Poor Richard Margolis! In an effort to explain why Rochester’s art community hasn’t cheered for Renaissance Square, he’s dredged up old airport art news when there is so much new art muck to smear around. And the most recent airport mess – “the mysterious disappearance of site specific art pieces” – is only history repeating itself. In 1991, Monroe County purchased one sculpture and was gifted another for Highland Park. Both have disappeared from view and at least one of those pieces, I’m pretty sure, went directly to a landfill.
Rochester is about to land smack into its next art dilemma: what’s to become of sculpture hanging in Mortimer Street Parking Garage after the tear down to make way for Renaissance? What’s to become of the artwork that the City will suddenly own that’s now hiding in the caverns of Midtown Plaza? (And I refer to more than the Clock of Nations that apparently has a cue of people lining up to suggest its new home.)
I was tickled when Lois Geiss announced that the City would (has already?) adopt a new art policy, setting aside a percentage for art on all construction projects and if I may paraphrase her, “with pieces like those sculptures of Susan B. Anthony, done by Rochester’s own artists.” This statement contains the seeds of nearly everything wrong with our public art policy to date.
Rochester has had – off and on again – a percent for art but first we need a complete inventory of what’s already owned, it’s condition, history and value, where it rests today and a policy in place for removal when necessary. (Come on Arts Council! Earn your keep. And, by the way, where is the visitors’ brochure mapping these pieces?)
Next we need to take the parochial blinders off, adopt a professional way of calling for entries and judging art works that encourages worldwide competition. Yes, we have talented artists here but not nearly as many of some of us think we do and not many with technical skills sometimes required for sophisticated installations. And I feel compelled to add, we have enough junk on the streets, thank you very much.
And we need a way of “banking the money.” When some of that percent isn’t spent (many reasons: too few entries to make good art selections, site really isn’t conducive, funds just aren’t enough to buy something really worthwhile), we need a mechanism in place to add it to funds for another site or another project. And by the way, this is a way to begin a “Trust for Art.” When I die (gasp!), I don’t want flowers. Perhaps my friends will send their $10 to such a fund instead.
Which brings me to another little piece of mud: Rochester does not want anything even remotely controversial – ever! We (the pro art group) beat the horse into the ground and the anti-art group decides the best way around the whole mess is never to take a step off the path in the first place. Shame on all of us! One result? I know a couple who offered to purchase and gift public art to the City/County to be installed along a hiking trail near where they live. The C/C representatives couldn’t get out of the room fast enough and to this day have not responded to the overture.
I’ve spent my adult life in service to our art community. I’ve written about these issues repeatedly. To date, it hasn’t seemed to matter. But a few of us – Richard included - can’t help continuing to try.
Start the discussion. What do you think?
About Me
- Artlaw
- I was a working artist for a dozen years before opening Dawson Gallery in 1981. We had a good run, won acclaim and the hearts of both patrons and artists. The doors were closed for the final time in 1993. At the time, I was deep into community planning, President of the Coalition for Downtown (Rochester) and on the Mayor's planning team for the Neighbor's for Neighbor's instigation. I also began writing as both an art critic for regional newspapers and contributor to trade journals, among them "Ceramics Monthly," "Ceramics Arts and Perspectives," "Fiberarts," "Metalsmith," and "American Craft Magazine." I am intrigued by community planning, enthralled with gardening and consumed with the idea that art can make a difference in our world. Not nearly enough is written about the links between these worlds. In our way, perhaps we can move that conversation forward.
6 comments:
Ooooh Shirley, I do love your fight. Even when I don’t agree I’m still sitting there saying to myself “uh-huh, tell it, tell it, tell it…”
Shirley, I wish you good luck in your fight for art. We here in Orlando are just starting to appreciate the importance of art in our public buildings. Unfortunatly, our public schools are trying to wipe out art ed. A big mistake.
Very interesting. Always good to have more Rochester bloggers out there, too.
Come on Rochester! Even my small town Owasso,Oklahoma supports the Arts! Our city council heads up beautifcation projects, small art galleries showcase the local talent,and our new auditorium supports theatre groups.
FYI, it looks like they are not tearing down the Mortimer st garage after all. Parking is too tight in that area.
Rochester presents an interesting contrast...i completely agree with the statement that the city does not seem to want art controversy - I think back to those many years ago when the airport art reared its ugly head with Roz Goldman and Marion Hawkes stepping in ....yet the area has an incredible ART presence...practicing artists, art groups.....I agree with your points, i wonder what will force the issue? Nigglers such as Richard are a prize - he's like a dog with a bone and we others, should be grateful for his perseverance...perhaps we can learn something?
Post a Comment