Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
I have a question on the whole 1% for public art on all capital projects.
Why doesn't intersting architecture count as public art in terms of that money? If you look at the west LRT stations each one looks awsome. The copper off axis ovals look far better than the utilitarian anderson station. But isn't that architecture and extra material cost "ART". Why does the money tossed at art have to be statues or convential art shouldn't it just be making ulititarian structures nicer?
So when I here that the West LRT hasn't met its 1% public art spending it frusterates me because the design itself incorporated it. Its like saying 1% of the peace bridge would need to be spent on public art when the bridge itself is art. The policy will likely keep evolving.
Wouldnt a better approach be to ensure that architecturally please desgins were used rather than some arbitrary % to be added afterwards.
|
The Mayor has said that he's open to a more flexible public art program. Perhaps truly exceptional architecture (however that's defined), could account for at least a portion - as you suggest. Or, in the case of the NWLRT extension, why couldn't we use the public art contribution to say restore the Eamon's Camp building? The Mayor believes it should - but we currently don't have the flexibility under the public art policy.
One could argue that the level of architecture of the WLRT should simply be considered the new standard. It's certainly very competent, quality design, but I wouldn't say it's particularly groundbreaking.