Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

chpac-staff - Re: [Chpac-staff] TOC Art

chpac-staff AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Chpac-staff mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Frank Webb" <frankwebb AT nc.rr.com>
  • To: "'Scott Radway'" <scott AT radwaydesign.com>, "'Richard Robinson'" <rhrjr AT webtv.net>, "'Steve Wright'" <swright AT townofchapelhill.org>
  • Cc: chpac-staff AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Chpac-staff] TOC Art
  • Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:48:58 -0400

Thanks, Scott.

 

Perhaps you should follow up Dick’s letter with one of your own expressing your complementary views. The two letters together would make a good response to the fuss.

 

Frank

 


From: chpac-staff-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:chpac-staff-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Scott Radway
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 12:45 PM
To: Richard Robinson; Steve Wright
Cc: chpac-staff AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [Chpac-staff] TOC Art

 

I don't know if the biblio list for chpac actually will go to all or not - anyway

Some thoughts below:

 

 

"Following the September 10 ceremony dedicating the new

Chapel Hill Town Operations Center, there have been several editorials and published

letters critical of the public arwork that was included in

that capital improvement project. In addition, there have been letters supporting

both the inclusion of art in public facilities projects and specifically

endorsing the placement of the two works of art at the TOC and proximate to the 50% of

town employees that daily deliver important services to the community.

 

It is gratifying to learn that, in spite of the various complaints

about this project, most of the comentators appear to endorse the basic

premise that enhancing our shared public space with appealing artwork is

a legitimate and desirable civic undertaking.

 

When public art projects are desired and proposed, important questions about the

nature, location and cost of the artwork will arise and must be

addressed with care. The challenge, always, is to seek civic art and design that

serves the broad community and those most closely associated with the new facilities.

In this instance,

those of us involved in the decision-making process believe this public art and its accessibility to

town employees, and town residents that have reason to visit these facilities for community meetings

or other purposes, is appropriate and responsible. Others who have spoken about this matter

think some other location and type of art would have been more appropriate. (While many of us would deem

civic art within a courthouse facilities as appropriate, most of us hope never to visit the inside of such a facility.)

I am confident that as Chapel Hill grows and has additional opportunities for public art we will benefit in the

future from careful consideration of the concerns that have been expressed."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Sep 20, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Richard Robinson wrote:



 

Dear Commission Members,

 

In view of the continuing, publicly aired controversy about the TOC

artwork, I have addressed the following letter to the Chapel Hill News,

in which I seek to convey a somewhat conciliatory tone, in the hope that

this adverse publicity may abate.

 

"In the aftermath of the September 10 ceremony dedicating the new

Chapel Hill Town Operations Center, there have been several published

accounts of negative reactions to the public arwork that was included in

that capital improvement project.

 

While it will not address other cited reservations nor fully ameliorate

one particular source of dissatisfaction, it may be useful to correct a

recurring misperception that underlies one of the complaints expressed

about the art at the Center. The articles and letters published to date

erroneously assume that the $420,616 budget for art was met in full with

Town resources. In fact, the cost to the Town was $258,342, with the

remainder addressed by grants from the Federal Transit Administration

and the North Carolia Department of Transportation.

 

It is gratifying to learn that, in spite of their various complaints

about this project, most of the comentators appear to endorse the basic

premise that enhancing our shared public space with appealing artwork is

a legitimate and desirable municipal undertaking.

 

When public art projects are proposed, important questions about the

nature, location and cost of the artwork likely will arise and must be

addressed with care. The challenge, always, is to seek consensus that

can attract an appropriate measure of public support. In this instance,

those of us involved in the decision-making process failed to satisfy

some of our fellow citizens. I am confident that we will benefit in the

future from careful consideration of the concerns that have been

expressed."

 

_______________________________________________

Chpac-staff mailing list

 

 




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page