Perhaps my campaign slogan next time should be “Jack Eaton – when weak opinions are not enough.”

Steve Kunselman recognized that the ordinance is unique in the State of Michigan and wanted an opinion from the Attorney General as to its legality. There was plenty of discussion of suspending the ordinance, limiting its operation – or abolishing it altogether.

Sabra Briere discussed the lack of guidelines the Art Commission had in administering funding.

My personal observation of the program is that the Art Commission itself has expressed surprise at the high level of funding it is getting. The public has been critical at the low quality of art that it has purchased and disgust over the fact worthy artists have been passed over to contract with outside persons for art services.

A number of people attended to hear the discussions including Jack Eaton – who has had strong opinions about the ordinance.

Margie Teall has been the strongest voice in favor of the ordinance.

The voices that have opposed this ordinance need to continue to be heard. The One Per Cent For Art Ordinance shall be repealed – Jane Lumm and Sumi Kailasapathy have been voices of reason and they shall prevail.

There’s a third option (at least), which would be to select artworks that appeal to many people, mainly current Ann Arborites. What “fits Ann Arbor” might be a dead-end discussion.

As for “lots of art”, wouldn’t a balance between quantity and quality or some consideration of the tradeoffs between spreading installations around the city versus fewer pieces in fewer places be reasonable?

I also still think it would be worth considering whether the DDA would be a better administrator of a public art program focused on the downtown. Of course, that runs into the question of whether citizens approve of the DDA at all as a public fund fiduciary.

Ultimately, I think the proponents of public art will need to make a clearer, stronger case for publicly funded art as well as public art. What are the community benefits beyond the obvious? For example, is there a reverse “broken window effect”-type influence that it has on people?

Property tax revenues (not to mention state revenue sharing and other special funding) will be declining in coming years, so the whole question of public funding of art will be revisited in that context. Might as well consider it now.

A second problem with arts funding is that the percent for arts program accumulates funds before an art purchase has been identified. The rapid amassing of funds for art creates pressure to buy some art – any art. Perhaps, we should have a process that identifies the art we would like — something that uniquely characterizes or fits Ann Arbor — and then look for the means to pay for it. Perhaps we would find ourselves buying more local art, or at least art that makes you reflect on our community. There is nothing about the “Radius” piece that reflects the character or feel of Ann Arbor. It seems more like a light fixture you’d find in an Art Van furniture store.

I hope that Council Member Higgins’ resolution passes. I’d like to see it amended to stop all spending that has not yet been approved. Perhaps with some time and study, a Council committee can identify how to buy art that fits Ann Arbor rather than just buying lots of art.

I have been rather publicly against the Percent for Art program (4 blog posts plus a number of comments). Yet I agree that having an Ann Arbor Public Arts Commission makes a lot of sense when it provides a medium for facilitating gifts of art.

I also admire the civic activism of the members of the commission. Many people living in our small city have a variety of views on different subjects. Yet the energy and dedication brought by citizen volunteers is valuable to all of us, even when we disagree on details. Thanks to the members of this commission for their hard work.