Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_ARTAB_11.15.2006Minutes of the Meeting of the Arts and Culture Board City of Georgetown, Texas Wednesday, November 15, 2006 Arts and Culture Board Members present: Addie Busfield, Natalie Dowling, Paul Gaffney (left at 4:50 p.m.), Jane Paden, Georgene Richaud, Ruth Roberts, Rich Bartko (arrived at 4:10 p.m.) Absent: Charles Aguillon (unexcused), Penny Plueckhahn (unexcused) Staff Attending: Eric Lashley, Library Director; Judy Fabry, Library Administrative Assistant Regular Session Call to Order at 4:02 PM A. Call to order and announcements from the Chair Chair Gaffney announced that he would have to leave at 4:45. B. Consideration and approval of minutes of last meeting Ruth Roberts noted that she did not make the comment about the signature line on the Certificate of Excellence needing to be revised. (Acting Secretary listened to audio tape of meeting and changed name to Penny Plueckhahn). Georgene Richaud moved that the minutes be accepted with the recommended correction; Natalie Dowling seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. D. Comments of citizens wishing to address Board None. E. Consideration of and possible action on 1. Report of meeting of Public Art Panel on November 14 and 15 — Natalie Dowling Natalie summarized the process by which the Pubhc Art Panel for the new library had solicited, received, and reviewed the proposals for murals for the children's room. The RFP attracted twenty proposals, among which there were large differences in the bidders and the completeness of their proposals Some were from individuals and some were from partnerships or companies. Each panelist independently scored the proposals and then at the meeting on November 14 the six total scores for each proposal were combined and averaged. Then, as a group, the panel looked at the seven proposals that received a score or 80 or greater After careful examination of these seven proposals, the panel unanimously agreed that Tony Sansevero's proposal, which had an averaged score of 97, should be recommended to the Board. Extensive discussion followed with questions from. the Board members who did not serve on the panel and many comments from panel members about the lessons learned from this experience. While the Board had been concerned at the last meeting that the time frame in which the work has to be completed would be an obstacle to many artists, only one of the proposals had suggested that the work could not be completed by January 19. Ruth said that among the lessons leamed were (1) to have the bidders submit multiple copies of their proposals to eliminate the need to photocopy them for the panel, and (2) to include artistic merit on the score sheet. Both Jane and Addie expressed serious reservations about Sansevero s work and asked for more explanations about why he was chosen. Natalie emphasized the educational aspects of his proposal and the care he seemed to have taken to make sure his depictions were ecologically correct. Jane and Addie preferred the sketches submitted by Deborah Larson but agreed that the examples of previous work that she had submitted were not desirable. Eric said that he is concerned about future projects that may be done for City departments other than the hbrary. How should staff from those departments be involved in the process? Who would show the spaces for the art to the prospective bidders? Who would provide the level of information that he had to give to the muralists? He believes that the person who is the point of contact should not be on the public art panel because that person will have faulted a number of preconceived notions about the bidders that could affect his/her attitude toward their proposals. Rich agreed with Eric's concerns but thinks that the client needs to have the final say about whether he/she is willing to work with the artist that the panel selects Georgene agreed that openness to the client's wishes is paramount if the Arts and Culture Board expects to remain effective and not have a bad reputation with City staff. Ultimately, though, the art is chosen to please the public, not the department head. As in the children's room at the library, the (positive) Wow! factor when one walks into the room is what the Board should strive to achieve, not art that pleases one person. Paul suggested that future RFPs should require artists to submit copies of the sketches/cartoons from which the examples of previous works were created, so that the panel may better determine the artist's ability to transfer his/her artistic vision to the final medium. (Thus was in response to the group's general perception that Larson's sketch of what she proposedto do in the children's room was outstanding, but the other murals she had produced were very flat looking. What had her sketches for them looked like') Jane stated that she found Sansevero's designs to be bad, with many voids and pale colors. The panel members said that they had believed Sansevero's sketches to be unfinished, just examples of what he could do. Georgene pointed out that there is nothing in Sansevero's proposal that indicates what will be on the four mural walls. Then there was discussion about whether proposals should be considered exactly what the artist would do or simply a starting place for discussion with the client about the finished product. The group was divided about this issue. Rich pointed out that there were twenty very different proposals which were almost impossible to compare on a. point -by -point basis. Even though they were all supposed to submit the same thing, they didn't. Paul suggested that the contract could ask for a panel review of Sansevero's drawings that he proposed to create between the time the contract is signed and December 18. This would put the onus on the panel, not Eric, if the drawings were not what the panel believed he would produce. He thought that these approvals could be accomplished by sending .pdfs of the drawings to the panel members for their review and that posted meetings to review them would not be necessary. (At this point Paul Gaffney left the meeting and Ruth Roberts took over as chair.) 2. Considerationof recommendation of Public Art Panel — Natalie Dowling Georgene moved and Natalie seconded a motion to accept Tony Sansevero, the Public Art Panel's recommended artist for the murals in the children's room at the new library. There was no discussion and the vote passed 4 to 2 with Addie Busfield and Jane Paden opposed. Charles Aguillon, Paul Gaffney, and Penny Plueckhahn were absent. Judy Fabry will notify Sansevero of his selection as soon as the City Attorney has the contract prepared. 3. Report on Georgetown Area Community Foundation workshop on 10/27 — Ruth Roberts. Ruth did not attend the meeting but she received some printed material from Tamara Hudgins that she will read and report on at the December meeting. 4. Discussion of "umbrella idea," or "organizing principle" for Georgetown's public art — Paul Gaffney. Since neither Paul nor Penny, who had initiated this discussion, were present, Natalie made a motion to table this item, which was seconded by Rich and passed. unanimously. 5. Creation of bid lists for future public art projects — Judy Fabry. Judy said that getting out the RFPs for the muralist had been rather haphazard and wondered whether the Board wanted to work on developing bid lists that would be ready when another project becomes available. Rich suggested sending letters to the local art organizations and mclude forms that artists could submit to Judy if they want to be on a bid list. He also suggested. that RFPs could be posted on the websites of local arts organizations Jane said that she thinks having an article in the Sun, as we did for the muralist, is the best way to contact local artists. Otherwise, most present seemed to think that using the list of organizations we have and building lists of individuals gradually as we do projects is the easiest way, since no one wanted to accept responsibility for doing the work suggested previously. Rich then brought up the ideaof creating a database in Yahoo that could only be accessed by Board members. No one had any idea whether this would be against City policy. Eric said he'd try to get an opinion from the City Attorney. 6. Nomination for certificate of excellence - Judy Fabry. There were no nominations this month. 7. Drawing to determine length of members' terms - Judy Fabry. The Board members present drew lots to see who would have 1-year terms and who would have 2-year terms beginning in February 2007. Judy explained that regardless of when their teinn expires, everyone would be eligible to reapply for another term if they wanted to continue on the Board. So, all present members could be on the Board for at least three more years from February 2007. With Judy drawing for those who were absent, the lots fell as follows: Natalie Davis Dowling Georgene Richaud Addie Busfield Jane Paden Rich Bartko Ruth Roberts Paul Gaffney Charles Aguillon Penny Plueckhahn 1 year 1 year 2 years 2 years 1 year 2 years 1 year 2 years 2 years. Rich moved to adjourn at 5:15 and Georgene seconded the motion. Respectfully submitted, Judy etary Paul Gaffney,`"Ch iV J J J 15 Sierra's Tumbling Two 176 upwalo3 /Aalsug tr! 6 LMC Murals 35 3 Dupen 2 Debra Larson 83 J J J O O V !T cos N O C7D V CTt C 0 -G C corative Accents/ Woloski , 53 Artist e-Sign Chalet/ Lang @ O 0 r CC? 3 CD CN_D 6 Q c N VI CD IZ5 Utz Cr> 0.a CD O Q N O n CD 1 Mast 1011104111101911011 v.) :s/ Hains 60 CD n a CD N OA O W N - A Cd3t CVO 06 40 20 75 100 95 45 80 75 100 OL I 100 Z o o V O O Cp (71 d d 85 50 08 45 45 86 08 0 CD O V C)t V V W O Cfl rJ J Cit O N Cat O CJt O N Cif O C>J O V 401 541 78 55 88 OL 100 30 20 75' 100 1 100 DO O V 3 O CD O O U1 O 0 0) 25 W Cd31 p U1 881 78 98 52 80 65 !7D �V OD W O W Cd'0 N O 0 0)) Cd7i 390 256 173 507 337 438 273 249 384 155 514 563 -i O mai N CA)- CO C1 CO V COW 94 ©c • C� V 'XI C)) V C31 N CU CA Cp C31 GO C31 V W QO CS) V -.! M O