Pages
▼
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Input From Dorothy Baert
Hello Ralph,
I agree we need a public art policy and also realize the question of the return of Weeping Cedar Woman is more complex than what is stated in the material submitted below. I offer these comments as some insight into the role of Public Art in the community realm.
There are always opinions and 'interest' groups in any undertaking of this kind; I remind your readers that there was also some discourse around the placing of the Tonquin Anchor on public property, though admittedly more muted than the current discussion. It is all a process but I will comment that acquiring public art in public space does not mean ignoring the more critical and also complex issues of sewage treatment, roads, water services and program delivery etc etc. It isn't an either/or proposition.
Through the RMI, we do have the benefit of resources that are equal to about 25% of the Districts total budget and while we are constrained as to how these monies are spent, it does give us options that can add to the quality of community life (mup extension, lighthouse trail, downtown vitalization, public washrooms etc). I disagree with you Ralph that it is all 'taxpayer' money but rather it is a user fee imposed on travellers from where ever they may call home. Travellers in this case are contributing to community improvements as a way of lessening their impact.
Best regards
Dorothy Baert
Sent from my iPad
Public art is not the grinding, arduous discovery of a common denominator that absolutely everyone will under- stand and endorse. It actually assists in identification of individuals and groups and what separates them, so that agreement on a common purpose is an impassioned deliberation rather than a thoughtless resignation.”
Phillips, Patricia C. “Public Constructions” In Mapping the Terrain; New Genre Public Art, edited by Suzanne Lacy, 69. Seattle: Bay Press, 1995.
Public art is a part of our public history, part of our evolving cul- ture and our collective memory.
It reflects and reveals our society and adds meaning to our cities. As artists respond to our times, they reflect their inner vision to the outside world, and they create a chronicle of our public experience.”
Adapted from Balkin Bach,Penny. Public Art in Philadelphia. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1992.
Public art can be more than amenity, entertainment, or ornamentation. It can be a very energetic investigation. Public art is not a discipline or pro- fession. It is an idea and way of think- ing about art. What makes it public
is that it is situated at the congested crossroads of aesthetics, public life, cultural ideas, and political issues. It is an art which is absolutely engaged with the world and this engagement often invokes spirited disagreement... Absolute consensus is not necessar- ily a happy state. A public art that excites the imaginative potential of many unique individuals in a variety of different ways, is, albeit, a little bit unruly. But a less cautious, less con- strained strategy may lead to the best in public art, as it has in all art.”
Phillips, Patricia C. quoted in Korza, Pam. “Evaluating Artistic Quality in the Public
Realm.” On View: Journal of Public Art and Design,
If public art reflects your society then what does the fact you have no water and you pump raw sewer into the same oceans that you profit from. Slippery slope hey Dorothy, maybe your self worth needs to take a step back and look at what is really important to the community you profit from. Screw your tree how about you be responsible for you community and your environment and then take care of your business and personal property. All you and counsel are doing are making yourself look stupid. The demonstrations are over grow up and do what's best for your town and earn there respect.
ReplyDeleteDear Ms Baert,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your input and explanation of your attitude on this issue.
Your explanation of the differences between "RMI" funds and "taxpayer money" is interesting, but please allow me to point something out to you....... ALL of these moneys. RMI funds AND taxpayer money, belong to the people of Tofino, NOT to you, and NOT to any certain group to spend on whatever might strike their fancy.
You were elected to "serve" in the capacity of a district counselor, not to "rule" and not to impose your will onto the people you have sworn to represent. This is a democracy, it's not about what YOU think, it's about what WE want you to do on our behalf.
This money, both taxpayer funds and RMI dollars could be spent much more wisely than on this frivalous waste of time, effort, and resources.
Listen to the people who elected you. I have, and I hear them saying, in the majority, NO!
If this project is of such deep importance to a certain interest group, please write them a letter expressing your personal support for their project, write them a cheque if you like from your own personal account, and get this foolishness out of council chambers, so more important matters can be given the time and effort they deserve.
Since the last municipal election a bitter period of our village's history seemed to be being put to rest. The fighting, controversy, name-calling, blame, resentments, and divisiveness seemed to be left behind, and a newer, better, spirit of working together toward the benefit of all appeared to be replacing the conflict of the past. It was actually quite refreshing, made one think that the future could actually be an improvement on the past. But now, with this one stupid move, it's all been undone. This one issue has driven a wedge into our village, it's "us" vs "them" again.
How to fix it? Simple. Develop an art acquisition policy that applies equally to all, and invite the "weepers" to re-apply once the policy has been put in place.
It might take a couple years, but that's not a problem. It's not like anyone else is going to come along and buy the thing from "the artist" under our noses.
what anonymous(6:38)said is right on the money. All RMI funds and TAXPAYER'S DOLLARS BELONG TO THE PEOPLE OF TOFINO. It can be spent a lot more wisely I would think.
ReplyDeleteYes, but as Dorothy mentioned, is not some of this money generated directly through tourism? Tourists are not here because of logging and fish farming, in fact quite the opposite. The protests of the 90's put Tofino on the map and I know some of you on the other side of the tracks would like to deny this every happening but the truth is that cedar woman represents tofino (bc)coming out of the dark ages. It's too late now, so if you don't like tourists then time to find a new community because this is the future of Tofino, our prosperity comes from our visitors and I'm sure they would live to see more culture in tofino
ReplyDeleteThe 2% additional hotel tax goes to Tourism Tofino . It is matched by the province in the form of RMI money.Dorothy and I disagree that this is tax money but I think that regardless what label you put on it the funds should be spent wisely.I hardly think that tourism has brought us out of the dark ages.I see many want ads for tourism workers at scarcely above minimum wage.I don't like to see Temporary Foreign Workers filling these jobs when they get sent back after 2 years instead of qualifying for Canadian citizenship.I know a few of these people and think they would make good full time residents of Tofino. Oops ranting again....sorry
Delete8:30 is a delusional projection. the logging protests of the 90s didn't put tofino on the map. nor did those same protests stop logging in kennedy flats. nor did they bring us out of the dark ages.
ReplyDeletethis is the kind of thinking that wants to put us back in the dark ages. there is no one single thing or event that put tofino on the map. it certainly wasn't Cedar woman anymore than it was Arthur Lismer.
you are certainly entitled to your opinion of course, especially here. if you dare look, tofino has been on a map for more than 100 years.
Need to make comment regarding dorothys input: the tone of this input is the of anointed lecturing the stupid about just how stupid uninformed and uneducated they really are when it comes to understanding what public art is.
ReplyDeleteI think this is called arrogance.
to quote academic nonsense about what public art is supposed to be in an attempt to rationalize the pet Cedar woman project is pathetic.
we are not babies out here.
the total disregard and disrespect council is exhibiting on the Cedar woman issue towards a public who disagrees almost wholeheartedly with both the process and the alleged public good that's being done is appalling.
when you get people who aren't artists telling artists what art is and what public art is you got some stupid people
ReplyDeleteisnt the mascot sandy brought to us by Tourism tofino? can someone tell me how tourism tofino isn't part of the district of tofino?
ReplyDeleteso, if I understand this tourism tofino can buy all the tacky art it feels like without any oversight plan or acquisition policies?
personally I feel that Sandy the mascot is a repulsive image hardly better than Mickey Mouse.
so does this mean that tourism tofino could conceivably buy cedar woman and put it wherever they felt appropriate?
I can certainly tell them where they should put it.
8:30PM, What are you talking about? This isn't about the merits of tourism vs resource based industries....... that's been settled. This is a tourism based economy here in Tofino, no one is disputing that.
ReplyDeleteThis is about council's decision to spend public funds, time, and energy on the acquisition of a statue, not about who won the "war of the woods".
It doesn't matter if the funds are "tourism generated" or not, that still doesn't mean that the money is free to waste on anything that comes along. Someone had to work hard to get that money, it's the responsibility of our elected officials to spend it prudently and wisely.
You seem to feel that the statue has "cultural significance". I feel it's a piece of junk. We're all free to see art as we choose, but I'm not suggesting that we spend your money on it.... How do you justify your spending of my money?
You believe that tourists would like to see more "culture". I don't. I believe they would rather see more public washrooms, cleaner streets, more hiking trails, better roads, improved parking facilities, better public transit, more activities for their kids....the list of places to spend money is long, and that silly piece of junk is at the bottom of mine.
Since the comparison has been invited how much money, resource and staff time (included Council direction to research, review and work to acquire/install) the anchor?
ReplyDeleteSince the comparison has been invited how much money, resources and staff time (including Council direction to research, review and work to acquire/install) was spent on the anchor?
ReplyDeleteDorothy - a tax is a tax is a tax - regardless the source, origin or method of extraction.
ReplyDeletesome of the moldy signs have been cleaned lately so at very least we can thank the district for paying attention to details.
ReplyDeletethat's taking care of the infrastructure we have.
the moldy sign issue is a good example of one of the problems of head in the clouds governance:
ignore your shoes or the poop you are stepping in because everything looks fine up where your head is.
for a council to believe it was elected, in part, to decide what constitutes moral and aesthetic values for the people that live here and the people who come here as if we have no choice in the matter is a serious mistake.
following upon that if this council does not reconsider the way it's deciding to spend public funds and publicly funded time upon a corrupt process( without an arts acquisition policy in place) I wouldn't be surprised to see this municipal government go down in flames.
Wheres are the millions of protesters arriving daily to protest the dumping of raw sewage into Clayoquot sound?
ReplyDelete"I disagree with you Ralph that it is all 'taxpayer' money but rather it is a user fee imposed on travellers from where ever they may call home."
ReplyDeleteOh for crying out loud Dorothy! Get a grip on reality!
Ralph is correct. It is all taxpayer money, whether it is the Tofino taxpayer who foots the bill or someone from afar. A user fee is a tax. Someone is paying. And for those that are paying, they are very much aware that they are being taxed, even though they appear invisible.
This is the thing. Bureaucrats gets so used to siphoning out of the public trough that after awhile it becomes all too acceptable…the way it is. Money does not get pulled out of thin air. A little forensic accounting will dispel any myths about user fees not being a tax.
This council considers RMI money like a lottery prize. Look at the expensive cobblestones used at the 4th and Campbell project . Concrete works well for sidewalks but not expensive enough for Tofino . The washrooms at Chesterman's Beach have cedar
ReplyDeleteshakes for their roofing material . Metal roofing is inexpensive to purchase and install as well as being nearly maintenance free but not good enough for Tofino.
Dorothy are these your words or Josie's ?
ReplyDelete"While this is a Very Challenging Issue and I have certainly heard of those who oppose that.
I don't think that Tofino in any way should Shy Away from this Challenge, I think that it's Ours to Meet.
I think it's a Teachable Moment in Our History and..
it is a Point of Conflict and if there is something we can say about this town,
We are Good with Conflict.
I'm OK with That.
This is a teachable moment and I think as long it's interpreted well and ,and this is given ummm.....you know to... I... I... I'm for it.
I just can't see another way around it."
@ February 18 at 8:30 PM
ReplyDeleteYou sound like an Unlettered Environmentalist Librarian.
I believe those are the words of a councillor that is more concerned with higher learning than the well being of the electorate.
ReplyDeletethink its time for garth to step up and take charge as mayor and let the town no we are not going to let special intrest groups decide were our tax dollars be spent.
ReplyDelete