I could be mistaken, but I believe that hammering out such tensions
between the commissioning body and the eventual stewards of the artwork
has been one of the underlying factors in the continuing experiment of
Diller+Scofidio's ambitious Moscone project. Quite an interesting story
there. I'm not sure if all the lessons that can be learned from that
project have been articulated yet... Is Jill Manton on this list?
<M>
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:52:15 -0700, "Goldstein, Barbara"
<[log in to unmask]> said:
> Matt:
>
> You're right, when developers are required to provide a public art
> component
> by a government agency the outcome is more like a standrd public art
> process. Most public agencies that monitor mandatory private arts
> development projects require maintenance and long term stewardship of the
> art as part of the requirement. I don't know about how well these
> requirements are enforced...
>
> bg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Gorbet
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: 7/27/2006 9:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Permanence and public art - recap and
> then...
>
> > as far as I am concerned, works commissioned by developers are not
> > public art...
>
> I agree, but I think there is a spectrum here - what do you think of
> work commissioned for siting within a private development by a public
> body as part of a mandatory % for art program? To be successful here
> the developer/property-owner's constraints, particularly w.r.t.
> long-term maintenance and upkeep need to be taken into consideration,
> but the commissioning process is much closer to a public art in public
> spaces model.
>
> <M>
|