There are currently 11 users and 207 guests online.
Art Police to the Rescue
Submitted by StaceyDiamond on Wed, 2008/03/12 - 7:39pm.
I think its overkill to take the art bears off the street. They should grandfather in current art and send any new art through the "art committee." While the bears aren't First Friday elite art, I find them cute and amusing and have never been offended by or tripped over one. Don't larger cities like Chicago have bigger and more successful animal art shows?
The sidewalk "obstruction" reasoning to take them up is like the creative "blight" rulings to get people tifs. I don't have faith the city council will do anything but accept the committee decision. I don't know if this group has ever questioned each other or Haslam. At least with this current ornery commission, you at least know people will question things. I'm glad city council feels the love, but too much isn't good.
If we must get rid of all things that obstruct, start with the water tower or the Sunsphere.
They're talking about taking the bears out of commission? If so, I agree with you Stacey, they should be left for our enjoyment. I would think they bring a smile to everyone who encounters them.
Although I want to be clear. I have no objection to art that offends people. A lot of art offends someone. I object to people putting their private art on public property.
For more info on what COK is actually doing on the public art front, see here.
I agree that they don't belong on public property. If you allow one person to display their private property, then you must allow everyone the same right. I don't want to see White Supreme art or the OutLaws motorcycles display on the sidewalks.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2008/03/14 - 10:58am.
The Suffragette statue on Market Square should be part of this discussion; it was designed and prominently displayed without input from the community. One strong-willed person got the sculpture completed and placed, despite complaints from other interested parties. It set a precedent for which the City was unprepared.
We need rules to govern public art, but taking down certain examples and leaving others in place is a problem . . . and who maintains this art? The treble clef on Gay Street at Summit Hill needs attention.
Submitted by Bbeanster on Fri, 2008/03/14 - 12:53pm.
I'm not crazy about either the Suffragist (not Suffragette, btw) statue, nor the Rotary statue of some old guy nobody ever heard of on the concrete stretch that used to be Crutch Park, and I am unclear about the policy that placed them in these locations. I don't care for the Suffragist statue because the three women it features look more like Barbie dolls than three real individuals, and I think it's oddly located -- too close to the street and blocking the sight line of the square. I think the Rotary statue is better quality, artistically speaking, and polio shots are certainly a good thing, but this statue memorializes someone/something that is very unclear to most people who see it and has little or no connection to Knoxville.
I do like the guy in the sinking rowboat, though. He's public art for art's sake, and doesn't seem to be an homage to any particular ego or cause. He has become a traditional destination for the rowing/crew teams that come to Knoxville to compete. It's cool to see these groups posing with the big guy. He's also in a little courtyard area and doesn't obstruct pedestrian traffic.
Submitted by Bill Lyons on Wed, 2008/03/12 - 10:20pm.
As chair of the task force I did my best to explain our work in a dialog joined from another point of view in this thread Link... from another forum. I think the entire thread, along with the city's report Link... referenced by Rachel, is well worth reading.
This is a complicated topic involving first amendment issues, potential government censorship, enforcement of existing ordinances, temporary vs. longer term art on public space, and other issues. We faced a situation where legitimate questions were raised about the placement of objects on the public sidewalks, who could do so, and under what conditions. The whole point of our calling this task force for advice was so that we would not be the art police.
We faced were short term and long term issues. I am very pleased with the work done by the members of the task force. Our main long term recommendation is the creation of a public art committee modeled after those in other cities. This will provide a structure to deal with many questions. The short term recommendations were carefully framed to make the response to objects left from expired public programs neutral relative to content.
The task force, made up of leaders from the art community, gave a lot of their time to deal with this and approached their work in a fair, evenhanded manner. Even if folks disagree with the recommendations I hope they take the time to understand the issues and the logic that we used. There is nothing in any consideration that represented or reflected elitism or snobbery. Quite the contrary.
Submitted by Carole Borges on Wed, 2008/03/12 - 9:56pm.
I think they're really interesting and unusual and fun.
But then again, I also like the sunsphere a lot, so what do I know?
Actually, if they have to move them I wish they'd put them out front of the storefront art studio they created recently on Broadway. That place is so boring. They really need something to make that site look like there are artsy things going on there. The bears might be just the thing.
Submitted by djuggler on Thu, 2008/03/27 - 12:50pm.
It'd be cool if all the bears ended up in one place. Maybe someone has a piece of property that could become "bear habitat" or they could be spread throughout Pigeon Forge. Ah! We could put one at each of the chalets in the mountains and maybe the tourists would quit causing traffic jams when they see the less interesting real bears.
Submitted by talidapali on Wed, 2008/03/12 - 11:26pm.
You should see the moose in downtown Toronto, Canada or the horses in downtown Albuquerque, New Mexico. The bears are art. If one has "obscene" graphics then maybe the owner should consider a repaint by a different artist, but they shouldn't be moved because they are in the way.
As big as I am, I managed to navigate my way down a city street in Toronto and I didn't once trip over or run into a moose statue...not even the one decorated like a Toronto cop. Now the banker that was running out of the Starbuck's to catch the train in the subway...not so much.
This city should be grateful that residents are willing to spend their own money on art and then share it with the community.
_________________________________________________ "You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White" "I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali
This city should be grateful that residents are willing to spend their own money on art and then share it with the community.
Hmmm. So if I want to buy a sculpture of whatever and stick in on the public sidewalk in front of your house, you'll be ok with that? No questions asked? You'll just be grateful I spent my own $$ on art and decided to share?
Submitted by Becky (not verified) on Thu, 2008/03/13 - 9:06am.
I'm happy to see the bears go.
They don't really feel like art to me; more like something akin to festival banners or a Christmas tree left up all year. Not that I'm an authority on what is worthy of our public spaces, but I think clearing the bears away is a good initial move.
Submitted by djuggler on Thu, 2008/03/27 - 12:52pm.
How long did Cincinnati keep their pigs around? Didn't Chattanooga have a similar fund raiser? The bears were a fund raiser if I recall correctly weren't they? So do other cities that did similar events keep their art up forever?
I've always liked the hound dog made of metal and gears on Market Square. I can't remember if it's still there. I'll have to go check. I hope it stays.
Submitted by Somebody on Thu, 2008/03/13 - 11:44am.
In my view, the issue with the bears is similar to the issue with the Elvis guy on Market square. A little bit is a lot of fun, but a lot is way too much. The bears were based on the Chicago Cows on Parade idea. If you do a quick internet search for that, you'll find that it was a great event but it's over now. The bears were fun, but that's over now. Karaoke Elvis is fun, but maybe not for four hours a day every day that the temperature gets above 40. He wouldn't self-limit his show, so somebody had to do it for him. A thing like the bear art is great, but not if it means that they get instant historic status and downtown's sidewalks have to end up looking like your Aunt Gertrude's livingroom full of beanie babies, hummel figurines, and souvenir plates.
Submitted by Free thinker (not verified) on Thu, 2008/03/13 - 12:31pm.
No it is censership and snobbery.There is no reason for the city to drive off Elvis or the bears.It is the free expression of art.It is control of criticism.The city should let any artist display works of art anywhere as long as people can get by.I read the article last week and saw that they are not consistent with the horse so that proves the agenda here and it is in the present city government no matter what the mouthpiece says.He should stay away from progressive places anyway.First the bear then your war protest banner.The only fair thing is to leave it all.They clearly want to leave it to the artsy crowd to choose stuff the country club crowd wants that does not offend the class in power.Who are these so called artists anyway to suggest censership.
Submitted by Bill Lyons on Thu, 2008/03/13 - 1:25pm.
This has stimulated some interesting discussion to be sure. I think the dialog here points to some of the issues that were dealt with. There will be a council workshop on the report of the Public Art Task Force on May 15th at 5pm in the large assembly room of the City Council Building. I hope people can attend.
Submitted by StaceyDiamond on Thu, 2008/03/13 - 8:31pm.
Rachel is referencing the bear with the 9-11 twin towers burning scene on it that lawyer JD Lee bought and put on the sidewalk in fron of his office. There are still several other bears around on the sidewalks, I question who owns them and why they would have to be moved. I think if people like the private art they are fine with it on public property or anywhere. People tend to want to censor what they don't like and have a double standard for things they do, its human nature. I doubt any of this would have come up had people not complained about JD's bear, now the typical gov. reaction is to throw the baby or bear out with the bathwater.
I gave up on attending city meetings after spending about 8 hours one day and about 4 the next week at meetings concerning the Cumberland House Hotel, that we were led to believe would either not come to fruition or be a bed and breakfast. After 12 hours I saw the fix was in and I have not reason to think the bear fix would not be in also. BTW, I loved Elvis, he was so bizzare and random, I heard many businesses also enjoyed him and the onlookers he brought.
Rachel is referencing the bear with the 9-11 twin towers burning scene on it that lawyer JD Lee bought and put on the sidewalk in fron of his office. There are still several other bears around on the sidewalks, I question who owns them and why they would have to be moved. I think if people like the private art they are fine with it on public property or anywhere. People tend to want to censor what they don't like and have a double standard for things they do
Thanks, Stacy, I was trying NOT to describe that bear precisely because I didn't want people to go exactly where you just went.
The fact that many folks perceived this bear to be in bad taste may have brought the subject to the forefront, but the real issue is that the City had no policy on public art. It needs one. The idea that anyone can stick their private art on public ROW is just not acceptable. And I would say that about a piece of art I loved, as well as about one I find ridiculous and offense.
Submitted by CathyMcCaughan on Fri, 2008/03/14 - 12:02pm.
Can I have a sidewalk too? Please put one on Northshore so my children are less likely to be hit while waiting for their school bus. I don't care if there's a bear and an Elvis on every block.
Submitted by Mykhailo on Fri, 2008/03/14 - 12:16pm.
Please put one on Northshore so my children are less likely to be hit while waiting for their school bus.
Sorry. It's going in front of your driveway, which is public property if you don't remember. There's plenty of room in your front yard to back your car out around it. Also, it's going to play Toby Keith really loudly, and smell strongly like dog poop. YAY FOR MY RIGHTS!
Submitted by CathyMcCaughan on Fri, 2008/03/14 - 1:11pm.
I have two large German Shepherds. My yard already smells like a pasture. I have five children and the neighborhood children like it over here. We're louder than your music. There is a big difference between art in a completely residential neighborhood and art in a mostly business area.
"Art is never chaste. It ought to be forbidden to ignorant innocents, never allowed into contact with those not sufficiently prepared. Yes, art is dangerous. Where it is chaste, it is not art." - Pablo Picasso
Would you care if I wanted to place some Robert Mapplethorpe pictures next to your driveway? Maybe the kids could acquire an appreciation of some classy S&M graphic art while waiting for the school bus.
Submitted by djuggler on Thu, 2008/03/27 - 1:07pm.
It's nothing they wouldn't see by visiting some old churches. A brief glance through his portfolio shows Mapplethorpe to be quite talented. I think I'd be less disturbed by their viewing of his works than by some of the violent things they see on television and video games (don't take that wrong..I do not believe tv or video games lead to desensitization or violence in children). And the children use the Internet. I'm sure they have seen worse than Mapplethorpe's works. Besides, what you see as sexual, children may view as something more innocent.
Submitted by RayCapps on Fri, 2008/03/14 - 1:42pm.
with the new Art Police ordinance. If you own the building, it would seem your right to hang whatever you blame well please on the front of it is fully protected. It's not on public property and not obstructing traffic. I believe, in fact, the good attorney who kindly shared his 9/11 bear with the community could take a photograph of said bear, blow it up to poster size, and hang it in his window for everyone to continue to enjoy.
It sure seems like a lot of trouble to go to over one silly old bear, though. Oh, that's right it was about safety and obstructing traffic and controlling what private citizens put in place on public property. I mean, without benefit of this ordinance, downtown might have turned into an enormous outdoor art museum or something. I was plotting to stick a few lawn jockeys, ceramic gnomes, and plastic pink flamingoes up in front of the Bijou, myself. I mean, logically, if we didn't do something about it, we'd have Maplethorpe at our bus stops and stuff, right? Knoxville is positively notorious for fiendishly clever art installers sneaking around in the dead of night and putting up unapproved statuary. There's absolutely no way this whole thing was just a tempest in a teapot stirred up by folks who didn't like some lawyer type's bear, right?
There's absolutely no way this whole thing was just a tempest in a teapot stirred up by folks who didn't like some lawyer type's bear, right?
Here's how it went down:
I saw the bear and found it disturbing.
I called the city to ask where I should direct my comments.*
As it turned out, there was no appropriate destination as the city had no provision for addressing public art.
This revealed the bigger issue which the proposed legislation should address.
Let me add what I have said elsewhere. Knoxville is behind the curve on this. Few cities of its size do not have some sort of organization that administrates public art installations. And if I served as an agent of change by provoking formation of one here through a very civil attempt to simply make my thoughts known, I will take the heat of those who would attempt to portray it differently.
Public sidewalks do not make good private sculpture gardens.
~m.
*Quite honestly, I felt it would just go down as a comment in some record somewhere. I didn't expect that a single citizen complaint would have any effect. But I thought that if others had registered a complaint, then I would simply add to the tally. I also knew a few other folks who had issues with it had asked "who should we talk to about this."
Submitted by RayCapps on Fri, 2008/03/14 - 8:39pm.
So now we have legislation to put a stop to a non-existant problem so that folks can control where, how, and what creative expression is displayed for the public. Yeah, I know it's public property. Yeah, I know the city's liable if somebody erected something that posed a legitimate hazard to public safety.
Of course, if the display did pose a legitimate hazard, it could have been taken down on those grounds. If the display was not maintained, it could have been removed under existing legislation covering abandoned property. But then again, neither of those remedies permit the formation of a board to make sure nothing similarly offensive to the sensibilities of some ever gets erected on public space again.
As a social libertarian (small l), I'm disappointed to see progressives hide behind such excuses in order to squelch free expression they happen to not agree with. That's the sort of crap I'd expect from a conservative. I held progressives to a higher standard on free speech issues. I guess I was wrong.
Submitted by Factchecker on Fri, 2008/03/14 - 5:25pm.
I'm surprised anyone has the right to their own property after it's been left in public after a time. How long could someone leave a motorcycle parked on a sidewalk? Could they have indefinite free parking if they call their wheels art? (I know, I know. Many people do think that of their machines.)
Submitted by Factchecker on Fri, 2008/03/14 - 9:17pm.
No excuses, Ray. This is not political. Sensible residents of all political stripes don't want tacky shit displayed in our town, like an air brush painting of the caliber you'd more expect to see on a customized '70s leisure van with a rebel flag on the bumper. The fact that this one piece depicts the 9/11 attacks just adds insult to injury.
Submitted by RayCapps on Fri, 2008/03/14 - 11:01pm.
The fact that the bear displays images of 9/11 moves it into the realm of political speech as well as art. If anything, being such, your "insult" ought to have been afforded even more protection from those who didn't like it. It wasn't opposed because it was thought "tacky" in appearance. The rather poor rendition of the mounted cowboy that has long preceded the bear has to be considered in the same general range of "tacky" and its size and precarious appearing mounting is certainly the bear's equal as a sidewalk obstruction and much more dangerous should the thing be tipped over. Nope, that bear was opposed because its message was found offensive by some who frequent the establishment next door.
The gentleman who started the whole effort just said on this very board it was the images that led him to complain. But why keep trying to convince me of the snow white purity of your motives? You have your art approval board. It's all perfectly legal. The bear's history. You've won.
Submitted by Michael on Sat, 2008/03/15 - 12:34am.
The gentleman who started the whole effort just said on this very board it was the images that led him to complain.
Yeah. What can I say? Art's subjective. And there are going to be people who like things, and people who don't. Some folks would even say that art can provoke things. But there's nothing to suggest that here, is there?
But why keep trying to convince me of the snow white purity of your motives?
Okay, I'll stop(?). My motive was to try to be an active citizen (or pissed off jerk, however you want to characterize it) and make my voice heard to the Powers That Be (selah!) that I didn't particularly like this thing on the sidewalk (naively assuming that, what with it being on the city's sidewalk and all, maybe the city had some complicity. In retrospect, that makes a little too much sense, and I should have known better by now.).
Now you and others (I am so tired of this) can offer speculation of what my real motives are. I'm fairly certain I've got the better perspective on that. But a little disagreement is healthy for a good discussion.
I've copped to not liking the thing. I've copped to making a complaint. And that's about all you seemed to have gotten.
Now...
Let's save a little time and jump ahead. You can buy it or not, but when I really started getting it, the larger issue that our city really had no methods, practices, or programs in place to address public art made a plastic bear on the sidewalk seem rather petty. Which is exactly the way I view people who refuse to acknowledge the need for such programs and prefer to harp on my outspokenness.
You have your art approval board. It's all perfectly legal. The bear's history. You've won.
Not quite. But I am hopeful that Knoxville's going to follow suit with other cities and develop a true arts program. And you're right. The bears are history. They weren't ever supposed to be permanent.
I don't feel like I've won, as you put it. But if that's how you grasp it, then stop being a sore loser. The next game will be with city council. Show up or forfeit.
~m.
The rather poor rendition of the mounted cowboy that has long preceded the bear has to be considered in the same general range of "tacky" and its size and precarious appearing mounting is certainly the bear's equal as a sidewalk obstruction and much more dangerous should the thing be tipped over.
That poor rendition is by Frederic Remington, a respected sculptor. But everyone's a critic, and you're entitled to your opinion. I'm not a big fan of his work, but I like it just fine. I liked it a lot better when it was sitting inside the window, and on private property (yet very publicly displayed).
I do agree about the liability issue. And I think the city sees that. Addressing all of that and more is a function of the proposed committee. And for what it's worth, I made the same argument about removing the bears and leaving the horseman. I'm still not allowed to put my concrete deer in front of the visitor's center.
But I'm told that addressing that statue will be one of the first orders of business for the committee.
~m.
Submitted by StaceyDiamond on Mon, 2008/03/17 - 7:53pm.
While on the subject, while I think the monument is pretty, I think its self-indulgent that Knoxville has a monument with all the names of the 9-11 victims. I do however think its appropriate that we would honor those like Tony Karnes and a few others with Knoxville connections. The suffrage and the rotary guy also have only loose connections to Knoxville, but they make newcomers to downtown seem interested. I see lots of kids posing for pictures on the various staues around the square. The more the merrier.
Submitted by Free Expression advocate (not verified) on Thu, 2008/04/17 - 12:46pm.
I see that the public art censors won. They took the bear from Gay Street. Now I guess Lyons is happy. Thanks a lot for the thought contorl. What next.
They're talking about taking the bears out of commission? If so, I agree with you Stacey, they should be left for our enjoyment. I would think they bring a smile to everyone who encounters them.
They're talking about not letting people put their private art on public property. That's gotten a bit out of hand lately.
And if you think the bears "bring a smile" to everyone who sees them, check out the bear by the Brew Pub patio.
Not so good, huh?
Just go take a look. Describing it is inadequate.
Although I want to be clear. I have no objection to art that offends people. A lot of art offends someone. I object to people putting their private art on public property.
For more info on what COK is actually doing on the public art front, see here.
I agree that they don't belong on public property. If you allow one person to display their private property, then you must allow everyone the same right. I don't want to see White Supreme art or the OutLaws motorcycles display on the sidewalks.
The Suffragette statue on Market Square should be part of this discussion; it was designed and prominently displayed without input from the community. One strong-willed person got the sculpture completed and placed, despite complaints from other interested parties. It set a precedent for which the City was unprepared.
We need rules to govern public art, but taking down certain examples and leaving others in place is a problem . . . and who maintains this art? The treble clef on Gay Street at Summit Hill needs attention.
I'm not crazy about either the Suffragist (not Suffragette, btw) statue, nor the Rotary statue of some old guy nobody ever heard of on the concrete stretch that used to be Crutch Park, and I am unclear about the policy that placed them in these locations. I don't care for the Suffragist statue because the three women it features look more like Barbie dolls than three real individuals, and I think it's oddly located -- too close to the street and blocking the sight line of the square. I think the Rotary statue is better quality, artistically speaking, and polio shots are certainly a good thing, but this statue memorializes someone/something that is very unclear to most people who see it and has little or no connection to Knoxville.
I do like the guy in the sinking rowboat, though. He's public art for art's sake, and doesn't seem to be an homage to any particular ego or cause. He has become a traditional destination for the rowing/crew teams that come to Knoxville to compete. It's cool to see these groups posing with the big guy. He's also in a little courtyard area and doesn't obstruct pedestrian traffic.
Isn't his butt sticking out in Japan?
Doug McCaughan
Link...
As chair of the task force I did my best to explain our work in a dialog joined from another point of view in this thread Link... from another forum. I think the entire thread, along with the city's report Link... referenced by Rachel, is well worth reading.
This is a complicated topic involving first amendment issues, potential government censorship, enforcement of existing ordinances, temporary vs. longer term art on public space, and other issues. We faced a situation where legitimate questions were raised about the placement of objects on the public sidewalks, who could do so, and under what conditions. The whole point of our calling this task force for advice was so that we would not be the art police.
We faced were short term and long term issues. I am very pleased with the work done by the members of the task force. Our main long term recommendation is the creation of a public art committee modeled after those in other cities. This will provide a structure to deal with many questions. The short term recommendations were carefully framed to make the response to objects left from expired public programs neutral relative to content.
The task force, made up of leaders from the art community, gave a lot of their time to deal with this and approached their work in a fair, evenhanded manner. Even if folks disagree with the recommendations I hope they take the time to understand the issues and the logic that we used. There is nothing in any consideration that represented or reflected elitism or snobbery. Quite the contrary.
I think they're really interesting and unusual and fun.
But then again, I also like the sunsphere a lot, so what do I know?
Actually, if they have to move them I wish they'd put them out front of the storefront art studio they created recently on Broadway. That place is so boring. They really need something to make that site look like there are artsy things going on there. The bears might be just the thing.
It'd be cool if all the bears ended up in one place. Maybe someone has a piece of property that could become "bear habitat" or they could be spread throughout Pigeon Forge. Ah! We could put one at each of the chalets in the mountains and maybe the tourists would quit causing traffic jams when they see the less interesting real bears.
Doug McCaughan
Link...
You should see the moose in downtown Toronto, Canada or the horses in downtown Albuquerque, New Mexico. The bears are art. If one has "obscene" graphics then maybe the owner should consider a repaint by a different artist, but they shouldn't be moved because they are in the way.
As big as I am, I managed to navigate my way down a city street in Toronto and I didn't once trip over or run into a moose statue...not even the one decorated like a Toronto cop. Now the banker that was running out of the Starbuck's to catch the train in the subway...not so much.
This city should be grateful that residents are willing to spend their own money on art and then share it with the community.
_________________________________________________
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"
"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali
This city should be grateful that residents are willing to spend their own money on art and then share it with the community.
Hmmm. So if I want to buy a sculpture of whatever and stick in on the public sidewalk in front of your house, you'll be ok with that? No questions asked? You'll just be grateful I spent my own $$ on art and decided to share?
Of course...there aren't any sidewalks in my subdivision...you could try for the middle of the circle but it might get run over.
_________________________________________________
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"
"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali
I'm happy to see the bears go.
They don't really feel like art to me; more like something akin to festival banners or a Christmas tree left up all year. Not that I'm an authority on what is worthy of our public spaces, but I think clearing the bears away is a good initial move.
How long did Cincinnati keep their pigs around? Didn't Chattanooga have a similar fund raiser? The bears were a fund raiser if I recall correctly weren't they? So do other cities that did similar events keep their art up forever?
Doug McCaughan
Link...
I'm sure that would go well.
I've always liked the hound dog made of metal and gears on Market Square. I can't remember if it's still there. I'll have to go check. I hope it stays.
In my view, the issue with the bears is similar to the issue with the Elvis guy on Market square. A little bit is a lot of fun, but a lot is way too much. The bears were based on the Chicago Cows on Parade idea. If you do a quick internet search for that, you'll find that it was a great event but it's over now. The bears were fun, but that's over now. Karaoke Elvis is fun, but maybe not for four hours a day every day that the temperature gets above 40. He wouldn't self-limit his show, so somebody had to do it for him. A thing like the bear art is great, but not if it means that they get instant historic status and downtown's sidewalks have to end up looking like your Aunt Gertrude's livingroom full of beanie babies, hummel figurines, and souvenir plates.
No it is censership and snobbery.There is no reason for the city to drive off Elvis or the bears.It is the free expression of art.It is control of criticism.The city should let any artist display works of art anywhere as long as people can get by.I read the article last week and saw that they are not consistent with the horse so that proves the agenda here and it is in the present city government no matter what the mouthpiece says.He should stay away from progressive places anyway.First the bear then your war protest banner.The only fair thing is to leave it all.They clearly want to leave it to the artsy crowd to choose stuff the country club crowd wants that does not offend the class in power.Who are these so called artists anyway to suggest censership.
This has stimulated some interesting discussion to be sure. I think the dialog here points to some of the issues that were dealt with. There will be a council workshop on the report of the Public Art Task Force on May 15th at 5pm in the large assembly room of the City Council Building. I hope people can attend.
Elvis and bears should be welcome downtown anytime. Maybe a pie cooling on a window sill would help bring them back.
Rachel is referencing the bear with the 9-11 twin towers burning scene on it that lawyer JD Lee bought and put on the sidewalk in fron of his office. There are still several other bears around on the sidewalks, I question who owns them and why they would have to be moved. I think if people like the private art they are fine with it on public property or anywhere. People tend to want to censor what they don't like and have a double standard for things they do, its human nature. I doubt any of this would have come up had people not complained about JD's bear, now the typical gov. reaction is to throw the baby or bear out with the bathwater.
I gave up on attending city meetings after spending about 8 hours one day and about 4 the next week at meetings concerning the Cumberland House Hotel, that we were led to believe would either not come to fruition or be a bed and breakfast. After 12 hours I saw the fix was in and I have not reason to think the bear fix would not be in also. BTW, I loved Elvis, he was so bizzare and random, I heard many businesses also enjoyed him and the onlookers he brought.
Rachel is referencing the bear with the 9-11 twin towers burning scene on it that lawyer JD Lee bought and put on the sidewalk in fron of his office. There are still several other bears around on the sidewalks, I question who owns them and why they would have to be moved. I think if people like the private art they are fine with it on public property or anywhere. People tend to want to censor what they don't like and have a double standard for things they do
Thanks, Stacy, I was trying NOT to describe that bear precisely because I didn't want people to go exactly where you just went.
The fact that many folks perceived this bear to be in bad taste may have brought the subject to the forefront, but the real issue is that the City had no policy on public art. It needs one. The idea that anyone can stick their private art on public ROW is just not acceptable. And I would say that about a piece of art I loved, as well as about one I find ridiculous and offense.
.there aren't any sidewalks in my subdivision...you could try for the middle of the circle but it might get run over
I should have the right to build a sidewalk in your subdivision so that I can install my art there.
and could you finish paving the street while you're at it? The developer seems to be having a problem getting it done.
_________________________________________________
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"
"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali
Can I have a sidewalk too? Please put one on Northshore so my children are less likely to be hit while waiting for their school bus. I don't care if there's a bear and an Elvis on every block.
Please put one on Northshore so my children are less likely to be hit while waiting for their school bus.
Sorry. It's going in front of your driveway, which is public property if you don't remember. There's plenty of room in your front yard to back your car out around it. Also, it's going to play Toby Keith really loudly, and smell strongly like dog poop. YAY FOR MY RIGHTS!
I have two large German Shepherds. My yard already smells like a pasture. I have five children and the neighborhood children like it over here. We're louder than your music. There is a big difference between art in a completely residential neighborhood and art in a mostly business area.
"Art is never chaste. It ought to be forbidden to ignorant innocents, never allowed into contact with those not sufficiently prepared. Yes, art is dangerous. Where it is chaste, it is not art." - Pablo Picasso
Would you care if I wanted to place some Robert Mapplethorpe pictures next to your driveway? Maybe the kids could acquire an appreciation of some classy S&M graphic art while waiting for the school bus.
It's nothing they wouldn't see by visiting some old churches. A brief glance through his portfolio shows Mapplethorpe to be quite talented. I think I'd be less disturbed by their viewing of his works than by some of the violent things they see on television and video games (don't take that wrong..I do not believe tv or video games lead to desensitization or violence in children). And the children use the Internet. I'm sure they have seen worse than Mapplethorpe's works. Besides, what you see as sexual, children may view as something more innocent.
Doug McCaughan
Link...
with the new Art Police ordinance. If you own the building, it would seem your right to hang whatever you blame well please on the front of it is fully protected. It's not on public property and not obstructing traffic. I believe, in fact, the good attorney who kindly shared his 9/11 bear with the community could take a photograph of said bear, blow it up to poster size, and hang it in his window for everyone to continue to enjoy.
It sure seems like a lot of trouble to go to over one silly old bear, though. Oh, that's right it was about safety and obstructing traffic and controlling what private citizens put in place on public property. I mean, without benefit of this ordinance, downtown might have turned into an enormous outdoor art museum or something. I was plotting to stick a few lawn jockeys, ceramic gnomes, and plastic pink flamingoes up in front of the Bijou, myself. I mean, logically, if we didn't do something about it, we'd have Maplethorpe at our bus stops and stuff, right? Knoxville is positively notorious for fiendishly clever art installers sneaking around in the dead of night and putting up unapproved statuary. There's absolutely no way this whole thing was just a tempest in a teapot stirred up by folks who didn't like some lawyer type's bear, right?
There's absolutely no way this whole thing was just a tempest in a teapot stirred up by folks who didn't like some lawyer type's bear, right?
Here's how it went down:
I saw the bear and found it disturbing.
I called the city to ask where I should direct my comments.*
As it turned out, there was no appropriate destination as the city had no provision for addressing public art.
This revealed the bigger issue which the proposed legislation should address.
Let me add what I have said elsewhere. Knoxville is behind the curve on this. Few cities of its size do not have some sort of organization that administrates public art installations. And if I served as an agent of change by provoking formation of one here through a very civil attempt to simply make my thoughts known, I will take the heat of those who would attempt to portray it differently.
Public sidewalks do not make good private sculpture gardens.
~m.
*Quite honestly, I felt it would just go down as a comment in some record somewhere. I didn't expect that a single citizen complaint would have any effect. But I thought that if others had registered a complaint, then I would simply add to the tally. I also knew a few other folks who had issues with it had asked "who should we talk to about this."
So now we have legislation to put a stop to a non-existant problem so that folks can control where, how, and what creative expression is displayed for the public. Yeah, I know it's public property. Yeah, I know the city's liable if somebody erected something that posed a legitimate hazard to public safety.
Of course, if the display did pose a legitimate hazard, it could have been taken down on those grounds. If the display was not maintained, it could have been removed under existing legislation covering abandoned property. But then again, neither of those remedies permit the formation of a board to make sure nothing similarly offensive to the sensibilities of some ever gets erected on public space again.
As a social libertarian (small l), I'm disappointed to see progressives hide behind such excuses in order to squelch free expression they happen to not agree with. That's the sort of crap I'd expect from a conservative. I held progressives to a higher standard on free speech issues. I guess I was wrong.
I'm surprised anyone has the right to their own property after it's been left in public after a time. How long could someone leave a motorcycle parked on a sidewalk? Could they have indefinite free parking if they call their wheels art? (I know, I know. Many people do think that of their machines.)
No excuses, Ray. This is not political. Sensible residents of all political stripes don't want tacky shit displayed in our town, like an air brush painting of the caliber you'd more expect to see on a customized '70s leisure van with a rebel flag on the bumper. The fact that this one piece depicts the 9/11 attacks just adds insult to injury.
The fact that the bear displays images of 9/11 moves it into the realm of political speech as well as art. If anything, being such, your "insult" ought to have been afforded even more protection from those who didn't like it. It wasn't opposed because it was thought "tacky" in appearance. The rather poor rendition of the mounted cowboy that has long preceded the bear has to be considered in the same general range of "tacky" and its size and precarious appearing mounting is certainly the bear's equal as a sidewalk obstruction and much more dangerous should the thing be tipped over. Nope, that bear was opposed because its message was found offensive by some who frequent the establishment next door.
The gentleman who started the whole effort just said on this very board it was the images that led him to complain. But why keep trying to convince me of the snow white purity of your motives? You have your art approval board. It's all perfectly legal. The bear's history. You've won.
Ah, but tacky is in the eye of the beholder and, here in the land of the Velvet Elvis, whadda ya gonna do?
Visit us at
Wearybottom Associates
Appropriate for city art display? No. Neither are rebel flags.
May I suggest Green Acres to get your culture?
The gentleman who started the whole effort just said on this very board it was the images that led him to complain.
Yeah. What can I say? Art's subjective. And there are going to be people who like things, and people who don't. Some folks would even say that art can provoke things. But there's nothing to suggest that here, is there?
But why keep trying to convince me of the snow white purity of your motives?
Okay, I'll stop(?). My motive was to try to be an active citizen (or pissed off jerk, however you want to characterize it) and make my voice heard to the Powers That Be (selah!) that I didn't particularly like this thing on the sidewalk (naively assuming that, what with it being on the city's sidewalk and all, maybe the city had some complicity. In retrospect, that makes a little too much sense, and I should have known better by now.).
Now you and others (I am so tired of this) can offer speculation of what my real motives are. I'm fairly certain I've got the better perspective on that. But a little disagreement is healthy for a good discussion.
I've copped to not liking the thing. I've copped to making a complaint. And that's about all you seemed to have gotten.
Now...
Let's save a little time and jump ahead. You can buy it or not, but when I really started getting it, the larger issue that our city really had no methods, practices, or programs in place to address public art made a plastic bear on the sidewalk seem rather petty. Which is exactly the way I view people who refuse to acknowledge the need for such programs and prefer to harp on my outspokenness.
You have your art approval board. It's all perfectly legal. The bear's history. You've won.
Not quite. But I am hopeful that Knoxville's going to follow suit with other cities and develop a true arts program. And you're right. The bears are history. They weren't ever supposed to be permanent.
I don't feel like I've won, as you put it. But if that's how you grasp it, then stop being a sore loser. The next game will be with city council. Show up or forfeit.
~m.
The rather poor rendition of the mounted cowboy that has long preceded the bear has to be considered in the same general range of "tacky" and its size and precarious appearing mounting is certainly the bear's equal as a sidewalk obstruction and much more dangerous should the thing be tipped over.
That poor rendition is by Frederic Remington, a respected sculptor. But everyone's a critic, and you're entitled to your opinion. I'm not a big fan of his work, but I like it just fine. I liked it a lot better when it was sitting inside the window, and on private property (yet very publicly displayed).
I do agree about the liability issue. And I think the city sees that. Addressing all of that and more is a function of the proposed committee. And for what it's worth, I made the same argument about removing the bears and leaving the horseman. I'm still not allowed to put my concrete deer in front of the visitor's center.
But I'm told that addressing that statue will be one of the first orders of business for the committee.
~m.
While on the subject, while I think the monument is pretty, I think its self-indulgent that Knoxville has a monument with all the names of the 9-11 victims. I do however think its appropriate that we would honor those like Tony Karnes and a few others with Knoxville connections. The suffrage and the rotary guy also have only loose connections to Knoxville, but they make newcomers to downtown seem interested. I see lots of kids posing for pictures on the various staues around the square. The more the merrier.
I see that the public art censors won. They took the bear from Gay Street. Now I guess Lyons is happy. Thanks a lot for the thought contorl. What next.
Post new comment