Commission Impossible

Murals are what you get when you have bad architecture.

Right on, TJ. I agree. Good architecture is the best public art.

There are too many places that need murals and not enough places that don't.

The Art Commission wanted to avoid the appearance of conducting a survey of themselves, but did support the idea of an independent group doing it. This makes sense and will encourage unbiased response.

The survey program is great. It has analysis filters that can show how people's opinions differ based on how they profile themselves. Participant's identities are kept confidential.

Gregg,

Since you're no longer on the Art Commission maybe you can give greater detail about why the Art Commission decided not to do the survey themselves.

I attended a meeting where the Art Coordinator seemed dead-set against doing a survey (last summer). The Art Commission chair at the time also seemed resistant to the idea of a survey.

I watched a few Art Commission meetings where the subject of the survey was brought up but most of the commission didn't seem to want to discuss it in detail. Finally, I posted on this blog last year about a meeting where the Art Commission talked aboyut not wanting the price of the art projects listed in the survey.

How did it go from something the Art Commission was talking about doing to something done by a group of people outside of City government?

Lon

Dang! I've drank a thousand dollars worth of beer since then so I could forget about all that and you had to go and remind me.

Yes, I suppose it did get off to a rough start. I think they see the potential value in it a lot more now. I don't think the survey statements could have been slanted any more positively.

It will help people feel included, generate better awareness and will make the City look great in the long run. It may even become an annual happening. It would be a great addition to an Arts Commission Annual Report, or State of the Arts.

Gregg,

The Art Commission and City Council should want to survey the public after spending so much money on both art and the marketing of public art.

One thing to keep in mind is that survey data that's not statistically "tuned" makes the most sense when looking for trends. So 5 years from now having 5 similar survey's results could be useful in identifying what art is meaningful to the "non-art community".

A question I'd like to see answered (not on a survey) is why there is such a concentration of public art around the downtown city building? Why not spend some money on neighborhood art pieces? It seems like the lion's share is beautifying just the downtown area. And much of that is vedry close to the City offices.

Lon

That a good question. Here's how I understand it.

One, is that the funding is almost always RDA funds. This limits the projects to the RDA Zone.

Another is that a percent of the City's Capital Improvement Project budgets go for art. A lot of the more visible recent City projects have been downtown and so their related public art projects became part of their design.