Every month I pick the most well-written, thoughtful comment on my blog entries and give it an entry of its own. March's winner comes from Rob Edwards, the energetic and savvy director of the Downtown Ventura Organization and was written in response to "The real facts about Public Art" entry. Thanks for posting Rob!

For some odd reason, the city of Phoenix, while in another state, but just as close to us as San Francisco is, loves its public art program. Under similar guidelines as Ventura’s rules, a small percentage of the total cost of new real estate development must be used to create and place public art nearby. A highly touted book by some well-known, yet still obscure, art critic ranked has Phoenix as a 21st c. “public art city” in the same sentence with Berlin and Moscow. [http://www.mpacarts.org/phx21/index.php]. And without a doubt, Phoenicians are proud of their public art.

One might think that only a highly educated metropolitan area could, in general, appreciate public art — as an expression or symbol of their superior micro-culture. But Phoenix is neither uber-sophisticated, nor touting any superiority (other than they have the best dry heat in the country.) Yes, it is now the 10th largest region in America, but when ranked against other metropolitan regions for its citizens’ level of education, it’s down around 25th. Phoenix is not exactly a haven for the intellectual elite who tend to defend any and all public art. In fact, Phoenicians today are probably much like Angelenos were fifty years ago — a wild west town bursting at the seams but still living in the cultural shadow of big eastern cities.

I spent two years in Arizona as economic development director of the Downtown Phoenix Partnership before moving to California. While there, I noticed a trend in the way public art was both unveiled and where it was placed. First, the artist was often profiled in the press over and over again for his or her work that has been accepted and touted in their home city — NYC, SF, or DC, for example. They were edified and given immediate street cred. Second, the (memorable and popular) installations were usually created to make an ugly or banal setting, beautiful and interesting—a conversation piece that would cause people to say, in the case of a chain link fence cut into jagged shapes against the sky, “Wow, look at THAT freeway overpass. Look what they did. It looks like Camelback Mountain. Love it!”

I had this, and other comments like it, in mind as I sat on the jury to choose a sculpture that will be installed next month in downtown Ventura. With the Bus Home rumblings fresh in my mind, I asked myself a few basic practical questions about the viability of each of our 50+ choices: 1) is it vandal proof? If tagged will it be easy to clean or will it be ruined forever and just shame us? 2) Will it stand the test of time? Will it rust or will a patina over time increase its attractiveness? 3) And what kind of Wow! Factor does it have?

When you see what our most recent jury chose to place near the Promenade and the Crowne Plaza, I think most will think it’s not only appropriate but pretty darn cool. It’s vandal-proof, practical, and makes a statement about Ventura’s values.

As I see it, it’s up to the jurors who select the winning submission to also take into consideration how the piece will fly with the public — and to not operate in a vacuum. The selection should not be “art for arts sake,” but art that makes the space, within which it is placed, have more meaning for those that frequent that park, bus stop, or intersection everyday. Worthwhile public art satisfies the soul but should also have positive PR value, not negative. Ideally, it should make the overtaxed and weary taxpayer smile and mutter something like, “Wow, look what they put there. I’m glad my city gave this to me.”