Public Art in Puna

[David Shaw]

Very well said, Steven, and cogent to boot. You will not convince those who want to keep every dollar in their pockets, but perhaps others will read and be inspired.
Our home is filled with art, made by the family for the most part, and I am still stopped by the light on a verdigris railing in Morocco (painted by my brother)and captured by the colors in the beaded necklaces (made by my wife) hanging on the wall in our bedroom. Art is the distillation of beauty-- and one can find beauty in nature every day if we choose to see/look for it.

-dwajs

[Bullwinkle]

"Art in State buildings law"

On the face of it the law seems to apply to state buildings, a far cry from mandating it for all new construction.

A search reveals many art in state law handbooks / guidebooks, Im sure religious and erotic themes well received over at the eduction building.

mandated art being public works still being my point.

[ric]

Oh, if we don't want to pay for someone elses art we are savages. And now it's not only about the art, but we are hurting the kids!! . . . oh if only 1 child could see art it is worth any cost. . . . now I'm starving the kids, driving them to vandalism, making their lives hopeless. . . what ever was I thinking? Ohhh, all the answers in the world come from art. I must have been a deprived child to have eschewed such sophistication and culture.

Ahem, seems if something needs to be mandated, then there is not much interest in people doing it on their own . . . could it be that . . . artists are greedy with their products?

[Kapohocat]

What about a cross between mandated and voluntary?

Mandate space for art (or same as Rob's banner locations), and artists could submit proposals (at their costs or their patrons could voluntarily pay for). That way if someone really wanted a whale sculpture or something they could submit it and have any one who loves their whales sculptures pay the frieght. But the county could have a 4' x 4' location (as an example) that is dedicated to an art sculpture at a park or larger sidewalk area or other available space. And that way taxpapers are not mandated to pay for something they dont want to or dont like.

[Rob Tucker]

If you want to see NOTHING happen then try to work with the county.

Best to obtain that 4x4' space from private property or business owners.

Believe me.

[AlohaSteven]

Hmmm, well, regretably enough the aloha does not seem to be overflowing on this topic. Seems odd to me, as a pleasant discussion of differing perspectives between neighbors within a community sure is more constructive (and enjoyable, I'd think) than venting vitriolic angst. Apart from a hostile tone lacking in aloha, in a well-reasoned and honest discussion folks do not assert that others are making outrageous statements (which a glance at the transcript shows is simply untrue, putting words in other peoples' mouths). Friends have complained to me they used to enjoy reading and posting on Punaweb but more and more find themselves distressed by a hostile tone as well as by increasing amounts of flaming and trollish behavior here, versus the former friendly banter among neighbors -friendly even when the neighbors agree to disagree.

It surprises me this comes up in a discussion of public art in Puna, which is not a life-and-death topic like what to do about ongoing traffic fatalities on 130. Probably I should not be so surprised, though, since historically matters of art and culture have brought quite strong reactions from some, based on results. A quote derived from a line Johst wrote in Schlageter comes to mind: Wenn ich die Wortkultur höre, erreiche ich für meine Gewehr (When I hear the word "culture," I reach for my gun).

Suggesting artists are in it for the money and motivated by greed strikes me as somewhat amusing--if not outright absurd--given the economic realities of life for 99.9%+ of artists. Unlike MBAs, orthodontists, and some other likely suspects on the whole artists do not seem to me like they are in it to take advantage of plundering gobs of money from the downtrodden taxpayer (...around 70 cents of whose each and every tax dollar goes to support the military).

A majority of the people and the people's elected representatives deciding in their wisdom to apportion 1% of a public works project budget does not equate with a few people bullying everyone else into funding art against their will. Personally, I am glad if public works construction provides the periodic opportunity for artists in the community to be so employed, too, as well as construction workers, materials suppliers, and so on. Besides, I do not like seeing artists ribs sticking out all the time, you know? "Starving artist" is a common phrase but I do not think I've ever heard "starving plumber."

The point about whether or not public money could or should be better spent on educating for literacy instead of provide a bit of art in a school building, this is a question of substance and worth pondering. Illiteracy and innumeracy are indeed a bane which needlessly hobble far too many; the negative consequences to society are substantial. Will eliminating 1% For Art in a public works project like a school and instead using that money for education be a better use of the funds? I wonder. Schools which are attractive and fun environments have higher student attendance and learning gains than those which look like drab Russian factories. They inspire and retain community pride, involvement, and school spirit. As with bridges which experience less vandalism when there is art associated with them (and have so lower maintenance costs), art pays dividends of many different types. Moreover, does Hawaii in general and Puna in particular want to be a community which does not support the arts? Based on results to date, I am glad to observe, no. This would be rather ironic, given the traditions, image and flavor of Hawaii.

Hawaii can be proud of having pioneered the way with mandating (yes, there is that apparently inflammatory word, mandate, for how else is a public budget apportioned if not by the mandate of the people?) 1% For Art, a program with aloha.


)'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'(

It is not our part to master all the tides of the world but to do what is in us for the succor of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule.
J.R.R. Tolkien

)'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'(

[LeeE]

For some reason, this thread brings me back to the inspiring orchestral concert featuring of the music of Strauss that my wife and I attended in Vienna a while back. The performances were a revelation and completely changed my notion of Strauss' music.

When I turn on the endless war $$$ and fear box, I'm reminded that if one wants a barbaric & passive society, it helps to limit people's major cultural experiences to only those things that make money.

Whether it's health care, the terrible condition of our nations schools ect., the one source of savings that could help provide funds for things people actually need, never seems to get mentioned (at least by the pudits on the box). End the occupations and stop the endless wars.

Things being how they are, I'm seriously considering offering free classical music concerts to our schools.

[Greg]

Well I'm eternally greatful that art isn't now, or ever will be, about the "bottom line". Bean counters and responsible business people should be free to decorate their walls with pictures of.....well........beans.

Whether good or bad, popular or obscure, understood or not, art should contain a degree of emotion, and stimulate thought.

It cracks me up that of all the things government does mandate; Art would be targeted as being frivolous.

Lets keep the government involved in promoting and displaying art. Let's crack down on the 70% of our tax dollars that go to the war profiteers instead. Fiscal responsibility. Really!

punatoons

[JWFITZ]

Hi Steven,

I'd support those values in theory, but not in principle. Here's why. Priorities. A child with rotten teeth is not in a position to appreciate art much, nor attend school, nor get much anywhere in life. Rather that kid sits in a heap, feels sick, and hurts. It makes very little difference what the reason is that this given child suffers from health problems or who's to blame, but the fact there are real pressing needs out there, needs that disadvantage some for life(lack of dental care being one BIG one. Single greatest cause of missed school in the US.) So sure, art is very, very important, but having people well enough that they're in a position, both because of health and education, to appreciate it is a primary responsibility of government. One our government is perhaps singular in its neglect. There's no sense making art for sick baboons to enjoy.

So no. No way I could support spending money on art is bad idea while so much in the "hierarchy of needs" goes woefully unmet. At this moment every dime is spoken for, and many will still go wanting.

Perhaps the traditional model of "patronage" of the arts is a better idea.

[JWFITZ]

As an afterthought,

Everyone is an artist. Everyone is a musician, or a writer, or a painter or a carver or a cook, or what have you. Everyone. This in an innate matter. The reason that so few manifest these innate abilities, in most part, is that they never had the time and couldn't afford to take it. In many ways, when you subsidize art--you don't really subsidize art, you subsidize a group of people of significant enough privilege that they've had the luxury of time to develop the talent, while their less privileged peer worked on the green chain of a lumber mill. If you want to subsidize art, don't subsidize "art." Rather, insure everyone gets the education they deserve.

Again, no way for 1 percent. That's a subsidy going to the wrong people as well.