On the right side of our main page recently, we made a few comments about the Manhattan Beach public art program. The posts attracted the interest (or anger) of Cultural Arts Commission Chairman Wayne Powell. Below are the original posts along with the resulting email exchange. Our thanks go out to Powell, both for his opinions and for consenting to them being reprinted in this format.

Everything is printed in chronological order, beginning with the earliest posts and communications.

66.
We dropped by the Manhattan Beach Creative Arts Center yesterday to look at "Close Proximity," a new exhibition of local artists, and found that we had missed by a day the unveiling of the city's latest public art piece," Abstract Water Works," on the back patio. This is safe art at its safest, so safe that it's really not art at all; it's a waterfall, and a fairly benign one at that. That said, this is the first piece that the City Council has been able to approve in years, and if the only way to get some momentum for this program is to plunk down $40,000 for garden furniture, then so be it. (Dec. 8)

67.
A further note to the topic of #66. Another way that Manhattan Beach might build more support, public and political, for its art program, would be to contract with more local artists for these projects. Something tells me the public would be much more receptive to publicly funded works of art if the money was staying in town, so to speak. While of course it makes sense to bring in outside artists to expose the locals to new talents and ideas, it is inexcusable that this program has done so little, if anything, to support artists from this area. (Dec. 8)

Dear Garrison,

Shame on you! The aesthetic success of Paul Jacques Betouliere's "Abstract Water Works" creates a meditative sanctuary, harmonizing sculptural abstract bronze figures, natural stones and flowing water that instills a state of peaceful serenity. It was overwhelmingly appropriate to the site and exhibited artistic excellence and conceptual integrity. To mischaracterize it as mere "garden furniture" is a disservice to the public. Had you been to the unveiling ceremony, you would have witnessed firsthand, the collective oohs & aahs and the numerous compliments received from the members of the community in attendance.

But maybe the old addages are true, "Art, like beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" and "You can't please everyone."

Hello Wayne,

First off, let me say that I am a supporter of the Manhattan Beach public arts program and that I sympathize and appreciate the work that you have personally done on behalf of the arts in Manhattan Beach. Furthermore, I've always enjoyed speaking with you and hold you in high esteem.

Understand that when I referred to "Abstract Water Works" as a piece of garden furniture, it was not do disparage garden furniture. While I'm not sure I buy into your notion that the piece creates "a meditative sanctuary, harmonizing sculptural abstract bronze figures, natural stones and flowing water that instills a state of peaceful serenity," I must admit that the patio is certainly a more comfortable place for it. I think the piece is problematic because, frankly, it is so functional. Most people will walk out on that patio and not recognize that they're looking at an art piece; they'll just think it's the waterfall.

As for the post on my site, I'm trying to do something that has been lacking in the beach cities, which is to hold people to a higher standard and be honest about my impressions. Manhattan Beach is spending a lot of money for its entre into the world of art and that merits serious criticism and discussion. In the beach cities, we tend to be supportive for the sake of being supportive and that doesn't serve anyone in the end. In that light, I think it would be interesting to exchange a few emails on the subject for publication on my site. Are you game?

Garrison
P.S. I really liked the current exhibit in the gallery, and will say so once I have the time to write up a review.

Hi Garrison,

I've always enjoyed your work in The Beach Reporter and hold you in high esteem too. Now, after reading your explanation, I have a better appreciation of your article. Yes, I am game.

There are two additional items not expressed in my prior e-mail that I would like to emphasize. Since we are spending taxpayers' dollars for the acquisition of public art, we want to ensure that we don't acquire art pieces that are "gaudy" as was the case with the "Man-Hat-Tan" etc. (which pre-dates my term as a Commissioner) or are high-maintenance items (or highly susceptible to vandalism). But this also doesn't mean that we are going to be conservative or "safe" (to the contrary, we want something that provokes thoughts, comments and creativity). As to not selecting a local artist (your #67), of the 43 proposals received, only a couple were from South Bay artists. Our second choice (among our 5 finalists) was a local artist. My opinion (I can't speak for the Commission) was that we wanted an active art work for this site rather than a passive one (also, it was the first water element for the city).

One thing I was looking for, but we received no proposals, was a local (nautical/oceanic) theme -- say sculptures of dolphins, whales, waves, sailboats, etc. Maybe next time.

Best regards,
Wayne

Hello Wayne,

Several years ago, I criticized city and private arts organizations in a column for not encouraging the work of local artists. I promptly received a call from a gallery owner who said "Well, local artists aren't exactly beating down my door." This response is relevant to your statements about local artists. It seems to me that one of the missions of the city program should be to seek out, encourage and support the works of local fine artists. Rather than wait around for bids from our few artists, perhaps the city could seek them out and commission work. Perhaps, if the program is successful, the city will produce some great pieces -- as well as some crappy ones -- and have a much more vibrant community of artists to show for it.

Your point is taken that the commission faces a difficult challenge trying to strike a balance between works that are defensible/viable and those that still have strong artistic merit. Howard Spector (the city's former cultural arts manager) and I used to debate this for hours. He seemed to argue that the city should purchase art that challenges and confronts. While he obviously failed to understand the legitimate political aspects of public art, he did have a point: Why make art that you know is not emphatic?

Thoughts?

Garrison,

I would agree with most everything you said with one minor exception. All it takes is to have that one crappy art work, and the pendulum swings the other way and the arts program (or at least the visual arts, not performing arts or arts education) goes down in flames. It took a while to regain respectibility back to the visual arts program, so now's not the time to risk compromising it.

Another objective is to enhance the performing arts programs in MB. But that's the topic of another discussion. Suffice it to say that we've accomplished a lot this year -- passage of a Public Art Funding Ordinance, Public Arts Master Plan, Commemerative Donation Policy (to keep The Strand from looking like a cemetary) and the completion of a public art acquisition. This is in addition to a highly successful Arts Festival, Concerts in the Park series and the Arts education programs.

Again, I must repeat that the views expressed herein are my own and may not necessarily reflect those of the commission, the city or the council. I sometimes tend to get into trouble when expressing my views (usually in the form of a letter to the editor, where I wind up getting trashed the following week).

Best regards,
Wayne