Public Art

[Superman]

Friends and Enemies:

There was an interesting story this weekend about the outdoor sculpture collection at Western Washington University in Bellingham. This university is a beloved one, and apparently it has one of the best collections of outdoor art. But expansion needs are pinching their locations, and maintenance costs are pinching the school's budget. I don't like wasting tax money any more than you guys do.

Art as a part of public works projects is controversial. In Washington State, there is a law requiring a certain percentage of construction budget to go toward art, on public works. Some folks consider this to be a waste of money.

Art saves lives. I don't know what this bumper sticker means, but I agree with it. State trooper vehicles are well-equipped. That's functional, but it also has an impact on troopers' attitudes toward their jobs. If we made them make do with cheaper, inferior equipment, then it would send a different message to the troopers.

In Italy, art is connected with life. Some cultures cannot imagine how we might pretend that they are separate, or that art is optional. Artists and architects influence our attitudes. They stimulate our creativity. They buttress our self-perceptions. I think art is important. When we build stuff, yeah it might be a little cheaper to make bridges all look like the Alaskan Way Viaduct or perhaps even more plain that that. But should we? Or should we make them visually attractive. The new bridge in downtown Tacoma is, in my view, a big boon for that city. Just because of its elegant appearance, let alone its utility. I am proud of Washington State and Seattle. The art contributes quite a bit to that perception. Would we be better off if we had saved that money and made Seattle look like nothing more than concrete, steel and glass?

[Moses]

Originally posted by Superman
...I don't know what this bumper sticker means, but I agree with it...

Instant classic!

I am amazed that there was any worthwhile art in the world before public funding. How did that happen?

[Moneyguy1]

And we could all be driving something that looked like a Pinto...no differentiation in style, everything the same. Autos, as an example are sometimes referred to as "rolling art". I see art as an outward view of the human soul; the need for something that conforms to nothing in particular, but exists just because it pleases the senses. But art can, as Supe says, be far more than pleasing, it can also be functional and practical. WIthout art, we have the world of THX1138.

[Superman]

Originally posted by Moses
Instant classic!

I am amazed that there was any worthwhile art in the world before public funding. How did that happen?

Always pleased when I amuse you, Moses.

And I did expect someone to point out that much of our art comes from private funds. Touche'. But this observation also suggests that even hard-number private money considers art to be important and worthwhile. A good investment, if you will.

Moneyguy sums up my thoughts very well.

[gaijindabe]

Originally posted by Superman
Friends and Enemies:

This university is a beloved one, and apparently it has one of the best collections of outdoor art.

If it one of the "best collections", then funding will be found. If it is not, than the scrap metal man will come haul it away..

Art is important, as is good architecture. But just by labeling something "art" does not give it eternal protection.

And I am not sure that Washington law works so well. Sounds like 'workfare" for starving artists myself..

[Moses]

Originally posted by Superman
But this observation also suggests that even hard-number private money considers art to be important and worthwhile. A good investment, if you will.

Art is not only a critical component of public works, but our city has strict requirement for artwork in privately owned public places. The city is truly beautiful.

In California, we are now doing battle with politicians who want to replace the elegant, beautiful Bay Bridge with a simple elevated span. Pure utilitarian. No thanks.

[bryanthompson]

Someone say pubic art?

[island911]

and on Public Art-

Thing is, lib's like supe see fund for the arts (1% or whatever) as an acceptable diversion to "funding of artsy liberals."

Every building that goes up has a certain "art" component to it. Beyond the amount of asthetically pleasing elements that the architect puts into it, there is also the art of engineering. AS Moneyguy notes, we have rolling art.

Of course some people believe that if some structure is made of concrete and glass (by evil rich private architect, egr's and business men) that somehow a faux pas has been made. . .That w/o the inclusion of some starving "artist" giant lump of maccaroni-art sitting outside the stucture, we, as a society have simply failed in all that is equitable.

[dhoward]

Mmmm.......Macaroni.

[Overpaid Slacker]

bryan's got to crop his pictures better -- lose 20% of the top of that photo and you'll improve it about 100%.

But maybe that's art to him.

MHO -- I have no use for public funding of the arts; which amounts to public funding of "artists." There was plenty of art around before the Democratic party got into the act of establishing/maintaining a dependent electorate.

And some of this non-publicly funded art is quite good. It's in museums all over the place.

Police officers having functioning vehicles, equipment and weapons = public art saves lives. Whoof. You guys let Supe get THIS far off the reservation in my absence? Obviously all of my prior gains have been squandered.

JP

[lendaddy]

Soon we will be funding other fun yet useless career paths, like "public philosophy". We could park doped out 30 somethings with plastic diplomas on park benches to expouse their knowledge and insight to winos, junkies and gang bangers. It'll be great!

Yes, to public works!

[Superman]

So far I like Bryan's input the best. By far. And Moses, of course.

JP, one of the issues that turns on this question has to do with the expectations we verbally place on workers, and in writing, versus the signals that workers get which can be contrary to the expectations. We want public servants to be professional, and to serve their customers efficiently. If you house them in a broken-down abandoned school building with a leaky roof and no parking, are they going to provide obviously professional service? if state troopers were asked to drive cars that are ten years old (hey, that'd save a much of money), would they be as proud? Let's say that everything they have is functional. But needs a coat of paint. Let's say we take them out of those snappy wool uniforms, and place them in green dungarees (for easy recognition) and a specially-colored cotton T-shirt? It's cheaper for the taxpayer, after all. but how would that impact their perceptions of their jobs, and our perceptiosn of their performance? I'm not tring to answer this question, just hoping most of the folks here at least understand it. Do you?

[Eric Coffey]

Originally posted by Superman
Art saves lives. I don't know what this bumper sticker means, but I agree with it.

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it art.

Geez, Island, you're slacking. I can't believe I beat you to that quote opportunity.

I can definitely appreciate art, but only when there is an obvious talent/skill involved. If it is something I could have done myself (like glue macaroni, or randomly splatter paint on a canvas), I am not impressed, unless you are in kindergarten. Also, architecture in and of itself is one of the best forms of "public art" there is.

Here is one of my current favorites:
McLaren Technology Centre

[Overpaid Slacker]

Art saves lives.

Therefore, we must publicly fund art in order to save lives.

Publicly funded art is the moral equivalent to properly equipping our public servants.

Therefore, we must fund art on an order of magnitude commensurate with what we spend on fire/police/education/welfare/etc ad nauseam b/c we will be saving lives.

I'm just not familiar with this terrain, Supe.

Public funding of art saves (preserves) lifestyles of the recipients ... not lives.

Art is nice, but not exactly an effective substitute for water, sustenance or shelter.

If an artist is any good, he'll use it to pay his rent and bills -- through commissions or sales of his craft. If he's not that good, then he's really not an artist and should do something at which he'll add value to the community -- not suck money out of that same community through a "grant" to make a scrapmetal welding experiment that looks like a particularly grievous helicopter crash.

Why is it not "music saves lives" and we can dole out thousands of dollars to every no-talent drop-out dirtbag who can shriek incoherently into a microphone? Is it b/c enough fools out there are actually willing to PAY to hear him so he can buy mansions, Ferraris and helicopters?

But godawful "music" is still art and therefore it still saves lives and we are therefore under the same moral imperative that does not allow critical examination to throw money at bad music every and anywhere.

JP

[bryanthompson]

Dunno where you've been, jp, but welcome back.

[island911]

I'll second that.

. .. and JP, get on over to this Supreme Court ruling thread, would ya?

Both you and Cramer were conspicuously absent from that thread.

[mikester]

The public should fund art...through private donations. Believe me -there are enough rich people out there who have their own ideas about art and are egoist enough to spend the money thinking they have not created a "legacy."

I know, I've worked for them it's very entertaining to see even if the art sucks. I worked for an Architectural/Engineering firm in Jacksonville for a few years and the owner was very much into some paint splats on walls but to support what he liked he also supported the local art community privately (through his own money). He provided a lot of funding to the local museum - they named a room after him and then a wing I think - plus he has a space set aside at the local airport. He's happy and there's lots of art around.

Public funds should be spent on schools, roads, health care for illegal immigrants and guns in that order.

[Superman]

Okay, I see that some of you are whining about how this can result in public money supporting artists. As if that's the purpose. Sounds like a conspiracy theory. And it sounds like it's not on the topic.

One of the first questions here is whether this art has value to us. Aside from whether it supports artists, is it an appropriate expense. Now, some of you will no doubt miss this plain question some more, and choose to point fingers of blame and villify individuals or groups. I know it's fun, but........

Also, we notice there is privately funded art. Should that be the only kind? in other words, if you're a private sector worker whose customers can choose to do business with your or not, then you get art in your surroundings....but if you're a gubmint worker whose customers must necessarily depend on your efficient and professional services.....you get a cinderblock building with a metal desk. In this way, we can send our hate message directly to gubmint workers by making their work places be low-budget dumps, and then we will of course ask them to bust their asses to provide services to us, and be very professional about it.

[gaijindabe]

I happen to live in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. The highest concentration of art, artists and art studios in this country. 99% of this "art" is crap. Every other bar and pizza joint is always having an "opening" or "show". Most of it is not worthy of a talented 8th grader..
Is all part of a big con. Trust funded or otherwise rich? What better rap with the ladies than setting yourself up in a loft, spashing some paint around being "creative"? Uggggg.

And yes Supe - art does have value to us. But it is NOT about money. Neanderthals made art for goodness sakes, and nobody paid them.

[Moneyguy1]

Supe:

You will NEVER win arguing against those whose view is so narrow as not to see the value of creativity. What a dull world without music, ballet, the works of the master painters and sculpters, Frank Lloyd Wright, Dahli, the list goes on. And how many creations from the old masters would there be without patrons who were indeed the government?

Art is, indeed, subservient to sustinence issues, but even primitive people believed it was a vital part of their existence.

What I see in many posts here is that there are two camps: Not so much conservative and liberal, but two camps comprised on one side of "me first" individuals and the others who try yo think beyond their own little world.