Bikers, runners, walkers, paddlers sounds like a pretty holistic group of people. If the City does it’s work, the issue will be managing use conflicts and maintaining an oft-used space.

1. I wonder if any thought was given during the conceptualization of the bridge, that the bridge itself could be art or sculpture?

2. I like the Master Plan. I think the City ought to be able to map locations and a walking tour of public art, not just provide it for people in cars.

3. The conditions should dictate that the art come from within the community.

4. I’m not sure where Ed Weiss came from. But if I were him I’d take the commentary as a sign that people care about the town in which they live. There is no consensus on art, and I hate to say it but I share the opinion of the City Hall fountain and the building addition. It’s an ugly Bauhaus leftover with no character or relation to anything local or regional.

Someday the city will get over it’s inferiority complex and embrace architecture with a tie to – well – anything.

The bylaws for the public art commission are posted on the commission’s website, as is a copy of the public art ordinance. [.pdf of AAPAC bylaws] [.pdf of public art ordinance]

The ordinance defines public art this way: “Public art means works of art created, purchased, produced or otherwise acquired for display in public spaces or facilities. Public art may include artistic design features incorporated into the architecture, layout, design or structural elements of the space or facility. Public art may be any creation, production, conception or design with an aesthetic purpose, including freestanding objets d’art, sculptures, murals, mosaics, ornamentation, paint or decoration schemes, use of particular structural materials for aesthetic effect, or spatial arrangement of structures.”

The ordinance makes reference to the siting of public art only in a general way. There is no mention of a requirement for “unfettered access” or of the need for artwork to be “visible to the public without restraint.” Nor do I see any mention of requirements for location in the commission’s guidelines, which are also posted online. [.pdf of AAPAC guidelines]

In reference to siting public art, the commission’s bylaws state only that the commission shall “Promulgate guidelines, subject to the approval of City Council, to implement the provisions of this chapter, including procedures for soliciting and selecting public art and for determining suitable locations for public art…”

Based on their discussions that I’ve observed, art commissioners clearly believe that the Justice Center lobby is a public place that’s suitable for public art. I might personally wish for a more visible location for this or any other work – I rarely have occasion to enter that building – but it doesn’t appear to me that the ordinance, bylaws or guidelines constrain public art from being installed in that location.

I’m almost certain that it would not have met the requirements of the original Commission on Art in Public Places. I seem to recall wrigint those requirements, but memory can be unreliable.

If I didn’t have a day job, and a radio show, and a book to write, and a car to finish, I’d look into this myself. Surely these documents are in the public realm.

Bob

At this meeting of the art commission there was no discussion about the security issue related to the proposed Justice Center lobby artwork – the meeting was held on March 28, prior to the April 2 city council meeting when the security issue was raised. In general, based on past discussions of the art commission that I’ve observed, commissioners generally do take into account the public accessibility of their projects.

In the case of the Justice Center lobby, it was clear that security would be in place there. Here’s an excerpt from the project’s solicitation for an artist statement of qualifications/request for proposals:

As visitors and staff enter the lobby of the AAJC, they will pass through a security check point and into the large open lobby area. A blue glass wall spans the length of the entire right side of the lobby area and floor to ceiling windows are on the remaining three walls. The artwork will be located in the southwest corner of the lobby. This corner currently has a public seating bench with a carpeted floor area underneath. Public traffic for the AAJC will be for the 15th District Court, Probation Office and Police Services.

Specific attention needs to be given to the type of piece that can sustain a high traffic volume. This artwork should be a ceiling mounted or suspended piece that will be visible and make an impression looking in from both North Fifth Avenue and Huron Street (southwest corner) during the day and at night with either incorporated or reflected lighting. The artwork should complement the building and surrounding site environment. The artwork should speak to the public purposes of the building, which include public safety, justice, equality and security.

Members of the task force who recommended Ed Carpenter’s proposal were Elaine Sims, Margaret Parker, Spring Tremaine, Karl Daubmann, Maureen Devine, Laura Rubin, Ray Detter, Margie Teal, Homayoon Pirooz, and Aaron Seagraves.

But there was no mention of the issue, raised last week, about the basic definition of public art. I’m referring to the issue of whether or not people have to submit to the security rules in order to view the public art in the lobby of city hall.

When I served on the initial art commission, CAAP, sometimes as chair, there was a definition of public art written into our charter, and another in the bylaws we passed to begin operating. Public art is defined as art visible to the public without restraint. Spefically, art inside buildings could only be described as public art when the public was allowed unfettered access.

So, if the public is NOT allowed unfettered access, is it still public art? Can funds earmarked for public art still be legally used whent he art is not available for public viewing?

Have you considered asking those questions of the responsible people?

Bob Elton

The $250,000 cap is on the 1% amount that must be allocated per capital project. But some projects don’t lend themselves to siting any art. If a capital project doesn’t inherently offer a reasonable place to site a piece of art that’s integrated into it, then the money can be “pooled” into some other project. That, I think, is what’s going on here. The $400,000 is a combination of funds that have been pooled from other projects.