City Council Minutes 1999 04 20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

questioned whether any art displays have been turn down. Williams replied that to his knowledge, no displays had been turned down. Hamerly stated that he feels there is no policy, as anyone who comes forward to display art through the Art Association can obtain approval to display their art. He questioned the implications of such a policy. He wondered what would happen if a group, such as Skinheads, came forward with an art display that represented their particular point of view in some artistic way. He stated that there are other groups that may want to display art that may be offensive to others in the community. He agreed that what may be offensive to one person may not be offensive to others. He cited a display of pro-life art as an example. He expressed the need for a policy that is fair, across the board, and does not sensor particular opinions or speech because of its content. He suggested a policy that would define the purpose of the wall at the recreation center. He questioned whether the purpose of the wall was an art museum, to provoke, or to challenge stereotypes. He disagreed with those purposes and stated that the Denver Art Museum and other galleries in the metro area should serve those purposes. He suggested using the wall to celebrate the work of local artists and the children of Louisville. He recommended placing a disclaimer on the wall stating that the City of Louisville or the recreation center does not endorse the message of any art display. Jim Mackin, 343 West Street, Louisville, Colorado, stated that he has lived in Louisville for over three years. He agreed with Hamerly's suggestions regarding the purpose of the wall at the recreation center. He stated that art should not be displayed at the recreation center if it wouldn't be displayed on the wall of an elementary school, as children primarily use the recreation center. He has been forced to discuss issues with his children regarding the art display that he would have preferred to address with them at an older age. He felt that it was irresponsible to allow parents to drop their children off for swimming lessons, etc., without knowing what they are exposing them to. He encouraged Council to display a disclaimer or move the art to another area in the recreation center where children would not be exposed to it without parental consent. He stated that he does not feel that would be restricting free speech, but rather allowing individuals to view things that are age-appropriate. He did not believe the current art exhibit was age- appropriate for the age group using the recreation center. Jan Fanger, 725 W Raintree Court, Louisville, Colorado explained that she sensors what her children are exposed to at home. She does not feel that places that are geared toward younger children, such as the library and the recreation center, should be a forum for the type of art currently displayed at the recreation center. She questioned what the restrictions are for exhibiting art at this location and at the eye level of children and discovered there is no ordinance regarding these issues. She was informed that the City Council approved the display. She was astonished to discover what her eight-year-old daughter was reading as part of the display. She agreed with Mackin that she has been forced to discuss these issues with her children. She questioned how many Council members were aware of the content of the display. She asked how she could stop this from happening again and whether it is her responsibility as a parent to regulate what is at the recreation center and at the library.