts audiences while reflecting positively on its owners.

More important, public art is for everyone, where private art is usually only reserved for those who can afford it. Metrics or no metrics.

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:29:59 +0000

I agree with Richard. My understanding is that the Percent for Art ordinance prohibits that kind of expenditure, however. If so, it should be amended–investing in a thriving art culture in Ann Arbor is more likely to result in the kind of “art city” reputation than buying some civic sculpture and slapping a few murals up will. There’s a place for those things, but they only make sense in the context of a town that truly supports art. Otherwise they’re just window dressing.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:21:27 +0000

Much of the support for the idea of publicly funded art comes from the notion that it is somehow an economic development asset. There is something pretty weird about this when you start to think about it. But how well is implementation in our local case achieving its objectives?

Grand Rapids’ ArtPrize program is one example of a more successful community art program (privately funded), but this report [link] also highlights an attempt for Alpena to become “ARTown”. The report gives a good flavor of how “placemaking” development advocates see art as an economic tool.

I wish that rather than just mouthing platitudes, the supporters of this program would find some concrete examples of actually comparable programs and come up with some “metrics” (our word of the day) to evaluate likely success.

And thanks to Councilmember Briere for her patient attempts to make this program more rational.

By: Richard Cronn

Richard Cronn — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:23:37 +0000

Instead of buying big expensive art, we should be nurturing our local artists and arts community. This is where our public (and publicly supported) art will come from.

Start small, build an infrastructure to support local artists and arts organizations, such as 415 W Washington.

Allow the effort to grow and find its mission organically. Don’t proclaim from on high, particularly from a politically connected committee, what Public Art is and what it means to Ann Arbor.

The City has a particularly ham handed way of handling these things and it shows in public opinion of the AAPAC and the art is has chosen.

By: cosmonıcan

cosmonıcan — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 23:08:21 +0000

I don’t know if it’s symptomatic, but I called 911 a few weeks back and was met with a surly attitude I haven’t encountered since living in Detroit. They finally dispatched my call, but did all they could to make me go away. I don’t call there on a whim, they were just being nasty from the get-go.