ARE YOU HAPPY NOW? That was my first reaction to the long list of projects that are scheduled to be axed tonight from Ventura's often-maligned Public Art Program, including funding for the design of a memorial at Cemetery Park.
I've written about this art program's complicated and misunderstood funding system so many times since I started this blog that I almost find myself reciting it over and over in my head as I go to sleep at night:
"It is an actual ordinance, passed in 1992, allocating 2 percent of eligible Capital Improvement Project (CIP) costs for the commissioning of artist services which tie into a project. Not very many projects are selected for this program. Most of the money comes from specific CIP funds which cannot legally be used to pay for police and fire personnel or libraries. ... blah, blah, blah."
Why, I found myself reciting it once again to long-time Star columnist Chuck Thomas just last week as I explained the difference between funding for the Public Art Program, which comes from the CIP fund, and other cultural activities which come from the General Fund. Chuck and I have been locked in a public battle over the merits of government funding of cultural programs for several years now. Sound economic strategy, I say. Waste of tax dollars, Chucks says.
But we had a very amiable phone conversation last week. He understands the Public Art Program funding process better now and while we still don't agree on government funding of cultural activities in general we did agree that it is easier to be a print columnist than a blogger.
IN THESE DAYS of budget cutting in cities around the country, cultural arts programs seem to be the mushrooms growing at the bottom of the totem pole. We're now cutting essential services like police officers and street paving and sidewalk repair.
Former Star writer Charles Levin wrote a great opinion piece Sunday on our city's public and private investment in revenue-generating cultural activities such as ArtWalk. I've written a few pieces like this myself. But his trumped all of mine.
Congress recently passed legislation which would pump more money into the nation's arts organizations; perhaps some of it will trickle down to our community through a grant. Nationwide, arts organizations are facing huge budget deficits. The nonprofit Americans for the Arts estimates 10,000 arts organizations could disappear in 2009.
Tonight the City Council will take another look at the list of cuts the Budgeting for Outcomes teams proposed, as well as the cuts to Public Art, and may vote on finalizing them. Several of our city volunteers, including myself, are looking into forming a non-profit to prevent some of our cultural programs, like ArtWalk, from disappearing from the local landscape. Our efforts may extend to helping out our county-run libraries.
If you're interested in helping, email me.
I agree that Charles Levin's opinion piece on Sunday was great. He's right! I'm interested in helping..sign me up.
I guess we'll do this in our free time, right Marie?
OK, Angie! The only person more overcommitted than me just volunteered again. :-)
What is the point of cutting public art and then keeping the public art money in its little fund and not redistributing it back into capital projects? This is what they did last night with some of it. This was just symbolic.
Re: Spending money on art
I didn't agree with the concept but I have to say that Ventura has done a good job marketing itself as an "art" city so it seems kind of asinine to pull back from that. And Levin's op-ed piece was great! Too bad he isn't with the Star anymore.
The money for public art is not supposed to be transferred elsewhere - it's the same in L.A. or any other city. The definition of what constitutes "public art" is limited in most cities to things such as single statues, or single fountains. Unfortunately for Ventura, there are too many cooks to spoil the broth: so we get a golfer statue at the entrance to the city-owned golf course ( approved by a city Public Art Committee ) sitting on a base below which has totally illegible descriptive wording concerning the subject matter ( lettering and stone background are - I do not make this up - exactly the same color brown ) approved by a Planning Department staffer ( who has no clue about the design elements relevant to this project ) and, when so informed, does nothing to correct the matter. The same goes for the overwhelming scale of the "bus sculpture" near Pacific View Mall. Whereas the statue may not be inherently ugly in itself, a decision was made ( probably again by a planning staffer ) to place this massive structure in a location where it is visually too large to be fully appreciated - it should have been positioned either on a more forgiving site ( like in the middle of a very large park where it is not in competition for space ) or made at a much smaller scale at its present site. The process was incomplete in both cases and the public's funds, supposedly dedicated to "public art", are allowed, given the aforementioned "designing by committee", to be rolled into general funds - which should not be allowed. Bottom line - public art is ( and should be ) funded
separately from everything else. When it gets " bundled", it allows for an excuse to bundle the funding as well - which is wrong.
Therein lies the problem with some of the public art. It must tie to its funding source. So if we are building a transit center, and decide that's an appropriate project for an art component, that's where it will go. If we decide to use golf fees to do improvements to the golf course and decide to do an art component, that is where it will go. If we decide to do something with sewer and water fees, near a water treatment facility is where art will go...
Our most successful projects are in parks, I think, where you would expect to find statues, etc.
I was unhappy to lose funding for the Cemetery Park memorial. We need something there and they were going to incorporate some of the old headstones in it that have been recovered from where the city dumped them in the '60s.
Marie,
Blame it on firefighter pensions. Also, Tony Strickland is not to blame for anything that he does. You are to blame.
Feel free to delete this comment.
There you go ruining a perfectly good wonkish discussion!
I would like to know what programs would be put into place so I can contribute to some charity auctions or personal donations. If anyone knows of any please post on this thread.
Re: Cemetery Park
Funding for "restoring" Cemetery Park should be distinguished from funding for a "Cemetery Park Memorial" - use of the latter term would perhaps allow the Council to lump the matter in with "Public Art" funding - which is not what the intent should be, but one which City Council possibly used to bootleg it into oblivion - kind of like an Obama promise to reduce the budget.
Marie - It seems to me the public art, it's scale, its subject matter as well as its location should be the issue - I don't think that necessarily the public art project should be specifically funded for a particular location - I resent unqualified people ( like planner staff members ) being given authority to grant aesthetic approvals on such things as signage design and similar matters around town when none of them have ANY training or experience in this - that's the same reason why I do not want planners to have any input on the merging of DRC - Planning Comm'n - and Historical Comm.
I think a good idea would be to have a committee be given an inventory of all sculpture, "art" etc. around town to really evaluate whether any or all of it is in its best location. Even the locations of the scuzzy-colored playground equipment thrown up in city parks around town and specified by the Mike Montoya Parks Dept. could be better sited so as to further enhance the overall aesthetics of our 50-plus parks ( Parks Dept. has only one source they use for this - how about a little "diversity" ? ). Even when the "wayfinder" signage program was installed - city staff did their own thing about where these signs were placed - no concept of running it by the public for input. City staff tends to be territorial about their little domains - so there is no cohesive plan - we get a golfer statue with illegible lettering below it and a bunch of staffers who resent your even asking questions about it. Rick Cole needs to break this staff/public barrier; his oft-insipid comments suggesting a "Rick-knows-best" attitude toward the dumb public on his "blog" do not help.
Any news from the meeting you went to Marie?
John, I agree that visual elements in the built environment such as signage, artworks, and wayfinding systems should be chosen by design professionals who understand the area, how it is used, and by whom. Ventura is a bit disjointed in this regard.
Visually, the wayfinding signs are not very effective for drivers (because who can tell which way those little arrows are pointing in half a second)? They are all jammed together. Simply placing right-facing arrows on the right side of the words and grouping directions together (and perhaps differentiating by color) would greatly improve comprehension speed and more effectively move people to their destinations. Paying attention to little design details like this makes a huge difference.
Answer to question posed by haha: We will be proceeding with our non-profit group to help fund cultural programs; we all agreed on this point. It will take some time to get it rolling.
John, I believe the maintenance of all play structures is something that has been cut from the budget. As they rust and fall apart they will be fenced off/removed.
You could always put up your own signs as long as they are removable and not connected to private property like a telephone pole. Also private individuals and non profit groups could offer to post and maintain those signs for the city. I'm sure they would accept the offers.
To: WHalderman
Re: wayfinder program
The "discussion" on this subject at DRC was, to be polite, very brief - attempting to improve what was presented by staff was like swimming upstream. If you think the current version is less than satisfactory, you should have seen the vanilla-one-color-fits-all version which staff originally came up with. You will note that certain wayfinder signs are at varying elevations - some are too high to be noticed - such as at Harbor and Seaward. The staff did work very hard on making this happen. However even after all that effort, the signs at the downtown parking areas ( made of wood ) are still unaddressed and unkempt.
Marie - play structures
Most of the playground equipment is made of man-made material and will probably wear well. If one Googles "site amenities" and checks out different manufacturers of playground equipment, such as a company called " Timberform" , you will find there are a variety of very attractive benches, playground equipment, fitness systems and other related products on the market - even the ones currently being specified are not necessarily of lesser quality - the entire site amenity set-ups at each park needs to be addressed in context - with the picnic tables, benches etc. For example, the downtown park with the huge tree at Thompson across from the Post Office has a great covered octagonal bandstand on one side ( not contextually integrated with anything else in the park - and non-functional at any level ), a playground set-up somewhere in the middle, a cannon somewhere, and a maintenance shed on the other side. My goodness, this is an entire downtown city block which is a visual menagerie - within one block of a graffiti-covered freeway bridge -nobody seems interested in addressing either of these blights - and we expect outsiders to take us seriously as " The New Art City" ? C'mon. Unfortunately, the parks in Ventura, though I hate to insult the Parks Dept., are basically set up for the ease of the guy driving the huge lawnmower - no tables, benches, planters which might get in the way. If Ventura outsourced this maintenance function like Santa Monica does for its parks, money would be saved.