Public art that is paid for with tax dollars is a HUGE waste of money. There are a lot of kids that don't have enough to eat, don't have adequate healthcare, and go to budget strapped schools, yet tax dollars can pay for art? Don't get me wrong, if someone wants to donate art to be put on public display at say a state building, I'm all for that (assuming it is appropriate for the location). But I know for a fact that at the Department of Revenue as well as DMV Headquarters there were thousands of dollars spent on art that only a small minority of the public cares about. At DMV Headquarters, the building is closed to the public except the lobby, yet there are several paintings in the areas that only employees can access. What purpose does that serve? Does it make the agency run smoother or more efficient? It would have had way more effect in those regards had the money been used for operating expenses.

When only 3%-4% of Oregon's GNP goes towards art, not just public art, but art of all kinds, it's hard to see where the waste is. Having worked within arts education for more than 18 years, I can attest to the power of involving the artistic process in people's lives. Especially in times like these when we're at war, when global warming is so dramatically changing our landscape and the way we live, it's often artists who find some of the most humbling, sincere, profound, passionate and productive ways to engage the public about these issues. Not all public art works for me personally. In fact most tends to confuse or annoy me. But I'm still glad it's there. I'm not a huge fan of waste either, especially since public funding for education, social welfare, and health care isn't anywhere close to what's currently needed in this state or our country. But perhaps it's best to go after the larger funded sectors of our government (the military for example) to find the funding to use for social projects of your liking.

By no means am I saying that there is no room for art. I am saying that paying for it for state properties is a bad idea. Why not display art that was donated? Then use the money that would have bought art for the agency and put it up for art programs in schools. I have no problem that 3-4% of Oregon's GDP goes toward art, but I think that 0% of that should come in the form of artwork at government agency buildings. They should put it to more efficient use, in the form of art scholarships for college art students, or art supplies for classrooms. There's a lot of art at the Revenue building, especially that rusty piece of metal in the front that was removed. That was wasted money ($5500). I'm ok with art at such places, but get donated art. A lot of artists would be proud to have the opportunity to donate their pieces for public display. There certainly is a lot of art around my university, all donated by art students.

Art is legitimate field of study and profession, as well as a means to express or experience what it is to be human. Would you donate your time at work?

If art is 'good', then the artists should be paid for their time, I couldn't agree more. But they shouldn't be paid by the state, they should be paid by a private entity. I recognize that art is a legitimate field of study and profession. So is music, does that mean that we should have musicians playing in state buildings in the cafeterias, paid for with state dollars? No field of study or profession should have tax dollars spent to display items at state buildings, art, music, or anything. That's a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere. Like I said in my previous posting, why not put that money into the education system, in an art class. All that art does at state buildings is collect dust. I'm willing to concede that a very, very small minority of state workers get pleasure from the artwork, but no more then they would if the art was donated. And even then, being that it's such a small minority of workers, more satisfaction would be derived from those tax dollars if it were used in a different manner. I know dozens of art students that would donate their art in a heartbeat if the state wanted to display it at agency buildings, especially if it resulted in more art supplies for schools as opposed to money being spent on art to hang on agency walls.

You are making the assumption that artists can financially afford to create artwork that can withstand the abuse that comes along with public artwork. I will be the first to admit that Portland (and Oregon in general) has a a lot of sub-par public artwork, but we also have some gems. None of these pieces ever could have been donated, because artists do not have the money if the state does not support our state's most important asset, it's booming art scene. And the problem with saying that art students could donate artwork, is that artwork done by students looks like artwork that was done by students. If you think our current public art is bad, well it would only get worse if we depended upon students to provide the work.

Regardless if artwork is bad or not (I couldn't tell you the difference), the state should not buy it. Even if it's the greatest art in the history of the world, tax dollars should go into underfunded programs that are vital to the operation of this state. This doesn't include art. Art is a luxury item. If all the donated artwork were deemed bad, then don't have it at all, although I think that there is tons of art that was all donated to universities that could be used at state agencies that is of the same quality as what is now on display (and was paid for). I AM NOT SAYING THAT ART SHOULD NOT EXIST, OR THAT ARTISTS SHOULD NOT MAKE MONEY FOR WHAT THEY DO, what I am saying is that the state should not be the ones paying for the art pieces. I disagree that the art scene is Oregon's most important asset. Agriculture, human capital, and many other things are way more important assets to this state. I AM NOT ARGUING WHETHER OR NOT THE PUBLIC ART IN OREGON IS TASTEFUL OR NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED, I am arguing that the state should not be in the art buying business. Private entities and parties should be in the art buying business, which if it's as booming as bloggers are indicating, should result in artists doing just fine without the help of government agencies.

textchampion, if only a tiny percentage of people appreciate art, why would art students "donate their art in a heartbeat"? Are you implying that they might get something out of displaying their art in public buildings? That perhaps people will notice it and they might make a career out of it? If so, then aren't you also implying that a significant number of people are seeing and appreciating public art?

Some things bureaucracies do not do well: Everyone know what you get in evry public building - Huge ugly abstract pieces with no point. It is a shameful waste of tax dollars.

If you like huge ugly abstract pieces with no point; And want to buy them to display in your barn, that is fine with me, but why should the public have to finance your hobby?

You only show your ignorance by referring to a creative practice as a "hobby." Sorry, I forgot that artists do not make legitimate contributions to society, because they don't sit behind a desk and fill out TPS reports all day. :)

Creative practice is all well and good, but it should be paid for by those who like it, not by the taxpayers.

The Rolling Stones do not rely on tax money. Their art is paid for by those who enjoy it. Why should I pay for something I don't enjoy? If there's "art" that does not attract an audience, maybe that says something about its actual worth.

Far from being a HUGE waste of money Oregon's public art collection is an example of how to use our tax dollars in creative and innovative ways. If you're looking for ways to save tax dollars I would challenge you to look at the war budget being debated by our Senate right now - Needless war - that's a HUGE waste of money. All of the so called "ugly" public art works we own are the product of community engaging in an artisitc experience. Our public arts are the product of citizens taking the time to get involved and to find creative solutions, together. Lazy looking and thinking only take focus away from the vitality that public arts programming gives to a neighborhood and a city. Taste may be subjective but it's no exuse for arbitray critique. I welcome considered arguments for how to make our vision for public art better. There are too many misconception about public art and its true value to our community and I'm glad that OPB is taking the time to air the issue to a wide audience. I would hope that with every complaint presented that a solution can also be included. Thinking creatively is what public art projects facilate outside the artists studio. Get involved - if you're not happy with the quality of art around you - join a committee or answer a call for artists. Let's keep setting our standards higher for what we expect out of art and what art expects from us.

Tax dollars should be used in a creative and innovative way to benefit all Oregonians, not a minority population of art lovers. There needs to be a pecking order of priorities for tax dollars, and art would be well behind on that list. Until the most urgent and vital programs are well funded and on track, no tax dollars should be spent on art for public display. I'M NOT SAYING TO ABOLISH ART FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS OR SCHOLARSHIPS, I'm saying when it comes to art to be displayed in public buildings or places, especially when there's donated art that can be displayed, spending money on it is wasteful. Put that money into the classroom. As far as the war, I agree that is a huge waste of money, but it is also low on the pecking list along with public art and neither of them should be getting our tax dollars. I'm not arguing against artists, or them making money, or whether or not public art is good or bad, I'm arguing that tax dollars should not be buying the end products. Private buyers should be in the art buying business, not the state.

I disagree that public art should be a low priority. In fact, because Orgeon has made Public Art a priority since the 70's we have developed proven methods to make sure that the community actually has a voice in the process. I wonder if those arguing agianst tax dollars being used for public art have specific examples that could illuminate some common ground. Can we get beyond easy dichotomies concerning Public Art? Is funding Public Art just about paying for an "end result" or is it also a way to actually facilitate complex cooperation that builds repore within an engaged community? Our challenge now is how to build value outside the private/commercial gallery world. Public art is an attempt at owning something, together.

I don't quite understand this argument that spending tax dollars for public art benefits only a minority population. The very concept of public art dictates that it is made for the majority of the population to enjoy. If you would rather the money be diverted to arts education or scholarships, how does that benefit the majority? To make a broad example: If a government entity spends $60k on a public sculpture that hundreds of thousands of people will see and enjoy, they will have spent pennies for each person to enjoy the art. That same $60k would pay for 2 art students to complete a bachelor's degree in fine arts. At the end of their education they then must struggle to find private collectors and buyers of their work because there is absolutely no government funding available to purchase public artwork. Does any of this make sense? It is a specious argument to rally against public funded art while at the same time supporting government funded arts education. Or do you believe that we can spend tax dollars on art classes for grade schoolers, but once they graduate from high school they have to get "REAL" jobs?

Yes, it is a major honor to have your artwork selected for public display. It is also an extraordinary cost to fabricate and install that artwork. The art must be able to withstand our fickle climate, urban wildlife, constant touching and mischievous vandals. The artwork must be made of durable materials and installed using the most current technology and structural techniques. None of this is free. Yet you believe it could all be paid for privately? Will you please begin lobbying all of the wealthy private art collectors in Oregon to start funding all of this public art? I'm sure they would love to hear from you.

Music, dance, performing arts, and theater all enjoy public funding. Why should we then stop funding visual artists to create public artworks?

Art lovers are a minority of the Oregon population. When you take into account how many people that work in government agencies (and are therefore the only people that see the art), it's an even smaller minority. I understand that public art is for the majority of the public to enjoy, but the majority of the Oregon public doesn't enjoy art (at least not to the extent that they must see it in public). I do certainly believe that we can spend tax dollars on art classes for grade schoolers, but once they graduate they have to get 'real' jobs, in art or otherwise. If they want to go into art, by all means do so, and understand that it's not the most lucrative money making job you can pursue. Just because artists struggle to sell their work (whether their art is good or bad) doesn't mean that the government should subsidize their labor by buying their artwork to display at government agencies. Like I said earlier, if people feel so strongly that we should subsidize artists why not subsidize public music at government agencies as well? There are many more people that like music in Oregon than paintings, why don't we have musicians being paid to play the piano in agency cafeterias? Because it doesn't make sense. It's a luxury to have musicians playing for you at a government agency, just like art is a luxury. Luxury items should not be paid for by government tax dollars. I don't believe that all public displayed art could (or should) be paid for privately, I think it has no place in government operations at all. If wealthy art collectors want to donate it, then fine, if not, that's fine too, it doesn't affect the efficiency of government agencies either way. I agree that music, dance, performing arts, and theater all enjoy public funding, and that should continue along with visual art, but if you're going to put it on public display, either put it all on public display at government agencies expense or none of it. I vote none, because they are all luxury items. I think that having art programs in school is vital to kid's development and the money is better spent in the classroom where it gets more utility return. There's minimal utility return for public displayed art, and in some cases, no utility return except to the artist that sold their work. And if their work was good, it would be bought in the private market. The fact that it is bought by the public market only suggests that it was not good enough to be bought in the private market.

So all good art is purchased privately and all bad art is purchased publicly? You are asking that visual art be quantified, that a distinction must be made that a painting on the wall has absolutely no discernible positive influence on anybody, and therefore should not be paid for via public funding. I would hate to see Oregon with no publicly funded artwork: Empty plazas, devoid of any interest besides a park bench and some trees; Cold, barren governmental offices with nothing but posters of cats hanging from tree branches covering the walls; transit malls lacking any visual stimulus save for the colorful grafiti covering the shelter.

Your argument is narrow minded and lacking any sense of community spirit. My tax dollars go to a myriad of government agencies and public organizations that have absolutely no personal benefit to me, yet I don't rally to stop those programs. I know that they benefit an Oregonian, somewhere, and so must be beneficial. How specifically do you know that there are more Oregonians that enjoy music more than visual arts? Should we form a State House Sub-Committee for Visual Arts Appreciation? We can include a check-box on our state income tax returns for Luxurious State Spending. The State budget includes monies for campgrounds. Camping is a luxury and is not an essential commodity. Should we abolish public funding for an activity that only small percentage of Oregonians participate in? All campgrounds should be entirely privately funded. Yes I am being sarcastic, but it is only to prove a point. To be honest, I can't tell anymore if you are merely pulling my leg and playing the devils advocate. Are you absolute in your convictions, or is this just a put on?

I wonder if textchampion isn't confounding publicly funded art and public art that is funded by the percent for art initiative? There are a lot of misconceptions being posed as facts. Be specific with your complaints - which government buildings that DMV runs? Where is there room for a discussion about how to make these sites open? Are you asking for art that is installed in government buildings to be opened to the public? Visiting hours for the art? I believe that our public arts programing deserves our consideration and participation. Public art is more than just an employment opportunity for "starving" artists. Public art is an antidote to the cliche of the lone artist in there studio. Public art is about creating value in an open forum that includes more than the minority of Oregonians who are artists. I would challenge the assumption that public art only has a utility for its makers because it's in its nature to be a germ for emotion and contemplation for the viewer as well - even when it challenges us and especially when it upsets us. Let's not take that away from our public spaces. We have such a vital public art collection in Oregon because mindful people have taken the time to build the necessary checks and balances that allow for growth and change. Let's put our heads together and figure out how to continue to enfranchise more people into realizing that art has a place in their lives out in the world - not just above their private couches.

Looking around Portland and the state as a whole, I don't get the sense that "art lovers" are in the minority. Almost every small town or city I've visited in Oregon has some form of art, often as a wonderful expression of local traditions or via the various associations and educational institutions in the area. The arts has a wonderful way of informing how people can actually diversify their professional aspirations when they're ready to find "real" work, whatever that means. Focusing on art that is simple on display negates entire processes of how artists engage and educate communities as they create their work. Outside of budgetary concerns ate the planned and incidental ways in which artists and their art interact with the communities that they support.

I think this one is already hashed to the point that a long addition on my part would be only so much noise. I do fall solidly in the camp of asking if things like the head sculpture (the one on this page) blesses anyone enough to tell one or more Oregon families that we can't afford to add them to Oregon's health insurance because of it; I would submit that our priorities as a state are way out of wack in that regard.

I would like to add one note for all of you: as you relax this weekend, regardless of your politics, please take a moment to remember the fallen who have sacrificed everything to serve us... after all, it is a Memorial day.

A few of Nanda D'Agostino's particular works that we'll be talking about this morning:

Bridge Between Cultures (Weller Street Pedestrian Bridge, King Street Station, Seattle, WA)

Ecology Stones, Willow Weir Earthworks (Smith and Bybee Lakes Natural Area, Portland)

Folks,

I think this has been a very interesting and spirited conversation about the public funding of art, and I'll definitely bring some of this onto the air. But we're also hoping to talk about plenty of other things this hour. Like: If you're an artist, how important is it for you to have your art in public places? Does the bureaucratic committee process inherent in public financing limit your art? Has it -- somehow -- improved your work?

Public Art Where Artist Lampoons His/Her Patron

Faceless Bureaucrat: Empty gown statu(t)e in front of State Office Building in Lloyd District

Fir Tree Future: Shell of old growth log with spikes pointing to baby tree in center at the Georgia Pacific Building

Progress, Not: Progress depicted as a giant bronze mobius strip at Standard Insurance.

Three Groins in a Fountain at Georgia Pacific has nothing on these jibes.

Art purchased with public money must be appealing to the broader spectrum of residents. In Juneau Alaska, about 25 years ago the city fathers and mothers decided that the public needed more exposure to contemporary art. They commissioned a famous east coast sculptor to make the 1% art for the new court building. The project cost over $65,000. When "Nimbus" arrived and was installed,it looked like a huge exploded dumpster painted bright green. The quality of the work was not good, bad welds, etc. The outcry and vilification in the press and public discourse was overwhelming and within a few years the sculpture was removed and stored in a surplus storage yard. Nimbus was resurredted some years later and placed near the state museum. BUT the golden lining in this cloud was that Skip Wallen, a local sculptor (who is also famous but was ignored by the selection committee)offered to donate a sculpture to fill the space vacated in front of the court house if the city would just pay for the bronze casting. The result is a breathtakingly beautiful bear fishing in a stream. It has become one of Alaska's most popular piece of public art, rubbed shiny on it's back by the many children who have climbed on this beloved bear's back to have their picture taken! The artist recieved not a penny for this great work.

As an artist myself, I support the concept of paying for art in public places, but feel it is not the role of those selecting the art to bring controversial art into the 1% program, that should should be funded by private money.