Posted on 12/14/2011 9:34:08 AM PST by Askwhy5times
for later
has anyone checked this out on Snopes or Cecil? Surely this had to be a joke perpetrated on a guileless blogger.
Could be, but these buildings, projects, etc. usually have mandated percentage of art from local artists that needs to be spent. At the Seattle airport runway expansion the news did a piece on some artwork.
Some artist had done a mural in tile on a large retaining wall for hundreds of thousands. The news crew went to get some shots of it. They had to get a pass as you can only see it from a restricted area of the airport. And even then, the closest they could get to it (another fence in the way), the trees and brush blocked most of the view.
somebody tell Congress that mandated amounts of money for art in buildings is something that a bankrupt nation might forego if they were looking for spending cuts.
I like culture as much as the next Joe Sixpack, but if we have to support the arts in federal buildings, shouldn’t we logically also mandate original songs by starving bands and singers on the elevators for muzak music—or maybe public readings of poems?
Does anyone else ever feel they have gone through the looking-glass into Wonderland?
http://www.ellenmillergallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Blum_bio_042011.pdf
Heh - found the resume of who is probably the artist of the Seattle Airport wall. $75,000 only. Her most recent work listed is for five windows and a glass art piece for San Francisco for $360,000. I guess the airport got off easy.
All of the items listed are public works, mass transit, etc. (I think the manhole cover design artwork project probably takes the cake though!)
I am picturing the IRS guy telling the taxpayer to "bend over and squeal like a pig" like the guy in Deliverance.
Jeez, what a scam....
The Dems have acted like the country is in a golden age, similar to the Athens of Pericles, where we can subsidize the arts without regard to financial consequences.
Even if we could afford it, man hole cover art is not my idea of golden age aethetics. But I guess I’m not one of the elite.
I just found the bylaws for Seattle King County Sound Transit, and 1% of total construction costs needs to be allocated for art, not including tunneling.
It looked like a plain-jane station is around 25 million. Which would include $250,000 of art. Granted, there is something to be said about nice looking buildings, walkways, etc. (unless you are into U.S.S.R. retro), but art in places nobody will see, or $600,000 for a 5th grade frog sculpture is nuts.
One would think they could have display cases (gang proofed) to display art, fancy clothing, etc. from nearby stores - and even charge the stores for the opportunity to advertise. Or “billboards” with ads that might need to meet certain artistic qualities to be placed on the walls, etc.
This post is a year old, but it certainly got it all wrong. I am a professional sculptor and I was actually a finalist in this competition. The artwork was to go out front, on the building, in public, not inside. There are over 6200 employees who start(ed) work there, not 2,000. I can’t defend the bullfrog, it’s not at all an appropriate idea in my experience with commercial and corporate design. But also, this frog was not the winning design. It was a design submitted by an artist who, i guess, was chosen based on previous (more sensible?) work samples. What she was thinking as she submitted a bullfrog with a fairy on top, I can’t imagine. But then again, she didnt win. As someone who does their best to produce well thought-out appropriate and attractive designs, that is somewhat comforting. I do defend the idea that when building a new structure -especially of that size, some thought and planning, and yes, money has to be reserved to make it pleasing, or don’t build it. There are plenty of stark, empty, ugly cement buildings from the 60 and 70’s already around if thats what you’d like. In this case i would also like to point out -the % for art was voluntary. I heard too after this “scandal” it was cut down to be about $200k -which is nothing to cover an outdoor area more than 10ft x 200ft with something artistic. Ideally the building design would be pleasing and the artistic qualities would be built into the structure as it was constructed (which costs no more than blandness) rather than hoping to fix ugly with a bandaid. Thought you’d appreciate the insight from someone who was there.
Then there is this statue of a Mexican God in San Jose, California that looks like a pile of doo doo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.