I was under the impression, and bolstered by my experience on various city commissions, including the art commission’s predecessor, that people served on commissions because they wanted to do something, accomplish something. The only thing worse than giving up is, I suppose, not bothering to show up at all, which, I gather, some of the commissioners chose to do.
There are plenty of ways to encourage and create public art. If necessary, search for private funding. If the commissioners don’t have a vision of their own, find someone who does have a vision. If city council is mired in other issues, get cracking anyway. There are a million reasons not to do something, and there are almost always ways around those kinds of obstacles.
I also think the commissions position on art donations is very short-sighted. Some of the best art in the city was donated, long before there was a commission. I think the city should be open to all donations. If they aren’t well received when displayed, we can put them in a warehouse, along with all the other gifts the city gets that aren’t particularly prized. Or, sell them off at a city yard sale, like the city does, or did, with other unneeded equipment.
I think the art commission should be telling city council what the city needs for public art, not the other way around.
Bob Elton
]]>This type of “art” is just visual clutter, in my opinion. I noticed the other day that one of the fire hydrants painted in an earlier DDA project has become rusted and is now doubly unattractive because of the painted blobs on it.
]]>