Public "Art"

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Slava

Anyone have any idea what kind of art will be near the 162/Macleod interchange? Is there somewhere that you can see the upcoming pieces for these projects or is it a wait and see sort of thing?

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreatio...-Projects.aspx

[Resolute 14]

City loves to offer renderings of c-train lines, but not of proposed art. All we get is a description:

The artist’s concept is inspired by the perception of motion as it will be experienced by pedestrians, drivers and cyclists moving through the site at various speeds. Vicki has developed a pattern language of overlapping curves suggested by the diverging diamond. The undulating curves are reminiscent of the rippling currents of the nearby Fish Creek and Bow River, promoting a perceptual experience of motion and place.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreatio...-Projects.aspx

I guess there are no images for that project in particular and a bunch of the projects there in general. It's strange that a public art list wouldn't show what the art is going to be.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I personally wish that public art projects were more integrated in the project that they're associated with. I like the Glenmore fish, not because they're obvious and literal, but because they don't feel like they were tacked on as a public art component on the outside of the project (they may have been, but if so the artists did a great job integrating them). The blue ring, and (based simply on the photos I've seen), this project definitely do have that tacked on feel to them. Wonderland outside the Bow is great not only because it's a great standalone sculpture, but because the whole site treats the sculpture as a focal point.

Or, you get rid of the requirement of having public art as a component of these various projects, and instead centralize it in a sculpture park that the way that Chicago does (but then you'd get people from various neighbourhoods complaining that money on art isn't being spent in their neighbourhoods).

I like the decentralized Art concept. Putting it all in one place kid of defeats the purpose of it. Its goal should be to make the city in general more interesting. And it really shouldn't be called Public Art it should be called beautification instead. Make stuff look cool and have it fit with the environment its in. Also putting it adjacent to the work should be permitted. Even the project as is but in the parking lot of the Paskapoo slopes development would be much better as you could interact with it.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Slava

I guess there are no images for that project in particular and a bunch of the projects there in general. It's strange that a public art list wouldn't show what the art is going to be.

Yeah they just give you a link to the artist in some cases so you might be able to get an idea of some of their work. In the case of the Bowfort Towers you could have highly suspected we'd be getting some sort of rock on a stick.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

City loves to offer renderings of c-train lines, but not of proposed art. All we get is a description:

The artist’s concept is inspired by the perception of motion as it will be experienced by pedestrians, drivers and cyclists moving through the site at various speeds. Vicki has developed a pattern language of overlapping curves suggested by the diverging diamond. The undulating curves are reminiscent of the rippling currents of the nearby Fish Creek and Bow River, promoting a perceptual experience of motion and place.

^^^
That. So cute and sleazy.

Yet it is so easy to do it right:

1. Approve the place and required completion time.
2. Define the fixed reward sum upfront.
3. Set the competition closing date for entries.
4. Post the competing entries online and/or in public places for popular voting.
5. Limit voting to one per household (something unique to make it eligible for Calgary residents only - e.g. assessment roll# or utility account#).
6. Publish the results.
7. Announce the winner.

That would be a true public selection and approval process.

[Resolute 14]

At least in the case of 162nd and MacLeod, it will almost certainly be mural art on the side of the bridge. That rarely turns out wrong, even if it never turns out iconic either. See also the murals on Glenmore and Ogden/24th that can barely be seen from any direction.

[GGG]

http://www.vickiscuri.com/VickiScuri...s_Brochure.pdf

Here's the artist for the 162nd and McLeod

Here interchange stuff looks pretty good

[Minnie]

I like a lot of her stuff. If the city changes their minds about her, I bet there's a clown in DC who would her for some wall building.

[Minnie]

New use for the Bowfort Towers. Throw the world's biggest BBQ and use them as kabob skewers? (pic courtesy of Bow Cycle North)

[JohnnyB]

I am hoping that incites a Bowfort Towers photoshop contest

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I am hoping that incites a Bowfort Towers photoshop contest

$500,000 winning prize is up for grabs!

[chemgear]

Maybe the death theme of the art will help people drive more carefully and slowly on the road.

Nahhhhh.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3653569/re...ers-sculpture/




“I don’t think they were set out to offend anybody but without truly checking in with the indigenous voices, you’re going to do something that isn’t right,” Stimson says. “As a Blackfoot man, I will have difficulty going by that piece and even as a contemporary artist, I can accept it, but I will go by thinking funeral platforms no matter what I do.”

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Slava

I guess there are no images for that project in particular and a bunch of the projects there in general. It's strange that a public art list wouldn't show what the art is going to be.

Because you'd need another artist to render a depiction of what the art will be and that comes at a cost.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

^^^
That. So cute and sleazy.

Yet it is so easy to do it right:

1. Approve the place and required completion time.
2. Define the fixed reward sum upfront.
3. Set the competition closing date for entries.
4. Post the competing entries online and/or in public places for popular voting.
5. Limit voting to one per household (something unique to make it eligible for Calgary residents only - e.g. assessment roll# or utility account#).
6. Publish the results.
7. Announce the winner.

That would be a true public selection and approval process.

Sleazy? That is honestly showing your bias more than anything.

Having the public vote on it the surest way to never get anything interesting.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Having the public vote on it the surest way to never get anything interesting.

That's just elitist and IMO nonsense. Nothing kills interesting like a committee.

Sure, the general voting public tends to go for themes and ideas it recognizes (humans and animals do well in voting), but they also don't worry about problems like public backlash and are uninfluenced by things such as the artists resumé, because they don't know them.

Committees on the other hand tend to embrace high concepts, and strongly favor better known artists over new ones and shun blatantly sentimental works. It's just as predictable and boring as public votes, just in a different way.

Google previous ArtPrize winners for examples. I don't see a difference in quality between the public winners and jury voted winners either way, but I think it's safe to say the public would have less complaints if they got to elect the winners.

Voting would also be a fantastic way to get people to pay attention to and engage with public art.

Here's some examples of what the voting public likes:

http://fox17online.com/2016/10/02/ar...lic-announced/

If the public decided on public art, we'd likely have a lot more animals, people, colours and lot less abstract metal and stone work. I don't see that as a bad thing. We would likely get more works relating to everyday life and less metacommentary on art and culture, which is really mostly of interest to the art community.

I think it would also be extremely healthy for art conversation if the artists would be forced to explain their art to the general public. BS like trying to sell the same work you've done for years as somehow relating to local first nations culture just wouldn't fly. The internet would expose you in a second.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Sleazy? That is honestly showing your bias more than anything.

Having the public vote on it the surest way to never get anything interesting.

If anything, this shows my strong bias towards the current selection process, which I didn't try hiding. I do believe it is corrupt, prone to poor judgement errors and waste of money. Seemingly, so do most of the posters here regardless of their artistic and political leanings.

Itse's post above addressed your assertion of general public's stupidity well, so I'm not gonna add to that.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by GGG

http://www.vickiscuri.com/VickiScuri...s_Brochure.pdf

Here's the artist for the 162nd and McLeod

Here interchange stuff looks pretty good

Yeah, when I was talking earlier about having the art component more integrated in the project, this is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind. I really like that approach.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Itse

That's just elitist and IMO nonsense. Nothing kills interesting like a committee.

Sure, the general voting public tends to go for themes and ideas it recognizes (humans and animals do well in voting), but they also don't worry about problems like public backlash and are uninfluenced by things such as the artists resumé, because they don't know them.

Committees on the other hand tend to embrace high concepts, and strongly favor better known artists over new ones and shun blatantly sentimental works. It's just as predictable and boring as public votes, just in a different way.

Google previous ArtPrize winners for examples. I don't see a difference in quality between the public winners and jury voted winners either way, but I think it's safe to say the public would have less complaints if they got to elect the winners.

Voting would also be a fantastic way to get people to pay attention to and engage with public art.

Here's some examples of what the voting public likes:

http://fox17online.com/2016/10/02/ar...lic-announced/

If the public decided on public art, we'd likely have a lot more animals, people, colours and lot less abstract metal and stone work. I don't see that as a bad thing. We would likely get more works relating to everyday life and less metacommentary on art and culture, which is really mostly of interest to the art community.

I think it would also be extremely healthy for art conversation if the artists would be forced to explain their art to the general public. BS like trying to sell the same work you've done for years as somehow relating to local first nations culture just wouldn't fly. The internet would expose you in a second.

You never, ever, ever let people vote on things like that.

Letting the public at large vote is how we got 'Vote for Rory' and John Scott at the All-Star game.

Most expansion teams held a fan vote for names, you know how many stuck with what the fans voted for? None.

I'm amazed we're allowed to vote for politicians.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Locke

You never, ever, ever let people vote on things like that.

Letting the public at large vote is how we got 'Vote for Rory' and John Scott at the All-Star game.

Most expansion teams held a fan vote for names, you know how many stuck with what the fans voted for? None.

I'm amazed we're allowed to vote for politicians.

There was nothing wrong with 'vote for Rory' or John Scott at the All Star game, the public realised the all star game was a complete joke and treated appropriately, in fact I would argue that the inclusion of John Scott was about the most appropriate vote you could make, assuming the option of voting for Mickey Mouse or Brent Butt wasn't on the ballot.