I was staring out the window at the Olympic Sculpture Park‘s beautiful landscape when, about 30 minutes into a panel discussion about art and the environment, moderator Lucia Athens finally mentioned the elephant in the room—or rather, the sacred cow.
It came in the form of a question thrown out to the panelists—architect Tom Kundig, style expert Rebecca Luke, and artist Roy McMakin—about a new bill that would cut the money funneled to public art projects (about one-half of one percent of state building funds). Proposed by Washington Sen. Steve Hobbs (D-Lake Stevens), who has said he considers public art to be a "sacred cow that should be put out to pasture," the bill would save the state $5 million in the next budget.
"Absurd" was Kundig’s response. Stand back and look at the proportion, he advised; this bill doesn’t look at the big picture of how much money is put toward other, more wasteful projects.
It’s not just about the money, McMakin said. Public art is about culture, and it’s about jobs. "Art is woven into the culture of the built environment around us."
Why should you care about this public art battle?
Because, as Cascade Land Conservancy President Gene Duvernoy said during a similar discussion last summer, "Cities are what’s going to get us out of this mess ... and what makes cities livable is art."
Echoing that, Kundig said later during the discussion that as an architect he feels it’s his job and the job of artists to make a dense city environment a wonderful place to live.
But are sustainability, cost, and aesthetics competing priorities? No, says Luke, co-founder of the Sustainable Style Foundation, less is more. "It’s all intrinsic in making people feel good about what they’re wearing."
All three panelists spoke to the "less is more" theme, emphasizing the importance of "producing an enduring experience"—whether it be McMakin’s long-lasting furniture pieces, Kundig’s self-sustaining cabins, or Luke’s focus on fashion that stands the test of time.
The panelists also offered suggestions for how the city can nurture sustainable design. Kundig said he thinks it’s up to the private sector because that’s where most of his green-minded client base comes from. Luke’s suggestion focused on small biz folk: She said Seattle needs more affordable leases downtown and zoning laws that allow those small, sustainable businesses to flourish.
McMakin offered up taxes as a solution, saying money should be put toward public infrastructure for green projects. Although he acknowledged that people don’t like to tax themselves, perhaps the recent vote on the Pike Place Market and Parks levies indicates Seattle has a charitable streak.
Which leads me to one last question, Seattle: Won’t you spare some change for a starving artist?
Seattleites: Come hang with Amanda Little at Elliott Bay Books
This Halloween, cut flesh for the climate
U.N. chief will pressure senators on climate bill
Comments
View as Flat
Erik Hoffner Posted 12:21 am
27 Jan 2009
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more
Permalink
hfn Posted 2:40 am
28 Jan 2009
I find it encouraging that someone might think good art that is inherently valuable (i.e. not valuable because it has some message about global warming) can contribute to sustainability just by being good art.
Permalink
PermieWriter Posted 4:11 am
28 Jan 2009
On the other hand, most public art looks like helicopter wrecks, but without the charm.
Eat what you grow, grow what you eat
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:30 am
28 Jan 2009
First, public the money would be far better spent making cities less brutal in the first place, starting with reintroducing more natural elements and taming the automobile, giving more city space over to growing food and plants and less to transporting people in motorized wheelchairs.
Second, many of our cities are awful in great part because the buildings are so awful, not because they lack doodads. Go to Chicago and look at the beautiful old buildings --- they don't need art as adornment, they are already adorned by their design.
For example, in Lansing, Michigan, there was a huge concrete "installation" -- one hesitates to call it art -- put on the capital mall between two ginormous concrete box buildings that would have done Albert Speer proud, right near the beautiful old classical capitol. This "installation" apparently had as its theme a little mathematical joke in that the huge objects -- a circular disc about one story high and several smaller pieces -- apparently had equivalent volume, or something to that effect.
I always wanted to see the pieces in a setting where you could have had some perspective on them to see if it worked as art. Instead they dominated the space in a negative way, obstructed the view, and only contributed to making the area feel cold, threatening, and inhumane. Luckily, the "installation" was removed and never replaced--supposedly because the parking garage below it was leaking.
Far better to spend every available dollar on better buildings, buildings that power themselves and contribute to growing food, than requiring a percentage for art. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but sustainability is beautiful always, and pays for itself many times over.
The 5% Project
Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 6:11 am
28 Jan 2009
So some cities have commissioned bad art. That was their mistake. And not everyone is interested in old architecture. I don't care at all about old buildings.
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more
Permalink
JMG Posted 7:28 am
28 Jan 2009
As for old buildings, my point wasn't that you had to like old buildings -- rather, there are ways to design buildings that don't oppress people and, therefore, don't create the need for ego art projects. There are ways to use scale, care, and materials to make the building pleasing without ever calling attention to itself or demanding that it be appreciated by you or anyone else.
The 5% Project
Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink