My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Cultural Council Agenda and Packet 2023 02 16
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
CULTURAL ADVISORY BOARD
>
2023 Cultural Council Agendas and Packets
>
Cultural Council Agenda and Packet 2023 02 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/5/2023 3:35:24 PM
Creation date
2/23/2023 11:38:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
2/16/2023
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Cultural Council <br />Agenda <br />DATE <br />Page 8 of 11 <br />Grace states that the process of a national call and public comment is our <br />approval from the community when no objections are made. If City Council has <br />the last word, and they pull projects at the end for things like location which was <br />decided long ago, then they will need to approve every step of the way, each <br />detail and line item about the call approved before it goes out. Otherwise, who <br />will want to work on any public art project? I would not go through this process <br />again to get to the end for them to pull it over something they could have <br />weighed in on early in the process. <br />Pat asks if City Council understands the process of acquiring public art? Mark <br />insists multiple times that if the exact location was written in the Call for Entry, all <br />confusion would be avoided. Beth points out that argument is that they want it at <br />the Arboretum. Sharon confirms the Arboretum is not in the historic downtown <br />corridor so even if the exact location was written in the Call, we would have the <br />same issue. Sharon confirms the locations that were noticed were written in the <br />Call appropriately. <br />Grace's comment is that this sculpture is called Community Resilience. It is not <br />Thee Memorial to commemorate the fires. It was meant to bring healing and <br />beauty and to talk about our resilience as a town. As such, it's for everybody, not <br />just for the people who lost their homes. So then by City Council's thinking, all <br />21,000 people in Louisville should be consulted on design and placement. What <br />is City Council's suggestion on how to achieve this? Sarah believes this is an <br />important point that should be clarified to City Council. <br />Mark questions whether the process is flawed and needs modifying or is this an <br />exception that is difficult in the process we have. JR believes it's a one off but <br />this sets a dangerous precedent. Beth feels this was dismissive to the artists who <br />participated. She wants a disclaimer in the Call for Entry saying City Council has <br />the last word, so good luck. JR thinks this is going to hurt the reputation of arts in <br />Louisville. Grace thinks it already has. JR states that City Council should be <br />informed that we are open to liability if we just move this winning sculpture to a <br />location that was not noticed. <br />Mark questions the location again and Sharon confirms all notices that were <br />posted were in the Historic Downtown zone and Erica reiterates that the location <br />is a collaboration between the winning artist, LCC and the City. Memory Square <br />and City Hall both fall into the zone that was in the call. <br />- Discussion item: What should be included in artists' proposals? Tabled <br />to the February agenda. <br />14. Cultural Council Art Grants (JR) <br />- Art grant applications were distributed to all LCC members; JR will email a <br />scoring sheet to all members after this meeting. LCC members to score all <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.