When Art Gets in the Way
Jesse Beason
When Sam toured Lake Oswego he saw numerous sculptures gracing the downtown area. Judy Hammersted, the mayor of Lake Oswego, told Sam about their rotating sculpture program. Sam decided to bring it to Portland.
The program gives neighborhoods who have not benefited from the city’s Percent for Art program the opportunity to have public art in the public right-of-way for up to two years (or longer). The Regional Arts & Culture Council (RACC) is compiling a roster of eligible artwork (three-dimensional free standing sculptures) by Oregon artists from which neighborhoods can select a sculpture. While the sculpture is on display, the neighborhood has the option of purchasing the work and having it remain in their neighborhood under their care.
After identifying numerous neighborhoods that are interested, RACC and our office are working on outreach to artists who may have works for this program. If you're interested, see the document below.
Related Documents
Community Partners
Posted by Jesse Beason on January 4, 2006
(11) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under 2005 Year-in-Review, Arts & Culture
Comments by site visitors
I believe in public art. I have no problem with my tax dollars going for it, and I wish more did. Though I admire the creativity in your post, W.
Posted by: Shelle | Jan 6, 2006 11:00:14 PM
Shelle?
Would it be improper to ask if you are:
A. An art museum or gallery employee?
B. An artist
C. A recipient of public art funding?
Either way, your entitled to your opinion, but the previous posters on this topic all had a vested interest in the outcome.
I like public art, but I believe it's important to differentiate between needs and wants. I am more troubled by the thought of raw sewage leaking into Tryon Creek than I am by a failed attempt to double the "One Percent for Art Program."
We need to repair our leaky sewers. We want to increase funding for public art. After the needs have been fully funded, then you look at your wants.
Needs trump wants.
Posted by: W. Bruce Anderholt II | Jan 7, 2006 4:39:43 AM
Bruce,
It would not be improper to ask, and I am none of those that you listed.
I agree that needs should often trump wants. But I think that the public art program is unique, because it is not direct, discretionary investment in the arts. I like this program because it doesn't siphon dollars away from needs.
Rather, it identifies that when we have dollars to invest in capital improvements--like new buildings, new parks, new parking structures--not maintenance--like sewer repair or capacity increases, or installing a water main, or even funding police and fire--that we leave an artistic legacy from the impacts these capital projects have on the neighborhoods they disrupt, the context in which they are situated or the vibrancy public places ought to convey.
Posted by: Shelle | Jan 7, 2006 2:06:42 PM
Bruce;
To qualify this statement; I am not A, B, or C; but I do agree with Shelle.
-Lane
Posted by: Lane | Jan 10, 2006 3:26:46 AM
Lane/Shelle:
Do you understand that we are talking about a limited resource? This limited resouce is called tax authority, or taxpayer dollars.
There is only so much money that can be apportioned to the various levels of tax authority (city, state, county, federal). Every dollar spent on wants is a dollar that can't be spent on needs. It has nothing to do with whether or not it comes from a capital budget or an operation budget.
Are you so enamored with your wants (art), that you can ignore our needs? Please note that 100 year old sewers are leaking and breaking across the city? Raw sewage in the Multnomah County courthouse, in Tryon Creek, and the SoWa hills. It seems like a more critical need than more public art.
Posted by: W. Bruce Anderholt II | Jan 10, 2006 7:16:21 AM
I'm sorry, when did art become a WANT? For me and for my children, it is a NEED. Portland would be a depressing (and empty) town without its open spaces and cultural ammenities, and we must maintain them. I will also tell you that arts education literally saved my son's life. That a small, small portion of my tax dollar (overall I bet it's less than a tenth of one percent) should go to such noble causes -- well, I couldn't agree with this more.
And when did funding art become an EITHER/OR proposition? I believe we should be working to have all of our needs met, including sewer repair, but not ONLY sewer repair. I appreciate that there are limited resources, but we've got an entire wonderful city to support here.
I am not A, B, or C.
Posted by: TK | Jan 10, 2006 9:35:41 AM
Need?
I would say that some public art is needed aesthetically. As I recall, the art program does not take money from the sewerage. Yes I do understand we are talking limitted resource, however I imagine that we disagree on needs.
Reduce unenforced laws (Wants) to lock up real criminals which reduce the need for police and jail space. Increase the urban density ( cease to placate the "want" of suburban living ) to reduce the NEED for expanded roads and infrastructure.
-Lane
Posted by: Lane | Jan 10, 2006 1:52:35 PM
If you are unable to distinguish between wants and needs, there is no basis for further discussion.
Preventing raw sewage from leaking into our environment is a necessary and urgent task. We know our sewer pipes are old and failing (Sam will tell you so), but we are told "the maintenance backlog is too large and there are no additional funds available"...So raw sewage will continue to spill into our neighborhoods, our County Courthouse, and our parks and wetlands. Patch it up, it should hold another year or two. Somebody else will be commissioner by then.
Do you really believe that public funding for art is just as important as the maintenance of our sanitary sewer system? It is only an abstraction until the sewer pipe that serves your home bursts open, or the one underneath your place of business starts backing up into your basement.
If you accept the premise that we cannot maintain our infrastructure due to insufficient funding, it is illogical to increase the public funds devoted to art. Aesthetic enhancement simply can't compete with keeping fecal matter on the inside of the pipes, and out of our much vaunted environment.
If art is worth buying, it will be bought. A public commission will not keep a starving artist from starving. Any architect worthy of the monniker will design a structure or landscape with intrinsic aesthetic appeal: the explicit mandate to include a piece of "plop art" does little to enhance our visual landscape. The distraction of funding arts/music in our schools is laughable: the City of Portland doesn't fund those programs and neither will 2% for Art. Given the choice, I would prefer to see the entire 2% for Art budget given to the schools for art and music instruction. Ditto with the $2 million a year the City will spend on "Voter Owned Elections".
More to the point: City mandated art installations are a luxury we can ill afford in this place at this time. The public treasury is a limited resource: every dollar spent on art could have been spent on something more critical. We can all think of something more critical than public art. Assisting victims of domestic violence, enhancing public safety, maintaining our parks, funding the pensions of our retired police and firefighters: they all compete with Public Art for that limited resource.
Posted by: W. Bruce Anderholt II | Jan 14, 2006 7:38:02 PM
I am amazed and appalled by the irresponsible attitudes evident in these posts. Whenever the city budget is up for renewal, there's always -- always an outcry for more money. Now Sam Adams has the audacity to ask for more money for art projects? Sheesh!!
I wonder if those here who find art as a need realize that every penny for 'art' takes funds away from police, fire, transportation and water/sewer?
I wonder if they were faced with the choice of buying food for their family, or buying a necklace, would they opt for the latter? I hope not.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Jan 16, 2006 12:52:33 AM
Money specifically penned for something goes to that something - which I am for. Otherwise it goes to pet projects... Interestingly 1% is penned for art which means it goes to art, as opposed to a large portion of the general fund that goes to whatever politicians decide it will go to.
I don't think we need money for more police - we need smarter policing policies (I'd really like to address the inordinate amount of officers in my local starbucks, overtime, or the fact that we actually built a jail we were not ready to fund for daily operations) or fire. In the events that we do, lets look at consolidating pensions with the rest of the state...
Schools need to focus on specific deliverables which neither parents or teachers are willing to accept.
As for sewer- well, we are paying for sewer through rates that we might not like, but they are rates none the less. Honestly, we should most likely pay more.
As for transportation, hmmm, gas taxes do not cover ODOT's budget. So, lets tax a bit more. Before one knocks rail, realize that each dollar spent on rail typically brings 2-3 times that in federal dollars back, so in effect (net based) they earn money for the local economy.
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/CS/FS/docs/FinRpts/FinRept2004.pdf
What amazes me is the lack of ability to differentiate between a necklace and food. Why do we subsidize suburban development that requires more roads/maintenance/budget?
-Lane
Posted by: Lane Inman | Jan 16, 2006 11:24:28 PM
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.
My neighborhood could use some avant garde pothole scupltures.
I suggest the design proposal include hot asphalt, and something heavy to tamp it down with.
The artists can sign their work, and the whole neighborhood will admire the pothole sculpture twice daily.
That's the only kind of neighborhood art my tax dollars should be spent on.
Posted by: W. Bruce Anderholt II | Jan 5, 2006 8:44:40 PM