City Councilman Joe Krier (D9) earned the nickname “Councilman Cheese Grater” after voicing his dislike for “Liquid Crystal,” a 30-foot-tall sculpture located in the Henry B. González Convention Center’s new main lobby. The City paid $1 million for the interactive piece by London-based artist Jason Bruges.
“I just don’t get it,” he’s told his Council colleagues in the past. “I have yet to have a human being tell me they like the art in the Convention Center,” he added during a Council briefing session on March 1.
On Thursday, Krier pledged to file a Council Consideration Request (CCR) that calls for a re-evaluation of how the City selects artists and pays for public art. He’d like to see less taxpayer dollars go to public art and what’s left go to local, or at least Texan, artists.
An ordinance approved by City Council in 2011 requires 1% of every capital improvement project budget in the city to go to public art that relates to the project or site. Each bond project category – parks, streets, facilities, drainage, and neighborhood improvements – also includes 1% for public art. This year’s $850 million bond package includes $8.5 million set aside for art.
Krier wants to remove that 1% art requirement from some, if not all bond categories. He said he would circulate his CCR to fellow Council members, and some responded favorably.
“Thank you, Councilman Cheese Grater – excuse me, Councilman Krier,” Councilman Mike Gallagher (D10) quipped earlier this month. “I really do like this idea of saying, ‘Let’s look [for artists] locally first.’”
While the Department of Arts and Culture already has programming that emphasizes support of local artists, weaving the work of national and international artists into the city’s fabric of public art plays a large role in that support.
“When a San Antonian artist goes to New York and does a piece and brings that experience back – that’s something you don’t get if you close your doors to other communities,” Department of Arts and Culture Director Debbie Racca-Sittre said. In other words, if San Antonio is closed to “outside” artists, then why would other cities be open to ours?
Krier will need five signatures of support from Council members before he can formally move forward on the issue.
I wish we had more elected leaders like Krier who “tell it like it is”. Why do the taxpayers have to pick up the tab for what the majority of the public consider crap?
Can’t we keep our public spaces clean and uncluttered so that they can be used for their intended purpose?
Because maybe the public needs some exposure to different things so it does look like “crap” and think it looks great. It might be either, but we need to be well rounded to know better.
Because maybe the public needs some exposure to different things so it doesn’t look like “crap” and we think it looks great. It might be either, but we need to be well rounded to know better.
I feel like an echo chamber.
The Percent for Public Art programs are really important to a city’s lively hood. I know I wouldn’t want to live in an artless city with boring spaces..,some cites have even increased that percent to 2% like Portland has — and the money is coming out of the building or street-scape funds. The one thing we will never agree on is what public art is good or bad. But I agree that we should be mindful of employing local artists but yes its true if we close the doors to international artists why would they except San Antonian artists internationally. This complaint about public art is about as old as dirt….just like how half the people think they could make a Pollock.
I wonder what the public art cost that was placed on a new bridge on Hausman Rd near JV Bacon St.
It lights up blue at night but it seems to face the creek so no idea what shapes are suppose to be from the street day or night.
I think most people would agree that it’s a waste of city money.