My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
RES 89527
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1980-1989
>
1989
>
RES 89527
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2012 4:11:47 PM
Creation date
11/23/1999 11:09:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
12/12/1989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
10. Who should review/approve the selected artwork? <br /> <br /> The PCAC proposes either Design Review Board or City Council <br /> review, with a public hearing process. <br /> <br /> [As discussed above, either the Design Review Board or <br /> Council is the logical decision-making body if a community- <br /> acceptance criteria is highly valued. On the other hand, <br /> isolating an art-dominated group from other review (i.e. <br /> committee selection without review, up to fund limit) <br /> insulates art from "politics", possibly leading to a purer <br /> "art."] <br /> <br />11. Which methods should be used for artwork selection? <br /> <br /> The PCAC proposes to utilize every available means as <br /> determined by the ad hoc committee. Methods could include <br /> acquisition of completed artwork, direct commission to a <br /> single artist, open competition via proposals for a <br /> particular site, placement of donated art, and any other <br /> feasible means. <br /> <br /> [Breadth of selection method makes the most sense. Most <br /> city programs utilize open competition as the primary means <br /> for securing art.] <br /> <br />12. What criteria would be followed for selection of art? <br /> <br /> The PCAC recommends artwork be durable, easy to maintain, <br /> compatible with the function of the site, and complementary <br /> to/integral with the site. A given site may require that a <br /> certain "theme" or other standard/qualification be <br /> established by the committee before selection. <br /> <br /> [For outdoor art, durability and compatibility with site use <br /> are very important. Typical design criteria are difficult <br /> to specify for art. To the extent certain themes are <br /> desired, artistic compatibility to the theme can be judged. <br /> As for complementary/integral relationship to a site, a <br /> subjective opinion is likely to be the best that can be <br /> gained. This, however, should not detract from a fair and <br /> purposeful process, as subjective, visceral relationship to <br /> art is both desirable and the norm.] <br /> <br />13. What limitations are placed upon artists? <br /> <br /> The PCAC recommends rules to avoid favoritism or other <br /> conflict-of-interest by committee members and limitations on <br /> any single artist's work being selected. <br /> <br /> [As in all municipal affairs, the appearance and reality of <br /> fair dealing must be maintained. Diversity in artists' <br /> works furthers the representation of the public's cultural <br /> values as well as helps ensure fairness.] <br /> <br />IR:89:87 -5- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.