Most companies that want to retain their talent make a big deal about “Promotion from Within”. It is a foundation of Talent Management. When they have a great opportunity, excellent companies work very hard to find someone within to promote, and only after an extensive inside search do they go outside. As a result they retain their talent – a key to longterm success. Very simple principle.

Let’s assume the AA Art Commission wants to do good, and do what is most beneficial to Ann Arbor. Let’s stop attacking them. They are trying. But, they also need to listen to the public – as this is public art and sponsored by public funds. What we need is a new way of supporting/promoting/developing local creative talent which will hopefully result in great public art – appreciated by the community.

I propose a simple two step process. First an open call to local artists. In Ann Arbor you could limit it to Washtenaw County, as an example. Then, if no artist comes up with an outstanding idea – open it to others beyond the area. I guarantee you two things will happen. First, we will find that we have some amazing artists in this area. Second, we will launch careers that will enable international recognition for artists from our own Ann Arbor. The result – we’ll have great public art, and begin to retain our creative talent by helping launch their careers.

I hope that the Allmendinger project will provide some positivity that will discourage the vandals who repeatedly cause the bathrooms to be closed.

@4, I agree with the whimsy as well. Another thought that has lots of examples, and it can be seriously effective. Claes Oldenberg’s sculptures transformed common things. As does this…

[link]

As an example, it would be fun to carve a pair of trolls holding up the stadium bridge that you could see as you drive under it on State Street. Or a troll facing a wolverine. Or something like that.

–Eric

Hanging art on a structure does not make it beautiful. Structures can be DESIGNED to be beautiful without adding stuff to make them “art”. Without context, bridges and buildings are not appropriate backdrops for public art.

There has been a lot of discussion about the use of local talent for this endeavor and as far as I can tell there is still an elephant in the room. I agree with the above sentiment that has been attributed to Mr. Kotarski but I would like to ask that he read through the comments here … [link] … about whether or not ‘local’ should, or could, carry any meaning.

“It’s challenging to evaluate sites by location, without a broader narrative or theme. Without that framework, he said, people might ask whether the Percent for Art program is just decorating the city.”

Another comment atributed to Mr. Kotarski that I agree with that I would intensify by substituting the word ‘impossible’ for ‘challenging’. The AAPAC is limited to “just decorating the city” because they are too late to the parties and then have to place artificial limits on any artists’ proposals.

The simpliest example to write about is the Stadium Bridge. The choices are “(1) on the East Stadium bridge itself; (2) on a fence in Rose White Park; (3) at the terminus of White Street, north of the bridge; and (4) on the stairs and underpass at South State Street.”

Note that #1 is NOT the bridge, but ON the bridge, or affixed to the bridge. Why? The bridge is already designed and under contract; or in artistic terms, its conceptutual narrative has already been written. (This was the situation in West Park and will be true for Fuller Station.)

On a simple level it is a lost opportunity to not have an artist contribute to the design of the bridge itself. A more complex thought would have been to have hired an artisically minded structural engineer like Santiago Calatrava to design the bridge as a beautiful object. (OK, so Calatrava might have blown the budget; I selected him because he is widely known. There are others).

Mr. Kotarski, if you look at Mr. Carpenter’s portfolio (artist for Radius) you will see that it contains eight bridges. None of them have art hanging on them; they themselves are the art. And they have a range of styles.