Let's see if I have this right. The thrust of art critic Sheila Farr's
main front-page story in this Sunday's Seattle Times is that the art that the city is buying is too safe -- it's not controversial enough. Taxpayers aren't forking out enough dough for art that offends them.
Here's how it works: In 1973, the Seattle City Council passed a law requiring that 1% of its capital budget be spent on art. In the first few years, Farr reminds us, the city commissioned some works that raised the public's hackles, like the $80,000 chunks of concrete and rock lying on the ground in Myrtle Edwards Park. But today, she says the city is buying ...
bland art.
What did she expect? Inevitably, the 1% program has become "welfare for artists," as a friend of art bureaucraft Virginia Wright puts it. "A lot of really good artists don't want to be involved in the process because it's cumbersome," admits city arts commissioner Richard Andrews. The artists who get the money "know how to sell it and work the system ... a lot of it is mediocre work," adds former commissioner John Feodorov. His advice to artists who want a ride on the public gravy train: "Get a job."
That won't happen as long as the 1% program continues to spend -- how much, exactly? Farr's story doesn't say; apparently it didn't occur to her to ask. But do the math: The city's
2005 capital budget totals $479 million. One percent of that is $4.8 million.
About $3 million of that comes from City Light, whose participation in the program is being challenged in court. Even if you don't count that money, the remaining money in the 1% program is enough to cover roughly 10% of the Seattle public schools' $20 million deficit this year.
So rather than asking why public art is bland, readers might be wondering: Why is Seattle spending
anything on public art, bland or otherwise, at a time when it's planning to close public schools for lack of cash?
(I know, I know -- the money comes out of different budgets. But it all comes from the same place: taxpayers' pockets. And if they wanted to, the city and the school district could offer taxpayers a deal: We'll drop the silly 1% rule if you'll let us raise taxes for schools by the same amount.)
Readers might wonder -- but The Times doesn't. No surprise that an art critic is oblivious to reality. But it's curious that the editors who gave this story most of the front page, and two full pages inside, didn't even think to ask how much public art costs taxpayers -- or whether there might be better ways to spend the public's money.