I propose Idaho Falls acknowledge’s Rexburg’s wisdom and enact a requirement that all new commercial and residential subdivisions either dedicate 1% of their cost to public art on their property or contribute the same 1% to a fund which would then commission larger public art works in parks and greenbelt areas.
The reason I suggest the public art fund alternative is some smaller businesses may resort to a simple large rock for their public art in order to meet the legal requirement, but this would not significantly increase our public art inventory. Recognizing this, they may want to contribute the 1% to a fund which pools the money and uses it to commission larger art works around Idaho Falls.
I suggest including residential subdivisions in this 1% mandate because there are too many vanilla areas being developed with no character. A 1% public art mandate in these areas would either create much nicer entrance areas or a few street islands with art that would give these areas much more character.
Popularity: 5%
Related posts:
Gato got runned over by Marcus many moons ago. Be ye daft, 2486? 
Let's have a new poll, alright, Joe?
Loading ...
{ 33 comments… read them below or add one }
I heard in the news when Rexburg announced this change.
Has anyone heard the results over the last months since they enacted it?
Forcing the public-at-large to support artists through a 1% welfare program is absolute nonsense! You want art? You pay for it! That way you get the art you like, and I don’t end up paying some jerk to put a crucifix in a bottle of urine.
Nor do I want to pay somebody to make a cinderblock hanger like the one in front of the Eagle Rock Art Museum.
If you think that kind of stuff is worth funding, then pull out your wallet and fund to your heart’s content. Just stay outta my wallet!
On the other hand, I am not at all opposed to making space available in public building where artists can display their work for the purpose of making sales.
From what I read in the paper and hear on the newscasts, Idaho Falls is suffering from deteriorating roads and inadequate schools to name just a couple of thing. These two are necessities! Art is a luxury.
Ouch, those are valid points.
You have a point that we have needs not being addressed, and art is a luxury. We need to fix our dinner before eating our late-night dessert.
I don’t think the ‘crucifix in a bottle of urine’ type of art would ever fly here, it’s going to be more of the ‘cinderblock hanger’ variety in front of the ERAM.
Do you like any kind of art? Is that why you don’t like this idea?
After reading your comment, I feel ashamed for making such a liberal suggestion! My idea was to beautify our area, to make it more unique for residents and visitors. I can see it does smack of ‘artist welfare’.
But wait, this idea comes from that liberal hotbed Rexburg! Have the hippies taken over Rexburg?
How did they ever pass this ordinance in such a conservative city? Wasn’t Rexburg noted for the largest percentage of Bush voters of all counties in America?
That’s why I ask if anyone knows how this has worked out up there, any problems, mass grumblings, is it likely to get repealed, any examples of new public art being erected as a result of this ordinance?
Well, I live in Sugar City, a schluburb of Rexburg. As far as I can tell — and there’s no telling if money for this has come from the 1 percent or other funds — the city has put up a spiffy white vynil fence and a wood and fake rock sign on Main Street that says “Welcome to Rexburg.” Not necessarily public art in my book. A very worthy art project, by the way, has lingered in the wings for years with only a “Yup, that’s a spiffy idea” from the city — Two local sculptors have put together a rather nice pioneer-themed monument they proposed to cast in bronze for the city a few years back. It would be similar in size to the mountain man monument in downtown IF. As I recall, they need between $30,000 and $40,000 for the statue, they even paid their own money to make a mock-up for the city to display. That’s gone absolutely nowhere. The city has a small fund for it, but doesn’t really seem interested in publicizing it in any way. It’s my experience that the city is big on plans but small on execution.
And how did they pass it? Under that conservative umbrella of “economic development.” And believe me, when developers see this kind of thing, they don’t blink. They just look at the prices for their lots and say, “One percent price increase!!!”
No, my wild imagination can’t wrap the term ‘art’ around a vynil fence or a rock sign, either.
I like the idea of ‘economic development’. Can public art be considered an economic development?
What is the most capitalistic rationale we can think of to justify art? Let’s step back, why would someone choose to pay more to build a brick and wood building, when they could house the same space with metal-clad? Could more expensive materials be used because there’s return on the economic investment?
Could public art function in the same same economic manner, as an investment that improves the property value? I don’t know the answer to this, I would appreciate if local realtors or experienced developers could answer that?
If property value is not increased, does public art at least grease sales?
I researched a little on 1% art mandates to see if the idea is widespread, increasing, failing, etc.
Of course Wikipedia has a good article on Public Art. It’s worth looking at just for the neat sculpture pictures.
It says numerous cities across Europe, the United States, and Australia have 1% public art mandates. So this idea is certainly nothing radical.
What returns do we get from requiring local developers to make the 1% art investment?
What do you know, I also found several art economic impact reports.
Sure, I enjoy art. I’ve taken MY wallet out and paid MY money for a fair to middlin’ number of works of art.
I’ve also VOLUNTARILY taken MY wallet out and VOLUNTARILY donated MY money to private organizations wanting to donate a piece of art to the public.
If I remember well the plaque on Reynolds’ “Fur Trapper” sculpture, it says that it was donated by the Rotary Club. No one was coerced into spending money on something to which they objected. Likewise, the Eagle Monument behind the library was donated.
You say that you don’t think the 1% would go to buying art like a crucifix dipped in urine, but there are no guarantees. And there are plenty of examples of “art” that are just as objectionable.
Government officials, whether elected, appointed, or hired, are not the elected, appointed, or hired because of their talents, or tastes, in selecting quality works of art. Anytime anyone in Idaho needs a reminder of this simple fact they need look no further than the soon-to-be-minted Idaho quarter.
I don’t know how, or why, the 1% for art made it in Rexburg. Maybe it was done by a council vote. Maybe it was just one item in a much bigger package. Maybe it was voted in when the economy was better. But I’d be willing to wager that if the “1% for art” choice was given to only those citizens who would end up paying for it, it would be voted down by a large majority.
Rather than forcing people to buy art, why not encourage people to support and to get involved with the Cultural District? Encourage the Cultural District to sponsor art acquisition?
In reality, the only artists who benefit from the mandated “artist welfare” are the scam artists.
I have to admit you’re right, there is no guarantee to prevent extremely offensive art like the crucifix in a jar of urine. That kind of stuff would be better in that art gallery idea i had awhile back. But no, there’s no guarantee.
I think the 1% art mandate should mean the commercial developer would be able to select the art piece, not any government officials. The developer just has to show they spent 1% of their development budget on public art at the property.
Given that our local developers invest in their projects with the goal of earning great returns, I think we could count on them to strive for tasteful art. Look at the big bronze fish going up in Taylor Crossing, for example.
I guess I trust our local developers to erect tasteful art, if we had a 1% mandate. It might be misplaced trust, but it’s what I feel after decades of living here.
My bottom line is I think it would be a small burden spread across many people who can afford it (they are developing multi-million dollar properties after all), and the small burden will result in an incredibly more beautiful Idaho Falls, and tourists and locals will stop thinking our city is so bland.
Small burden, relatively small cost, individual decisions to execute, and big rewards for everyone. I like it. I might be in the minority, let’s try a poll and see if I’ll shut up about it. 8^)
In my view, public funding of art is counter-productive to art itself.
A good deal of art, in my experience, is reactionary and requires a deal of struggle and suffering to create.
For example, I have been fond of hanging out at Ziel Company lately, which is quickly turning into a hub for young alternative artists in the area. What I see are reactions from the youth to a society that they don’t agree with. I see reflections of discontentment, pain, anger, and rebellion.
If you start requiring the public to fund art, aren’t you killing off what sparks the fire of artists in the first place? Aren’t you removing the suffering and oppression that creates artistic inspiration?
If the public begins funding the arts, all we will get are more pictures of horses and landscapes. We have enough of those.
I don’t really care if the money goes to art outside of my tastes, even if it is local scenery. Frankly, that is part of the flavor of this town, it exhibits the local area, the reason many of us live here. Any funding in that direction at least shows that the community supports more than pretty new paved streets.
As for alternative artists, the alt movement is dead and gone, the new mods have come and gone since, and real fringe art should never be funded in the first place because it can’t come from trying to make a scene happen or to make bucks. The only time a real progressive artist’s works need to be worth anything is when they are dead. I have experienced a few too many inbred art scenes, thank you. (gee, your art is so great and new. thanks, your’s too!) That’s as deadly as money to true creativity. any day. Art is not an alternative. It is a way of life and death.
Good point.
I was thinking of something else that 8B said. He sounds concerned that uber-liberal artists would overrun IF with art that is offensive and distasteful.
I can understand his concern, he cares about Idaho Falls and doesn’t want to see it get prostituted for some crazy ideological points.
I think the art selection would be more controlled than 8B thinks, though. 8B, if you opened a new commercial building worth $1 million, and you had to spend $10,000 on public art on the property, how would you go about executing that?
Would you say to a single artist, here’s $10k give me some art, one day find a large bottle of urine with a cross in it on your porch, and say dangit I don’t like that but now I’m stuck with it?
Or would you say to three artists, I have $10k to spend on some art, I want the theme to include patriotic elements, embody western values, and somehow reflect Idaho’s rugged wilderness? The three artists would return at a set time with their proposals/mockups, and you would choose the one you like the most.
I see the second scenario happening, and again I trust our local developers to fund and erect tasteful art that would add value to our community. I doubt they would fund controversial or offensive art.
Your concerns are in the right place, does this idea of how it works out sound more reasonable to you?
Perhaps I’ve not stated my case well. I’ve worded my comments in this thread around art as art is to be the beneficiary of the 1%. It is not the art I object to – it is the forcing of people to spend their money in a certain fashion that I find objectionable.
There is a general theme, or maybe trend is a better word, developing here at IFz. That theme is “How Can We Spend Other People’s Money?”
Off the top of my head I can think of four fairly recent examples.
* Forcing property owners, under penalty of fines, to paint over graffiti.
* Providing “free” bicycles.
* Forcing Wal Mart to pay its employees a higher hourly wage plus provide health insurance.
* And the one in this thread, forcing developers to spend money on art.
All the money that folks are advocating spending on these items belongs to somebody else! I view that as no different than stealing. What gives you, or anyone else, the right to force me to spend my money in a certain way or on certain items?
I know that I do not have the right to spend other people’s money. That is a principle by which I live. I do not spend other people’s money. Not for art. Not for bicycles. Not for paint. Not for wages.
Hey, folks. Art is in the eye of the beholder. I have a collection of rocks that look like pigs’ noses, but does my wife appreciate them? Nooooooooooo. And for a nickel per nostril, I’ll let anyone see them. Was just thinking about something Dave Barry wrote about years ago. Seems Dade County bought an office building from the city of Miami. During remodeling, workers tore down a jumbled mass of twisted metal that was stuck in the ground near the building’s parking garage. Nobody seemed to know what it was. Then some Miami city employee pointed out it was an artwork purchased by the city with taxpayer money, and they wanted it back. I think they had to go through Dumpsters to get all the parts back. But it was moved to a city-owned building, where, as Barry put it, “the taxpaying public continued to ignore it.”
Now are we likely to get uber-liberal art in Idaho Falls? Aside from the occasional stogie — or doobie — hanging from the lips of the Peter Toth statue at Yellowstone and Lincoln, not likely.
8B, I must take blame for most of the ideas that involve spending other people\’s money.
In addition to forcing property owners to pay to cover graffiti on their property, providing free bicycles, forcing big-box retailers to pay higher minimum wages, and forcing developers to spend money on art on their properties, I have also proposed more education funding, better electronic signs at intersections carrying television content, that our library build line-corrals and self-checkout stations, an expanded Saturday morning market to include a flea market, that KIDK implement an archive function on their website, that all local news websites add comment functions, that Idaho Falls should expand city limits along the Snake River, that the city provide porta-potties at the Fourth of July fireworks, that shrub planters be placed on Broadway bridge to protect pedestrians, a video show to highlight products made in Idaho Falls and another to spotlight our local real estate market and construction trades, more war memorials, a pedestrian tunnel under the river, an art installation invitational, and I am sure more if you go back further.
I also have 182 published articles on this website (as of this moment). More are simply improvement suggestions that don’t cost money or business suggestions if someone wanted to try a gander than welfare suggestions. Some improvement ideas cost money. Is that what I’ve heard called ‘the price of progress’? Would you rather no progress?
Perhaps you don’t see the broader theme or trend developing here that is, “How Can We Improve Our Community?”
8B said What gives you, or anyone else, the right to force me to spend my money in a certain way or on certain items?
I thought it was called society, but I might be wrong. We are forced to spend our money on certain items we may disagree with now, but that is the price we pay to live in this country. I would rather spend my money in ways other than letting Haliburton claim they lost it somewhere in Iraq, but I have no choice.
If you view this as stealing, do you file police reports with your tax return each year?
The suggestions I have made are to improve our community. The graffiti one is also about forcing property owners to take responsibility. You are not defending irresponsibility are you?
If you would rather see graffiti all over town than forcing owners to take responsibility, you may prefer to relocate to Los Angeles. I think we would rather force owners to clean up here in Idaho Falls.
You do not see me out campaigning for any of these issues, I am merely talking here and throwing out hundreds of ideas. If anyone likes them enough to take them further and campaign for it, that is their issue and good for them.
I am surprised to read you get so uptight over mere talk of improving our city.
I am not really in support of the 1% art mandate. I think it would be one more thing for the government to get their hands into. However, I wonder if you could do essentially the same thing, except give these developers or businesses tax breaks for the added art. That way it would be voluntary to designate 1%, or whatever amount, instead of mandatory. Just an idea.
I also think that most contractors would want to select art that would be tasteful, and would be a reflection of their company. I can’t imagine too many ‘bottles of urine’, or that may be my ‘glass half-full ‘thinking.
8B, I guess what gets me the most is all I ever read are complaints and negativity in your comments.
I can accept if ALL of my good-intentioned ideas are stupid, but at least I’m failing on the side of improving Idaho Falls.
How about a single positive suggestion for an Idaho Falls improvement from you?
Go get ‘em, Joe! I’ve noticed the same thing, but I would have been much less diplomatic than you.
I may have just gone with the good old “lighten up, a-face!” But that doesn’t get us anywhere, does it?
Let me compare just two noble ideas that I’ve notice here. The “art” idea and the “invisible children” idea.
I’ve not criticized the “invisible children” idea for one very simple reason. Jeremy is out there working to attract people’s support for this cause. I’d have been all over him, too, if he’d have proposed “mandating 1% for the invisible children.” But he didn’t, so, of course, I didn’t.
(I should have left out the bicycle idea from my tirade, Joe, because you didn’t advocate forcing people to furnish bikes.)
If you really think the art idea is a good one, then put together a small committee of like-minded folks and go out and pursuade the developers to include some money for art.
As to your comment about society spending other people’s money, that, unfortunately, is too often true. But still, in most cases, almost everyone in society ponies up the money for police and other emergency services. Your method of paying for art, however, did not spread the cost out over society as a whole – your idea for funding art targeted a very small number of people to shoulder the entire cost.
One last point in this post: You say I’ve offered no ideas for improvement. Please reread the graffiti thread. I offered ideas, you just didn’t like ‘em.
Just a question.
In Rexburg, where there is a mandated percentage for art, who ends up owning the art? The developer who initially paid for it? The city of Rexburg? Who?
8B, I don’t know Rexburg’s ordinance details, but I’ll think logically about it (some might call it common sense).
If there is a mandate to build a ramp for wheelchair accessibility, who ends up owning that ramp?
If there is a mandate to keep food chilled at a certain temperature, who ends up owning the cooler and the food?
If there is a mandate to filter water in drinking fountaints, who owns the water or fountain?
If there is a mandate for a developer to dedicate 1% of their costs to art on their property, who do you think will end up owning the art?
A 1% art mandate does not equate to an eminent domain/ownership issue.
I think there’s a simple solution to all of this:
Communism.
Just kidding.
Actually, there has been a surprising amount of acclaimed art that has come out of communism. Particularly in Russian literature. I suppose when the voice is surpressed is when it must speak most. And then there’s the dead artist factor. If you make art against a commie regime, you are probably gonna get whacked, so… instant art appreciation and value!
Ownership is very important in mandates. Take your example of wheelchair ramp. If the ramp is the curb-cut at a down-town intersenction, for instance, and it starts to deteriorate, who has to pay for its repair? The property owner whose building the sidewalk fronts? The city out of its budget? The contractor who got paid to build it 25 years ago? Ownership is very important.
If the deteriorating ramp is on private property, who ends up repairing it? The property owner, or whoever it was that mandated its existence?
Same for works of art. If the artwork is damaged by unknown vandals, who is required to pay for the restitution? The entity that was forces to furnish it? The city who force its existence? Nobody?
No, Joe, ownership is a very important aspect to the works of art. Not just for your question of mandated art, but for all art that is out there for the general public. The art benches that are around IF, I have no idea who paid for these initially, nor do I know who pays to keep them in good repair.
Then there is the new art at Taylor’s Crossing. It is placed in a very risky position to begin with being in the middle of a roundabout. Is this artwork on public property or is it on private property? If some unemployed, unisured, dirt poor, drunk driver crashes into it, who pays to have it repaired? Or does it simply remain there in its damaged state? Or, if the artwork is insured, who pays the premium, and who is the protected party?
Get ready for it everyone …
… here it comes …
… steady …
I AGREE WITH 8B!
Whoa.
How about the 1% going to an artist’s co-op, with the artists using space being required to donate , say, one piece of art locally each year? Then let the owners of the art maintain it. If you don’t want to maintain it, don’t accept it.
I don’t think there would be much left if someone managed to damage the Matterhorn. Not that I don’t agree with your point, 8b.
I must agree I didn’t see the seriousness of the ownership issue. I still think the ownership would simply fall to the property owner. This is the same as the wheelchair ramp that’s part of the entrance or the electrical requirements.
A ramp on a sidewalk/curb is a different issue, because it is at the border of private/public. I believe I’ve heard the private property owners actually still do own those, and must pay to replace them as part of the legal requirements. We are fortunate in Idaho Falls because we have a program that can help you pay for part of the replacement costs. They don’t have to do that, though.
Taylor Crossing’s roundabout and art are a unique case, and I would also like to know who the owner is there? I’m sure the art owner is the same person who is paying the water bills, however it is in the middle of public roadway, however that circle could be a private owners still. I’m going to guess McNeil development is the owner, and they pay to insure the waterfalls and art.
I’ll have to admit this idea does not seem to have overwhelming appeal right now.
We ran the poll for about two weeks with the question:
“Should Idaho Falls mandate 1% of commercial construction costs be devoted to public art on the respective properties, with the developer choosing the art?”
The results were
No -> 55% (17 Votes)
Yes -> 45% (14 Votes)
Total Votes: 31
Of course this is totally unscientific and the margin of error may be large either direction. However, I take it as a straw poll to guage public reaction and have to admit it won’t fly in Idaho Falls.
I like the sentiment – supporting the arts. But if you start compulsory supporting it, art kind of loses its value.
I think Ziel Company is a great example of how we should support the arts. Brian Ziel displays and sells local art in addition to his normal array of clothing and accessories. There’s more value in that than in a mandate, I think. He has found success in that formula, and I think other businesses can as well.
8B has hit the nail on the head…150%. I am another one that doesn’t like to have my tax money spent for anything other than essential services that benefit everyone to some extent. If you want art, YOU buy art and leave my money alone. Besides, what is “art” is quite different from one person to the next. I’m sure that there are enough well-to-do people out there that would fork up the bucks for some project if you appealed to their artistic nature, but don’t EVEN try to make it mandatory that everyone has to put up with it. We already have too much taxation as it is, and our elected officials seem to be working overtime to find new ways to gouge us. Again, please keep YOUR hand out of MY wallet. Thank you
I admit 8B had a point about art should be bought by those who appreciate it, but your hammer slipped off the nailhead there Barneydog.
The proposal was not a tax. It was simply a mandate on development. Unless you’re building a commercial building, nobody was reaching for your wallet.
In my opinion, any time one is forced against their will to pay money for something they don’t want, it is a form of tax, albeit loosely taken here.
Or you could put it the way 8B said it, i.e. stealing money from someone. Even if I’m not building a commercial building (you never know, maybe someday) where do you think that 1% comes from? Ultimately from the consumer in the form of increased prices for merchandise, or higher prices for housing. There’s no way it just appears from thin air or our local businessmen simply absorb the extra cost. We all pay in the end. I for one would rather be able to choose where & when I spend my $$$ on art.