Public Art Debate

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

No, Socguy was right, You missed the point. The point being that the city spends billions on useful but mundane items such as road repair and pipes, etc... yet, a couple hundred thousand for art becomes a huge deal. Art is just as useful as roads and pipes, but in a different way and it comes at a minute fraction of the cost.

Execution is more the issue than the strategy. Sure the quality of art is subjective, but the City has made some unbelievably stupid decisions that diminish its credibility. No art would look good in the location of the blue hoop. An even bigger concern is whether placement would distract drivers. The Bowfort Towers are almost as bad. Supposedly a committee approved these. Seems like they were checking boxes on the path to #progressive righteousness. Was anyone fired over either bad decision?

I lived in Edmonton during similar debates in the early 90s. Progressive cities supposedly invest in public art so bad decisions be damned, check off that box. Some of boondoggles of the era included expensive European tiles along a freeway that cracked during temperature swings (who would have thought that might be an issue?) and a pedway sculpture that was too big to fit in the planned space.

[Suburgatory]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Shouldn't replacing this truss add $170,000 for new public art?

The old truss will be painted yellow and put on some concrete plinths next to the SW ring road.

[ST1]

Originally Posted by Suburgatory

The old truss will be painted yellow and put on some concrete plinths next to the SW ring road.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Shouldn't replacing this truss add $170,000 for new public art?

My understanding is that the truss is not being replaced, but being reinforced with plates. The result will be a member that is stronger than before, and they will be able to house more people in that section of city hall that previous.

[topdog]

Originally Posted by suburbia

My understanding is that the truss is not being replaced, but being reinforced with plates. The result will be a member that is stronger than before, and they will be able to house more people in that section of city hall that previous.

If you do the math, you'll see his post was more about the 1% going to public art, not so much whether it was replaced or reinforced.

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

There's absolutely no connection between this incident and public art.

Exactly

[dg66]

You couldn't have said it better. Most people can agree that public art has a place and is good for society, but the way the city has approached it has been retarded. It feels like the old 'throw money at it' mentality.

The Giant Blue ring might be better in a different location, the location is terrible. People barely get a chance to take a look at it, and those that do look at it (people like Suburbia) are doing it while they are driving. Not very smart.

Originally Posted by Doug

Execution is more the issue than the strategy. Sure the quality of art is subjective, but the City has made some unbelievably stupid decisions that diminish its credibility. No art would look good in the location of the blue hoop. An even bigger concern is whether placement would distract drivers. The Bowfort Towers are almost as bad. Supposedly a committee approved these. Seems like they were checking boxes on the path to #progressive righteousness. Was anyone fired over either bad decision?

I lived in Edmonton during similar debates in the early 90s. Progressive cities supposedly invest in public art so bad decisions be damned, check off that box. Some of boondoggles of the era included expensive European tiles along a freeway that cracked during temperature swings (who would have thought that might be an issue?) and a pedway sculpture that was too big to fit in the planned space.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by topdog

If you do the math, you'll see his post was more about the 1% going to public art, not so much whether it was replaced or reinforced.

If you read carefully, you'll note I was not commenting about the 1%, but rather the construction aspect (which seemed relevant for this construction thread).

Originally Posted by Corndogger

There's absolutely no connection between this incident and public art.

Yeah. And I think it odd when some people actually get upset when we talk construction.

[Fishthebow]

The most entertaining piece of art in the city is...............................

The Sage Hill Rock

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...431931?cmp=rss

[Western Spaghetti]

This thread is full of garbage most of the time, but this is a gem.

Originally Posted by Fishthebow

The most entertaining piece of art in the city is...............................

The Sage Hill Rock

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...431931?cmp=rss

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Western Spaghetti

This thread is full of garbage most of the time, but this is a gem.

https://twitter.com/977HTZFM/status/938136712018120705

[Northern]

Here's another awesome example of public art. I had no idea this existed until it was brought to light by Sean Chu on Twitter. This one cost $1.57 Million

[DizzyEdge]

Lol, I actually thought you were showing some sort of pilings and was making a joke, until I scrolled down.

[MrBigStuff]

Originally Posted by Northern

Here's another awesome example of public art. I had no idea this existed until it was brought to light by Sean Chu on Twitter. This one cost $1.57 Million

That makes for very pricey lightning rods

[X_ting_on]

Such a waste of money. I'm waiting to see what the response is from Druh's minions on this. Hard to come back with any kind of an argument.

Originally Posted by Northern

Here's another awesome example of public art. I had no idea this existed until it was brought to light by Sean Chu on Twitter. This one cost $1.57 Million

[geotag277]

I don't mind it. It fits and flows into the landscape nicely, and I think the artist captured the essence of what she was trying to accomplish as creating a space for thoughtful meditation in a park.

I'm not sure what people are expecting. We are spending a million here and a million there for art levies to create and improve public spaces. Is the problem the artists aren't good enough? Do people think we should be spending more on better more impactful artwork?

Maybe on their own, Bowfort Towers, the Blue Ring, and the Sentinels don't give you the wow factor, but they all contribute to the art landscape throughout the city, and are landmarks, areas to explore, and integrate into the public realm to form a holistic improvement to our city scapes.

I think Beltline's "Chinook Arc", and the Telus Sky LED light show are one form of art, and these structures are another. I don't think every piece of art needs to be a flashy superficial Shanghai/Hong Kong inspired light show.

It's easy to complain about art, it's hard to present a coherent solution. If you just want pretty lights everywhere, be honest about it. These pieces of art are all from established artists, many of whom wish to contribute and pay respects to the landscape the art is placed in - and having them in our city, in my opinion, does add value.

[sammyd]

What a waste of money.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by geotag277

I don't mind it. It fits and flows into the landscape nicely, and I think the artist captured the essence of what she was trying to accomplish as creating a space for thoughtful meditation in a park.

I'm not sure what people are expecting. We are spending a million here and a million there for art levies to create and improve public spaces. Is the problem the artists aren't good enough? Do people think we should be spending more on better more impactful artwork?

Maybe on their own, Bowfort Towers, the Blue Ring, and the Sentinels don't give you the wow factor, but they all contribute to the art landscape throughout the city, and are landmarks, areas to explore, and integrate into the public realm to form a holistic improvement to our city scapes.

I think Beltline's "Chinook Arc", and the Telus Sky LED light show are one form of art, and these structures are another. I don't think every piece of art needs to be a flashy superficial Shanghai/Hong Kong inspired light show.

It's easy to complain about art, it's hard to present a coherent solution. If you just want pretty lights everywhere, be honest about it. These pieces of art are all from established artists, many of whom wish to contribute and pay respects to the landscape the art is placed in - and having them in our city, in my opinion, does add value.

I don't mind it either but how could that cost $1.57 million or whatever the exact cost was?

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Northern

Here's another awesome example of public art. I had no idea this existed until it was brought to light by Sean Chu on Twitter. This one cost $1.57 Million

Do you have a link to background on this one? Seems unfathomable!

Blue hoola hoop is so much better. Honest.

[SteveP]

And the whole crux of the art issue can be summed up with this post. The art installation looks like crap, and 95% would agree that it looks crap, but there are always that 5% that find something redeemable in it and thus ruin it for the other 95%.

Like buddy, do you even look at it???

Originally Posted by geotag277

I don't mind it. It fits and flows into the landscape nicely, and I think the artist captured the essence of what she was trying to accomplish as creating a space for thoughtful meditation in a park.

.