HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PAC-2003 PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
January 14, 2003
4:00-5:30 p.m. in the Mural Lounge
present: Richard Driscoll, Leslie Carrere, Barbara Mink, Susan Blumenthal, Terry Plater, Gary
Ferguson
The meeting began about 4:10. Martha reported on the artist meeting. She felt some important
ideas came out-mentioning quality, consider donations carefully, look at DPW relationship.
Susan shared article on artist's moral rights. Richard mentioned email from Terry regarding
Cornell's public art meeting.
New Commission members update-Andrew Magre was too busy. Annemarie Zwack is
interested and will be contacted by Terry regarding procedure(get form from Julie, contact
Susan). Other folks were mentioned Fernando Llosa, Greg Page, Lily Chi, A. Okibge. Barbara
will explore future membership idea with Fernando. Susan reminded the group that five members
must live in the city. Terry will contact Okibge first then Lily Chi as soon as possible. Forms have
to be in by January 29 and then presented to Council.
More discussion followed re:Cornell's public art meeting and future planning. The Commission
felt it would be good to get involved in their discussion now to keep informed and explore
collaboration. Terry will respond to Nancy Dickinson/Frank Robinson and ask if Susan
Blumenthal could join the group. Richard brought up question of jurisdictional boundaries. Some
discussion followed regarding these implications.
Gary updated us on the NYSEG donation. "Businessman in Touch"was the selection by NYSEG,
however the piece was small and could only be secured by one bolt. The artist will recast piece to
make it 3 feet tall, allowing for six bolt anchoring. Siting possibilities have yet to be finalized. At
our next meeting we will continue this discussion. Gary is thinking the bank alley makes sense
and in a planter area. The casting would not be finished until April and no contract has been
signed yet with the Auburn artist. There will be a Jan 15 press conference in the Mural Lounge to
announce donation (really was NYSEG 2002 gift). Barbara Mink moved acceptance of donation
and Leslie seconded. All voting members approved.
Gary also mentioned a possible donation of the peppers. They were somewhat weathered during
the show and the artist is offering them as a gift. Much discussion followed about where they
would be sited - in an indoor location (children's section of library). Gary talked about the fact that
their 501c3 designation is still in process and would need an organization to receive the donation.
More information about sites and how to accept this work will follow at a future meeting. Gary
says the peppers would need touch up work before they could be displayed again.
Martha mentioned some pre-meeting discussion re: difficulty of timing with this donation. We
were close to not having a quorum and the press conference was the next day. We will look at
these issues in the future. Gary was trying to work within a difficult timeline for NYSEG.
Martha recommended the Commission skip the question part of the agenda and look at the plan
components page since Leslie needed to leave at 5:15. This set of pages compiled some notions
mentioned re: our plan as well as ideas we have yet to tackle. Time is getting short and the idea
is to put specifics out there to move our conversation forward. Members should review this sheet
and we will continue discussing it. Martha will begin fleshing out a plan paper for the group to
review. She will call on some members in-between meetings for reviewing drafts. The idea is to
have phase 1 (a broad plan outline with some specifics) for presentation to the Common Council.
We would ask for approval from the Council to move forward on the action plan. One plan
component that there was disagreement about was a Design Review Committee, a group that
advises about viability of piece. Some members felt it should be a subgroup of the Commission.
Page 4 Dec 16 meeting with artists
Light tops of Commons buildings(Vicky R)
Really need a design advisory group(Vicky R)
Page 3 Dec 16 meeting with artists
Annemare felt that the notions that Dan talked about don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Education can happen along side.
Ben talked about the difficulty/fine line between doing art for the public and doing your art. He
talked about the process in Spencer that involved a two-way dialogue. Public art doesn't have to
be homogenous. We have to be careful that we don't bring things down to the lowest common
denominator. Ben's dialogue in Spencer helped demystify the art and the artist's process. It
involved respecting all sides. The public ended up choosing the more abstract piece.
Dan seconded the idea of really listening to your public. They know what they want.
Terry checked in about the remaining agenda items. One area that was not yet covered in our
discussion was partnerships. The Commission will look to partner with existing groups to further
art goals, a city as gallery notion. What ideas did the group have?
Annemarie would like to see Gallery Night once a month.
Sally mentioned the difficulty of communication. So many people don't know about Gallery
Nights. How can we let people know? How to avoid the town/gown communication problems?
Vicky felt monthly Gallery Nights would steal thunder from the event.
Terry mentioned the notion of NYFA assistance with structural connections such as use of
downtown spaces for student art shows.
Vicky would like to see an Art Trail and Waterfront Trail collaboration.
Frank talked about the difficulty of private donor fundraising. Regular city appropriations would be
essential—the 1 %idea.
The notion of an art reviewer was mentioned again. Could the City reiterate the need for this to
paper?
Ben felt the need to have controversial art in yearly shows. Let's get a dialogue going.
Rob mentioned IC's Partnerships in Teaching program. Let's have more public forums for adults.
Let's have a slide show of the artists'works on the Commons with the artists talking about their
works. Let's look at how to reach out to the communities that don't normally attend this kind of
stuff.
Frank talked about how, properly structured, the use of experts can be useful to this process.
Katrina mentioned the idea of going to where people live.
Annemare felt that there should be plenty of art"thunder"to go around to have multiple events.
Dan mentioned he feels jaded about art commissions from past unpleasant experiences.
Ben mentioned that some of the past problems with vandalism and poor maintenance make him
reluctant to participate again.
Vicky reminded group of the protest surrounding the Statue of Liberty when it was first installed.
Terry and Martha brought closure to the meeting at 8:30. Participants will receive meeting notes.
Participants expressed an eagerness to continue helping.
The meeting ended at 8:30 p.m.
Meeting notes taken by Martha Frommelt.
Some notions contributed to Martha following the meeting:
Use of old library as contemporary art museum (Greg Page and Jeff de Castro)
Use commission/acquisition program to fund functional pieces designed by artists such as lamps,
benches, etc. (Frank Robinson and Vicky Romanoff)
Put forward the percent for art legislation now and use artists to advocate for it(Vicky R)
Make siting of art in the heart much more important(Vicky R)
Consider site or place specific gateway projects (Vicky R)
Look at DPW connection and accountability(Vicky R)
Page 2 Dec 16 meeting with artists
used for other purposes (part of food vendors set up or a place to rest your plate!). He asked
what the maintenance plan is—what does"normal wear and tear" mean? Metal works need rust
work, some need repainting, etc. Also, what are security plans? How do you prevent vandalism?
He mentioned that works can quickly become eyesores without attention to these issues.
Frank asked that language be inserted in 4C referring to excellence, quality or aesthetic.
In#3 and the last sentence, he discussed VARA and the notion that artists can't give up their
rights. He strongly suggested that an arts and entertainment lawyer look at this section. Under
C4, he discussed how impossible it is to get a donor to repair a donated work. He thought this
was unrealistic to expect donors to do this. He suggests looking at how to fund repairs. The
Johnson used their general operating budget. (Making claims to insurance can be problematic.
Ben mentioned the difficulty in proving a damage figure to adjustors). Frank talked at length
about the difficulty regarding a donations program, the notion that we can't accept everything. He
also discussed only accepting work of the highest quality, that the Commission may have to
refuse pieces on these grounds. He also mentioned that it is not fair to accept works if they can't
be shown properly. Also, there is only so much space.
Rob seconded notion that line 3 doesn't really fit into VARA, especially if a work is site specific.
He suggested that a maintenance budget should be established before donations are accepted.
Will this plan include commissioning a 30-40 ft sculpture at some point? (Probably a half million
dollar project).
Ben talked about the difficulty of transferring studio created works to another setting. Changing
settings often comprises the intention of the work or the impact. Mentioned the notion of juried
commissions.
Vicky questioned Ithaca's readiness for exterior art work. Education is needed for people to
accept the art. She mentioned the need for an art critic working with the newspaper to generate
discussion and attention to art. Unless we have a critic, then it is difficult to develop receptive
mood for art. She mentioned that there had been a meeting recently with the Journal and they
were receptive to restarting an art critic section.
Annemarie discussed the importance of education, especially in a grassroots way. In schools, for
example. Mentioned accessibility of Family Reading Partnership posters. She would like a
process to kick in if art works are to be moved. Involve consultation with artist for best way to
move, store, relocate art work or look for other options to locate work.
Frank discussed Long Island City's art yard—the place for all NYC sculptures that are relocated.
We don't want that to happen here.
Dan spoke strongly about his feeling that we were being imperialistic regarding art. He discussed
how he involves the communities in his mural creations, the people involved decide. An Auburn
school courtyard project, Southside community murals were mentioned. In commissions he's
been involved in, he submits the work and goes to the public, commissioners to decide what they
want. He mentioned his perception that the commission has been this little group that chooses for
everyone. The group acknowledged his strong feelings and talked about their areas of agreement
and disagreement. -
Katrina talked about the importance of education for finding a gateway to people. Having art that
is relevant to them then opens up the possibility of works that are not as relevant. She suggests
really going to the community, where they live and seeking involvement from there.
PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
Meeting Notes
February 13, 2003
5:30-7:30 p.m. at Clinton Hall Mural Lounge
present: Richard Driscoll, Martha Frommelt, Terry Plater, Susan Blumenthal, Gary Ferguson,
Barbara Mink, Sally Grubb, Alan Nemcek, Amaechi Okigbo
Updates: Martha, Terry and Susan talked about their meeting with Frank Robinson regarding
Cornell's Public Art planning efforts. The request to have Susan's participation on their committee
had already been forwarded. Frank shared his draft of some public art notions that will go to the
CU committee. The notion of a percent for art was already discussed and rejected within the CU
committee.
Susan talked about the meeting with the Ithaca Journal. Barbara confirmed that the Journal has
no interest in having a critic but would have more of a calendar listing and overview article.
Barbara also mentioned that there is interest in doing a gallery guide. Gary said IDP will be doing
a downtown gallery guide.
New Members: At the start of the meeting, Amaechi was introduced and talked about his
background (landscape architecture and an artist). He attended a portion of the meeting to find
out more about us. Martha passed along the ordinances. Next time commission appointments
could be presented - March 5 Council meeting. Terry will follow up with Amaechi and then
connect with Susan. Susan has made the mayor aware that we have two openings.
NYSEG donation siting: Gary said that there has not been final siting yet, he is waiting to connect
with JoAnn. However, the preferred sites would be in bank alley, probably in one of the planters.
He will have information at the next meeting. Issues of how to effectively site these works were
discussed -moving the plants and effective lighting. How can we connect with the rewiring effort
on the Commons to look at lighting the art?
Other: Terry mentioned the email from Lee-Ellen Marvin of Saltonstall Foundation. Lee Ellen is
seeking advice regarding a year long exhibit of the Saltonsall fellows. The work would rotate to
different sites. Sally noted that the library is a logical spot-well travelled and safe. The airport
was also mentioned. Discussion followed regarding "appropriate"art outside of the gallery setting.
Also, issues of security in a non traditional setting. Martha talked about her past conversation with
Lee Ellen regarding this and could this be part of future partnerships-city as gallery notion. Terry
will follow up with Lee Ellen. She will get more information about works, who puts up, etc., what
she wants from us.
Key Informant Strategy: Martha referred group to previous email regarding how to reach out to
other community groups. The idea is to reach out to geographic areas, community groups,
business and let them know who we are, what we are doing and get ideas. Terry mentioned
adding commission member names, make letter folksy but informative. Barbara brought up
danger of raising expectations. Susan says stress we are gathering ideas. Terry suggested
adding mention of public meeting to follow later. Gary suggested going before City Affairs
Committee(he is chair). Chamber of Commerce discussion followed. Noted that we should
definitely wait to mention the percent for art ideas until later-our discussion must come first.
Martha will work with Barbara to edit letters and send out. Martha will email list of groups who get
letters so Commission members can let her know what groups we are missing.
Questions: We reviewed the questions list and tried to answer them. The notion is that we must
be able to respond immediately and positively to every question so that we can gain support,
especially during this tough economic time. Terry suggested one strategy often -find out what the
questioner is really asking, "Tell me more about that,...., What is your idea....etc.".
Some of the specific questions:
Other ideas discussed—the difficulty of gaining acceptance of percent for art, also what is a
contracted agency?
Page 2 meeting notes 1/14/02
Then the Commission began discussing several specifics: the notion of connecting to private
developers and encouraging their consideration of art, advocating for the county to take a position
and leadership (Michael Lane and B. Blanchard as possible contacts), looking at the TCAD plans
for new shelters as well as sprucing up existing ones, collaboration with Cornell, connecting to
neighborhoods, looking at Urban Arts in Boston and their interconnected transit design. Gary and
IDP are connecting to TCAD, he will ask them the question. However, we need to look at a
systematic way to do this over time.
Martha also is seeking input regarding outreach to community groups. How should this be done?
Who are the people to meet with? Individual meetings, group meetings? Terry felt there should
be both types of meetings. Martha asked members to review their key informant sheet and think
about who should be contacted.
In an effort to have more time for discussion (also Terry can no longer meet during day), we will
meet in the evening 5:30—7:30 on Feb 13 at the Mural Lounge (Richard will order pizza and
Martha will bring desserts and drinks).
February agenda will include—new commission member update, donation siting update, Cornell
Public Art update, review of plan components continued, discussion of key informant approach,
answering questions page. Bring questions pages and plan component pages with you. Bring
your ideas re: who we should contact in the community.
Meeting adjourned at 5:30.
Public Art Commission
Meeting Notes
March 6, 2003
6:00-7:30 p.m. in Mural Lounge
present: Martha Frommelt, JoAnn Cornish, Susan Blumenthal, Gary Ferguson, Terry Plater, Sally
Grubb
Updates: Martha mentioned article by economist—value of public art is not definitively proven
from economic stand point, but there is proof of value of clustering cultural attractions. Also, some
value connected to stakeholders involved in planning public art. Also, mentioned an article
regarding Iowa's design initiative—one recommendation of interest—sharing best design
practices with more designers, planners, communities.
Some activity since we last met—language inserted in Economic Development Plan and Site Plan
review process. Also Cayuga Green letter will go to the Committee of Whole. Key informant
letters have gone out. JoAnn is checking the general letter to developers through the planning
department to find out protocol for this. Terry, Susan and Martha had meeting with Jean
McPheeters. Gary will put us on City Affairs March meeting agenda.
We discussed whether or not to include churches/temples/etc. in our outreach/key informant
group. Susan raised concern about repercussions of forgetting a group. It was noted that some
churches serve a strong community function beyond their church function. Martha will add
language to letter that encourages groups to pass letter on. Commission members should pass
along church names and names.
Commission member nominations: After much discussion, commission members voted to move
forward on Amechi. JoAnn will double check city ruling regarding commission members recusing
themselves and then participating as an artist submitting a commission design. Terry will pass
along this information to the Amechi and Annemarie.
NYSEG Donation: JoAnn and Gary showed map of bank alley location for sculpture. It would be
in front of tree planter near M and T. Commission members voted approval. Susan and JoAnn
noted that new lighting system will provide general ambient light throughout Commons.
Percent for Art discussion: Martha passed out sheet naming broad options—public program,
public-private, or private foundation. The first two could be done through ordinances or not
(voluntary). Martha suggested that we could approach the Common Council by presenting all
scenarios, with our preference indicated. There seems to be interest on Council for percent for
art. Terry liked the idea of scenarios presented, adding our own goals to it(e.g. "with a goal of
x%"). Much discussion followed regarding the controversy regarding percent for art—how to make
it not seem like punishment, difficulty of building downtown (more expensive). Gary wants us to
use a carrot approach rather than the stick approach. Some projects just can't afford to do this.
Sally and Susan said we should look at private side. JoAnn noted that some projects have deeper
pockets than others. Susan brought up idea of graded percentages or zoned percentages
throughout the city, acknowledging the difficulty in some areas. Susan and Martha will work on
specifics of a public-private percent for art plan that would look at graded percentages, caps on
projects, choice to contribute to a fund, etc. Gary will do some thinking about what could be a
"carrot". Commission members can review material already passed out at last meeting and
continue to think about issues.
Plan Ideas: Martha passed out draft of plan (draft#2, revised from initial feedback from Susan).
Homework is to read it, tear it apart, consider Martha's handwritten questions throughout. Then
add your own specific thoughts regarding your priority sites for art and your specific to dos in the
first three years of the plan.
What is"suitable for all audiences"-depends on context, location, presentation There are people
to like everything.
How do you choose art that everyone likes-it is a subjective thing, a lot of people can like the
works, parallel of walking into a museum -you won't like everything but you will like something
How do you minimize vandalism -over time respect develops, placement and lighting, familiarity
helps, don't put tons of emphasis on education (that doesn't reach the vandals), public art is
different from outdoor art(should withstand touching, weathering, drunk college students, etc.)
What are you guys going to do about the awful at we already have? -use Terry's
deflective/reflective approach to find out what is person's agenda/background, lots of people like
art, How do we deal with self-directed dumbing down of art? -what do we mean by dumbing down
- not everyone has same viewpoint/perspective, don't accept all art, respect all viewpoints, by
nature of the city-process will probably lean toward more conservative
How can I have a voice? Many points of entry, community process with commissioning, service
on commission
Difference between landscape and art-organic
How do you make sure the bridge doesn't happen again? This deals with two aspects-process
and actual work. Our current planning process is to look at addressing future processes and
making sure they are suitable. Can't guarantee that everyone will like works. Look at how
appeals happen long before installation.
Why does city have to be a leader in this instead of a facilitator, like it has been doing?-This is a
city value for public good, part of overall strategy to improve community
Why are you doing this when we are eliminating jobs?-Just because times are tough doesn't
mean we can't have aesthetics, having a livable community contributes to economic
enhancement, aesthetics count even in tough times, could create jobs
Other issues of review process -we will look at later.
Review of Goals and Administrative Concepts: Martha has a draft plan that has been circulated to
Susan, Terry, Barbara. Anyone else want a copy? Key concepts will be discussed later.
Closure: Next meeting will focus on percent for art.
Outside of meeting -Gary, Martha and Terry talked about notion of Cayuga Green %. Could
Terry as individual write a letter?
Homework- Read over percent for art stuff.
-Look at ideas sheet and think about what specifics you would like to have in our plan
(eg. bus stop program, big commission at waterfront, etc. etc. etc.
Next meeting : March 6,6:00 -7:30
Meeting notes recorded by Martha Frommelt.
PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
April 3, 2003 Meeting Notes
4:30-6:00 in Clinton Hall
present: Gary Ferguson, JoAnn Cornish, Terry Plater, Sally Grubb, Barbara Mink, Susan
Blumenthal, Richard Driscoll, Martha Frommelt
Updates:
Martha, Susan and Terry discussed meeting held since last Commission meeting. Gary, Chair of
the Chambers City Affairs Committee, had us present the outreach questions to this committee.
Martha passed out summary of that meeting. JoAnn organized a meeting with DPW folks, Terry
and Martha went. Rick Searles and Jim Kelly offered their feedback—recommending
standardizing the cement bases for art on the Commons to make changing locations easier,
recommending contracting maintenance of artworks out(eg. waxing Song of Innocence) because
their staffing is limited, graffiti is a huge issue, especially in parking garage, also moving heavy
artwork is tough. Susan and Martha worked on the drafting of a percent for art proposal to be
discussed at this meeting.
Sally mentioned George Rhodes theory on graffiti—if it is great they won't bother it.
Gary cautioned about the DPW perspective—it is one perspective. Susan confirmed the cuts that
that department has faced.
Terry will follow up on new commission member process. She just got forms from Julie.
IDP Murals went up this week. Terry and Sally attended opening ceremony. Some mention of
getting a note inside cases to identify project.
Susan mentioned Alan's membership is up for renewal. Everyone confirmed desire for Alan to
continue.
Percent for Art: Group got proposal emailed in advance. General approval of this version—
seems reasonable. Like idea of pooling funds. Much discussion regarding how to get feedback
from developers and others. Consensus was that we should get this feedback before going to the
Common Council. This part of the plan could be a touch point that could kill it. We will host
meeting with developers and begin conversation about it. Commission members mentioned
names of people to invite. Gary, Susan, Terry will be part of this meeting, all are welcome.
Commission members will add names of other people to invite.
Current list(sp?)-Jim Brynes, Mack Travis, John Novarr, Joe Daley, Andy Sciarrba, ? Franco,
David Chaizza.
Terry and Sally mentioned that there are many business and professional leaders who have public
spaces and who buy local art(Willow?, Marietta Gued....)
Cayuga Green: JoAnn shared drawings of walkway and recommendation for art along the walk.
She has contacted Chris Sheers (sp?)architect on Cayuga Green regarding art and
recommendations. Notion is that May 8 construction will begin and end thirteen months later.
Martha said the ideal scenario would have been to be a part of this design process from day one,
but the group felt there was still time to do something and build on extensive community input
already provided. Issues of security, vandalism, maintenance will be considered. We will devote
the large part of our next meeting to Cayuga Green.
Plan Draft: Martha talked about difficulty of going through writing of full plan with a group. She
requested that commission members read the draft carefully and note major areas of
disagreement. Susan reminded folks to note what is missing. Terry suggested excerpting quotes
from the letters, either in footnote, boxed section or in the key informant description. Martha will
send in an email attachment the latest version of the plan and all will read.
Page 2 meeting notes March 2003
This draft also draws together many ideas we have already talked about—keeping membership
diverse, conflict of interest policy, added specific review criteria to clarify program goals, etc.
One additional thing to consider—Since the likelihood of carving out any more of JoAnn's time to
staff the plan or adding a city staff person is difficult, maybe we want to consider recommending
contracting with a group like CAP to staff the plan. All the literature says that projects that are
small or huge take the same amount of staff time. The process is very detail oriented and needs
staff support.
Public Meeting: After discussion, it was decided to have an invitation only meeting in late
April/early May to gather input on our specific"to dos". We would invite the folks who have
responded to our key informant letter. We will discuss later whether or not to invite the press.
Cayuga Green: Money has been set aside for art elements/art in Cayuga Green plan. Susan
asked for feedback regarding commission recommendations. Some of the issues—what are
project parameters, where are areas for art, is design phase completed, would money be set
aside to administer a commission process, this is less than idea because it is not at the beginning
of the process—problems associated with that, would money be designated for maintenance from
fund, is it possible to do a process in time for building completion, how would client group be
involved or what feedback/priorities have they already shared. Gary noted that phase two of the
project is the walk—maybe opportunities there. JoAnn will bring in drawings of plan at next
meeting.
Meeting finished at 7:40.
Next meeting: April 3, 4:30. Topic: Cayuga Green and our plan specifics
Homework: Read draft plan. Come up with your own list of preferred sites and to dos.
Susan and Martha work on percent for art ideas.
JoAnn bring in Cayuga Green drawings.
Gary think about"carrot" notion.
•
•
PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
MEETING NOTES
APRIL 29, 2003 4:00-5:30
CLINTON HALL MURAL LOUNGE
Present: Susan Blumenthal, JoAnn Cornish, Gary Ferguson, Richard Driscoll, Martha Frommelt,
Leslie Carrere
Updates: Susan reported that she has been formally asked to join Cornell's public art committee.
She passed out the"Charge to the Committee" paper she received. A first meeting has yet to be
set. (note—Frank Robinson said their plan draft will not be ready to share as an appendix in our
plan. Martha will reference their process in our plan.)
Richard passed out a letter from the Alliance of NYS Arts Organizations re: the NYS Culture Zone
Project.
Martha passed out article Barbara shared re: arts and communities.
A letter has been sent to Rod Ghearing at TCAT encouraging incorporation of art in the
transportation "remodeling".
Letters went out to a list of developers re: percent for art. Meeting is set for Wed., 4/30.
Cayuga Green Discussion: Long discussion on the challenges of moving forward with the Cayuga
Green project. The vote is expected mid May and construction would begin immediately. We
looked at the trail map. There was a general discussion of what/where to have art—the trail has a
center point that would be good, library walk area seemed a possibility. We decided that the best
approach would be to do a request for qualifications and then pose the question of what and
where to the artist. Long discussion followed regarding the proposed acquisition process—use of
a panel for Cayuga Green or not. Martha will work on a memo that would go to Council through
Susan and JoAnn to seek approval for the go ahead to start our acquisition/commission process.
The memo will outline the general process we would use, request money be set aside for
administration and maintenance of the commission and get the ok. for a consultant/contracted
agency to run this. Commission members should review the acquisition process described in the
plan for our discussion at the next meeting. One message we will share with the Council—timing
is less than ideal but this is a fantastic opportunity.
Sites and Objectives; Barbara and JoAnn handed in written lists. Generally we decided that it
would be better to identify the places and instead of prioritize things. Action on sites would
depend on funding and other circumstances and action on a single place should not be delayed
because it was not in the top five. Sites would be tackled as the opportunity presents itself. We
should continue to focus on visual impact and a large audience while not forgetting
neighborhoods. Martha will work on pulling together the objectives as well as listing all the ideas
that have been mentioned to us.
Site ideas—Leslie would love to see art in unusual areas. Other ideas mentioned—Mitchell
Street triangle, Seneca and State area, gateways.
Barbara—route 13 entrances on south and north sides, all new bus shelters, Seneca/Cayuga
Green garages, waterfront trail, commons-state street, parks connection
JoAnn—bus shelters, six mile creek walk, Seneca/Cayuga Green garages, Rte 13 entrances
north and south, waterfront trail, commons state street, parks connection
Gateways:
Visitor's Center/Youth Bureau/Stewart Park Area—Northern Gateway
Aurora Street Bridge, Plaza Area northwest of bridge near Aurora Street bus shelter-South
Gateway
Tuning Fork— Easter Gateway
"Pete's Triangle" also referred to as the Western Gateway
Look Out Point, Inlet Island Promenade, Inlet Island Gateways
Ithaca Falls"Park"
Purity Triangle
Page 2 April meeting
Prioritized sites and objectives: Began discussion of these areas of plan. Mentioned ideas.
Richard reported on Strategic Tourism Board's ideas—approach to Ithaca Falls, Rte 13,
Commons, Farmer's Market, parking garages, dislike of mural (amateurish), place based art,
Inlet Island gateway. Other ideas—rte 13 entrances, foot of State St., high school, bus stop.
Martha will work with JoAnn, Susan and Terry on letter to TCAD, Rod G. regarding bus stop
centers.
Commission members will work on their specific ideas. Terry offered strategy for organizing our
ideas—do a tiered system. List ideas and sites if we have lots of money, some money, no money
kind of idea.
Remaining schedule: The idea is to present draft at June 18 Planning Committee meeting.
Martha will be gone in July. We will work hard to gather draft in prep for June.
Next meeting will be April 29, 4-5:30 in Clinton Hall.
Recorded by Martha Frommelt
•
ARTIST/COMMUNITY UPDATE MEETING
PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
MEETING NOTES
MAY 22, 2003 7:00-8:15 IN MURAL LOUNGE
present: Martha Frommelt, Terry Plater, Susan Blumenthal, Jeff deCastro, Tom Scharff, Hatice
Brenton, Roberto Bertoia, Rob Licht, Mary Beth Imken, Frank Robinson
The meeting began with introductions of the group. Martha reviewed the purpose of the meeting
and talked about the previous meeting in December.
Portions of the public art plan draft were passed out. Martha, Susan and Terry talked about the
plan elements. The assumption is that the readers of the report will know nothing about public art.
Therefore, the report gathers history, background and rational for the readers. In addition, the
report may have to"sit on a shelf"for a while, so background/explanation is included for the future
commission members and readers. The plan should be a stand-alone document.
Martha, Susan and Terry addressed portions of the report that might be of particular interest to
artists. Language about quality was added after discussion with artists at the December meeting.
The City will have language in the contracts and in the maintenance section regarding relocation
of artworks. The report focuses on processes and procedures for choosing or accepting art.
These steps define standards, protect the artists and community interests. Sites are identified but
not prioritized. The Commission will also just list all ideas we've gathered. Prioritization will
happen after resources are secured.
The Commission's discussions with developers and the Ithaca Downtown Partnership regarding
public and percent for art were shared. IDP's joint statement was discussed. The per capita
notion of funding was also discussed. The challenge of gaining support for this idea was talked
about. There is the possibility that the public art plan will wait for funding for some time. Susan
said that the goal is to plant the seed about public art. Patience may be key.
The notion of a jury/panel was talked about. This seems key. There was a suggestion to make
sure one slot is reserved for a juror from outside of Tompkins County. The Commission will have
to develop a juror file. Conflict of interest policies will be in place.
There will be a recommendation to include the artist in design teams. This will also involve the
Commission working on tools to assist developers e(improve slide registry, etc.).
Questions/discussion included:
Who responded to the key informant/outreach letter?
What about the hotel tax being used for public art?
Rochester is currently considering a Creative Design Commission in the central district. Each
building would have to undergo an aesthetic review first. Artists would be part of design teams.
Cornell should be doing its public art plan.
Discussion of what is art and architecture-questions heard from the community-There are
people who do both (Lewis Sullivan). Architects can do both. Artists tend to think more freely.
Discussed the designed facade of a building. Differences are in intent. Show examples to the
Common Council.
Discussed artist and architect teams (Jeff deCastro's examples).
Noted successful sites where artists changed big box stores- Best supermarket example.
Public art example in Lancaster, PA with community members bringing rocks and artist creating a
space (Hatice example)
Grand Rapids, MI Calder sculpture transformed the community.
Talk to leaders (eg. Jim Byrnes).
Ask Gannett to do a series on successful public art communities.
Page 2 April meeting notes from 4/29
Plan Draft: Your homework is to go over the plan and submit comments by May 12. We still want
to present our draft at the June Planning meeting.
Art in Heart: review of artists for next show has taken place. Funding is not yet secured.
Discussion at our next meeting.
Next meetings:
Commission Meeting June 5 at 12:00. Bring lunch or order through Richard.
Artist meeting—update artists on plan—May 22 (hopefully) Martha will keep you posted.
Meeting notes recorded by Martha Frommelt.
Public Art Commission
Meeting Notes
August 21, 2003 12:00-1:30 at CAP offices
Present: Terry Plater, Susan Blumenthal, Leslie Carrere, Alan Nemcek, Richard Driscoll, Barbara
Mink, Martha Frommelt
Also attended: Tom Riveria
The meeting began with updates about activity since the June meeting. Susan, Martha and Terry
relayed information regarding the meeting with the Journal editorial staff and the Planning
Committee. The Planning Committee had a few questions regarding the plan draft—had Norma
Schwab looked at it, had there been public input and a meeting, private percent for art would not
be supportable by some. The Journal staff was receptive to the plan, wrote some good advance
and follow up articles, but wrote a disappointing editorial.
Tom Riveria of Twelve Tribes came into the meeting. After relaying his purpose for stopping in,
the group decided to hear his presentation/questions before proceeding further with the agenda.
Tom was referred to us by JoAnn Cornish. He is proposing a mural on the Green Street side of
his building—Home Dairy. Commission Members stated that we can offer advice and suggest
considerations for the art(security issues, artist info and background, use of materials,
maintenance issues, etc.), but that he would be the owner and curator. Tom shared a drawing of
the design based on the theme brotherhood of man. Commission members asked questions,
offered issues to consider including the future refurbishment of the Green Street garage. PAC
members articulated support for his efforts to included art. After our ten minutes discussion, Tom
left the meeting.
Updates on new commission members—Terry will try one last time to see if Amici is interested in
serving. She will also connect with Matt Braun, who expressed interest earlier. Terry also had
renewal forms for current members. Barbara Mink said she would not be able to continue due to
commitments with Light in Winter. After some discussion, we hope to continue with Barbara's
input at meetings, realizing she could not take on other committee tasks.
Commission members began discussing next steps with the plan, the community and the
Common Council. Martha and Susan will follow through on cleaning up details in the plan. Leslie
will work on formatting a new cover. The group discussed the need to present a new order of
preferences in the percent for art appendix. We will reorder the preferences with the public
percent for art and private voluntary as the first preferred option. We will seek for an adoption of
the plan by Common Council before years end. Individual members will contact council folks in
advance (Alan— Pat Pryor, Martha—Pat Vaughan, Barbara—Dan Cogan and David Whitmore,
Susan—overall).
Susan did some research on the actual yearly cost of a public percent for art cost. From 1996-
2003, depending upon how a capital project is defined, the range per year would have been $383
-$2,702. These amounts could thus be considered typical annual costs that would be added
cumulatively over the years. It would take a while to get to a substantial number. She asked
members to keep this in mind when talking to others. But this doesn't include the cost for a large
art project for the new Cayuga Garage, which for a $150,00 project would cost the city$11,000
per year for 20 years.
Martha mentioned that she will follow through on some other documents—separating out some
plan information for use by the Commission. Putting some of the information into checklists and
folders will make it easier for the commission to use.
The group then launched into a larger discussion about how to build support for this. Should
another public hearing be held? What other parallel pr work should take place? How will this
Page 2 artist/community update meeting notes
Sees that there shouldn't be difficulty in supporting the plan -the commission does not have an
"agenda". Just setting vision for what could be.
Martha asked for artists to forward any examples of public art that might help support the plan.
Comments from artists/meeting participants will be accepted through June 1. Send your thoughts
to Martha at mfrom5 @hotmail.com or 308 Elmwood Ave. Also, if there are questions, email
Martha.
Also, the Planning Committee presentation will be on June 18.
The meeting concluded at 8:20.
Meeting notes recorded by Martha Frommelt.
PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
September 18, 2003 12:00-1:30
Mural Lounge
present: Terry Plater, Susan Blumenthal, Gary Ferguson, Sally Grubb, Martha Frommelt
Updates-Terry told us that Amici is still interested in being a commission member. Terry wanted
to emphasize that the lag time was related to follow through in contacting him, not in a long
response time from him. She will get the paper work moving for him. Other vacancies were
discussed. Sally and Barbara are up for renewal. Sally is interested in renewing but is expecting
to be on sabbatic next year. Terry will check with Barbara about our understanding of her
comments from last month's meeting -that she could continue until the end of the year, though
not counted on to do tasks. Terry will also invite Matt Braun to come to a meeting. There is
interest in having him join, but thought that we should follow a similar procedure for all new folks
(invite to meeting, take time to discuss commission). Timing of meetings was discussed (noon is
harder for Cornell folks, evening meetings are too frequent for other groups). The best time will
be explored.
Plan -The timeline is to present updated draft to Planning Committee at their Oct 15 meeting,
7:30. We would present to full council in November. In November, the plan would be in its final
format(pictures, cover page, etc.) Terry has a document that was done relatively simply, she will
share with Martha and Susan. We will also tell the Planning Committee that the State of the Art
was another public meeting which represented a range of views. It didn't seem productive to have
another public meeting now about the plan—it probably wouldn't yield new perspectives. When
we return to our advocacy discussions, we will look at other public meetings—presentations.
Additions- Norma Schwab is currently offering her feedback. Other things to add Inserting
information in the history section regarding loss of the Commons Coordinator, Barbara's point of
view regarding emphasizing art as right to be put in the value section, and revised objectives.
Terry asked that revisions be shared with the group. Commission members will have some time
to offer their thoughts. Other appendices will also be included (the city guidelines passed in
November, model percent ordinances).
Outdoor art-Susan wanted to check the emphasis on outdoor art in the plan. The intention is to
focus on outdoor art. The review criteria of unrestricted viewing and accessibility would address
this. However, Martha will check on adding language in the opening of the plan to emphasize this.
Plan objectives-Some rearranging was done to be more realistic(introducing a percent for art
ordinance comes later). Terry advised that for the 2003 goals, we add language to indicate tasks
almost completed.
Other discussion -Art in Heart transfer
The group launched into a discussion regarding one of the 2004 objectives-discuss transfer of
Art in Heart administration to the PAC. Since advertising for this begins in December, Gary will
bring description of task, budget needs, etc. to the next PAC meeting. The current show will be
taken down on December 9.
Possible donation of Art in Heart piece-
Gary mentioned desire to acquire piece from current show. IDP is deciding whether or not they
can fundraise for acquisition ($1,000-7,000). There was discussion about utilizing the donation
review process, the difficulty of rejecting a donation when our own budget is nil, the long term
costs of maintaining works, the fact that the city has still to get organized, and siting issues. Gary
will bring info to next meeting as to feasibility of raising money for purchase. Then we will
consider convening the PAC as panel to review donation.
Page 2 9/18/03 Public Art Commission meeting notes
•
Page 2 August meeting notes
be staffed since the city is in worse shape than before we started? How do we deal with changing
public opinion when art is viewed taking the place of something else?
Many ideas were discussed. The notion of articles in the newspaper about other communities.
Exploring the room tax by connecting with Strategic Planning and Tourism Board. Holding a
public event rather than a meeting. Looking at how to fill the void left when the Commons
Coordinator position was eliminated. Contracts with CAP. Talks with Casey, Brian, billboards,
etc.
Terry outline an idea for showing the community what public art could be through production of a
booklet, Place for Public Art. A call to artists would go out to design public art in identified sites
around Ithaca with certain conditions. It could be a regional or statewide call to artists.
Submissions would be printed in this booklet. The submissions would be edited not judged. A
guest essayist would also be included. The goal of this would be to show people the possibilities.
There might be other less costly and time-intensive ways to do the same thing, such as through a
Cornell class or in partnership with State of the Art. She also mentioned other ideas—a day for
all, a charrette weekend, week long awareness, public art in public schools.
We will continue the discussion about this at our next meeting. We will also review how to
implementation of the objectives in the plan.
The next meeting is scheduled for September 18 at 12:00— 1:30 p.m.
Meeting notes by Martha Frommelt
Public Art Commission
Meeting Notes
October 15, 2003
12:00-1:30 in Mural Lounge
present: Richard Driscoll, Gary Ferguson, Martha Frommelt, Terry Plater, Susan Blumenthal,
Amaechi Okigbo
The meeting began with updates. Amaechi is interested in joining the commission. Terry and
Amaechi will begin processing paper work needed to complete appointment. Susan expressed
concerns about getting the nomination completed during this administration due to the full Council
agendas but we will just move forward. Matt Braun has been out of the office (new baby) but
Terry will connect with him next week. There was some discussion regarding convenient meeting
times. Amaechi is involved in his studio on Thursdays.
Current plan draft-JoAnn, Martha and Susan looked at corrections/suggestions from Norma
Scwab, city attorney. Susan and Martha incorporated her ideas, which mainly focused on
clarifying what the city code dictates versus what the commission recommends. Our focus on
outdoor art was also emphasized. Susan put much time into clarifying the cost to the city and
inserted language in the funding methods section. The appeals section was clarified to indicate
who could appeal and what group(PAC) hears the appeals. Further correcting of errors was
done. We discussed Gary's concern regarding Rob Licht's quotes. After some discussion, we
determined that one quote would exclude the reference to the Commons and the other quote
would add a sentence indicating that this is one suggestion from the community. Richard will
come and address the Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting during the open
floor session. Gary will send an email to Committee members.
Art in the Heart discussion—Gary had proposed that the Art in the Heart program transfer to
another organization. Gary reviewed a sheet that summarized the various program tasks and
costs. He is interested in developing a co-sponsor to take on the program. The Ithaca Downtown
Partnership is hoping to share the program responsibilities, enabling them to move on to other
program ideas, such as a history trail notion. Key elements to keeping the program alive—
continued city insurance coverage, financial contributions (IDP puts in about$2,500 and needs to
find the other$7-8,000). IDP is still committed to keeping this program alive even if a co-sponsor
is not possible. Co-sponsor ideas include PAC, Community Arts Partnership, Salstonstall
Foundation. We reviewed the tasks. Gary is not interested in moving the program totally out of
downtown, though it could be expanded. Richard noted that teaming up requires effort and doing,
not just advising, is this something the PAC could do? Terry thinks it is a definite philosophical fit
and thinks the most doable part is the artist selection/review of pieces. Amaechi also sees the
philosophical fit, would love to expand beyond the Commons (eg. the airport is a critical nexus of
arrival and departure), but isn't familiar enough with PAC to know what tasks would be appropriate
for us. Susan wonders about the PAC's authority to take on ongoing programmatic activity.
Martha will connect with Norma Scwab regarding this issue. Susan is also uneasy relying on
volunteers to complete tasks that have set deadlines, etc. The principal of this is good, but
practicalities are hard. We will revisit this topic at our next meeting. Richard will connect with his
board regarding CAP's interest.
Council meeting in November—If Committee adopts plan tonight, the Common Council will
consider adoption of the plan at its November 5th meeting at 7:00.
Next meeting—November 21, Friday, at noon in Mural Lounge. We will continue Art in Heart
discussion, room tax ideas, slide registry updating for public art.
Church Sculpture—Susan shared letter re: Keokosky sculpture in Dewitt Park. The Public Works
Department wrote letter asking for public clarification of park and sculpture ownership. Richard
reported that signage is already at site with sculpture. Minutes recorded by Martha Frommelt.
Next meeting -Would have been 10/16 but that is Lehman inauguration activities. Terry will poll
group for next meeting time. We will take up these agenda items -advocacy discussion, art in
heart and presentation to full council.
Meeting notes recorded by Martha Frommelt.
REMINDERS -Attend October 15 planning meeting if you can. Send written note to Jim Brynes,
Tompkins Trust to thank Trust for Art in Heart sponsorship. Contact alderperson to encourage
"adoption"of plan.
•