Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFINAL CPAAC Completed Intake Form - Indian Heritage 5.23.23X 1 7 0 0 5-16-23 Sharon Kibbe, Executive Office Manager, Mayor's Office X The CPAAC's extensive comments are attached at the end of this form. The members unanimously agreed that it was fitting and desirable to honor Carmel's Indian community with art generally but voted against this particular piece for a variety of reasons expressed in detail in the comments. The committee discussed concern that building owner and key tenants be engaged as part of the process to confirm location. However, there was no vote taken as to the location as the CPAAC voted against the acquisition as a threshold matter. CPAAC Comments as to Whether to Acquire the Proposed Art (Attachment to Part 2 above) Although the CPAAC voted against this proposal 7-1, the group nonetheless unanimously supports the City’s expressed endeavor to acquire art reflective of its diverse community, and, in this case, reflective of its Indian community. Here, the CPAAC unanimously agreed with the goal of honoring the Indian community and sincerely appreciates the work done thus far. However, for a variety of reasons described below, the majority of CPAAC members believe the current proposal should be altered and/or reimagined to best achieve that goal in a future submission. CPAAC members’ suggestions that were critical of the proposal broke down into two basic categories: 1) those amenable to the City acquiring a Seward Johnson (“SJ”) sculpture, in theory, but desiring/requesting changes to the proposed design prior to acquisition; and 2) those desiring/requesting that the City acquire something other than a SJ sculpture to honor the Indian community. The detailed suggestions in both categories are set forth below. 1) The critical feedback of those amenable to a SJ sculpture in theory included: *The subjects’ traditional dress may reflect only certain parts of India and not others, which may draw criticism. *The piece is “artistically flat” insofar as it depicts no action/activity or element of surprise. *Given the possible interpretation that this could be a family on their way to a performing arts event, the piece seems out of context, given the subjects’ static state as well as the proposed location of a park bench in Midtown near the Monon Trail/Greenway. *Assuming one of the goals of the City’s acquisition is to engage the public by providing a spot for pictures, the piece is unsuitable insofar as the subjects are facing each other, not outward. *Although the CPAAC does not typically comment on basic design elements, multiple members felt fewer than four figures could be considered for space, cost, and artistic value. *A Diwali-theme could be considered as it unites all Indians. 2) The critical feedback of those believing a SJ sculpture is unsuitable for the above- referenced goal *The City should consider engaging an artist of Indian descent for this piece to meaningfully honor the Indian community. *The City’s choice to design a SJ piece seems forced and inauthentic to fit the goal of honoring Carmel’s Indian community. The City gave insufficient, if any, consideration to explore other potential artists and pieces to evoke authenticity. In turn, it gave the exploratory committee too little latitude to do the same. The style and digital scanning process proposed seem a departure from the style of Carmel’s “period” pieces from SJ. *If the City wants to honor the Indian community with art, it should not be with yet another SJ piece as there is little artistic value in them, and the City has enough of them already, as has been repeatedly expressed to the City by CPAAC members in the past. The realism is uninspiring kitsch art, and Carmel can do better. Simply being the biggest purchase of SJ art in the world is not an admirable goal. The public takes pictures by all kinds of art. The committee should be encouraged to think “outside the box” to reselect art of all types from various Indian artists instead of only considering additional SJ pieces to add to the City’s sizeable collection. 3.) CPAAC members’ suggestions that were supportive of the proposal include the following points: *The colors are very attractive and desirable. *The idea of providing a spot for pictures is desirable. Finally, the one member voting in support of acquiring the piece, Luci Snyder, expressed her opinions in an e-mail subsequent to the meeting, which is included below in pertinent part: “[…] I voted , Yes, not because there were things I didn’t like about it but rather because of the nature of the beast…the nature of the committee. I respectfully request that you add to your synopsis that it was stated, name me if you wish, that there were some excellent points about the piece but several others that were not particularly admired. More importantly, the fact that this “static” family was universally identified as Southern Indian might open this piece up for controversy. While I understand that there are some who will always complain, based on the comments from more than several members, earlier input would have been beneficial to the outcome. If, for instance, the committee is just asked early on for some “ideas” for a sculpture honoring our Indian citizens, I think what we would have offered was…..keep it happy, give it some motion…and, consider honoring Diwali, a celebration that all of India and multiple religions celebrate. That’s what we heard last night. Even more important was the fact that several members went to the trouble to ask friends who were Indian for an opinion. Then the people who make the final decision would have another perspective and we wouldn’t always feel like an afterthought.”