pages: PublicArtCommission/2007-02-28.pdf, 2
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PublicArtCommission | 2007-02-28 | 2 | Mr. Vu mentioned that the developer for Alameda Towne Centre is installing more art than is required by the Ordinance. Mr. Vu asked if there were any changes or concerns regarding the panels for Alameda Towne Centre. Chair Huston mentioned that too many people were omitted and thus the panels didn't reflect the diversity of Alameda and the panels form a false history. Otherwise, she believed the panels were really well designed. Commissioner Wolfe agreed there wasn't enough representation regarding the diversity of Alameda. Chair Huston expressed concern that non- white people were only shown as workers and not as heroes or persons of distinction. The Commission agreed there needed to be more acknowledgment of the diversity and segregation in Alameda's past. It was suggested that either additional panels be incorporated or current panels be updated to include the diversity of the City. Mr. Vu offered to draft a letter to Tad Savinar to commend the work done on the panels as well as offer thoughts and suggestions on what could be added. Chair Huston agreed to proof the letter prior to mailing. C. Review of Alameda Free Public Library Art Commissioner Wolfe stated that he liked the panels at the new Free Library but expressed some issues with their installation. He liked the stone panel inside. He felt the rabbit was not as good and was worried that someone could injure himself or herself on it. Chair Huston stated the rabbit was supposed to be interactive and felt that it wasn't. She also questioned the poor quality of the work. Commissioner Lee expressed concern that a screen behind the children's desk had been proposed but wasn't there. The Commission agreed the outside panels were successful but were concerned the windowsills hang over the panels too far and take attention away from the panels. They felt that the architecture frames the panels poorly and are oriented more towards rainfall and not the integration of the art. This resulted in the panels looking too subtle. The Commission also felt the original plans didn't clearly illustrate how the panels would be installed, therefore making it difficult to visualize how the finished product would look. The finished panel was not exactly what was expected. The Commission would've liked to see more detailed plans for the art in order to get a better sense of the context. They would've liked more consideration given to the integration of the architecture and the artwork. | PublicArtCommission/2007-02-28.pdf |