Ann Arbor City Council should continue to support public art
What single event brings Ann Arbor more renown than any other? The Ann Arbor Art Fairs. What local institution just celebrated its 100th anniversary? The Ann Arbor Art Center. In these and many other ways, Ann Arbor and the arts are inseparable. This community loves and supports the arts, and benefits greatly by that association.
Early next month, the Ann Arbor City Council will consider artist Herbert Dreiseitl’s design for an outdoor water sculpture that is striking for both its innovative design and for the withering criticism it’s receiving from people who see public art as an extravagance we can’t afford right now - or who at least argue the money should be going to local artists. Such concerns are understandable, but in this instance, we disagree. It would be a mistake to back away from the Dreiseitl plan at this late stage. City Council should see it through. Two years ago, Ann Arbor joined cities like Madison, Seattle, Austin and Santa Fe in setting aside 1 percent of money from development projects to support public art. The water sculpture proposed for the police-courts building is the first piece funded by this program. It would be incorporated into a larger “rain garden’’ designed to handle storm water in an attractive and innovative way. This is a locally inspired project, planned by Quinn Evans Architects and InSite Design, both of Ann Arbor. In October 2008, a Public Art Task Force concluded that it needed to move rapidly to choose an artist for the project, and turned to Dreiseitl, who enjoys an international reputation for work with water projects and had visited Ann Arbor the previous month for a public talk. This hasty decision left the task force open to second-guessing from people who think the process should have been more open and given preference to local artists. However, this particular project is unique in nature, and Dreiseitl’s credentials for it are impeccable. It’s unlikely that a broader search would have identified a local artist with the experience and expertise to incorporate storm water into sculpture. More likely, it would have only delayed a decision to the point where the sculpture could not have been integrated into the rain garden. Now that Dreiseitl has been commissioned, at a cost of $77,000, and has submitted his plan, City Council should carry this effort through. Dreiseitl’s sculpture represents a significant piece of art that would bring an aesthetic and a prestige to the city for decades to come. We understand the sensitivity of spending what seems like a lot of money - a sum that may reach $840,000 for the entire project - during hard times. But in a community where the arts generate millions of dollars in economic activity every year, the decision to set aside 1 percent of development money for public art remains a sound one. That being said, due diligence still applies here. When City Council considers the Dreiseitl plan on Dec. 7, it must ensure that this project is done well and on budget, and that proper consideration is given to such questions as ongoing maintenance costs and the challenge of a water-based installation in a climate like Michigan’s. And looking ahead, the process for selecting Dreiseitl should be the exception. The city’s Public Art Commission has said that in future public art projects, artists from Ann Arbor and Michigan will be given more consideration, along with national artists. We encourage it to live up to that intention, using a more open process and looking to qualified local artists as much as possible. Ann Arbor values art; supporting local artists only increases the value.
(This editorial was published in today's newspaper and reflects the opinion of the Editorial Board at Ann Arbor.com.)
Comments
Janelle Baranowski
Mon, Nov 30, 2009 : 10:37 p.m.
Please include how many additional tourists this piece of art will attract. How many additional dollars will be infused into the local community as a result of this piece? How many people from the Art Fair will venture from the main path to visit this piece of art? No fair annarbor.com. Supporting something on suppositions. Suppose this will enhance Ann Arbor's reputation within the art world. Suppose this is too late to stop. Suppose that it is too important for the funds to go elsewhere. Suppose that $77K is too much to lose when considering an entire budget of over $800K. Keep up the suppositions. Sounds like a lot of hot air to me.
delete this profile
Mon, Nov 30, 2009 : 5:27 p.m.
This reminds me of something I overheard a few weeks ago - "People in Ann Arbor seem to think they live in a smaller version of New York City when in reality, they just live in a big Dexter" Time to step into reality folks.
Jody Durkacs
Mon, Nov 30, 2009 : 3:40 p.m.
I'm with John Galt. Now is the time to tighten the belt and do away with excessive tributes to the vanity of our city. I have to do it at home, our schools and public works have to do it, the council needs to get on board.
sbbuilder
Sun, Nov 29, 2009 : 7:03 p.m.
Ditto to John Galt Local financial concerns abound, yet spending the better part of 1M on art that will be frozen for half the year defies logic and commen sense. The attitude that the money is theirs to spend is insulting. We literally have a bridge falling apart with inadequate funds to repair/replace it, yet art gets the priority. Note to city council members: keep spending in this manner, and you won't be on city council much longer.
suswhit
Sun, Nov 29, 2009 : 6:34 p.m.
A mistake to back away at this stage? What a harebrained rationale. So if you are on the wrong road do you just keep driving because it's too late to turn around? Yeesh. I"m guessing some serious arm twisting occurred to get this ridiculous editorial in print.
John Galt
Sun, Nov 29, 2009 : 5:30 p.m.
Bridges are near collapse. Roads are crumbling. There will be less snow removal. Police and Fire Budgets are to be cut. The school budgets are to be cut. ---Fine, we are in a recession---these things may need to happen. BUT, we should shuffle the money to maintain the basics and cut or eliminate the "nice-to-have" items until we recover. This is clearly a nice-to-have item. And I cannot support this type of spending with the rest of the city and country crumbling around us. (It's like a homewner, who cannot afford to pay the mortgage and heat, who decides to go out and buy that flat-panel TV.---got to have priorities.)
st.julian
Sun, Nov 29, 2009 : 1 p.m.
The selection of Dreuselti is an insult to the artistic capital and intellect that is home to this region. There are many exceptional artists in the area and in the US that would provide a better product than the Dreiseiti plan. It is imperative that the council reject the plan and insitute a new open procurement for the project. And, the competition should be limited to US artists and more preferably to Michigan artists. The public arts commission is clearly not to be trusted. It has decieved the residents one to many times. Perhaps they should be rmeoved form their positions and a new commission installed.
Bill Wilson
Sun, Nov 29, 2009 : 11:25 a.m.
I'd recommend obtaining a copy if Stone's "Agony and the Ecstasy," it's a real eye opener as to what really can occur when the government becomes involved in funding the arts. In the cases of DaVinci, Buonarroti, Sanzio da Urbino, and countless others, artists were forced into projects that did not wish to do, and were often blackmailed and cheated out of payment by those in charge. Art suffered, and so did the artists. Great art was produced, but one can only imagine how much greater would have been the result had the artists been allowed to follow their own inspirations. Leave art alone. Let the private sector fund it.