Public "Art"

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Are incompetence and fraud by artists participating in this project any more common than incompetence and fraud by contractors in other public projects (or private ones for that matter)? Or just more visible?

Maybe. There was certainly a great deal of incompetence involved with the construction of the peace bridge, for instance. And I can recall the time the contrators building the interchange at CrossIron Mall dropped one of the beams onto the highway. Just as two quick examples.

A question however: What is your point?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Cappy

What do they sue him for?

Unless his contract stated it would be 20 Calgarians at random or if there is some clawback if the project is removed before X dates, i don't see an avenue here.

If they were forced to take the display down earlier than intended then they did not get what they purchased.

Essentially the Artist implicitly warrants that they have the copyright for what they are selling.

[Kjesse]

You don't even need to see the contract with the artist: You can safely assume that it did not authorize copyright violations.

And it does mean the city did not get what it contracted for, but there is a bigger issue which is, the city is exposed to a copyright infringement action which could render more than $20K in damages, plus the related legal fees. The city would no doubt claim their damages over to the artist, but still, the city is exposed to litigation as a result of this wrongful act.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Maybe. There was certainly a great deal of incompetence involved with the construction of the peace bridge, for instance. And I can recall the time the contrators building the interchange at CrossIron Mall dropped one of the beams onto the highway. Just as two quick examples.

A question however: What is your point?

Maybe when private construction firms hire 20 sub-contractors to work on a big project (concrete, framers, electrical, etc). they know from long experience the odds are that 2 or 3 will delivery sub-par work, and one will try to pull some kind of fraud.

Maybe that's just the way hiring lots of people to work on projects work - a certain percentage screw up. And when that happens in a private project, nobody ever knows about it except the managing contractor. But when it happens in something like public art, everyone knows. But there really isn't any way to bring that number down to zero in public art, anymore than there's a way to bring it down to zero in construction projects.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

There have basically in the last two pieces of controversial art been two artists that have been caught in lies about them.

The Rocks on Sticks and the artist claiming to have based it on local Native Lore only to have the local bands state that he was full of poop.

I think part of the problem is that in the fine art world, the story behind the art can be worth as much as what the art actually looks like. So people who don't have good stories are incentivized to make them up.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SebC

I think part of the problem is that in the fine art world, the story behind the art can be worth as much as what the art actually looks like. So people who don't have good stories are incentivized to make them up.

Which means it goes from meaningful art to crap based on a lie.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Maybe when private construction firms hire 20 sub-contractors to work on a big project (concrete, framers, electrical, etc). they know from long experience the odds are that 2 or 3 will delivery sub-par work, and one will try to pull some kind of fraud.

Maybe that's just the way hiring lots of people to work on projects work - a certain percentage screw up. And when that happens in a private project, nobody ever knows about it except the managing contractor. But when it happens in something like public art, everyone knows. But there really isn't any way to bring that number down to zero in public art, anymore than there's a way to bring it down to zero in construction projects.

You still haven't produced an actual point.

Your posts seem almost intended to try and wave away the fact that this person deliberately plagiarized someone else's work, lied about it when it was installed, and lied about it again when he got caught.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

so yeah, I think your right Locke, I think that there has to be serious vetting which means that its likely that public art will have to come from Artists with a history so to speak.

That's the odd thing about this 4th St piece. We're not talking about some kid selling his first large work. The artist is nearly 70 years-old and has had a long and successful career selling big art projects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Michael_Besant

He's had exhibitions around the world and won numerous international awards. His feigning ignorance over basic copyright laws would be inexcusable even for a young artist. For a veteran like him, it's downright ridiculous.

He taught at the ACAD for many years. I assume that copyright protection (both protecting your own and ensuring you don't violate other people's) would be one of the first things they teach there.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by SebC

I think part of the problem is that in the fine art world, the story behind the art can be worth as much as what the art actually looks like. So people who don't have good stories are incentivized to make them up.

True, with modern art, context is often times more important than the execution.

Personally, even if the story checked out, I found the whole thing to be somewhat mediocre.

[Kjesse]

I agree with getbak and also had looked at this guy's website when the news broke, and he's made some good pieces, and has had a successful career. So this is one instance I don't think the vetting process would have produced a better result, its not like he was caught plagiarizing or violating copyright before, at least not that we know about.

His statements to the media though before the story broke that he took the pictures himself are demonstrative that he knew he shouldn't be lifting photos from someone else, otherwise he would have said so.

Its sad to see someone tarnish their own reputation like this. He took a major shortcut thinking he would not get caught, and he got caught at a time public art in Calgary is a major topic and hits the front pages of the news. He could not have predicted how bad this would turn out for him. And its going to get worse for him as this plays out.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Your posts seem almost intended to try and wave away the fact that this person deliberately plagiarized someone else's work, lied about it when it was installed, and lied about it again when he got caught.

Where did I say it was okay? Clearly it's not. I was following up on posts suggesting there's something wrong with the city art program if these kinds of things happen. All I'm saying is get 30 or 50 contractors doing work, some of them are going to be incompetent or fraudulent. Doesn't make them okay. But you probably can't reduce that to 0.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Table 5

True, with modern art, context is often times more important than the execution.

Personally, even if the story checked out, I found the whole thing to be somewhat mediocre.

Ignoring the copyright issues for a minute is lying about the source of the photos unethical? Basicly if he had permission to use these photos but told people it was Calgarians would people still be upset.

It seems that people are stating they like the Art more when it was Calgarians pictures that were taken. But it doesn't at all change the Art.

It's like telling someone that the bottle of Wine they are about to Drink was $100
Instead of $15. The people enjoy it more as a result of the lie because it creates an endowment affect.

No harm is actually done to anyone so I support the story behind the art the only issue is the copyright violation.

[Drummer]

Suggestive shape of sculpture (public art?) at a Burbank, California Ikea is raising eyebrows:
http://abc7.com/society/suggestive-s...brows/2725320/

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by GGG

Ignoring the copyright issues for a minute is lying about the source of the photos unethical? Basicly if he had permission to use these photos but told people it was Calgarians would people still be upset.

It seems that people are stating they like the Art more when it was Calgarians pictures that were taken. But it doesn't at all change the Art.

It's like telling someone that the bottle of Wine they are about to Drink was $100
Instead of $15. The people enjoy it more as a result of the lie because it creates an endowment affect.

No harm is actually done to anyone so I support the story behind the art the only issue is the copyright violation.

I think for sure the art changes when the story changes. It's just a basic reality in the art world. It's a component of the provenance of art. It's why paintings of mountains sell better in Calgary than in Toronto. It's why Jane Seymour's paintings are worth 10k not 10 bucks. It's why Melevich can paint a big black square and you can't.

The photographer here had complete control over the story and chose to make it local in nature by telling us it was people who walked by the bridge everyday. It was a way for us to relate to his work beyond just its imagery. If that wasn't important he certainly would not have mentioned it that way.

If you look at art people like, great art, it has a connection to people beyond it's mechanical components. Cave paintings at Verdon show us animals, and people hunting animals. I presume they are the people and animals the artist knew and they are his or her interpretation of the world they lived in. That's why they were important enough to paint. Same thing happening here in our own little bridge cave.

[Bigtime]

Write up on the art in the lobby of Brookfield Place. This is really cool, taking the sounds and movement of the Bow glacier and turning it into the art:


https://medium.com/@blprnt/sounding-...w-628f92beb0b7

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by gottabekd

Did y'all see this article about Douglas Coupland creating an LED light show embedded into the windows of the Telus Sky building?



There is a video at the bottom of the article: http://calgaryherald.com/entertainme...t-installation

I guess "public" in the sense that it is visible to everyone.

I really love this type of display. Shanghai has loads of buildings now that are entirely lit up at night as full skyscraper-sized LED screens with colourful displays. They're beautiful and really add to the city having a feeling of vibrance and life after dark.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I really love this type of display. Shanghai has loads of buildings now that are entirely lit up at night as full skyscraper-sized LED screens with colourful displays. They're beautiful and really add to the city having a feeling of vibrance and life after dark.

Whoa whoa whoa, hold your horses. Here in Calgary we are dam proud of our ghost town of a downtown after 7pm and on weekends. Why would we want to use LEDs to attract people and ruin a good thing?

[Resolute 14]

City officials cancel the rest of the Bowfort Towers installation... which would have amounted to spending $200,000 to move dirt around.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ject-1.4868983

[Fuzz]

I'll do it for $150 000.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'll do it for $150 000.

Do you perchance know where I could acquire some clay?