Who Do We Want to Make Our Public Art?

[Double Edge]

As I understand it, OKC has a percent for art ordinance that sets aside a part of public building project money to be used for art incorporated in these projects. We can debate the merits of this but that is not really the intent of this thread. The intent is to question how rulemaking for spending this appropriated money is apparently being written to serve special interest, and those are not our interest, IMO.

Typically, when an art project is done for the public with public funds, a call is made for whomever might be qualified and inspired to submit proposals. The proposals and the proposers are then vetted by a selection committee and one is put to the council for a vote. It's not uncommon for the architect of the building project to be on that committee and/or have some input.

However, rumor has it, the city staff is or has drafted rules they are passing along to the arts commission that would follow other procedures. In the staff proposed rules, the project architect on a public project may elect to take the art funds in addition to their design fees and make the art.

I don't think we want that. We do not want to give special consideration to architect made sculptures, murals, etc over and above what artists or others might propose. Why would we want that? If the architects can't compete flat footed with other proposals we don't want them! That's ridiculous. What cabal has the city staff working for them?

This issue is supposed to be discussed at a meeting of the OKC Arts Commission on Monday. Maybe I misheard, but I don't think so.

[RadicalModerate]

"Who Do We Want to Make Our Public Art?" . . .
Hmmm . . . How about this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOk6HQaNpdE

[Double Edge]

Bingo! Percent for art is for art made for the public, which presumes an artist made it. If you want a building, hire an architect. If you want art, hire an artist. This is a move to do an end run around the artists and the public and let the architects double dip on funds when others are more qualified to do the work.

[Double Edge]

Percent for the arts was approved in 2009.

http://www.okc.gov/news/2009_09/One_...t_for_art.html

Considering the amount of money we are going to be spending in the near future on projects this applies to, this is no small chunk of change for (some) architects to be attempting to make into a money grab. (What, $8 million in MAPS 3 money alone?) If this isn't local architects steering this, who then?

I picked up this story from someone who is directly involved. What I do not have nailed down is the exact wording of what staff is putting forward as the proposed rules nor their reasons why.

[Double Edge]

This is listed on the OKC Arts Commission agenda for the meeting tomorrow as:

VII Items From Staff, B Procedures for 1% for Art Ordinance.

No supporting documentation is available online.

Meeting is at 4:00 PM, Will Rogers Garden Exhibition Center, 3400 NW 36th Street

http://www.okc.gov/AgendaPub/mtgview...doctype=AGENDA

[bornhere]

I can think of a few architects who are also artists in their own right. Larry Pickering comes to mind locally. Also Rand Elliot. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I could make an argument that the architect who designed the building is better qualified to choose the art that complements it than a committee is.

[Snowman]

From what I have heard most architects pretty much just do an art pass of what the building is suppose to look like and engineers actually design the building in a way that can be built. Still the public art seems different than building styling in intent.

[Double Edge]

I can think of a few architects who are also artists in their own right. Larry Pickering comes to mind locally. Also Rand Elliot.

A few. My sense is they are better architects than visual artists. There is nothing to prevent them from submitting or being selected if their designs hold up.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I could make an argument that the architect who designed the building is better qualified to choose the art that complements it than a committee is.

A number of the OKC Arts Commission members are design professionals.

[bluedogok]

Bingo! Percent for art is for art made for the public, which presumes an artist made it. If you want a building, hire an architect. If you want art, hire an artist. This is a move to do an end run around the artists and the public and let the architects double dip on funds when others are more qualified to do the work.

I know quite a few architects who are quite accomplished artists in many types of art. I also know of some who "think" they are but I wouldn't commission a crayon drawing from them, but then there are "real artists" who qualify for the latter as well. The first group I would have no problem with them getting an art commission.

From what I have heard most architects pretty much just do an art pass of what the building is suppose to look like and engineers actually design the building in a way that can be built. Still the public art seems different than building styling in intent.

WRONG......you must be listening to engineers, they like to act like they do all the work. The only ones that I know of who work like you say are the "stararchitect" types which comprises about 1% of the profession. Even in dealing with design architects the architect of record is usually figuring out code/ADA compliance and not the engineers, very few engineers deal with Life Safety Codes. MEP engineers know their codes regarding HVAC and plumbing but rarely know anything outside of that, some who do fire protection systems will be well versed in that area. It just goes back to the fact that very few people (in general) really knows what architects or engineers really do and do not understand everything that goes into a building.

Unless there is a complex mechanical process or industrial process design I typically have twice as many sheets as any other discipline. Most engineers that I work with try to do the absolute minimum amount of work possible, they also don't want to start until the design is done and signed off on because they only want to do their work once which doesn't mesh too well with the fast track projects that everything seems to be now. Most of the time their fees are in excess of ours for much less overall work. Maybe that is why they typically make more money on projects than the typical architect who has to coordinate all of their stuff in addition to our own work.

Now I may be a little different as well because I did work in all disciplines when I was at Benham and I am always considering how the structure and all MEP systems will fit into a space. When I design something I am designing it while thinking how something will be built, I try not to design something that I have no idea how it would go together. If I am getting into something that would have a complex structural element I usually engage them to get their opinion on it before going forward.

[CuatrodeMayo]

I know quite a few architects who are quite accomplished artists in many types of art. I also know of some who "think" they are but I wouldn't commission a crayon drawing from them, but then there are "real artists" who qualify for the latter as well. The first group I would have no problem with them getting an art commission.


WRONG......you must be listening to engineers, they like to act like they do all the work. The only ones that I know of who work like you say are the "stararchitect" types which comprises about 1% of the profession. Even in dealing with design architects the architect of record is usually figuring out code/ADA compliance and not the engineers, very few engineers deal with Life Safety Codes. MEP engineers know their codes regarding HVAC and plumbing but rarely know anything outside of that, some who do fire protection systems will be well versed in that area. It just goes back to the fact that very few people (in general) really knows what architects or engineers really do and do not understand everything that goes into a building.

Unless there is a complex mechanical process or industrial process design I typically have twice as many sheets as any other discipline. Most engineers that I work with try to do the absolute minimum amount of work possible, they also don't want to start until the design is done and signed off on because they only want to do their work once which doesn't mesh too well with the fast track projects that everything seems to be now. Most of the time their fees are in excess of ours for much less overall work. Maybe that is why they typically make more money on projects than the typical architect who has to coordinate all of their stuff in addition to our own work.

Now I may be a little different as well because I did work in all disciplines when I was at Benham and I am always considering how the structure and all MEP systems will fit into a space. When I design something I am designing it while thinking how something will be built, I try not to design something that I have no idea how it would go together. If I am getting into something that would have a complex structural element I usually engage them to get their opinion on it before going forward.

This.

[Double Edge]

I know quite a few architects who are quite accomplished artists in many types of art. I also know of some who "think" they are but I wouldn't commission a crayon drawing from them, but then there are "real artists" who qualify for the latter as well. The first group I would have no problem with them getting an art commission.

Nope. I have no problem with any artist getting an art commission either, even if their day job is being an architect. If the work is good it will stand up and if it isn't it won't. But it's stupid IMO to give an architect first dibs to do whatever and not even consider other ideas. That's not the best way by a long shot to get the most for the money we set aside for art.

[RadicalModerate]

This.

Yeah. Me Too.
(FYI: For a great account of The Role of An Architect in The Realization of A Project may I humbly suggest, "The Honeywood File"/"The Honeywood Settlement" by H.B. Criswell.)

Now . . . If the guy at the other end of the link at the top of this thread ain't acceptable, here's another artist I think should at least be given a shot at being The Artist Laureate of OKC (for the next funded fiscal year). He might even be able to salvage that ugly piece of "artful architecture" over there by The Devon/Nichols Tower.

[Link to Utopia Joe site removed by poster for the sake of propriety and stuff like that there]

Edited to Add: That . . . Or the Buffalo Statue Genius.

[bluedogok]

Nope. I have no problem with any artist getting an art commission either, even if their day job is being an architect. If the work is good it will stand up and if it isn't it won't. But it's stupid IMO to give an architect first dibs to do whatever and not even consider other ideas. That's not the best way by a long shot to get the most for the money we set aside for art.

I agree with that.

[USG'60]

Yeah. Me Too.
(FYI: For a great account of The Role of An Architect in The Realization of A Project may I humbly suggest, "The Honeywood File"/"The Honeywood Settlement" by H.B. Criswell.)

Now . . . If the guy at the other end of the link at the top of this thread ain't acceptable, here's another artist I think should at least be given a shot at being The Artist Laureate of OKC (for the next funded fiscal year). He might even be able to salvage that ugly piece of "artful architecture" over there by The Devon/Nichols Tower.

[Link to Utopia Joe site removed by poster for the sake of propriety and stuff like that there]

Edited to Add: That . . . Or the Buffalo Statue Genius.

I don't understand your explanation for removing Utopia Joe's site link. Explain further.

[Double Edge]

I don't understand your explanation for removing Utopia Joe's site link. Explain further.

I'm not sure of his reason for posting it to start with...

A. He hates art and doesn't think we should be spending money on art. (Offtopic and the horse is out of the gate.)

B. He doesn't think there are any Oklahoma artists who are not architects who could produce public art that serves the community. So lets don't consider what might be and give first dibs to architects instead.

C. He hasn't considered public art money might also go to artists outside of Oklahoma. This is Oklahoma. We can't have world class art from outside the state here, so lets give first dibs to local architects and take what they give us.

D. The overwhelming desire to post something in a public forum overrode the good sense to not just contribute clutter.

E. It's a lost cause, so lets just give the architects first dibs. Consider it a tip if nothing else.

F. All of the above.

Please explain.

[RadicalModerate]

I don't understand your explanation for removing Utopia Joe's site link. Explain further.

I like Utopia Joe. I think he is a very clever artist and watched all the episodes broadcast on OETA a while back. I like what he does with power tools and I like the background music he selects. If we can't get Bruce McCall to do our "public art" then I think Utopia Joe would be a worthy alternative. However, after clicking the link that I posted, it occurred to me that the moderators might not be as open-minded to what some people might consider . . . "overrisquéness" and I didn't want to get chided or axed. Please feel free to Google Utopia Joe's site and add it to your Favorites/Bookmarks.

Answer to Quiz:
G. None of the above.

For sure I don't want this guy getting his pencil stained, eraser dusty, mitts on any of the Art Money . . .

[Double Edge]

My understanding is the staff report was discussed at the Art Commission meeting and sent to committee for further review. Lets hope they modify some sense into to before it comes back to the commission.

[RadicalModerate]

Can't argue with that, amigo.
I'm with you 100%.

[Jzyehoshua]

Well, there's a talented young artist shown in the top-right photo here. She's known for doing some very "Good Art" and might be a perfect fit for the city:

http://www.thecartoonists.ca/Index_f...ig%20Happy.htm

[HewenttoJared]

Any old art/biology major would do just fine IMO