The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCPAAC Minutes 01.19.21 RevCarmel Public Art Advisory Committee Tuesday, January 19, 2021 5:00 PM Microsoft Teams Meeting Minutes In Attendance Committee members: Bill Cooler, Dru Doyle, Kelvin Okamoto, Karen Poyser, Jill Reese, Julia Saltsgaver, Cathy Strawn, Christina Thomas, Donna Tutwiler City Councilors: Jeff Worrell City Employees: Sharon Kibbe, Jennifer Stites Guest: Meeting recorded; streamed on Carmel TV Absent Committee members: None 1.Welcome and Roll Call Saltsgaver 2.Approval of Agenda Saltsgaver a.Jill Reese requested to add discussion on public response on social media to “Morning Sun” installation b.Jill Reese requested to add discussion on definition of public art per CPAAC ordinance 3.Approval of Minutes Saltsgaver a.Minutes approved as revised unanimously by CPAAC members present 4.Discussion of Public Response to “Morning Sun” a.Ms. Reese stated her opinion that the significant number of comments—the vast majority negative--underscored the need for the city to have better process to engage citizens and that moving toward having a public art master plan was desirable. Mr. Okamoto stated that, in his past experience as a member of a public art commission in Carlsbad, CA, the only comments one would hear are negative—implying that those with a positive response were perhaps not motivated to comment. Ms. Reese agreed with Mr. Okamoto generally, but felt that, as the comments numbered about 1000, the sheer number in this instance should not be ignored. Mr. Okamoto reminded the committee that the CPAAC grew out of a social media response to the 3 multicolored athletic sculptures lining Hazel Dell Parkway, much of it negative, and that many people may like those pieces but do not comment so on social media. He advised a more balanced approach to engaging citizen input if the city or CPAAC ever endeavors to do such in the future. b.Ms. Saltsgaver acknowledged 3 main kinds of comments pertaining to: 1) whether they commenter liked the art; 2) inquiring about who selects the art; and 3) inquiring about who pays for the art. She stated that, now, with the newly revised ordinance (allowing the CPAAC to opine as to the city’s acquisition of art), there is a process whereby the CPAAC has been vested with the responsibility of representing the public in such matters. She voiced her desire that this public process be proactively explained out in front of art acquisition or in response to inquiry. She acknowledged that the city has an arts funding procedure as well but that the CPAAC is not privy to the total budget is as it receives the city’s intent to acquire art only one piece at a time. c.Mr. Cooler felt that “Morning Sun” should have been put on a higher base and more surrounding landscaping. Sharon Kibbe added that there would be landscaping in the future per the city engineer. Mr. Okamoto voiced that it would be desirable for the CPAAC to weigh in on such installation details in the future along with our opinion as to whether to acquire the art. He felt the city should include construction details and installation characteristics to future intakes before the CPAAC. d.In retrospect, Ms. Doyle questioned the appropriateness of the location but felt in warmer weather with landscaping, the issue may go away. She added that, if the CPAAC seeks input regarding future location from surrounding businesses, etc., it should have a more formal document explaining the art and its purpose. e.Ms. Reese voiced her opinion that, if there is a future opportunity to move “Morning Sun,” perhaps it should be entertained. f.Ms. Reese raised the repeated concern in the social media comments that the city should utilize local artists and her desire that the public know the CPAAC is aware of and discussed this desire. She reiterated that if the city had a master plan that included communication about overarching goals for its art program (such as using local artists where possible), it would go far to inform and allay concerns of citizens. Ms. Doyle and Mr. Okamoto stated the local artist issue was in the minutes of meetings. g.Ms. Saltsgaver used the discussion as a springboard to request that the CPAAC come up with a short statement of what we value to revise the intake form and against which to weigh future opinions as to whether the city should acquire art. h.Ms. Tutwiler voiced her concern that there is inadequate information available about the city’s art collection that would serve to inform the public—in the form of catalogue or otherwise. Councilor Worrell said the city planned to create a collection document at some unknown time. i.Ms. Strawn suggested that the city send out its public announcement regarding new art before installation, not well after as happened with “Morning Sun.” 5.Discussion of the definition of “public art” as defined by the CPAAC ordinance a.A discussion was held on the purview of “public art” as it is defined by the newly revised CPAAC ordinance in the context of art partially funded by the city in the form of a $5,000 grant for art that will be painted on the side of a privately-owned building. Councilor Worrell opined that the city is not “acquiring” the art and thus the CPAAC has no authority to review the mural. He also opined that, because the art would be placed on private property, the CPAAC had no authority to tell a private owner what he could do with art. Ms. Strawn and Mr. Okamoto voiced their agreement with Worrell. Ms. Saltsgaver raised that the signage ordinance would possibly be triggered and infringe on private property rights. Ms. Reese opined that the current ordinance does not carve out an exception for art which is only partially funded by the city (regardless of the designation of the funds as a “donation” or “grant”) or for art funded by the city that appears in the public realm but on private property. She suggested that if this is the intent and desire of the city, or city councilors, the CPAAC ordinance should be revised to clarify these issues as, currently, it is unclear in her opinion. Ms. Poyser raised the issue that, in this instance, the city is giving less than “over $5,000” as required to trigger the CPAAC’s review and, on that basis, she suggested this art does not fall within the CPAAC’s purview. There was general agreement as to this latter point, and the other issues were moot. 6.Monthly Report from the City Kibbe a.Monon Greenways project: Carmel HS has identified artists i.Julia: Need to have intake forms for CPAAC to b.South Asian Sculpture: no update c.Swing Me Higher, Mama: contract finalization in process d.Waiting to Cross: no update i.Intake form must be completed by Kelvin e.Black Mural: making a donation to the art; city is not acquiring and will not have ownership; mural will not be on public property; will have to go through ADLS application process f.Downtown Carmel water tower light sculpture: information to be provided in the future g.Roundabout sculptures on 96th Street: information to be provided in the future 7.Intake Form Update a. Remove individual vote record b.Suggest clear effective site map from submitter c.Need to update intake form for new responsibilities d.Add value points for CPAAC 8.Catalog Carmel art a.Jeff- document in works by Carmel; to be part of web redo b.Jeff- who chooses the art? It is actually with discussions with gallery owners, such as Evan Lurie, and to city management but in the end, the Mayor does make final decision c.Using social media as guidepost for comments 9.Dru, Bill, Cathy, Kelvin- City of Carmel email issues 10.Next Meeting – Tuesday February 16, 2021 5PM Microsoft Teams