This perspective is not about the worth – or unworth – of Publicly Funded art (vs. public Art, such as the noted privately-funded fairy doors downtown) in general, nor about any particular installation. It is always and everywhere a bad idea to use bond funds (i.e., borrowed money) to pay for current operations. This is an equally wrong way to fund police or fire operations, street cleaning, or cutting grass in the parks – art, shmart. It’s like paying credit card interest this year on the groceries that you ate two years ago.

If people want to pay taxes to fund public art, do it either 1) via the general fund, which has no restrictions on the public purposes to which it can be used, or 2) via a dedicated millage. Either of these approaches is more honest – and better policy – than pretending that diverting bonds funds is free, and without consequence.

Personally, I agree with those who think public art in Ann Arbor can and should be privately funded. Walk through Gallup Park, and look at the number of memorial benches it contains. Clearly there are plenty of people in town who are happy to pony up personal funds for public amenities in exchange for minute recognition of a loved one. So many, in fact, that, as I understand it, Gallup Park is no longer accepting any more memorial benches. An art fund that accepted memorial contributions seems like it would be a winner. Memorializations could be on a wall at city hall, or near the site of an installation, or in some other manner. In any case, there seems to be no shortage of private funds for public amenities.

“Years ago the Federal Government decided that just spending millions of dollars on buildings with nothing aesthetic as a part of it was not a good idea. It was decided that a percent (1%) would be set aside from the budget of each project to allow for the creation of Public Art – to be associated with the project.”

Any chance you could let us know under which administration this occurred and how that decision is documented and implemented? I am aware of many Federal programs that support the arts dating back to those set up under FDR but I am not aware of your reference.

Also with respect to local artists go to the link in comment #2 on this thread and scroll down to Mayor Hieftje’s response in comment #19 on that thread as to the possibility of limiting the funding to local artists. He says “No”, citing federal laws to support not limiting the selection process, implying that all of those states and cities that do limit their selections to local artists may be in violation of the Privileges & Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The city may be overly cautious, be I am hard pressed to call that arrogant.

Look where we are now. Instead of using the funds to support the creative arts (and that includes local artists) we are tied up with political agendas and rhetoric. The work in front of City Hall is a good example of bad decisions. It really is time we support local creative talent. Many states and cities have percent for art programs (not Federal) that restrict proposals to local (state or county or city) artists. Apparently, we’re too arrogant to do that.

As far as percent for art funds being used on temporary art – like FestiFools, or artist in residencies – it shouldn’t be. HOWEVER – Ann Arbor MUST invest in art projects like FestiFools. It has proven to be successful – it is working and creating interest in the city, and bringing people to the events. Investing in the arts and culture of Ann Arbor is essential if we want to keep the city relevant. Sure, the U of M will keep us relevant as far as performing arts is concerned. What Mark Tucker has done deserves the city’s support – and there should be funding set aside for the arts -IN ADDITION TO the percent for art program. What must happen is separate funding needs to be set up for the arts in Ann Arbor. City’s that invest in the arts typically are healthier than those which don’t.

My story was just a bit of a humorous way to illustrate the old saying that “you have to dance with the one who brung you’. By changing the story I am not clear what you are trying to say.

“… it was Artie Works who asked Cito Hall to the dance.” – I would equate being asked to the dance with passing the Percent for the Arts ordinance; City Hall did that.

“… so he takes a risk, and decides to pay their way, and it becomes clear as the night goes on that the party is headed for disaster…” – I don’t see City Hall recognizing any disaster. I see City Hall being just fine with expenditures on monumental, building-like art works.

“…Artie gets a great idea…” (and everything that follows). This is where we diverge. As stated before by Dave Askins and myself, you can want this all you want BUT due to the funding source the attorneys and the politicians (the parents in the story) will not let this happen. The metaphor breaks down if you want to allow Cito to be rebellious. City Hall cannot be rebellious because those that speak for City Hall ARE the politicians and lawyers; there is no innocent and curious child between City Hall and the arts.

As I write this I am considering if you are thinking of the AAPAC Board as something between the arts community and City Hall. I obviously do not know but I do not consider them to be. Their power is directly derived from City Hall’s attorneys interpretation of the ordinances; hence their being shackled to monumental art that can be depreciated over two years. That comes straight from the bureaucrats.

Mr. Tucker

From the reporting from this article under, “Developing a Master Plan: Setting Goals – Temporary Art”.

“Chamberlin said that AAPAC has been told that the Percent for Art funds can’t be used for temporary art. By way of background, the meaning of “permanent” has been explained to AAPAC by city staff as relating to the ability of an item to be capitalized. At AAPAC’s July 2010 meeting, Sue McCormick – who at that time supervised the program as the city’s public services administrator – told commissioners that the city runs a depreciation schedule on each piece of art, and that artwork is considered a capital investment that needs to last a minimum of five years. At AAPAC’s December 2011 meeting, Chamberlin reported that the city’s finance staff had revised its definition of “permanent” to a minimum of two years, not five.”

So from the above paragraph we know that the AAPAC “has been told” (from whom? I don’t know) that they cannot spend money on temporary art. This opened the door to HAVE to define permanent art; the opposite of temporary art. It seems, also from the above paragraph that the city has, maybe tacitly, originally defined permanence as 5 years, since this is how they have been depreciating ALL of their non-temporary purchases for some time; this has since changed to two years.. Lastly this is not news; the AAPAC has been discussing it for years always with the same result.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that this constraint is a good thing for public art. I am saying it is a real constraint for the system that has been set up. It should come as no surprise that directing public money to the production of actual works of art would be clumsy at best. But there are two silver linings that you have reminded me of, Mr. Tucker. One, is that there is a funding source, the other is that art evolves faster than government.

Here’s your challenge, (assuming you are interested) rather than cramming FestiFools (or any other program) into the PfA program, try designing a piece / performance / work / object that achieves your goals while satisfying the simple-mindedness of the funding source. A sculpture that melts over two years could be very interesting and might bring people back to it over and over to check up on its progress. Look no further than some of the environmental work of the Land Art Movement (Christo, Turrell, Smithson, etc). But maybe that’s not your shtick. OK how about a piece that is both temporary and permanent; one with ceremony. How about a concrete piece with a wooden component that is burned twice a year to celebrate the equinoxes. Maybe different local artists are brought in to rebuild it each time. Burning Ann Arbor!

My point with respect to art in general, and I have to assume you will agree, is that just because something is permanent, temporary or ephemeral does not make it good. Good is good. I think we need to take advantage of what we have regardless of its limitations; but we need to do it realistically.

I can look at it this way. There’s this girl, Artie Works, who was asked to the dance by Cito Hall, (a nice Italian American from a conservative family). Well Artie accepts and lets Cito pay for their entrance and drinks, etc. Cito then asks Artie to dance and of course she agrees. But then Cito explains that all he knows is the Waltz because in his conservative family anything other than Waltzing is considered wrong. Artie is crushed, while she can Waltz she considers it passe and boring; she has moved beyond Waltzing years ago. So maybe she should consider how to redefine Waltzing if she is going to have fun; she is not going to change Cito tonight.

Mark, I’m not sure that you’ve appreciated abc’s point. Here it is again: Focusing just on the definition of public art in the ordinance and trying to interpret that definition, or putting other words in that definition is a waste of everyone’s time.

Here’s why it’s a waste of time. The choice of definition of public art contained in the ordinance is itself subject to the constraints that follow from another choice made in the ordinance – the funding mechanism. The specified funding mechanism taps capital budgets. And because capital budgets are tapped, that brings with it a constraint that the art be permanent and monumental (not to mention other constraints related to the specific funds that are tapped).

So it does not move the conversation forward to observe that the definition section of the ordinance doesn’t include anything about permanence of art, and from that observation try to reason that what can be funded is simply a matter of asking the city council (the bakers) to reconsider the definition section to make it explicitly include temporary installations (or whatever). I don’t think anyone is trying to argue that a requirement that art be permanent can be divined from the current definition. That requirement follows from the choice of funding mechanism.

So if you would like to use the money generated under the city’s public art ordinance for a broader set of projects than currently allowed, then a useful first subject of conversation is not the definition of public art in the ordinance, but rather the funding mechanism specified in the ordinance.

If you want the freedom to define public art in a way that allows funding for the kind of creative endeavors that folks have mentioned, then the first step is to give up the idea of tapping capital budgets.

One alternative would be to scrap the ordinance, and instead ask voters to tax themselves. In Ann Arbor, 1 mill of property tax generates roughly $4.5 million a year. A .05 mill tax, which translates into $5 a year for the owner of an “average” house with a market value of $200,000 and taxable value of $100,000, would generate roughly $225,000 a year. If you think that public art needs more than $225,000 a year, then adjust the millage number upward and ask voters for that. A millage, for say five years at a time, would provide a public art program with a similar kind of stability that supporters of the current ordinance point to. The funds generated with such a millage could be used in whatever way the community would like to define public art, without being subject to the current constraints associated with capital budgets.

Or if you want to be bold, ask for a millage on top of the current ordinance instead of scrapping it.

In any case, the most useful focus of conversation is the manner in which public art is funded, not the definition of public art.

While art education, promotion, and yes, enjoyment of such programs as Festifools, are worthwhile goals for both private donation and governmental grants (that should be awarded in the regular appropriation process), they are not suitable for funds derived in this manner.

We must distinguish between worthwhile goals and appropriate implementation. That principle extends far beyond art. There are many needs and wants that we would like to address, but only a limited pool of governmental revenue (and its origin in taxpayer and ratepayer pocketbooks). It is the role of government to set goals and priorities, determine appropriate sources of funds, and allocate money fairly and legally. Merely appealing to the beauty of the idea is, unfortunately, not adequate.