Beasley sculpture approved for Mitchell library | News | Palo Alto Online |

News

Beasley sculpture approved for Mitchell library

Council allocates $270,000 for new 'destination piece' for renovated library

Palo Alto's new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center will feature at its entrance a blocky, arch-shaped sculpture designed by Bruce Beasley, the same artist whose proposal for a new California Avenue fountain fizzled under a wave of criticism a year ago.

The Beasley sculpture, which would cost the city $270,000, was unanimously approved by the City Council on Monday night. City officials assured the council that the jagged, granite sculpture would serve as the perfect centerpiece for the bond-funded project.

According to the project description in the approved contract, the grey granite sculpture will be a "free standing composition of intersecting geometric forms that form an arch balanced on two columns." It will be 11.5 feet high and 10.5 feet wide and it will be installed on a mound and serve as a "welcoming element and place maker for the library and community center."

Elise DeMarzo, who chairs the Public Art Commission, said the Beasley sculpture is both a fine piece of art and an "amazing deal" for the city, which currently allocates 1 percent of its spending on capital improvement projects to public art. In this case, the Beasley sculpture would eat up the entire 1 percent allotment.

"This is the largest project to take place in Palo Alto in decades and it's absolutely fitting that we have a destination piece of art as a gateway to this amazing new community center and library complex," DeMarzo told the council. "This is the time to do it, this is the place and Bruce Beasley is absolutely the artist."

The Public Art Commission also approved last week spending $120,000 on three other public-art pieces for the project, including a "new media piece" (one that incorporates 20th-century elements such as computer graphics and animation), a mural and "artistically designed

bollards."

The gradually decreasing costs of construction could also bolster the city's effort to bring other works of art to the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center. City Manager James Keene said the project's overall costs, which are projected to fall short of the budgeted amount, could give the council the flexibility to add more art.

"There is some potential for us to explore, if the council wants to make the policy decision, to actually consider additional art," Keene said.

A staff report accompanying the proposed contract describes Beasley as an "internationally-recognized artist" and one of 20 artists worldwide who was commissioned to create art for this year's Olympics in Beijing. The report notes that many cities, including San Francisco, Brea, Sacramento and Stanford showcase his art.

But Beasley's proposal for a new, granite fountain near the California Avenue Caltrain station faced opposition and, ultimately, rejection last November. Dozens of residents urged the City Council to either fix the cracked "bird bath" fountain currently at the site or to replace it with a similar, traditional-looking structure.

The council voted to keep a traditional fountain on the California Avenue site but asked the Public Art Commission to consider bringing a major Beasley work to the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center.

The new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center -- by far the most ambitious element of Palo Alto's $76 million effort to rebuild its libraries -- is slated to be completed in the spring or summer of 2012. The new sculpture is scheduled to be installed toward the end of construction.

What is democracy worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by Alan
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Oct 27, 2009 at 12:20 pm

We don't need this sculpture, nor the $270k expense. It will just attract graffiti.

Use that money to build a better library, or better yet don't spend it.


Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Oct 27, 2009 at 12:24 pm

"The Beasley sculpture, which would cost the city $270,000, was unanimously approved by the City Council on Monday night."

ANother waste of money by our council. Then they want us to approve Measure A!!! Another example of wasteful spending and fiscal irresponsibility by our council
Vote no on Measure A. Vote Larry Klein off the council.


Like this comment
Posted by Nancy
a resident of Green Acres
on Oct 27, 2009 at 12:39 pm

>>> better yet don't spend it.

It is easy to get money from foolish people, especially rich ones.

Or in this case they are spending our money with the passion of Oprah eating another bunt cake.


Like this comment
Posted by Ada
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 27, 2009 at 12:49 pm

$270K for this "Transformer"???? I know many dozens of really good artists (though not born and raised in Palo Alto and having connections of Mr.Beasley) who could have made beautiful metal art installations for 10 times less money. Why not letting Palo Alto residents nominate some artists for this public project and save the city money? Or perhaps involving Palo Alto and Stanford students in designing it?


Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 27, 2009 at 12:59 pm

Apart from the fact that it is very, very expensive and Palo Alto shouldn't be thinking of spending this type of money on art, it looks dangerous to me. Firstly, it looks as if it will topple in an earthquake and secondly, it looks like a magnet for kids to climb on and fall off.


Like this comment
Posted by Art is in the eye of the beholder
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 27, 2009 at 1:05 pm

Does anyone think this is an attractive piece of art? I would like to hear from someone who thinks this piece symbolizes the new community center and represents Palo Alto well.

And then justify nearly $300K.


Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Oct 27, 2009 at 1:11 pm

Is it attractive? Is it art? Does it matter? It is a Bruce Beasley.

As stated in the article:

"Elise DeMarzo, who chairs the Public Art Commission, said the Beasley sculpture is both a fine piece of art and an "amazing deal" for the city, which currently allocates 1 percent of its spending on capital improvement projects to public art. In this case, the Beasley sculpture would eat up the entire 1 percent allotment.

"This is the largest project to take place in Palo Alto in decades and it's absolutely fitting that we have a destination piece of art as a gateway to this amazing new community center and library complex," DeMarzo told the council. "This is the time to do it, this is the place and Bruce Beasley is absolutely the artist."

Money is no object to the Public Art Commission (and some would say that taste is not either). I am sure the council is besides themselves that they have gotten a Bruce Beasley for Palo Alto.
wait until the dedication--the council will be falling all over themselves to pat themselves on the back for a job well-done.

Anyone else besides me think that that money could be used for more pressing things?


Like this comment
Posted by Darwin
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 27, 2009 at 1:23 pm

This money CANNOT be used for anything except for art. There is a mandate that 1% of construction costs must be spent on public art. Which means this money would have been spent anyways.

As for the piece itself, I don't find it particularly unattractive. I think I actually kind of like it.


Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Oct 27, 2009 at 1:29 pm

"This money CANNOT be used for anything except for art."

The mandate cannot be changed? especially in touch economic times? Surely the council, which has found creative ways to use our money, could have tweaked the mandate.

And if the mandate could not be changed should all the money be used for 1 piece of art (even if it is a Bruce Beasley)


Like this comment
Posted by Jamie S.
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 27, 2009 at 2:03 pm

I understand that everyone has their opinions on "art" but seriously.... Palo Alto has the ugliest art/sculptures I have ever seen. I won't even get into the whole half man/half car creation on Alma St. Who does this really represent? No one I know and I've lived here all my life.

How can the city council approve to spend almost $300,000 for another "sculpture" that does nothing? It has NO benefit to the park at all. I could sure think of plenty of other uses that the city could use that for.

However, since apparently these sculptures of "art" around town are so expensive (usually at least a couple hundred thousand), and we all know how many of them there are around town (Calif. Ave). Why doesn't the City of Palo Alto sell them and solve two problems at once. They could solve the budget deficit, and also IMPROVE the way the city looks.

Oh wait....Who would ever buy them besides our city?


Like this comment
Posted by Deputy Dawg
a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 27, 2009 at 2:56 pm

While some in this town might see this 'sculpture' as an "amazing deal" and a "welcoming element and place maker for the library and community center", I'm seeing the remnants of wreckage left over by a demolition crew.


Like this comment
Posted by R
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 27, 2009 at 3:36 pm

The proposed Beasley statue for California Ave was going to cost $185,000. This Beasley statue is $270,000.

Let's not oppose this statue, or the Public Art Commission will just order another Beasley statue ... for $400,000.

-----
Seriously, how do we change this 1% mandate?


Like this comment
Posted by Douglas Moran
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 27, 2009 at 3:57 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

For those complaining about this purchase, are you doing anything to elect Council members who would oppose such approaches to public art? Are you even looking hard enough at candidates to know which ones would and would not perpetuate this practice?

Palo Alto voters have a long history of electing candidates who were open and explicit during their campaigns that they were seeking a seat on the Council to push their cause or hobby and that they had little interest in the primary issues facing the City (the Arts Commission is an example, one step removed). One of the frustrations of campaigning is the number of people who vote based upon vague impressions and wind up voting against their interests (the local newspapers bear some of the blame).

For example, 4 years ago, many people voted for John Barton "because he was on the School Board" and were uninterested in the fact that he was a strong advocate for high-density development that was stressing the schools. Or that his contribution on the School Board was such that _none_ of the other members endorsed him.

On the "1% for art": Many governments (cities...) have similar requirements but rather than targeting it at "collectible art" (Palo Alto's approach) focus on "architectural art" - to make building more interesting, attractive, user-friendly, ...


Like this comment
Posted by George
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 27, 2009 at 4:12 pm

I like art but that's pretty ugly.


Like this comment
Posted by VoxPop
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 27, 2009 at 4:42 pm

What is it with this Beasley fetish? This one looks as if he just superglued together some blocks of rock left over from other commissions.


Like this comment
Posted by I like it
a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 27, 2009 at 4:58 pm

I think it looks great. Just like the big improvement I have seen on California Ave recently.


Like this comment
Posted by Liz
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 27, 2009 at 5:00 pm

I am in favor of public art but have to agree with others that this is not attractive. It reminds me of the skeleton of a structure left after a wild fire. A Californian motif perhaps but not one I want to see represented in our parks. Since this is to be in a well used park how about something with art + function, e.g something that kids can climb on.


Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 27, 2009 at 5:33 pm

Destination art. Wow. Just think: awestruck people will trek to Palo Alto from all over the globe because we have a Beasley.


Like this comment
Posted by Jake
a resident of another community
on Oct 27, 2009 at 10:34 pm

Perfect, just perfect!!!!

These are the choices being made by our elected Council People and City Manager.

$270.00 in these tough financial times is simply crazy.

Examples like this happen everyday in this City.


Like this comment
Posted by Joey
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 28, 2009 at 4:30 am

What a waste of money!
I am voting to kick out the incumbents next week!


Like this comment
Posted by Believer
a resident of Southgate
on Oct 28, 2009 at 7:37 am

See whatever city counslor wants they get!! The city is not runned by the residents. Next thing you know they will decide what books you can read!! Come on people you are educated don't let someone else run your city. I wonder who the city counsil has to report to?


Like this comment
Posted by Joan
a resident of Professorville
on Oct 28, 2009 at 8:47 am

Beasly or Beastly! Really? Is this a joke? It's not as scary as the ghastly ones on California Avenue.


Like this comment
Posted by Victoria
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Oct 28, 2009 at 9:30 am

Ever since I was a kid from Cupertino and had my life saved at Stanford Medical Center, I've aspired to live in Palo Alto. Now that my dream has been realized and I am a Palo Alto resident, I'm ashamed. What WILL the neighbors think? They'll think the City of Palo Alto has a major disconnect between reality and $276K dollars. Yes - art is subjective, yes, it's important. However, a major expenditure for a discretionary art project during a time of local, state, national, and global financial crisis makes all Palo Alto residents look like idiots.


Like this comment
Posted by Jon Parsons
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 28, 2009 at 11:03 am

Whoa! The council is completely out of touch. They say they need new intrusive taxes, but throw money away. This is 10% of the projected yearly revenue from Measure A. WE SHOULD NOT BE SPENDING OUR MONEY ON THIS! Vote for new blood on the Council, with some backbone to stop this needless spending.


Like this comment
Posted by June
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 28, 2009 at 11:12 am

This is not attractive!


Like this comment
Posted by anti-Narnia
a resident of another community
on Oct 28, 2009 at 12:02 pm

The Public Art Commission has it right and kudos to the City Council for having the wisdom to go forward with the acquisiton of a Bruce Beasley commission. The first time the City of Palo Alto had an opportunity to purchase a work by Beasley was in 1979. Unfortunately, the Visual Arts Jury (as they were then called) could not secure the funding for the $50,000 work (approximately $170,000 in today's dollars.) Beasley went on to become one of the premier american sculptors of our times and, had Palo Alto been able to purchase the work in 1977 would be worth far more today. The following is just a sample of Beasley's work and reputation:

SELECTED SOLO EXHIBITIONS
Shanghai Sculpture Space, Shanghai, China (commissioned for the Olympics)
Sarofim School of Fine Arts, Southwestern University, Georgetown, Texas
Atrium Gallery, St. Louis, Missouri
Kouros Gallery, New York
Gwenda Jay Gallery, Chicago, Illinois
Hooks-Epstein Gallery, Houston, Texas
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
City Center, Dortmund, Germany
Scheffel Gallery, Bad Homberg, Germany
Yorkshire Sculpture Park, England
Galerie Marie-Louise Wirth, Zurich, Switzerland
Mannheim City Hall, Mannheim, Germany
Stadtische Kunsthalle Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
Rudolfinum Museum, Prague, Czech Republic
Shidoni Gallery, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Utermann Gallery, Dortmund, Germany

SELECTED MUSEUM COLLECTIONS
Museum of Modern Art, New York
Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York
Musee d’Art Moderne, Paris, France
National Museum of American Art, Washington, D.C.
Stadtische Kunsthalle Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
Museum of Modern Art, San Francisco, California
Los Angeles County Art Museum, Los Angeles
Stanford University Museum of Art, Stanford, California
Sheldon Memorial Art Gallery, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska
Hood Museum of Art, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire
University of Kansas, Spencer Museum of Art, Lawrence, Kansas
Franklin D. Murphy Sculpture Garden, University of California at Los Angeles
Seattle Art Museum, Seattle, Washington
Wichita Art Museum, Wichita, Kansas
Norton Museum of Art, West Palm Beach, Florida
Xantus Janos Museum, Gyor, Hungary
Islamic Museum, Cairo, Egypt



Like this comment
Posted by pat
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 28, 2009 at 12:21 pm

This is all about ego. Don’t you think the council members’ and commission members’ egos are worth $270K? They’re falling all over themselves praising each other because Palo Alto now has a piece of “art” by a world-renowned artist. Woo-Hoo! Aren’t we lucky?

Average residents just aren’t sophisticated enough to appreciate the art commission’s selections, like the hunk of rusty metal at the soccer fields and the weird pieces on California Avenue.

I like Jamie S.’s suggestion to sell all the city art to balance the budget. Since the council and art commissioners are so keen on it, I’m sure they’ll be first in line to buy the pieces. Or are they too frugal with their own money to throw it away like that? I guess its only our tax dollars they like to waste.


Like this comment
Posted by Nat
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 28, 2009 at 1:32 pm

Looks really ugly to me. A sculpture shouldn't be chosen because the artist if famous, but because it is beautiful. gad


Like this comment
Posted by Robert
a resident of Stanford
on Oct 28, 2009 at 1:45 pm

Has the city considered all the ramifications of putting the Beasley scupture in Palo Alto?
We will definitely be flooded with tourists coming not only from California, but from the entire US and the wrold to see this piece of magnificent art. This willl create traffic problems in Palo Alto. Also what are the leagl ramifications if someone has a heart attack from over excitement from seeing a Beasley--will the city be libel for this?
And what about the additional employees that will need to be hired to keep the sculpture clean (I can imagine people getting overly excited from touching this piece fo art)--will the city provide housing for them.
Can you imagine it though, a city with both a Beasley sculpture and eichler homes. Oh my --I think I am having a case of the vapors


Like this comment
Posted by suzie q
a resident of another community
on Oct 28, 2009 at 2:03 pm

I can't believe it ! Another UGLY piece of "art" for Palo Alto....added to the hideous California Avenue "art" Palo Alto deserves the award for UGLIEST ART IN A CALIFORNIA CITY


Like this comment
Posted by SANDRA
a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Oct 28, 2009 at 2:06 pm

It looks like what is left after a house burns down!


Like this comment
Posted by VoxPop
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 28, 2009 at 4:58 pm

anti-Narnia, sounds as if there's plenty of Beasley work out there already. Why does the world need more?


Like this comment
Posted by Mona
a resident of Professorville
on Oct 28, 2009 at 5:25 pm

I like public art, but it is preposterous to spend this sum of money during the current economic crisis.

I would prefer that the money be spent on smaller, more functional pieces like, for example, the California poppy tables and pinwheel-like umbrellas which are in front of Country Sun.

I think that the children and families using the park and library would enjoy that more, too.

The proposed piece is depressing and disturbing.


Like this comment
Posted by Paul Losch
a resident of Palo Alto
on Oct 28, 2009 at 5:44 pm

Paul Losch is a registered user.

I am going to comment in my capacity as a City of Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commissioner, not as by blog or as a private citizen.

The vote last November, 2008 for a new Mitchell Community Center and library improvements included (I think it is law in these sorts of things) a 1% allocation for art as part of the new facility.

Law aside, does ir not that make sense for a complex of this size? Get past current budget and other issues and think about it from that standpoint.

One thing I have learned in my time being part of a City Commission is that, good or bad, right or wrong, there are buckets of money that are not fungible. Had this sculpture project not been approved by City Council, the money would be parked, it could not be used for other purposes.

I am not a good judge of art, but I do think that those that are part of the City of Palo Alto Arts Commission are. We all can comment and complain about a certain piece of art that has become part of town. If the community in general does not like the sort of approach our City's Art Commission is taking, then the community needs to tell City Council to find Arts Commissioners who are qualified to do a better job of selecting art for Palo Alto.

I don't perceive the criticims of the Art Commission to be at that level. It tends to be more people not liking the choices the Commission has made. And not understanding the way these things are funded.


Like this comment
Posted by the watcher
a resident of another community
on Oct 28, 2009 at 6:10 pm

Wow! It is so difficult to put my mind around 270k for a sculpture when the food closet and shelters for the homeless and more recently umemployed are being turned away because of lack of funds. I know, maybe the council members will give pot luck dinner for the homeless. Better yet, maybe they will donate (from their own pockets) winter clothing for the children of the jobless parents in Palo Alto.
In conclusion:
The people on the city council are financially well-off and do not seem to be in touch with today's realities. I think I might have overheard a conversation that went, "well, let them eat cake."
This seems to be the typical mentality of the "haves."


Like this comment
Posted by Kenneth
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 28, 2009 at 6:19 pm

Paul,

You are stumbling into the essence of the matter, even if you do not realize it. A 1% required allocation for art, as part of any project, is a license to allow an insult upon the public, by the dons that control the so-called "arts commission".

The Beasley piece proposed for the California avenue fountain was a depressing pile of cold slabs. This one for the Mitchell Park library is better, but still ominous. Who really thinks children will want to play or skip or express joy about that 'arch'? Sure, there are some brooding existential types that like Beasley, but why should they be allowed to dump on the rest of us? It is NOT their money!

There should not be any public money dedicated to public art. Any such art should be funded by private patrons, and the decisions (on public land) should be put to a choice of the citizens of Palo Alto, not a self-centered and self-interested commission. Any art on private land should be the choice of the property owner (and at their expense).

This leads to the obvious conclusion that we do not need an arts commission, and we certainly should not spend any money on it, or any of its directors.

Pots of public money are a sinister thing.


Like this comment
Posted by pat
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 28, 2009 at 8:28 pm

Paul, you say, “Get past current budget and other issues and think about it from that standpoint."

The budget issue overrides all others because it is OUR money, not the council’s, not the art commission’s. We are paying taxes – and being asked for more because of a budget deficit – while the council spends on non-essentials.

Forget the fungible factor. The fact is that our city fathers don’t know how to manage our money. The 1% rule is a red herring and should be repealed. If it takes a petition or an initiative, let’s get that going.

Kenneth is right: “There should not be any public money dedicated to public art.”

PS to VoxPop: Note that the long list anti-Narnia posted is not a list of installations. It's a list of where he exhibited.


Like this comment
Posted by non-artist
a resident of Community Center
on Oct 28, 2009 at 11:36 pm

I agree, that piece of art looks ugly to me. But, I still remember the Foreign Friends statue from many years ago, which I loved, but apparently nobody else did. It was a folk art wooden statue of people sitting on a bench. My children loved it and climbed on it, it was warm and inviting, but it got vandalized so often that finally the city scrapped it altogether. So it looks like we need to have large ugly metal art if we have any at all. This one, though not inviting, is at least not as repulsive as the child with the face in the belly, or the stupid car with legs. I have to agree that Palo Alto public art right now is as unappealing as I can imagine.

But, what can we do about it? Let's hear from some of the candidates - who is willing to take on the Arts commission?


Like this comment
Posted by Foreign Friends are gone
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Oct 29, 2009 at 12:29 am

The great thing about "Foreign Friends" was it was a GIFT from our Sister City in Sweden. But because it was a gift and came free of charge the City had it destroyed.

Art to our Art Commission and City Council must cost a lot of money to be considered "Art". In this case $270,000!!


Like this comment
Posted by Douglas Moran
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 29, 2009 at 2:48 am

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

Paul Losch's comment that the money is not fungible is not correct. The Council took money from the Library bond to buy this sculpture, leaving no funds for art within the Library. So they plan to take money from elsewhere for art for the Library. So there is a certain fungibility there.

And as multiple people have pointed out this thread (me included), art extends beyond pieces by big name artists that are collected. The intent behind the 1% rule was that art is an integral part of the look-and-feel and functioning of a building (just like a budget for furniture). It was not supposed to be a slush fund for officials to indulge their egos/private tastes with taxpayer money.

BTW, to my mind the best piece of public art in Palo Alto is the entrance to the Junior Museum and Zoo: It identifies and sets the tone for what is an otherwise undistinguished building. The Sunflower tables are a close second (but to really appreciate them, you need to see them from above). More of the trompe l'oeil would be good (they add an unexpectedness/whimsy).

Neighboring communities seem to do much better than Palo Alto in selecting art that improves public spaces.


Like this comment
Posted by RS
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 29, 2009 at 11:06 am

Last I new they were still fighting over the design of the libraries.
Why was spending 40% of this "art" budget even a priority? Shouldn't they have the design of the libraries nailed down before they burden the design with a specific piece of art?

This isn't about acquiring art for the library, this is about raiding the library building funds to acquire a "Beasley"


Like this comment
Posted by pat
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 29, 2009 at 4:59 pm

To change the 1% for public art rule would require an initiative. See
Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by Nora Charles
a resident of Stanford
on Oct 29, 2009 at 9:03 pm

I'm sure an up and coming local artist could create something more imaginative and attractive at a fraction of the cost. As could most local school children, for that matter. Anyway, if the 1% for public art MUST be spent, couldn't it at least be spread around the city? That sort of cash could fund at least twenty projects. (But please, no joyless sculptures or "Go Mommas.")

Brilliant decisions like these make me wish Stanford residents could vote for City Council.


Like this comment
Posted by Richard Placone
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 29, 2009 at 10:05 pm

This is a copy of a letter I've sent to the editors of two papers distributed in Palo alto, and to the members of the City Council and the city manager. The quotation cited is by Doug Moran in this forum and printed herein.


Editor,Council Members, City Manager

I read the following posting in a local online forum (slightly edited):

“ Paul Losch's comment that the money is not fungible is not correct. The Council took money from the Library bond to buy [the Beasley] sculpture, leaving no funds for art within the Library. So [the Council] plans to take money from elsewhere for art for the Library. So there is a certain fungibility there.

And as multiple people have pointed out...., art extends beyond pieces by big name artists...... the 1% rule was that [funds for] art....... was not supposed to be a slush fund for officials to indulge their egos/private tastes with taxpayer money.”

My response and comments follow:

Question 1: Since we have five libraries and are remodeling four, which library will be blessed with the " money from elsewhere for art"?

Question 2: Friends of mine from this city spent nearly 30 years collecting art from all over the community, thereby supporting local artists while bedecking their home with hundreds of beautiful art works, and not spending a fortune. Why can't the city open its hallways and meeting rooms and yes, libraries, for artists to display their works? Over time the city could even buy some for its permanent collection, and the artists could put a discreet sign by their painting letting viewers know where they can go to see more and maybe buy their own. Everybody wins. Granted, no political egos are puffed up, and no one from France is going to come to Palo Alto to see its art collection, but I'll bet the residents would be ecstatic to see a myriad of works done by their friends and neighbors and fellow community members.

That is what civic engagement means to me.

Richard C. Placone

PS The list above showing where Beasley sculptures are located fails to mention a few things: Most of these are very large international cities; the matter of local funding is not mentioned, nor is the matter of how many were gifts to the city by wealthy residents.


Like this comment
Posted by CHinCider
a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 30, 2009 at 7:52 am

To "not an artist" and Foreign Friends are gone" -

The real reason the friends statues were remeved was that
the combination of vandalism, termites, and dry rot rendered them unsafe. Repairs were made 3 or 4 times until they became untenable. Perhaps wood was not the best material to choose for an outdoor sculpture, but it is my understanding that the artist never intended it to be permenant. The "good news" is that the Beasley structure will be much more durable.......


Like this comment
Posted by Nancy
a resident of Green Acres
on Oct 30, 2009 at 8:53 am

I can to the realization in my early 20's that I am working too hard for the government and they are most surly not working hard for me or my family.

Here later in life is another example of how the hubris of government harms all of us. The scheme to take borrowed money (via a bond) to purchase this so called work of art. On the face of it here is another lie to the voters who voted in favor of the library bond. The measure authorizes $76 million in bonds to update the library. Measure N was approved with 69.36% of the vote.

Not a word was mentioned of the borrowing of borrowed money to pay for this "art".

This was what the voters authorized from the ballot:
To provide additional space to expand library collections, add new children's and group program areas, replace outdated lighting, provide modern ventilation and air conditioning systems, ensure seismic safety and enhance disabled access, shall the City of Palo Alto issue bonds up to $76,000,000 to construct a new energy-efficient Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, expand and renovate Main Library, and renovate Downtown Library. There is not a word about this type of expenditure.


Like this comment
Posted by pat
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 30, 2009 at 10:57 am

Nancy, good points about hubris and the bond wording.

HUBRIS: Apparently, the 1% for public art idea came about in 2005 from Kishimoto, Mossar and Ojakian when they were on the finance committee.

Finance Committee Meeting January 19, 2005 Web Link

Finance Committee recommends to the City Council to adopt an “art in City projects” policy, that includes a “1 Percent for Art Program,” and direct staff to implement the Policy and Procedure.

Council Member Kishimoto said the City needed to be the leader with the policy. (Keep in mind that Kishimoto is now running for state assembly.)

BOND: Given the finance charges on the bond, the sculpture will ultimately cost about $540K.


Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Oct 30, 2009 at 11:28 am

Pat--thanks for the info about who is behind this "1% for art" thing.
kishimoto never thought anything was too expensive to spend someone else's money on--witness her tenure on the council. Now if Beasley can say that the sculpture was made using "green" technology, then Kishsimoto will be in seventh heaven


Like this comment
Posted by pat
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 30, 2009 at 5:33 pm

There's a website devoted to PA public art. This is separate from the 1% art. This money comes out of the general fund. The budget for 2010-11 is $109,393.

Web Link
The City of Palo Alto's Art In Public Places Program numbers a total of 326 artworks, both two-dimensional and three dimensional. The Art In Public Places Program is supported by the City of Palo Alto. The Public Art Commission is charged with recommending to and advising the City Council on the selection of artists for a project, the selection of particular works of art, and the approval of designs and plans for works of art under the Art in Public Places Program.


Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 30, 2009 at 6:05 pm

I have nothing against art, but this sculpture is ugly, expensive and it sounds like it is squandering all the available money for one piece. If we are going to be wise, we should be thinking of art as being something to enhance the various rooms and entrances to all the remodeled library/community center space. If we spend too much on one piece, we will have nothing left for the rest. I would hope to be able to see a few pieces in each place I visit.


Like this comment
Posted by Mark Weiss
a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 31, 2009 at 12:18 pm

My name is Mark Weiss, I am a Gunn and Dartmouth graduate, and I have spent all my time and energy over the last fifteen years running an ARTS business here in this town. Contrary to about ninety percent of the people who have posted before me, I feel that the arts are a very important part of Palo Alto, our community, our country and our civilization. Who would we be as a people without, say, Robert Frost,, Maya Angelou, Georgia O’Keefe and Nathan Oliveira?

I have to say, again, in opposition to many of you, like “Voxpop” and “Deputy Dawg,” that I am THRILLED and, further PROUD of our City Council and our Public Art Commissioners for approving the Bruce Beasley sculpture.

I met Bruce Beasley – like myself a Dartmouth Big Green, like my mom and sister a Cal grad – on California Avenue, near the poor dead fountain, and was immediately impressed by him, and vowed to support him and his work. It’s been an honor!

I feel the arts are under-appreciated in our current discourse. I feel that too much quantitative thinking, black and white thinking, zeros and ones but nothing of the infinite in-between have warped our perception and undermined our policy and democracy and community.

The question is not about whether a group of Ohlone kindergartners or Stanford design students could make a better arch – or whether Beasley is the next Di Suvero, Serra or Noguchi – but what would we become if we actually valued empty space over art, or 100 percent business over 99 percent business and 1 percent art?

“Foreign Friends,” “Hey Mama”, Bruce Beasley, Greg Brown – love them or hate ‘em, these discussions are the commons on which we have built our community, our shared humanity.

Mark Weiss
president, Earthwise Productions
1788 Oak Creek Drive
650.305.0701


Like this comment
Posted by Kenneth
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 31, 2009 at 1:53 pm

"I am THRILLED and, further PROUD of our City Council and our Public Art Commissioners for approving the Bruce Beasley sculpture"

Mark Weiss,

That's nice, for you to be thrilled and proud. Many of the rest of us are not.

The question is not art or no art. It is a matter of public/private choice and who pays for it. Do you have any idea how offended some of us are to be forced to see some of the (literal) junk that is forced upon our eyeballs and souls, then being further offended by the fact that we are FORCED to pay for it?

Your argument, Mark, is that a very small minority of citizens, like yourself, should have a 1% pool of money to do you own exalted thing. I disagree.


Like this comment
Posted by Professional Artist
a resident of another community
on Oct 31, 2009 at 2:50 pm

This whole thing is PATHETIC.
The problem is not Bruce Beasley, who is either been going senile in the past 10 years or he is an unimaginative mediocre so called artist who can manage to get a lot of money for crap.
The problem is not the members of the city council who obviously have no artistic education and are not qualified to make such decisions.

The problem is "the Palo Alto residents" who's tax money are spent in a stupid manner and none of them really does anything to stop it.

Just look at another piece of crap called "Tilted donut" installed at the corner of El Camino and Page Mill road. This is alienating art for brainless people with no souls.

Palo Alto people deserve the government they voted for.






Like this comment
Posted by annie
a resident of another community
on Oct 31, 2009 at 3:26 pm

I love art, outdoor sculpture, outdoor installations.... but this Beasley piece doesn't do much for me, except make me wonder about the sanity and sensibility of the PA city council.

Now the trees..... the trees along California Avenue.... those were exquisite outdoor sculptures.


Like this comment
Posted by Kenneth
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 31, 2009 at 3:45 pm

Professional Artist,

Please save us from your art choices, unless you are able to attract a patron that pays to show your stuff (on the patron's private property).

The pathetic situaion is that PA taxpayers are required to pay 1% for art. It is impossible for a pool of such money to be required, then expect that acceptable 'art' will come out of it.

An example of the absurdity is Caffe Riace, on Sheridan Ave. The private developer was forced to provide some public art. He did, even though he should not have been. He put up a couple of Greek Warriors (I think), but that wasn't enough...he was then forced to pay for an absurdity of a woman inside of (or outsdie of?) a washing machine. If this was just the owner's decision, and he decided to pay for it, it wouldn't bother me that much...I can always decide to not patronize his place. However, he was FORCED to do this thing!

There is no logical way out of this conundrum, other than cancelling the 1% rule for 'art'. If people want art, let them pay for it. Presumably, you would patronize a restaurant that has art that you would like. So would I.

In the meantime, Palo Alto needs to completely eliminate the so-called arts commission. It is a low-hanging fruit than should be used to begin to reduce our budget deficit.


Like this comment
Posted by Rethink the 1%
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 31, 2009 at 4:03 pm

I think the council felt pressured to follow the Art Commission recommendation because when they asked the Library Commission to add some more books when they remodel the Downtown Library, the council was criticized severely and the chairman of that commission resigned in a hissy fit.
So I am sympathetic this time with the council. Here the question is why the Art commission is so committed to this particular artist. He's an impressive person, is that a reason to buy this piece?


Like this comment
Posted by Mark Weiss
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 31, 2009 at 5:41 pm

I recommend that if you feel strongly about wanting more for your art tax dollar that you either start attending Public Art Commission meetings as a citizen or better yet apply for Public Art Commission as a potential commissioner or even run for City Council. There were only two applicants for the recent opening on the commission. I still refuse to believe that Palo Alto is a town where the average homeowner lives in a million dollar (or two million dollar, up to 20 millon dollar) home yet whines about paying one dollar per capita or two dollars per household for the common good of public art. I think in the One Percent set aside it is the builders who are paying for the art, hopefully out of their profit.
Mark Weiss


Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 31, 2009 at 5:51 pm

we have nothing against public art, but the proposed sculpture looks like a bombed out building in Gaza. Awful

The park is surrounded by schools, a library a teen center etc.
Something more pastoral and classically proportioned would be ok, not this


Like this comment
Posted by Kenneth
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 31, 2009 at 6:00 pm

"if you feel strongly about wanting more for your art tax dollar"

Isn't that the point, Mark? We have a big budget deficit, and we need to make cuts. Where better to start, than to eliminate the arts commission, as well as the 1% tax on new projects? Just to make it clear to you, there should be NO "art tax dollar".

However there SHOULD be money spent on art, as long as it is a free choice, by free patrons. A pot of public money for art is a prescription for a disaster, and that is what has happened.

Palo Alto has been diminished, not enhanced, by its overall outdoor 'art' experiment. It is time to shut it down. It doesn't really matter what the new city council will be, because they will be confronted with a reality they cannot avoid.


Like this comment
Posted by You gotta be kidding
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2009 at 12:27 am

That is one seriously depressing piece. Would it help if we taxpayers paid the commission $250,001 not to put that eyesore up? Who wants to be depressed everytime one walks by that thing? My seven year old could offer a more aesthetic abstract....wouldn't cost you half as much.


Like this comment
Posted by pat
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 1, 2009 at 9:03 pm

Kenneth, I agree that we should stop the 1% rule (which forces developers to spend 1% of the cost of the project on “art”). Unfortunately, it will take an initiative to change that rule.

We should also disband the art commission and the Art In Public Places Program.

Mark Weiss says, “I feel the arts are under-appreciated in our current discourse. I feel that too much quantitative thinking, black and white thinking, zeros and ones but nothing of the infinite in-between have warped our perception and undermined our policy and democracy and community.”

Mark, how much quantitative thinking goes into your business as a concert promoter and artist manager? Would you and your artists be giving concerts if you couldn’t make a living at it? Does the “infinite in-between” put a roof over your head and food on the table?

Think of the Palo Alto budget as your own personal budget. Would you spend money on a painting or a sculpture if you couldn’t pay your rent, car & health insurance, phone bill, etc.?

Palo Alto and the state of California are in deep financial trouble. In September 2008, Palo Alto had a $307M infrastructure backlog for repairs & renovations to streets, sidewalks, bridges, parks and open space. In addition, another $148M would be needed to address future infrastructure needs at major city facilities.

Does that mean art isn’t appreciated? I don’t think so. Maslow’s pyramid is at play here. I think those of us who engage in practical, quantitative thinking would like to see our tax dollars spent on the most essential priorities.

I fail to see how that has “warped our perception and undermined our policy and democracy and community.”


Like this comment
Posted by Too much pseudo art
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2009 at 6:29 am

I'm pleased to say I voted against the library bond. My small protest against wastfulness such as the Beasley monument to the glorification of ugly dead concrete.

So, the Beasley sculpture will cost $270,000. Pierce Mitchell, who spearheaded the purchase of the land for Mitchell Park, persuaded the City Council in 1951 to come up with the huge sum of $60,000 to by the parkland. The County had plans to build a Juvenile detention center on the site!!!

The City already has 326 pieces of public art scattered around Palo Alto, (mostly on California Avenue)isn't that enough? There should be a moritorium on public art for at least five years to let us absorb what we already have.

There is a misguided candidate running for City Council on a platform of even more pseudo public art for Palo Alto. Don't vote for him.































































































































































Like this comment
Posted by pat
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 2, 2009 at 11:37 am

For those who haven’t mailed in their ballots, who is the candidate who wants more pseudo art?


Like this comment
Posted by Mark Weiss
a resident of Barron Park
on Nov 2, 2009 at 3:51 pm

I met a PhD candidate (B___) from Stanford yesterday and he told me that stimulus spending in the arts (like the Beasley piece) is significantly more efficient than spending in other areas. I am sorry that so many of you won't believe this until you see it.

Here is a long but well argued paper on the topic:
Web Link

Here is a KQED video on Bruce Beasley. I'm a little bit ashamed that some of you make our community sound like a bunch of philistines or worse. Correct me if I am wrong and the one who called him "senile" is actually a neurologist.

Web Link

Mark Weiss
running for council as defender of the arts but also
SPEAKING OUT AGAINST REAL ESTATE INTERESTS -- bigger problem!!!
AGAINST MEASURE A -- regressive tax, poorly conceived


Like this comment
Posted by Kenneth
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 2, 2009 at 4:06 pm

"I'm a little bit ashamed that some of you make our community sound like a bunch of philistines or worse."

Mark,

You are now whining. That, in itself, is a work of art, but many of us philistines would not support our tax dollar going to embed it in our culture.

There is a LOT of private money in this town. If you want a Beasley piece to be planted here, then get a patron to plant it in his/her own front yard. That way, we can all walk by, should we care to, and admire it.


Like this comment
Posted by pat
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 2, 2009 at 5:15 pm

Mark,
Speaking as a defender of taxpayers and responsible budgeting (a philistine in your view), why didn’t you respond to my questions in a previous post, i.e.,

- How much quantitative thinking goes into your business as a concert promoter and artist manager? Would you and your artists be giving concerts if you couldn’t make a living at it? Does the “infinite in-between” put a roof over your head and food on the table?

- Would you spend money on art if you couldn’t pay your rent, car & health insurance, phone bill, etc.?

Regarding the paper you reference. It begins:
“All government spending…creates jobs and other direct and indirect economic benefits. Spending on the arts does as well, but it also advances a critical strategic objective. Of all economic sectors, none has greater claim to creativity and innovation as its core competence than the arts. The future of the American economy, its growth, productivity, and specializations, is and has always been a function of ingenuity and enterprise—the very expertise of America’s creative artists.”

Quite a sweeping statement. Is microbiology an art? Computer science? Mechanical engineering? Rocket science?

A rather self-serving paper written by – an artist!


Like this comment
Posted by Why??
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 2, 2009 at 6:07 pm

As a resident of the area right around Mitchell Park, I am completely bewildered by the money they're spending on this. Just last week, I headed to the library about an hour and a half before regular closing time (a modest 6pm), and the sign in front of the locked door read "Closed for budgetary reasons." I thought libraries were about being open, stocked, and staffed, and welcoming for the community that depends on them. Who cares about the artwork in the entryway?


Like this comment
Posted by Midtown Resident
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 2, 2009 at 7:20 pm

We must find a better use for this money. I fully agree with the sentiments above - art is important, but let's not fund it with public $ especially when when face with today's budget challenges.


Like this comment
Posted by Mark Weiss
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 3, 2009 at 9:24 am

I posted my phone number above and am perfectly willing to talk about this further with anyone who calls me.
To answer the semi-anonymous "Pat" of Midtown, I produced about 150 concerts at Cubberley Center with my own money subsidizing in many cases the money I took in from ticket sales or sponsorships because I believed and continue to believe that art, music, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the First Amendment are all related and all vital to a Democracy. I never said that art is more important than food or the Public Arts Commission is more important than more volumes in our libraries or longer library hours -- I am for extending the libraries to 10 to 10 7 days a week and finding the money to pay for it. I am offering to serve our community on Council but obviously not counting on it. I have a business to run and will probably continue to work on things that I think are important as a private citizen or part of a group or as founder of initiatives or part of an existing NGO.
I think these debates are great, although I think better is to attend meetings or join a committee or form your own group. Margaret Mead said never under-estimate what a small group of committed people can do to change the world. Gandhi said be the change you wish to see in the world. I have become rather arty myself -- because I think there is an over -emphasis on left-brain thinking which is leaving us short of a "more perfect union" and we seem to be lacking as a community compared to what I remember growing up here.
I think the budget discussion is a smoke screen from the far right. It is simple math, people. Let's raise taxes and repeal Prop 13. And ask our neighbors who are millionaires and billionaires to kick in as private-public partnerships, philanthropic etc.
I have to log off and meet the real world. Have a nice day.
Mark Weiss


Like this comment
Posted by True-Cost
a resident of Crescent Park
on Nov 3, 2009 at 9:36 am

If this piece of "art" is actually paid for from the Bond funds, then the true cost will be about double any numbers quote here. That makes this piece's cost closer to $550K.

Most people routinely forget that the taxpayers have to also pay the interest on the bond's principal--which is often about 2X the amount borrowed by the bond.


Like this comment
Posted by True-Cost
a resident of Crescent Park
on Nov 3, 2009 at 11:23 am

> I am for extending the libraries to 10 to 10 7 days a week

The libraries are generally empty after 6:00PM. And the College Terrace library is generally empty all day long. The downtown library usually has a “crowd” of homeless people, but very few residents.

The world of information distribution is changing. Even the publishing people are at last getting on-board with the idea that print distribution will soon be displaced by digital distribution, as the following article points out:

At Frankfurt (Book Fair), Many Say Digital Will Take Over
Print Books by 2018:
Web Link

Magazines and newspapers are struggling to find a new business model, as hundreds of smaller papers have either given up the ghost, or so will:
Final edition/Twilight of the American newspaper:
Web Link

Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Sony all have (or soon will have) on-line book stores with new releases selling from $5 to $10, which is generally about 50% (or less) than what people pay for paper copies. There is talk about e-books being about $4 in the future. And .. all of these books will be on-line, and available for reading with about 1 minutes download time.

The idea that the public should be spending $5-$10 per loaned item for some people in the community, when the world’s great literature will soon be on-line, and all of the recent releases will be not only on-line, but very affordable, makes the idea of paying to keep libraries open seven days a week the thinking of someone unaware of the directions of the publishing industry, the reading public (worldwide), and not in possession of good public money management sense.


Like this comment
Posted by Douglas Moran
a resident of Barron Park
on Nov 3, 2009 at 4:06 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

Re: True-Cost's statement about library usage -- off topic, but to counter such being treated as fact

College Terrace: When it was open (currently undergoing renovation), my experience was that it was heavily used (I went there to pick up items I requested via the website). The children's area is well used and there are often groups of 10-15 children (plus parents) there. The deskside Internet computers typically are in use and the laptops I see in use I presume to be check-outs. There are typically 3-5 people in the reading area. When I browse the DVD collection (two racks), I am rarely alone -- the density of browsers is higher than what I encounter at Main, Mitchell Park or Los Altos. When I go to use the check-out machine, I have to wait 25-33% of the time. The stacks of books have few patrons, but it is similar to what I encounter at Main and Los Altos. Hardly True-Cost's "generally empty all day long."

As to "The libraries are generally empty after 6:00PM" this is contrary to my experience with both Mitchell Park and Main.


Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 3, 2009 at 4:51 pm

Library usage is getting harder. I have been to the library some evenings just past 6.00 and it is closed. I have been some mornings and it is closed. I can't remember the various times and I don't always plan my trip in advance, it is often because I am passing.

If the libraries were open 10 til 10 it would be easier to go knowing it would be open. If they were not closed in hot weather or for budget reasons, it would be easier.


Like this comment
Posted by Disappointed
a resident of another community
on Nov 3, 2009 at 6:33 pm

Meaningless art for careless people in a provincial, pretentious town.
The only winner here is Bruce Beasley who makes easy money on a quick and dirty job fabricated in China. ( check with with the art commission)

P A T H E T I C !!!!!!!


Like this comment
Posted by Citizen X
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Nov 4, 2009 at 9:26 pm

Wow. People losing their jobs. City budget in shambles. Regardless of this 1% bond measure crap. I'm embarrassed to tell people I'm from Palo Alto because of crap like this. Most cities have one, maybe two, beautiful, hi-tech, large libraries. Palo Alto? Every neighborhood has to have their own, no matter the cost to other city services. Now $270K on an ugly piece of art that will most certainly be a magnet for graffiti. Why can we not make art more of a community event? I recently went to a community art "competition" in Cloverdale where several artists created their sculptures, put them on display downtown and the community voted on what they liked. The winner received a relatively small amount of prize money and the honor of their piece displayed in the town center. But not in Palo Alto...we prefer to pay for stinky dead bugs stuck to phone books to adorn our council chambers. Or stare at a wooden shack for a couple years. Yep, that's art Palo Alto...


Like this comment
Posted by Mark Weiss
a resident of Barron Park
on Nov 5, 2009 at 10:19 am

Speaking of which, there is a great article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal about my new hero Rocco Landesmann, the chairman of the $160 million National Endowment for The Arts (which works out to, what, fifty cents per capita?) and he says he is going to look for worthy grant recipients who work in hip hop, mural painting and graffiti.

I spoke at Council on Monday about how maybe, in response to some of above, that maybe we can get an additional grant for a local artist or filmmaker to be Beasley's intern on this project and maybe go to China with him.

Also, off topic, thanks to my former neighbor and PAN guru and usually nemesis who wants to teach me C or rip on Danny Hillis or have me name-check Turing Doug Moran for defending our libraries, and me!

WSJ:
Web Link

Mark Weiss
take the skinheads bowling and bake with the national security council great fall of sino

not to stray off topic but: this month marks EIGHT YEARS in Afghanistan is that good use of our tax dollars?


Like this comment
Posted by only in Palo Alto
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Nov 5, 2009 at 10:49 am

I grew up with a starving artist as a step-parent. I love and appreciate how fine artwork calls our attention. I also know there are plenty of excellent starving artists who are quite inspired and would just like their work to be displayed... and maybe be reimbursed for the cost of materials, plus some extra to buy groceries. BUT in the words of Monty Python, $270K is just plain "silly." Sorry, but even if I had unlimited amounts of money, I wouldn't waste it.

This town has so many basics neglected it's scary. The powers that be are just putting up a false front while the infrastructure crumbles underneath our feet. Talk about lipstick on a pig.

Why don't they just plant a specimen tree instead? oops, did I say that?


Like this comment
Posted by Disappointed & getting angry
a resident of another community
on Nov 7, 2009 at 10:14 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by See Bee
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 8, 2009 at 9:33 am

"An amazing deal"? I actually kind of like the sculpture, but it seems grossly overpriced and I wouldn't want to be near it during an earthquake. What does Beasley charge for his creative services--$10K/hour? I can't imagine that the concrete, steel, and minimum wage earners who will probably construct it will add up to $270K. If city parks seem a bit devoid of frivolous decorations, there are plenty of talented artists in the area who would probably produce similar sculptures for a lot less. Will the folks at city hall who allocated this obscene amount of money for a single "piece of art" (or piece of something else) during a recession take a hint from the defeat of Measure A?


Like this comment
Posted by Mark Weiss
a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Nov 25, 2009 at 7:21 pm

I attended the Public Art Commission meeting last week and discovered that there was no one attending accept commissioners, city staff, a reporter for the Weekly and myself. If you people are so upset about how Democracy works here and how decisions are made here, get off your tuckas and do something about it!

Maybe the internet is a cruel prank that keeps people from actually getting things done.


Like this comment
Posted by Rethink the 1%
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 25, 2009 at 8:53 pm

The last Auditor's report said they could add more open hours by scheduling more efficiently.
Main is full of people late Saturday at 6 and Sunday at 5 and the parking lot is full of cars but people have to leave.
The Beasley is a "destination piece" and an "amazing deal." Sounds like marketing language.
Just wait till the latte ladies start asking for money for furniture. Can't wait for the $5,000 tables and chairs.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Anne Le Ziblatt, formerly of Tamarine and Bong Su, is back with a Vietnamese noodle bar in Redwood City
By Elena Kadvany | 7 comments | 3,165 views

Local Pols Debate Climate
By Sherry Listgarten | 10 comments | 2,586 views

Edible Education – Free Course - UC Berkeley Online
By Laura Stec | 3 comments | 2,540 views

Letting Christmas Linger
By Cheryl Bac | 5 comments | 1,366 views

The E.R.A. – no real equality yet. Why not?
By Diana Diamond | 13 comments | 834 views