Comments on: Column: Two Questions on Public Art

By: Bil Mundus

Bil Mundus — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 22:50:53 +0000

I am writing as one who has created and donated several decorative
objects to the city. If they are “art”,or not,is in the eye of the beholder.The city left them on display and the news was not deluged with letters.
I believe the current hubbub is due to the following:
1. The bronze surf board @ $800.000.00 is way too much for a
questionable fountain in a bad location.
2. $150,000.00 for a ceiling fixture INSIDE the building? That is not public. Council, get the committee out of the clouds.

By: Alan Goldsmith

Alan Goldsmith — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:02:34 +0000

There should have been a straight up/down yes/not public vote option on the Per Cent For Art Program on day one. There wasn’t. Both the new millage AND the Per Cent program should be voter options in November. Once again, City Council reps are making the issue a muddy one and there is no clear direction where the money will go if the vote in November is passed. This “strive to interpret” jive talk is more of the same that was soundly rejected in the August primary. I suggest Council members who continue in that tradition rethink this line of logic in light of the primary results. On this and scores of other subjects.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:14:22 +0000

I read that and am not sure how to interpret it.

If I am sincere in my previous statements, I would welcome votes for a millage (and be one myself). But CM Taylor seems to be inviting us to defeat it by overwhelming proportions. Or does he? If we don’t like the Percent for Art program, would a vote against the millage be interpreted as a vote for Percent for Art?

This is by no means a “clean” vote.

By: Tom Whitaker

Tom Whitaker — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 22:00:51 +0000

Anyone catch today’s annarbor.com where CM Taylor says he will “strive to interpret” the results of the art millage vote with respect to what it says about voter’s feelings about the current art program? This is the same CM Taylor who was aghast that a citizen activist, who has worked on several grassroots campaigns regarding the disposition of parkland, would dare presume to know what voters were thinking when they approved the parkland sale amendment. I guess the privilege of interpreting voter intent depends on which team you’re on…

‘Hieftje and Taylor both said they’re confident the public art tax will pass in November, but if it doesn’t, they’re willing to acknowledge that the voters have spoken and they’ll take a careful look at the Percent For Art Program at that point.

Taylor said he wasn’t willing to promise he’d introduce legislation to eliminate the program if voters say no to public art in November, though.

“A no vote can mean a number of different things,” he said. “A loss by a single vote may mean one thing. A loss by a landslide could mean something else. And I think it’s important that we wait and see what the voters have to say and then strive to interpret that accordingly.”‘

By: John Floyd

John Floyd — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 03:43:49 +0000

@ 16 ABC:

:-)

By: abc

abc — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 02:12:26 +0000

Art has yet to be fully explained or (fully) explored… anywhere.

Isn’t that wonderful.

Don’t hold your breath Mr. Cronn; it won’t happen in your lifetime.

By: Rick Cronn

Rick Cronn — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:48:22 +0000

Mr Vielmetti, FTW.

Was doing anything other than producing physical art in public places ever discussed by the committee?

Public Art has yet to be fully explained or explored in Ann Arbor.

By: Edward Vielmetti

Edward Vielmetti — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:31:27 +0000

(continued)

… can’t tell if the proposed millage makes the focus on human-scale art better or worse.

By: Edward Vielmetti

Edward Vielmetti — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:18:40 +0000

0.1 mills does not sound exhorbitant as a price to pay for public art, but I am not sure I want the city government to administer the funds.

Think how much more efficient that the library system is in building small arts programs, like their new circulating musical instruments collection, within their existing millage.

I’d much rather support human scale hands on arts programming than find high maintenance monumental sculpture. At this point, I can’t tell if the proposed millage

By: abc

abc — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:03:57 +0000

I cannot get over the irony that overthinking a question is being debated when that question is intended to revise an ordinance that was underthought 5 or 6 years ago. Had the original ordinance been thought about more, and its limitations understood and communicated when it was conceived, we would not have people arguing, 5 years later, over whether, or not, the current ordinance could support performance art, local artists, artist-in-residency programs, etc, etc. Many of the reports on AAPAC meetings include board members comments that reflect that even they do not understand the limits of the current ordinance.

I realize my commnent is not contributing to the debate so please forgive my non sequitur.