Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Politics

Sponsored by Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

Changes to public art funding

By johnboy - 28 April 2009 57

There’s been a lot of talk over the weekend about announced changes to the controversial public art program.

Oddly enough none of it has appeared online.

So I asked the Chief Minister’s office if there would be a statement on the subject and they have kindly provided this:

    Statement from the Minister for the Arts, Jon Stanhope:

    The economic downturn has led the Government to review its level of investment in public art and the recent decision to cease the Percent-for-Art Scheme.

    New funding to the Scheme will be capped to $1.2 million each year over the next two years and then cease. The Government will then review its capacity to provide ongoing support for public art.

    The decision to cease the Scheme has led to a re-examination of priorities within the now finite level of funding available. A key consideration has been spreading the benefit of remaining funds across the ACT.

    The decision to discontinue the Major Canberra Artwork project has not been taken lightly. Issues raised by the NCA and the continuing level of uncertainty regarding the future of the City Hill site, particularly the strong potential for a change in the height of Vernon Circle, were also significant considerations in discontinuing the project.

So there you go.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
57 Responses to
Changes to public art funding
1
Sammy 5:39 pm
28 Apr 09
#

In the above photo, which item is the public art?

I think the orange sign with the truck on it is purdy.

Report this comment

2
jakez 6:07 pm
28 Apr 09
#

Hmm, Government cuts a program that I hate, but they are doing it because they have spent like drunken sailors across the board.

I’m sort of happy and not happy at the same time.

Report this comment

3
Thumper 6:10 pm
28 Apr 09
#

Um… I agree with Jake…

Report this comment

4
RayP 6:11 pm
28 Apr 09
#

These decisions on public art seems to have come as a complete surprise. There does not seem to have been any draft proposals or prior discusson so that people would have been aware of what was being considered. I don’t recall any adds in the paper seeking submissions on the future of public art in Canberra, but I might have missed them.

Was there a consultation process prior to this decision? Was there consultation with the arts community or anybody else? And what happens after two years? Is this the end of public art in Canberra? Is anybody going to be consulted on what happens with public art in future?

I have the impression that one of the key issues from the last election was that people in Canberra wanted more consultation before decisions were made. There does not seem to have been much consultation before this decision.

Stanhope also gives as reasons for cancelling the art work for City Hill “issues raised by the NCA and the continuing level of uncertainty regarding the future of the City Hill site”. But I would have thought that a reasonable decision maker would have checked out these sorts of issues before holding a competition and having artists spend time and money putting in entries.

Report this comment

5
Ian 6:17 pm
28 Apr 09
#

Seems a reasonable decision to me. Curious to know what’s driving it though?

Perhaps the scarceness of worthwile art for them to spend the money on?

Report this comment

6
taninaus 6:27 pm
28 Apr 09
#

personally I think it is about time. we have lots of things needing to be done and art should only be one part of it. Part of the problem is the art work that they commissioned from the funding might have satisfied the arts community but there wasn’t a good focus on what the community would enjoy/like/appreciate. Those tall things like in the picture hardly ever move and you only get to see them for maybe 1 minute before you wiz past. Visiting other big cities I really like some of the art work in the major centres and attractions, you can walk past it and really appreciate it – and we have the pronographic sheep!

Report this comment

7
taninaus 6:28 pm
28 Apr 09
#

taninaus said :

and we have the pronographic sheep!

oops – pornographic!

Report this comment

8
54-11 6:30 pm
28 Apr 09
#

Unfortunately this decision was not made in time to save Garran shops from one of the ugliest pieces of “art” that this useless govt has ever initiated – see http://203.9.249.2/e-registers/pubnote/pdf/PLAN-200914235-Details_Sheet-01.pdf

Report this comment

9
Mr Evil 6:32 pm
28 Apr 09
#

RayP said :

These decisions on public art seems to have come as a complete surprise. There does not seem to have been any draft proposals or prior discusson so that people would have been aware of what was being considered. I don’t recall any adds in the paper seeking submissions on the future of public art in Canberra, but I might have missed them.

Was there a consultation process prior to this decision? Was there consultation with the arts community or anybody else? And what happens after two years? Is this the end of public art in Canberra? Is anybody going to be consulted on what happens with public art in future?

I have the impression that one of the key issues from the last election was that people in Canberra wanted more consultation before decisions were made. There does not seem to have been much consultation before this decision.

Stanhope also gives as reasons for cancelling the art work for City Hill “issues raised by the NCA and the continuing level of uncertainty regarding the future of the City Hill site”. But I would have thought that a reasonable decision maker would have checked out these sorts of issues before holding a competition and having artists spend time and money putting in entries.

Stanhope? Consultation??? That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all day!

Report this comment

10
OpenYourMind2 6:58 pm
28 Apr 09
#

I like lots of the art and I think our city spending 1% of its budget on art is a positive thing. A healthy arts program is a sign of a progressive society.

Lots of people don’t like the more controversial art pieces – but that’s the nature of art. If you want your art handed to you on a platter, go and look at the art in a McDonalds ‘restaurant’ or a hotel room. Some of the greatest pieces of art in history were unliked and controversial when they were created.

Oh, and the wind sculpture on Adelaide Ave (and in Tuggers) are awesome.

Report this comment

11
RayP 7:10 pm
28 Apr 09
#

I had a look around the three main party webs sites for their policies on public art.

I did not find anything on the Labor Party web site. Nothing in the Plaform. A bit strange given that they were spending lots on public art.

In the Greens Arts Policy they call for “extending the public art program by increasing the proportion of ephemeral work and introducing a percent-for-art program in all major private developments”. There doesn’t seem much chance of that with the percent-for-art program for public developments having been chopped.

The Liberal’s policy is to have ongoing funding rising to $302 000 a year, proposals from local artists and the public then voting on a shortlist of suggested art pieces.

I think this could provide a starting point for developing a way forward on public art. There would be less spending but still some spending on public art, it would support local artists and there would be some level of community spport for the art chosen.

Report this comment

12
BerraBoy68 7:33 pm
28 Apr 09
#

Sonic’s office says: “New funding to the Scheme will be capped to $1.2 million each year over the next two years and then cease. The Government will then review its capacity to provide ongoing support for public art”.

Cease after the next two years? Wow, just in time for the run up to the next election. Coincidence? I think not.

Report this comment

13
Clown Killer 7:47 pm
28 Apr 09
#

A shame really. As far as I’m concerned public art is most certainly within the bailiwick of what a sensible Government should be spending money on rather than competing with the private sector to deliver services that are far better provided by the private sector.

Much of the art we have succeed in its role by challenging the stupid (“that’s not art!”), improving aesthetic amenity and adding value to nearby privately held property and stimulating discussion (viz Al Grasby).

Retards of course will be unaware that the first exhibition of Monet’s paintings at the Salon in Paris resulted in rioting in the streets. In that context the lame-arse whinging of the far left and ignorant right kind of makes them look a little out of their depth.

Report this comment

14
grundy 9:19 pm
28 Apr 09
#

“within the now finite level of funding available”

When was it ever infinite?!

Report this comment

15
sepi 9:25 pm
28 Apr 09
#

“uncertainty regarding City Hill site”

Are they still looking to build a new a bigger Leg Ass building up there?

Report this comment

1 2 3 4

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site