Project Mayhem

Project Mayhem
A city divides over Public Sculpture, Again.

Public art in the Valley has a spotty past at best. From the much-debated Pots on the 51, to the Patriot Park laser project, there has been controversy, name calling, and lots of finger pointing. When the proposal for Janet Echelman’s $2.4 million jellyfish-esque sculpture hit the table, the once-bitten, twice-shy public spoke up in outrage. But this shouldn’t have come as a surprise; public art will always be controversial. In fact it was the controversy of the Pots by an out-of-state artist that brought national attention and launched Deborah Whitehearst and Gretchen Freeman from their positions as director of the Phoenix Arts Commission and the chairman of the Art in Public Places respectively, into high-profile private consulting, leaving the commission bruised and broken.
However, unlike the 1980s Tilted Arc controversy in New York, or the phallic tower controversy of Paris circa 1889, Phoenix’s Jellyfish feud isn’t centered mostly on location or aesthetics. Much of the naysaying comes from two groups, the artists and the anti-artists.
Many complaints, from the delusional and ill-informed, come in the form of the complete dismissal of arts cultural impact on the city. One lovely statement comes from the director of the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers. In an article in the Jan. 1 Phoenix Business Journal, Director Tom Jenney is quoted saying that “Citizens should pay for arts projects and arts space voluntarily out of their own funds.” According to many of those in agreement with Jenney, the money should be allocated for more “essential” issues such as crime. Perhaps a new anti-aircraft tank for Sheriff Arpaio, or maybe darling pink jumpers for our friends in Tent City would be more appropriate. Clearly, Jenney and the AFT haven’t heard of the city’s-mandated Percent for the Art Program.
Established in the early ’80s, the Percent for the Art Program, which can also be found in almost EVERY major, culturally rich city, mandates that 1 percent of the construction budget for any City of Phoenix public projects be set aside for public arts. That money would then be directed into culturally stimulating projects decided on by a committee of residents, developers, financiers and professionals in the realm of art and design. According to the Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture, “Funding for the Civic Space project DOES NOT include funds from the city’s general purpose budget. Monies from the general purpose fund are used for city services such as police and fire, parks, libraries and senior centers.”
Despite the original intention of the Percent for Art Program, the committees have become distorted. According to public artist Clarke Riedy, “While the written purpose of the commission was to include the public in the design review process, the actual process was always slated heavily toward collaborative interaction between the developers, architects and city planners rather than the residents of areas directly impacted by the projects.”
After reclaiming the skeleton of downtown from the ghost of urban sprawl, Phoenix did what Phoenixes do best, it rose again. Local artists moved in and opened galleries and stores and formed committees to protect what they built. They poured their souls into the city with abandon. While their efforts enriched their lives and birthed culture in a city so new, yet so empty, they were not the ones who profited. Again, an out of state artist was chosen for a major installation.
District 4 Councilman Tom Simplot was among many in the committee who supported Echelman’s sculpture. In a study titled Arts and Economic Prosperity III, he is quoted saying “A community investment in arts and culture improves its quality of life, making the community more livable place.” This is a strong and well-crafted statement from a man who has done so much for the community. But many in the community find it hard to believe that this sculpture is an investment in arts and culture at all.
While it’s true the Office of Arts and Culture list any artist search on their Web sites, there is little to no publicity for these searches. The lack of exposure, whether intentional or not, causes low submissions and justifies “international” artist searches. In all fairness, international artists draw international publicity. But to the people who have gotten so little back for what they have put in, it seems as if Phoenix is simply buying a name like one would buy a piece of couture. Like a flashy car or an expensive pair of shoes, this sculpture is an investment into the city’s image, not its arts and culture community.
Associate AIA Doctoral candidate Effie Bouras poses several questions on public art that help bring the argument into perspective. “What one should ask themselves with respect to public art is, does it speak to the loci of its context? Does it emulate the history/ successes, even struggles, of a place? Does it speak to its inhabitants and communicate to those not native to the area?” And it seems to many, the answer to those questions is no. How can an artist from Boston, creating a sculpture similar to one she created in Portugal and New York speak for the city of Phoenix? How can an adolescent city, striving to form its own identity, do so when it only does what is done everywhere else? Bouras continues, “Whether we think something is aesthetically beautiful or not is besides the point; one seeks to communicate through art, without this communication art fails at its most fundamental level.” And it seems soon, Phoenix will have a 65-foot tall amorphous monument to this failure.