OT: Gotta love Ann Arbor
My biggest concern is that OSU fans will mistake the sculpture as an outdoor toilet and will...well...you know.
My biggest concern is that the city is spending 850k on art and firing firefighters.
Also, the structure as I understand it will be a 3 piece water sculpture. I don't think coolers come in 3 pieces so I doubt any OSU fans will be using it as a toilet.
I would have to know more about the laid-off firefighters to figure out if it really mattered enough to the art project.
In all honesty, sometimes cities use budgets as excuses to clean house if they hired too many people or had people who were not working out (but who are somewhat insulated from the free market remedy because they are in public service).
One could assume that even marginally-intelligent city leaders are smart enough to know that: if the current number and quality of firefighters on staff was perilously low, that they would re-direct money to keep from making cuts. Now, if they had more than they needed or some "low-quality" ones (I know, blasphemy), then they might not sell-out the art prject so quickly.
Who knows?
You know what they say about "assume."
So many cool things about my hometown. But crap like this is the reason I left after 20+ years. I can visit, go to games and have fun there without having to pay property tax for their boondoggles.
I find it odd that they are eliminating a solid waste manager and adding an art director. Considering the quality of much of what passes for "art" these days, you'd think they'd just combine the positions...
...they want someone who is more adept in handling over priced crap.
The idea of spending a large sum of money on a fountain in the context of a very tight budget might seem crazy, but I think there's a solid rationale for place-making activities in most fiscal climates. Directing funds toward aesthetic improvements obviously has the effect of making something that's nice for current residents/visitors to look at, but it can also inspire more centralized development. This might be especially true around the new police station, as I'd imagine that the block immediately south between 5th and Division is going to see some redevelopment in the not-too-distant future. More centralized development can lead to greater city revenues, and it also has the effect of making the provision of city services more efficient.
It'd probably be tough to justify the construction of a single fountain on purely fiscal grounds, but I think the general strategy of prioritizing aesthetic projects is not unreasonable.
Yes, I completely agree with the logic behind this and as others have pointed out, it's not a new idea. I'm totally fine with the money going to artwork, but the timing is what I question. Couldn't they have waited a year for the economic climate to improve some more before going ahead with this? Most people aren't going to care about long-term benefits, they're just going to look at what money is being spent on in the here-and-now.
But would the sentiment really change much after another year?
It's not like they are dipping into some other fund for the fountain - money was set aside for city artwork. Where was the outrage when that decision was made? Where was the outrage about that allotment of funds in the last year?
It's a symptom of our lazy society: People will ONLY have an opinion about something after they had their chance to make their views known or even changed it with their vote.
and one of the reasons is the artistic environment it has and will continue to foster.
The Percent for Art programs are nation-wide and the concept dates back to the New Deal. The link below give a breif history of the program. Keep in mind, the program calls for 1% of a total budget. to go towards an artful culture project.
http://forecastpublicart.org/anthology-downloads/wetenhall.pdf
and I quote
" The question of financing art in new construction is not a matter of can we afford the expense of art in our new buildings, but rather can we afford not to finance art... It is art in the form of sculpture, paintings, mosaics, fountains and the like, that turns sterile new buildings into living things that attract people. People, in turn are what a city needs to live."
Annarbor.com takes this a bit further and looks into the economic benefits of artwork being produced by the program.
Think of any major city and try not to imagine wanting to see the iconic art forms when you visit. Without spending too much time off at work, the one that comes to mind right away is Calder's La Grande Vitesse, which helped revitalize Grand Rapids' ailing downtown. Made possible by the NEA, 1965. Imagine a city logo or visitors pamphlet that doesn't have Calders' piece on it in one way, shape or form.
Of course city infrastructure needs to be properly funded, but without programs like the Percent for Art, we will see less and less of an emphasis on culture projects and as a result, we will eventually become less cultured. 1% seems like a pretty good deal.
What is this logical argument you're putting forth? Reason has no place in discussions about politics!
People, in turn are what a city needs to live."
People need firefighters in order to live too.
not a matter of can we afford the expense of art
This is another problematic attitude.
In a severe economic downturn, actions such as these taken by the Ann Arbor local govt. smack of hubris and insensitivity.
I worked for a very large corporation about a decade ago, and during the midst of firings (aka downsizing) they decided that they needed a new sign in the front of the main plant to the tune of $350K. Oh and one of the VP's redecorated his office to the tune of $40K (going over budget while doing so).
What Ann Arbor is doing is tantamount to what that large corporation did. Money for me, not for thee.
and a VP's updating of their office is not the same thing as the Percent for Art program.
Sure, it could be debated that a new logo or signage might increase that companies business. You could also argue that to keep good people you might have to placate them (40K + renovations to an office)
Regardless, I am talking about public funding for culture projects, not private spending on promotions.
And I am talking about how those in charge crush common sense in the name of feathering their own nests.
But I suppose if there is a fire in town, people can try to gather water from the fountain to put it out. At least the city employees will be able to enjoy thier Taj Mahal.
unless of course you're the first firefighter cut. Govt has issues with prioritization...what's really important? Water sculpture, that can be purchased later on after the economy improves, or city safety/local jobs.
I guess we have the answer. My guess is the AAFD response will be somewhat slow should the new building ever go up in flames.
I Just saw this on Fox News TV at work. Not good press for the city when the headline is "Art over Safety"
"Art over Safety"
isn't this pretty much the gist of the art fair? What if there was a fire at say, Helen-Newberry?
Simple strategy, tried and true throughout the ages
This once-great country is being overrun by immigrants . . . .
Damn that Ernis, taking the jobs of hardworking middle-class Americans posting on sports blogs everywhere!
....on a few of the new Big House luxury boxes!