Clearing the murkiness of Public Art
Jesse Beason
Every time Portland builds, rehabs, remodels or improves public buildings, parks and structures, we dedicate a small percentage of funds - currently 1.33% - to public art. While there are plenty of exceptions where this doesn't happen, say when we're acting as a public utility (water and sewer) or when we're using funds that forbid it, this program has built a stupendous $5 $6.8 million public art collection over the 25 years it has been in place.
But, we've discovered there are some kinks.
Under the inkling that this program was rather loosely enforced, we asked the Auditor's Office to assess bureau practices and basically uncover any oversight. Their report back to us: implementing the percent-for-art program is at best murky, informal and subjective (PDF).
In our response to the report (PDF), we outlined the formation of a workgroup to iron out a formal and consistent process. That workgroup is nearing its end.
The workgroup has developed proposed revisions to the City Code to help clarify the program. We are also working on administrative rules, which are essentially instructions on how to carry out the code.
There are also three policy changes that Sam is proposing:
- increasing the percentage from 1.33% to 2% in recognition of the dwindling resources for proper maintenance of our investment in public art;
- lowering the eligibility threshold to $50,000 so that small city projects produce small contributions to buy portable works from Portland artists;
- including the purchase of buildings to reflect the fact that sometimes it makes sense for the City to buy instead of build.
Read the current city code and our draft revision. What do you think of the changes?
Also, head on over to Portland Public Art for a blogger's ruminations on our city's investments.
Posted by Jesse Beason on November 25, 2005
(16) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Arts & Culture, Front Page, Our Initiatives, Regional Arts & Culture Council
Comments by site visitors
While I agree that these are difficult and challenging times for many members of our community, the creation of public art has a very distinct role to play in our society...even in these times when many are living their lives with less and our schools are underfunded. We have learned much about the past through the culture which was produced for any given population, city and region. And, in this time of increased museum, opera, and symphony admission prices, public art is indeed a very effective way of providing culture to the public without them needing to buy a ticket. Simply put, public art helps to establish a level of public pride by creating landmarks within the city, encouraging public discourse (as you noted not all of us agree on what art means), and lastly brings a sense of discovery and wonder, craft and detail, heritage and lest I say beauty to our buildings and open spaces. From our county's very first structures the hand of the craftsman and artist has been present and helps to communicate our aspirations, our values and our histories. Yes, this does cost money. But I would like to think that of the successful works, they are providing and will go on to continue to provide a valuable asset to our citizens, visitors and those who come after.
All of the works that you encounter in our lobbies, plazas and parks were selected by broad citizen based committees. In the end I would merely suggest that rather than getting cranky, maybe you should get involved.
Posted by: Tad Savinar | Nov 24, 2005 10:18:31 AM
Every public art project is guided by a citizens advisory committee that helps select the artist and provides background about the neighborhood and site where the art will be located. Some of our public art projects in residential neighborhoods also include a citizen involvement component in the creation of the work itself. Public art helps create a distinct identity for Portland and for its many unique neighborhoods. Our public art collection includes works that challenge citizens to stretch their imaginations around something totally new, as well as works that appeal to the kid in almost everyone. One thing I've noticed when I travel to cities without a public art collection; they all begin to look alike. Globalization creates sameness in our urban and suburban communities. Public art is an expression of civic pride and identity. Vibrant communities like ours don't happen by accident, urban planning, public art and an involved citizenry are part of what make Portland great.
Posted by: Nanda D'Agostino | Nov 28, 2005 11:17:09 AM
Do we want a city that always does the minimum, that builds plain vanilla utilitarian structures and public spaces, devoid of character, lacking reflections of the personality and diversity of its' citizens? Who would want to visit that city? Who would want to live there?
Posted by: Ed Carpenter | Nov 30, 2005 6:42:12 AM
It's depressing, sometimes, to realize that these same old "discussions" keep happening, decade after decade. But perhaps I'm mistaking ignorance for the necessary replenishing of small 'd' democracy.
What do we value in America? In Portland? What is it we are prepared to do if we value something? What individual and collective benefits accrue as a result of these decisions? For instance, we value the mortgage tax deduction. Just examine the recent furor over the mere thought of eliminating it! We require new construction to contribute to the consequent infrastructure needs (fire, water, schools) needs created as a result of new construction. We offer large businesses tax reductions or elimination to entice them to come or stay. Some Oregon companies pay $10 state tax, or no tax at all. There are many mechanisms in our lives that are used to achieve specific ends, some more laudable than others.
But art is special. It seems as if it is the only human activity deemed expendable, or " an unnecessary frill", or "froufrou." Many people are seemingly unaware that American art and creativity are the one area of U.S. trade surplus. Our art is so powerful that nations seek to limit its consumption, as France has done with the U.S. film industry. The point is, we "subsidize" many things in our lives, and to pit homelessness or heroin addiction against art is such the disingenous perennial red herring that we should at least attempt to kill when it raises its head. It's simple: art = life. You need it, I need it, we need it, your kids need it. A more dynamic, interesting, creative community raises everyone's boat, financially and spiritually and it's a small price to pay for such a return.
Posted by: Dan Wasil | Dec 1, 2005 12:31:34 PM
It's depressing, sometimes, to realize that these same old "discussions" keep happening, decade after decade. But perhaps I'm mistaking ignorance for the necessary replenishing of small 'd' democracy.
What do we value in America? In Portland? What is it we are prepared to do if we value something? What individual and collective benefits accrue as a result of these decisions? For instance, we value the mortgage tax deduction. Just examine the recent furor over the mere thought of eliminating it! We require new construction to contribute to the consequent infrastructure needs (fire, water, schools) needs created as a result of new construction. We offer large businesses tax reductions or elimination to entice them to come or stay. Some Oregon companies pay $10 state tax, or no tax at all. There are many mechanisms in our lives that are used to achieve specific ends, some more laudable than others.
But art is special. It seems as if it is the only human activity deemed expendable, or " an unnecessary frill", or "froufrou." Many people are seemingly unaware that American art and creativity are the one area of U.S. trade surplus. Our art is so powerful that nations seek to limit its consumption, as France has done with the U.S. film industry. The point is, we "subsidize" many things in our lives, and to pit homelessness or heroin addiction against art is such the disingenous perennial red herring that we should at least attempt to kill when it raises its head. It's simple: art = life. You need it, I need it, we need it, your kids need it. A more dynamic, interesting, creative community raises everyone's boat, financially and spiritually and it's a small price to pay for such a return.
Posted by: Dan Wasil | Dec 1, 2005 12:32:16 PM
I commend you for taking the lead to clarify the way that public art is developed and the difficult administration that occurs within bureaucracies. I know that I, and most people from my community come back from Portland to Tacoma raving about the fabulous diverse public art collection. RACC is enviable for their innovation and leadership. A Commissioner's committment to strengthening the program is a breath of fresh air! I suffer similar lack of clarity and hope that our leadership is as forthcoming and committed to making changes for the better.
Posted by: Amy McBride | Dec 1, 2005 5:55:34 PM
Imagine a family living in a house with a leaky roof, rain gutters that are clogged with leaves, toilets that overflow, a porch (called "Sellwood") that is falling down, and a driveway filled with potholes.
Would that family be buying art to hang on the walls? Would that family be increasing the portion of the family budget devoted to art?
Posted by: Open your eyes | Dec 15, 2005 11:09:48 AM
Sam:
This past weekend, a water main beneath SW 6th Street (near Wilson High) burst open, sending a waterfall down the hillside onto Barbur Boulevard below.
A sinkhole recently opened up in South Burlingame (my neighborhood), due to a leaking water main.
I assume you are very familiar with the dozens of 100 year old sewer pipes currently leaking throughout Portland.
Given the backlog of deferred maintenance in the BES, is this the time to increase the allocation of resources dedicated to public art?
Posted by: W. Bruce Anderholt II | Dec 21, 2005 8:34:53 PM
Correction to above: the bursting water main was on SW 8th Avenue (not 6th Street:)
Posted by: W. Bruce Anderholt II | Dec 21, 2005 8:36:45 PM
In the interests of full disclosure, you may want to read about Dan Wasil's brother, A. Wasil, who had a $50 million sculpture in the works for San Diego Port Commission that eventually shot down.
Dan Wasil has a dog in this fight
Posted by: OYE | Dec 21, 2005 11:23:42 PM
More full disclosure:
Nanda D'Agostino was a recipient of a portion of the $1.2 million spent on public art at the Wapato County Jail.
Too bad all those jailbirds never got to soak up the ambiance of the place.
She has also produced art for the Westside Max and the City of Tacoma.
I wonder if anybody else (besides the artists, art dealers, art historians, etc) would choose art over sewer repairs? Mmmmm...sewage leaking into our neighborhoods, or public art. Tough call.
Posted by: OYE | Dec 21, 2005 11:43:23 PM
Mmmmm....
You'll never guess what Amy McBride does for a living
Posted by: OYE | Dec 21, 2005 11:47:39 PM
Guess what Tad Savinar does for a living...Hint: it ain't sewer repairs!
Posted by: OYE | Dec 22, 2005 12:02:14 AM
Would you believe Ed Carpenter is an artist too?
Now I'm not suggesting that potential recipients of public arts funding shouldn't have a seat at the table, but is anybody surprised they are in favor of MORE PUBLIC FUNDING?
Posted by: OYE | Dec 22, 2005 12:08:50 AM
Unlike the city of Portland, when I cannot afford the basics like food and water, I don't go buy art.
I understand this program was endorsed by the public at a time when things were pretty fat, unfortunately the fat is gone and like egypt we now are in the midst of famine.
Record unemployment, water costs 8 times what it does in Washington county, schools screaming they can't operate and we are buying art.
Let me tell you about art. Let me tell you about a $100,000 PLUS bench purchased for a juvenile facility at the same time we have inadequate treatment facilities for children.
A painting moved from a public building because it has been peed on.
A ugly mural mounted while exceptional art produced at NO COST is tossed in a corner.
I believe in Public art. But not when we have leadership constantly whining about lack of funding.
REAL leadership would LEAD and find a way to suspend the allocation for new purchases until the economy has ACTUALLY improved.
Posted by: Jonathan | Dec 22, 2005 8:51:33 AM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
Sam,
I have disagreed with the one percent for art since the original inception as simply too costly. Beauty should be built into the architecture and design of buildings and structures, not some given percentage of a construction project that usually produces an ugly abstract sculpture plopped in a lobby, a piece of scrap metal obstructing the entrance, and/or paint blotches hanging on a wall. This type of so called plop art satisfies few but the arts community, and maybe gets a few more votes for a person supporting the program and running for political office. There are exceptions, like the beautiful bronze animals around the Pioneer Courthouse. Obviously some will say art is in the eye of the beholder. A friend of mine once pointed out a new Pontiac Firebird calling it art on wheels. I agreed with that statement, but I don’t see the City requiring anybody to drive one around town in the name of art. In spite of this, the real issue; using a percentage of building costs to determine a price for required artwork is an unnecessary frill that increases both the costs of doing business and living in Portland. What’s next, another two percent for designer wall colors, a few more percentage points for mohair carpeting, or yet another percentage for whatever the froufrou of the day is? When developed, the whole idea of a percentage for art had far more to do with greasing the arts community and giving gravy money to starving artists than providing public art. Things have changed since then. Today a lot more people are working in low wage jobs or unemployed. The median income is not keeping up with inflation. The standard of living for the average worker is going down. As a society, we can not keep using the powers of government to keep expensive decorative programs like this one intact when basic needs are being impacted. The money being set aside for art can be better used for other purposes. This program should see the sunset, not have the percentage increased.
Posted by: Terry | Nov 23, 2005 1:05:37 AM