body,date,page,text,path
PublicArtCommission,2007-09-27,1,"Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting
Thursday, September 27, 2007
City Council Chambers, City Hall
CONVENE:
7:10 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, and Commissioners Arrants and
Rosenberg. Commissioner Wolfe arrived at 7:30
STAFF PRESENT:
Cathy Woodbury, Planning & Building Director; Douglas Vu,
Planner III; Tony Ebster, Recording Secretary
2.
MINUTES: Minutes for the Regular Meeting of August 23, 2007
Continued to the meeting of October 25, 2007
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
4.
REGULAR AGENDA:
A. Cultural Arts Grant Program.
Doug Vu gave a powerpoint presentation, which described and outlined the objectives,
guidelines and ideas regarding the Cultural Arts Grant Program.
Cathy Woodbury expressed appreciation for the large number of people in the audience.
She mentioned that despite the formal setting, the love of art should be embraced. She
talked about the next steps in the process for the grant program, which consisted of
listening to input and ideas from the Community and the Commission, then drafting a
program for presentation at the November Public Art Commission meeting and then
taking a proposal to City Council. She suggested working through some components of
the program.
Chair Huston replied by asking about the public presentation. She agreed that starting
with the public presentation was a good place to start. She mentioned the rules of order
and explained to the public that a certain protocol was to be followed.
Joseph Woodard expressed appreciation for the program. He spoke to the objective in
the program that speaks to the funding for art spaces. In his experience he has learned
that art space can be expensive and support is important. He mentioned the Presidio in
San Francisco and how it is being used as open space and it is paying for itself through
various means. He suggested that common space could be useful and could also be a
revenue earner. It could be affordable for artists.
Patricia Edith expressed a misunderstanding that the Commission didn't want to handle
the grant program. She wanted to ask what was going to be done first and how the
grant money was going to be distributed. Those questions were answered by Mr. Vu's
presentation. She suggested that whichever body handles the grant program should
also handle the appointment of poet laureates. She was under the impression that every",PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-09-27,2,"two years a poet laureate would be appointed and pointed out that it had not been done.
She wanted to suggest that the final decision regarding the grants be done by an outside
entity or by lottery. She thinks the $50,000 should be used for all disciplines of art and
feels that there should be representatives from all areas of the arts. She also mentioned
a strange feeling at the last meeting and proposed that grants of $2,000 be awarded to
an individual writer, performance artist, visual artist, musician and an interdisciplinary
artist. She also mentioned that $4,000 grants could be awarded to groups in visual arts
such as theater, dance, literary arts, museum, gallery or music groups. Also, a grant
could be awarded to art programs for kids, low income or elderly groups. She expressed
excitement and suggested that it can be done and doesn't need to be complicated.
Clint Imboden wanted to make the point that the most important part of a grant program
is giving resources to the individual artist. He also mentioned that organizations would
not be there without the individual artist.
Chair Huston welcomed Commissioner Wolfe to the Commission.
Michelle Frederick thanked the City for recognizing that art is important and that it is
economically viable for the community and for artists. She wanted to talk about the
grant criteria and wanted to make sure that it inclusive, visual arts, all media, written and
spoken word, performances and events, architecture, historic preservation and culinary
arts. She felt strongly that grants should be available to individuals as well as groups
and feels that there should be a portion set aside for individuals to apply for. In addition,
she feels that the art product that is produced should contribute to the advancement or
enhancement of Alameda and the art community. She also wanted to make sure that
the grants that are awarded are given to the appropriate recipient, such as teaming up
with art departments in schools to further the understanding of what art is, a partnership.
Another element she felt would be important is a comprehensive marketing program that
would catalog and calendarize all art activities, an active promotion that would market
the art activities and cultural assets in Alameda. It could bring in revenues and give
great exposure to local artists.
Elizabeth Calandario concurred with Ms. Frederick. She gave a personal history and
wanted to make sure that philosophies regarding art be evaluated with as much respect
as the art itself. She brought up the proposal of a steering committee for the
applications for grants. Her concerns were with the potential structure of the committee.
She wanted to make sure that all projects of merit get a fair hearing. She wanted to
make sure that the steering committee doesn't overlap or duplicate the mission or
responsibilities of the Commission and it should seek out lesser known artists or artists
that are new to the community. She submitted her suggestions in writing and asked
about the paid positions and how they were funded. Her concern was that the money to
pay for the administrative positions was going to come out of the art fund and that it
would consume a significant amount of that fund. Finally she brought up the recent
graffiti problems seen on some of the public art in Alameda.
Jeff Cambra, a member of an ad hoc steering committee representing a portion of the art
community introduced some of the audience members. He wanted to entertain more
information on the process of the grant program and thanked everyone for all the work
they have done. He expressed eagerness to assist and contribute to the process. He
mentioned that there are a number of options that can be used to achieve the objectives
and goals of the grant program. He wanted to request that a portion of the art
2",PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-09-27,3,"community speaking through the ad hoc committee be able to discuss and consider all
components of the program in an open forum. This committee is committed to holding
monthly meetings in tandem with the PAC so the arts community can participate in the
final version of each component of the program without delaying its progress. He asked
that a timeline be given so they can respond to steps taken. He wanted input from the
Commission on what role they would play in evaluating the program components. He
was interested in their preferences. In closing, he asked that the Grant Program reflect
the needs and desires of the art community.
Pat Colburn mentioned the current amount that the Commission has and suggested that
a portion of the fund be used to hire a grant writer. Her idea is that it takes money to
make money and if all the money that is currently in the fund is given out, there will be
no more. Therefore, a portion of the fund should be put towards soliciting more money
to grow the art fund.
Mike Sheppard, President of the Frank Bette Center for the Arts observed that despite
the urgency to get the program up and running, people are still learning how to work
together. He mentioned some conversations he has had with different people nationally
to get more information on how to structure the program. He pointed out some
misunderstandings and miscommunications and mentioned that one of the objectives is
to open up the program as much as possible, to get as many voices in as possible. In
addition, he wanted to clarify that the brainstorms and ideas are not formal proposals.
Mr. Sheppard questioned a couple of items in Mr. Vu's presentation. One was that
grants must be matched dollar for dollar and that there was a cap. He was surprised by
these new elements. He also asked about an overlap when it falls under the public art
fund and if it is public art. He also expressed concern that grants go to individuals as
well as organizations. He addressed the community and invited them to participate in
the steering committee.
Carol Burnett, president of the Alameda Art Association, started with a history of the
organization and their purpose of helping artists present in many venues regardless of
their medium. She mentioned that they want to use the money for an arts center for
classes and workshops. But her main concern was having the developers give a
percentage to local artists. She felt that there should be an amendment to increase the
amount that developers give as public art and to artists.
Chair Huston gave a last call for speaker slips to the public.
Ms. Woodbury responded to a couple points to clarify. The graffiti issue will be
forwarded to the appropriate department. In response to the questions of who receives
a grant, she clarified that the program is not even developed yet. There is nothing in
place and it is not known who will get grants. The amounts that Mr. Vu mentioned were
examples of what other cities are doing. She mentioned that this grant fund is supposed
to be $50,000 over a two-year budget cycle and clarified that there is a dollar for dollar
match, which was discovered upon review of the City Council direction.
There were several responses and questions as to what exactly a dollar for dollar match
is.
Ms. Woodbury responded by clarifying that it can be matched by providing funds,
receiving another grant and getting sponsors.
3",PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-09-27,4,"Vice-Chair Lee asked for further explanation.
In response to Vice-Chair Lee, Ms. Woodbury said that it shows an investment on the
part of the person requesting the funding.
Chair Huston wanted to put that issue on an agenda to discuss how to approach it.
Ms. Woodbury clarified that the grant program wasn't to result in an actual ""piece,"" but
rather to facilitate cultural arts in general and to help people to achieve their goals.
Debra Owen expressed appreciation for the work of the Commission and the City for
reaching out to embrace the greater arts community and the creativity. She feels that
$50,000 is not a lot of money, but feels that there is a wealth of creativity in the
community and people who are willing to work to connect with the community to make
things happen. She prefers to see the $50,000 as seed money, this is just the
beginning. One point she made is that the diversity of creativity that is available is broad
and she encourages whichever body determines where the money goes will categorize
the distribution to seed the growth of creativity. Her second point is that she is not
understanding where the Commission stands and how their mandate fits in with the
Grant Program. She thinks it would be wonderful if the support goes towards the
enrichment of as many lives as possible.
Chair Huston asked if there were any more speakers.
Kim Nichols spoke to several items that did not pertain to the Public Art Grant Program.
Chair Huston closed the public comment section of the meeting. She reiterated the
protocol of the meeting.
There was a question from the floor regarding the two-year cycle.
Chair Huston replied that it is on a two-year cycle and thanked all of the people spoke.
She asked if there were questions from the public.
Mr. Sheppard asked about the formal protocol.
Ms. Woodbury clarified that since the Commission is a public body, rules and guidelines
must be adhered to.
Chair Huston started the conversation within the Commission and what they are
discovering is while they are on the same page, there is a lot of misunderstanding. She
mentioned that the Commission is new and they are still learning how to proceed as an
appointed body. She talked about how they are trying to gain instruction from superiors
and that nothing has been decided. She mentioned Mr. Vu's timeline and expressed
appreciation for its direction. She wanted to address the question associated with the
grants and feels that art that is publicly funded must benefit the public. It must offer a
profound contribution. She outlined the qualifications for public art:
1.
Intellectual merit
2.
Brilliance in design, craftsmanship, vision or execution
3.
Access
4",PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-09-27,5,"She talked about applications, access and how all products should be treated with equal
consideration. The art must serve the public and she has no opposition to funding artists
or organizations.
Commissioner Arrants responded by saying that he is new to serving on a Commission
,but has been an actor and director for 40 years so he has been on both sides of the
podium. He gave a short history of what he has worked on regarding public art and
programs. He talked about the enrichment of the generations and how important it is.
He asked if stage production companies are obligated to contribute to public art. He
hopes that together they can come up with something that is beneficial for the
community.
Vice-Chair Lee spoke to some things brought up by the public. She said that $12,500
was going to administration, $6,250 per year. She pointed out the contingency that was
interested in brick and mortar projects such as art centers; gallery space and physical
plants of some sort as well as the many organizations that would like to receive grant
money. She asked about organizations and if they have to already exist and be
providing a service to receive money. She spoke to the selection process for individuals
and should not be done in the first week. She replied to Ms. Colburn's suggestion about
taking money to make money and said that a track record is required to be able to get
grant money. She said that some groups exist because some federal money has been
given already. She would like to see modest goals and objectives, which are achievable
within the first two years.
Commissioner Wolfe expressed appreciation that so many people showed up to the
meeting. He supports the idea of a grant program. He thinks the mission of the
Commission is for public art and the review of art for public spaces. He also thinks that
there must be a group to address the grant program.
Commissioner Rosenberg stated that she wants to make sure that an outside influence
exist along side the grant program. She wants to make sure that everything is clear and
understandable.
Chair Huston concurred and talked about the dollar for dollar and how it would be
virtually impossible for individual arts grants and how prohibitive it would be. She thinks
that there should be a way for the Council to support individuals by funding existing
opportunities. There should be a way to foster individual grants.
Ms. Woodbury said that a program should be developed to recommend to City Council.
She said that Council is counting on the PAC to advise them on grants programs. In
addition she mentioned that there are in lieu fees as a way to match the dollar for dollar
grants.
Chair Huston responded by saying that its useful and interesting to see how people
might spend money, but she thinks there will never be a proposal that doesn't have a
component that serves the greater public. She brought up an item that was mentioned
at a prior meeting to find a specific model to accommodate the folksy nature of Alameda.
Mr. Sheppard pointed out that Peducha contributed much more on a per capita basis to
public art.
5",PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-09-27,6,"Chair Huston said that success breeds success.
Ms. Woodbury provided some suggestions on how to develop the program. She said
that the ""who"" should be refined and what kind of things the grants should fund.
Chair Huston brought up that the mission is the first thing. She wants it to be community
based and referred back to the criteria she gave earlier.
Commissioner Rosenberg said that because of what was said, it is about the whole of
the community.
Chair Huston said that she hears two sides. She stated three goals:
1.
Support the arts community
2.
Elevating the level of art within that community
3.
Expanding art to the public, making it accessible to the public in general
Commissioner Rosenberg responded to the statement of elevating the level of art is the
intellectualism of it and is afraid of marginalizing some. She feels that it is not
necessary.
Chair Huston asked for a mission statement.
Vice-Chair Lee gave a statement for the grants ""to include the richness of the community
in an arts program, which would develop existing resources and make them available or
accessible to the greater community,"" so that you don't have to be an artist to enjoy it.
Chair Huston responded by saying that she wouldn't mind including examples of how
some things should not be set in stone.
Commissioner Rosenberg talked about economic viability and how it could bring in
revenue. A cultural arts center could be a great thing for the community and wants that
put in the mission statement.
Vice-Chair Lee responded by saying that $50,000 could easily be spent to raise money
for a $500,000 brick and mortar venue.
Commissioner Wolfe brought up what some one had said about the catalyst and the
seed capital.
Chair Huston responded to Mr. Wolfe by saying that there should be no limit to how little
a grant can be.
Commissioner Rosenberg suggested starting small but having larger goals and plans.
Commissioner Wolfe said that it should be about stimulating public art in the community.
He wants to broaden the reach of the program. He thinks that grants should look at
voids in the community to reach out and fill those voids.
Chair Huston responded to the mission statement and said that a good statement would
be ""To stimulate public art in the community"". She likes the idea of a catalyst. Another
6",PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-09-27,7,"statement from Chair Huston was ""The goal of the Alameda Cultural Arts Grant Program
is to serve as a catalyst to stimulate public art in the community.'
It was agreed upon that it was vague.
Commissioner Arrants pointed out the statement on the literature he was given by Mr.
Vu. He read the points out loud and related those points to the conversation. He
realized that the struggles are the mechanics of the program. He wants to know things
such as what is going to happen with such a small amount of money.
Chair Huston reiterated the protocol. She clarified that what Commissioner Arrants read
was the mission statement for the Public Art Commission and how their original initiative
was to administer money on the percentage for arts but it is shifting and now they will be
defining and administering the Public Art Cultural Grants Program. She feels that
everyone is on the same page as to how the program will proceed; including grants to
individuals and organizations and would not include bringing in people from outside
Alameda. She added a part that is related to a long-term goal that involves an art
center.
Commissioner Wolfe stated that just the calling for arts would stimulate a lot of interest.
Chair Huston brought up a 'social practice artist' and described what that is. Her
example illustrated how some artists rearrange exhibits to show the contradictions
between what is represented and what is not said. It's about a reframing of an
institution. An idea she had was to seek out practitioners do not participate and include
them in the grant program.
Commissioner Rosenberg suggested creating some sort of call for artists.
Chair Huston said that dealing with the basics such as the individual and organizational
grants is first but then it's about digging out the rest of the community and finding ways
to include them.
Commissioner Rosenberg replied that was a good idea.
Commissioner Wolfe stated he thinks that whatever happens, the ""first launch"" should be
good. He wants to try to capture as many as possible in the first go around.
Chair Huston brought up the criteria and how there could be an easy misapprehension.
She mentioned the tile project and how conflicted it is. It included a lot of people but
didn't show a bigger picture. She is concerned with issues of quality.
Ms. Woodbury said that they have made good progress. She said this is the preliminary
step to creating a program.
Vice-Chair Lee mentioned that there is no website of an inventory of who is doing what
and what they would like to do. She thinks it would be nice to start a website that has a
catalog of who has done what as well as having a blog. She suggested a ""wiki"" style site
so people could add to it.
7",PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-09-27,8,"Ms. Woodbury clarified the budget by saying that some of the money is being used for
administrative purposes. She wants to take the PAC program to City Council in
December for recommendation as to how the money is spent.
Chair Huston asked when the annual plan goes to Council.
Ms. Woodbury responded by saying that typically it would go during the first meeting of
December but it may be likely to go the second meeting of December.
Chair Huston noticed the urgency of a website and a blog to accommodate community
discussion.
Ms. Woodbury suggested scheduling a workshop or meeting that would allow interaction
with each other and to brainstorm ideas in order to bring forth a formal discussion to
regarding the grant program at a later time.
Chair Huston proposed scheduling of a special meeting. It was unanimously agreed
upon. She suggested tabling the minutes and the discussion of item 4-B. She asked if
they should name agenda items for the upcoming meeting and asked about the one
thing still on the agenda, which is the review of the guidelines.
Mr. Vu suggested addressing the other agenda items first before the review of the policy
guidelines.
Commissioner Wolfe brought up the percentage for public art and the ordinance.
Chair Huston reminded the Commission that the ordinance is still on the table and wants
it to be agendized. She noted that she wants the discussion of things to be wide open
such as the ordinance. She asked if there are any subcommittees that will be needed
for anything.
5.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
6.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas Vu, Secretary
Public Art Commission
8",PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf