Ries Niemi: The problem of public art is the jury (and politicians)

In response to this post, Ries Niemi wrote:

Mostly, it’s the system.
First, a jury, with perhaps one artist on it, and, usually, an
architect who feels any art is an intrusion on his genius, plus a few
laypeople who are convinced the budget would be better spent on giving
them more days off.

Unless you have been on juries, …you have no idea the horsetrading, educating, and
politicking that are involved to get any but the blandest, least
threatening, beige art selected.

Although I am an artist who competes for these projects, I have
served on several juries over the years, and most every time, the
strongest artists with the most personality are voted out in the first
round, despite my protests.

Jury composition is an art- in the legal system, there are
consultants who charge hundreds of thousands to help on jury selection
of big cases. And this is one of the biggest weaknesses of a weak arts
administrator- not timidity, but the inability to find, and cajole,
great people to serve on juries. Generally, the administrator must sit
on the sidelines and manage process, not lobby for favorites.

Then, the even bigger problem is the politicians or beaurocrats who
must say yes before checks are signed- the main reason for dumbing down
of ideas.

In the recent Dan Webb/Olympia dustup, it was the elected
politicians who shot down the idea, not the artist who was timid- and
this is very very common. Which leads professional artists, ones who
have been around the block once or twice, to avoid pitching that x
rated day glo pink giant reptile eating human cadavers amidst a pile of
crack bags. Self editing is what you are talking about, not timidity…

In any field of endeavor, there is a difference between being timid and just tossing out expletives for their shock value.

Nope, Vito has never proposed that he would masturbate under the stairs for a project for a new convention center…