"Many Berkeley residents had expressed to staff and to the Civic Arts Commissioners their disappointment that there would be no public art in the new facility."
Here's my favorite comment over there: "We can live without more über-banal 'artistic flare' [sic] in this risible artistic backwater. I am sure there are plenty of other indefensible things they can waste our money on."
९ टिप्पण्या:
In some states, the inclusion of public art is mandatory and not an option to the agency.
Step back for a minute, and consider the argument between the folks who want cities to put up nativity scenes and those that see that activity as a infringement of rights. Then consider the people upset about the lack of public art in this gov't supported place - aren't they just as religious? Don't they believe in wastefulness in the pursuit of social justice because someone will always be willing to produce more? I'm more likely to believe in astrology than that sack of happy horse feathers.
People who want more "public art" are welcome to purchase or produce and then donate it.
That works great. Always has.
So, is "ART" more important than taking care of the animals? Which is their mandate, after all. Get grade-schoolers to come paint on the walls. For free.
"Many Berkeley residents had expressed to staff and to the Civic Arts Commissioners their disappointment that there would be no public art in the new facility."
This tragedy was entirely avoidable. For only
1% of their budget I would have been willing to send them a crucifix I had personally pissed on.
Someone needs to do a parody of a man holding on to a piece of public art and saying: "I could have done more! This surrealistic impressionism could have saved three pit bulls! This statue? Fifty calicos!"
Why does a pound need art?
Hmmmm...knew "risible" but muffed "flair". Odd.
Freeman Hunt, where the hell else can corrupt muni governments "hide" crappy public art made by one of the council member's brother in law?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा