« The Mystery of the Missing Checkerbloom | Main | The Gateway to Summer »
May 11, 2006
Art-official Intelligence
 |
| In addition to 1% of RDA funds the public art funded
by the City of Chico receives 30% of 30% of the transient occupancy
tax (TOT, income from taxes on hotel stays). That's 9% of the TOT funds.
This year there was an increase in TOT art funding of $27,990. So that
means
more
art projects
right? Not so fast. Apparently someone at the city has decided to figure out a new way to fund administrative costs for public art. The increased administrative costs will now come out of the TOT funds. And it just happens to nearly match this years increase. The additional cost to administer art is $26,760. That kind of symmetry deserves a closer look. |
| Editorial:
I support public funding of art and think it's an important element of
our community. The art does not need to be focused downtown. Some of the
projects
seem ostentatious and more designed to firm up affiliations that to augment
our living space. Public art should receive additional funding, but only if the money doesn't go to administration costs, but instead to local artists in $1,000-$10,000 increments. Just my opinion. |
| The Art Commission is
going to draft a letter to ask when the change in administration funding
occurred, and who made the decision. The Art Projects Coordinator (Mary
Gardner) did not have answers at the 5-10 meeting. This is pretty basic
stuff, any department head, even a part timer, should know their budget.
The Commission should also ask for an itemized list of what administration
costs are being covered, and how they were previously funded. What followed closely after that discussion was what clearly should be called "non-profits on parade". It was people with little business acumen discussing how to negotiate a new contract (in this case asking for more funding from the Council). Some were clearly afraid of asking for much more funding. When negotiating you always ask for more. A few Commissioners championed asking for a 6% increase and voted 4-2 to request 15% of TOT funds in November of this year. This would be about $100,000 more than they currently receive. |
| Beyond funding public art
projects the Art Commission distributes money to various community organizations.
Here's who got money
in 2005-6. 1078 Gallery Inc. $7,232 Chico Art Center $16,620 Friends of Chico Community Ballet $11,200 Blue Room Theatre (Chico Creek Theatre Festival) $16,220 Ensemble Theatre of Chico $12,000 Friends of Arts $2,000 Amaera Bay Laurel $2,000 Chico Children's Choir $6,700 Christine C. Jennings $2,000 Open Arts (CCY) $5,300 Balls Edge $2,800 Janice Horne $500 Carla Resnick $2,000 Total: $86,572 Outside of the TOT art funding public art projects/events are also funded by specific allocations made by the City Council. For example "Artober Fest" was funded by a $50,000 allocation that doesn't appear to be part of the regular art budget. The $250,000 gaming table project in Plaza Park was not funded entirely by the Art Commission (they don't carry that much cash). |
| Then came the survey that the Art Commission
doesn't really want to do, but was prodded by a Commissioner into taking
on. I
attended the first Art Committee meeting on the survey. There were a
lot of accusations, and not a lot of work. Through the rumor mill I heard
the
second meeting had some accusations and profanity, but still not a lot
of work. This meeting the questionnaire proposed seemed pretty benign. Still only one commissioner had done any work on it. One question stood out that I thought was kind of funny. It was something like "I have a lot of respect for the City Staff that makes art decisions", and then you have 5 choices from strongly disagree to strongly agree. But then the oddest thing happened. The commission really focused on the questions that included naming an art project with a dollar amount. They did not want the questionnaire to list the cost of the various projects. The public is not to make a judgment call on whether they like the $130,000 silver plow. Because "art is not about the cost, the two are totally separate" (from a Commissioner). Listen folks, this is public money. I'll bet you could cut your administrative costs if the projects were smaller, and all went to local artists. Instead we pay for $250,000 art game tables. As one bright Art Commissioner stated, "everything we do in life has a value associated with it". That's true and it includes public art. If people don't want high dollar public art the Art Commission might want to know that. Who knows if the survey will ever get done. In case one never makes it to me here is one that can be downloaded and saved in the Art Commission email file. |
 |
Posted by Lon at May 11, 2006 08:44 AM
Comments
Any suggestions for the Public Art Survey?
E-mail letters sent to the City about public art were probably deleted without the Art Commission ever seeing them.
I believe this will soon change, but any correspondence or opinions that people had wished to be public record should be sent again, and also be addressed to the Art Commission.
Please always feel welcome to share thoughts and participate.
Arts@ci.chico.ca.us
Posted by: Gregg Payne at May 12, 2006 08:35 AM
How about...
I prefer public art projects in the $1-$20,000 range
I prefer public art projects in the $20,001 to $50,000 range
I prefer public art projects in the $50,001 to $250,000 range
I prefer public art projects that cost more than $250,000
Posted by: Lon at May 12, 2006 09:12 AM
That's a good start, but there's way more to it. There is a limited amount of money to deal with. How do we make it best work for us? How do we get the most bang for the buck so this all pays for itself many times over and then wins even more support?
It is proven smart business to visually represent a company's branding identity creatively and artistically. To back up the marketing with the product generates loyalty and good will with the clientele, as well as good self image with the stake-holders and people in house. This works for cities too.
Is Chico doing this?
Is it fair and transparent?
Do the benefits trickle down to the artists?
Does this honestly represent who we are?
Should this involve our most experienced qualified people?
Can we do it better?
Posted by: Gregg Payne at May 12, 2006 08:46 PM
Actually it was kind of a crappy start. I was still annoyed by the whole "the cost of the art doesn't matter" from the meeting.
That kind of attitude makes it easy to misappropriate money. Or duck the responsibility for a really bad decision.
I really dislike the silver plow, but even so I think I would take it over the feel-good planning charrette for $170K.
How about...
Should major art projects be centered on downtown?
Should a number of new artists (previously unfunded) be given small projects every year?
Should there be a city sponsored art contest every year?
Should there be temporary public art projects regularly held downtown (sidewalk chalk and all that)
Is performance art "public art"?
Posted by: Lon at May 12, 2006 09:43 PM
The "plow" actually reminds me of the land use battles we have in Chico. With the cable connecting both sides to the center "plow" and the vertical members representing people it looks like the never ending tug-of-war between a small minority (the single post) and the rest of the citizenry (the multiple posts).
The center plow could represent Bidwell Ranch, Bidwell Park, the Greenline, Canyon View High, Highway 70/149 interchange, our new Otterman Drive bridgeless creek/slough/greenway, or Disc golf. There are probably a few more you could apply.
Or, it might just be a linear Stonehenge.
Art truly is in the eye of the beholder, but price tags are absolute, and like in the aforementioed battles, the tab was picked up by the taxpayers.
Posted by: Anthony Watts at May 14, 2006 09:15 PM
I was at the meetings when it was selected from the finalists. It wasn't my favorite but there were way worse. One proposal made the front page of the paper. It was just a farm supply spray boom mounted on a pole with tractor wheels that would mist the traffic! The artists had never been to Chico before.
I brought up that they could instead go for the giant $55K cast iron Pegasus that didn't win the Airport Art selection, save $75K, and the industrial folks out Park Ave. would probably relate with it better. The rest could go to several local artists to do more work up and down the street. That idea didn't fly.
I wonder how long community comment on these projects is saved as public record..
Posted by: Gregg Payne at May 16, 2006 06:53 AM