| Author |
Message |
    
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 640
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 10:06 pm: | 
|
I think its time to have a legitimate discussion about the appropriateness of a municipal government funding public art. The discussion first has to be based on the fact that the trustess, as well as the funding supplicants, must act openly and honestly. If we can get to that first, then we should debate the issue. Here are some of the things I think should be part of that debate:
1. Should funding public art by a municipality be done at all? (Gather some facts as to how many municipalities do this.)
2. What priority should be given to funding public art by the municipality, and what factors should be considered in the decision to fund or not to fund?
3. What data should be required to support the benefits to be derived from the funding?
4. If funding is to be given by the municipality, what level of spending is appropriate?
5. Should some level of funding be included annually, or on a project basis?
6. Who should decide how any arts funds are to be allocated? Should there be a model similar to the Federal model of funding a council (NEA), or should there be a model similar to the European model of Minister of Culture who decides, or should the BOT's decide?
7. What types of projects should be considered for funding? Events, buildings, outdoor installations, educational programs, etc. |
wnb
Citizen
Username: Wnb
Post Number: 365
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 10:57 pm: |
|
Local government should not fund art at the expense of infrastructure maintenance and public safety. Funding of art and the like should not even be considered unless and until police, fire, and DPW departments are adequately staffed and funded. I would even argue these departments should be overfunded and providing excellent service before funding to virtually anything else is taken to consideration.
I do not believe that, today, police, fire, and DPW in this town are funded even close to adequately. Therefore the idea of local government funding art projects ought to remain in the realm of the hypothetical until they are.
|
mjc
Citizen
Username: Mjc
Post Number: 1125
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 12:05 pm: |
|
What wnb said, with the addition that maintenance/"deferred maintenance" on municipal property (library, town hall, police/fire/DPW, vehicles) should also take precedence over art expenditures.
I am personally very fond of some of the proponents of the sculpture in question, but IMO this is just not the time for the town to be funding it. If it were really what most people understand as a gift (ie, if the only costs to the town were for maintenance and maybe installation), and if the costs and trade-offs were clearly and accurately stated and debated, that might be different. |
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 661
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 21, 2006 - 6:40 pm: |
|
Does anyone know if the Burgdorf Cultural Center in Maplewood is funded by Maplewood taxpayers, or is it all through private donors? |
Crazy_quilter
Citizen
Username: Crazy_quilter
Post Number: 298
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 21, 2006 - 6:58 pm: |
|
if the government did not need to borrow money to buy art, then it would be great. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page