Some perspective on the importance of public art amidst criticism
Last week, the Forum reported that the City of Fargo Arts and Culture Commission selected the new Fargo water tower design.
Ethan posted it on our Facebook page because it was newsworthy and timely. And people began to comment. Boy, did they comment. Thirty-four plus comments and six shares later, the verdict was cast. And quite frankly, a lot of it was negative.
Of course it was. Because people live and love to criticize the work and efforts of others. Particularly on social media.
A rendering of the design as it will appear on the tower. The design first appeared in an article written by Barry Amundson for the Forum on October 22.
I’m not here to defend or critique the selection of this piece of public art–my staff and I had absolutely nothing to do with the submission or selection process, and it’s not our job to make judgment calls. Our job is to #SupportLocalArt – be that art made by local artists or art made by nonlocal artists – that exists in our community.
So let me do that.
It’s abundantly clear that we are in the middle of a pandemic. The mere fact that public art is even being considered much less supported in this epic time of uncertainty should give people a glimmer of hope that we will somehow survive this. City leaders across the entire Metro are putting time, energy and dollars into something that isn’t utilitarian but rather spirit-lifting. That indicates that our advocacy work and the work of so many other people and organizations is starting to resonate with decision makers.
But you know the work of The Arts Partnership well enough to know that we believe, and can support the fact that, the arts have additional benefits that far transcend good feelings–benefits that lead to economic boosts, an easier time attracting and retaining businesses and employees, better neighborhoods, growth in tourism and so much more. And that consistent messaging is being heard, too.
So I’m here to say, go ahead and like or dislike the new design for the water tower; everyone is entitled to an opinion. But before you write your snarky criticism and move on with your day, take a moment to consider the fact that there is public art to even criticize.
It wasn’t all that long ago that this community was nearly devoid of public art. The tide has turned–each of our tri-cities is making investments in it. They each have a body of people who come together regularly to discuss and recommend ways for their city to utilize the myriad benefits of the arts to promote and enhance their larger infrastructure and growth agendas. Public art is slowly starting to be a piece of the initial design process for new development. City employees from Planning, Engineering and more are working with developers and arts leaders to implement the arts into public-private partnerships all over the Metro.
Will you like every single piece of public art that goes up? I sure hope not. Art that pleases everyone has no meaning, no soul and no real point; it ultimately serves no one. So my challenge to you is to stop and recognize that we are now living in a community where public art is happening with such frequency that we can have multiple conversations a year around the merits or lack thereof of this piece or that. That’s a significant shift for the Metro, and from where I stand, it’s an incredibly positive one at that.
You don’t have to like the new design for the water tower going up in Fargo, but I implore you to appreciate that there’s a design to comment on in the first place. And then, if you still have a bee in your bonnet, find out how to get involved in the next round of public engagement and let your opinion be heard in a useful, productive way on the front end. It’s easy to be a sideline critic; put your neck out and help be part of this exciting artistic evolution happening all across the Metro.
And then set your ego aside, because someone is going to hate it – like the work of art in the featured photo above – and they are going to feel empowered to let you know. And that is the hallmark of a sophisticated, well-rounded and arts-rich community.
This is the first of a multi-part series by President & CEO Dayna Del Val. Next week, she’ll look at the pros and cons of local art projects made by nonlocal artists.
Photo caption: Dayna standing next to a piece of public art in Lillehammer, Norway, that surely someone hates for one reason or another, but it was a memory I loved making.
8 Comments
I couldn’t agree more with your response about public art.
My first instinct when I saw all of the snarky comments about the water tower was anger. I was asked to be part of the project, but felt that I did not have the background or expertise to express an opinion. I assure you that I did not feel the need to offer my opinion after the fact. I know that there were several calls for people to join the team and be a part of the project. Where were these people with such stong opinions when the call went out to join in the process? How do you think you made the people who spent the time feel about their input?
Where is your kindness people?
What public process? I read the local newspaper; I never saw any notice. Where was the meeting? How many people attended? No one needs to have background or expertise to express an opinion on esthetics. There is obviously no criticism of people who gave their input. The criticism is of the final output. Let’s at least respect the people that live in that neighborhood and will have to look at that giant piece of public art for some time to come. The population of Fargo have also paid for this. Perhaps there should have been a public vote, with a winning design requiring a certain threshold of votes to go forward. Why doesn’t public opinion matter?
I think everyone know this is the artists work. It’s his design using community input criteria, or at least it should have been.
Community members asked for “warmth.” They got gooey warm cheese on one hand, and snow flakes and cold wind on the other.
They asked for community and unity. I don’t that in the design.
So, no I don’t think anyone blamed the community.
Brilliant.
I appreciate your point about taking a larger perspective here and valuing the fact that we actually have public art projects being attempted, BUT…were all the comments merely snarky? Did none of the criticism have any merit? Should the public be ignored each time they protest against ugly public art? Maybe the public has a point. Maybe ugly public art isn’t good for the arts scene. Personally, I think it’s a poor advertisement for the value of having public art when you have a product that mars the visual landscape; and at cost. The winning “team” was awarded $20,000!
You say we should be more involved instead of sitting back at the end and criticizing. Once the designs were submitted was there any turning back at that point? The public was never shown the submitted designs. I suspect the Fargo Arts and Culture Commission chose the best design from those submitted, but I also agree with the commenters that they chose a dud. The design is busy, hard to read and, oddly, manages to be totally cheesy. Put it next to a box of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese and decide for yourself, as one commenter pointed out.
I think you are right to support art from outside the community that is in the community, but that should be done within reason. This was a Connecticut-based designer; hardly someone who understands the region. I’d say the Arts Partnership would certainly be wise to support regional artists as well local area artists, because nearby political boundaries should not be determinative; regional artists understand local cultures, landscapes, history, etc.; but when you’re supporting a bad design from New England, I think that just goes too far.
I would love to have submitted a design for this project, but I’m just an artistic person who lives in Fargo; I’m not a team, a community engagement process expert, nor have had an ability to execute the entire project based on similar prior work experiences – the Fargo Arts and Culture Commission threw in every requirement but the kitchen sink. Yet, the design for such a project would have benefited from simplicity, and therefore have been something that many local artists could have fairly easily attempted. After all, aren’t local and regional artists best positioned to understand the local spirit of place?
Once again we’ve had a local government unit goof up the process of a public art competition. Maybe there needs to be some advise to local governments about how to avoid these repeated disasters.
As far as “getting involved in the next round of public engagement and letting your opinion be heard in a useful, productive way on the front end”, I’d like to point out that The Fargo Arts and Culture Commission cancelled their meetings from February through August. During that time there was a July 7 article in KVRR notifying the public of the water tower competition application which said that the deadline was July 24, a scant two weeks and three days later.
I have to agree that there seems to have been a rush to make a decision on this project but the timeline is stretched into spring 2022. I first heard about this application on July 7 when it was announced in local media outlets, aka the news and The Forum. The deadline for applications was July 24, though the completion of the project was spring 2022! I participated in the community outreach virtual meeting as well. When the lead of Black Ink Creative, Eric Vincent Allen, continued to ask questions about the area that seemed very introductory, I became curious as to why. Well turns out that Black Ink Creative is not from the region so the design motifs became very general like stock images of “community”.
Again, it seems to be easy to place blame on artists for not applying and perpetuate the stereotype that we are all flakey and unreliable. However if the case is made that there were not enough applications, I think organizations need to thoroughly look at the way in which they are requesting work from artists. Often times it is contest-based, meaning you work for free and hope you get it. Also, the timeline for the application is so incredibly short that number one, the advertisement for the project is not reaching a vast audience of artists from diverse backgrounds and number two, many artists who are working full-time have their schedules booked weeks in advance. There is no newsletter subscription for the Arts and Culture Commission and without constantly scrolling through the never-ending story {social media}, many people miss the announcement of these projects.
Personally, I couldn’t agree more with Dayna that public art is a reflection of a thriving community. This is why I would ask the Fargo-Moorhead to fight for regional and local art that is rooted in our area before we reach beyond our pool. It is not an uncommon practice to personally invite artists to apply for exhibitions. Why not start a mailing list, directory, or work in partnership with TAP, FMVA, NDSU, MSUM, Plains Art Museum, and beyond to compile a cohesive list of applicants for future calls? I think the changes that have happened in the FM area are exciting and energized, but there is always room for improvement. We must catch up or lead with our representation of artists of color, women artists, artists in different age groups, artists of different styles, and artists of all assortments from our area.
According to the application one of the selection criteria was “demonstration of inspiration and/or knowledge of Fargo community”, so if Black Ink Creative Partners continued to ask very introductive questions about the area, then something wasn’t right.
The City essentially chose an applicant to conduct a community engagement process, with only the winning applicant coming up with designs to submit; meaning no diversity of artists/designers, therefore no real diversity of designs beyond one designer (firm). It makes little sense to me that the City required each applicant be able to do the community engagement process. The City should have done that, come up with requirements, and then artists and designers invited to submit their designs. Is there something here I haven’t considered, or was this process bungled almost beyond comprehension? If it’s the latter, as I suspect, then there should be no surprise with the result. They could have lucked out and somehow gotten a superior result, but they didn’t luck out.
As far as egos being put aside, I think the people in Planning and/or on the Arts and Culture Commission might be invited to set theirs aside and admit that $20,000 is now gone, but certainly not to throw good money after bad; and to seek a new design so that the public can enjoy a very large and prominent piece of quality public art, rather than have an eyesore to behold for years to come.