Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Arts Commission - Meeting Date: 1/25/1984MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE GLENDALE ARTS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, HELD AT THE SENIOR CENTER, 7121 N. 57th AVENUE, MANZANITA BUILDING, ROOM #4, WEDNESDAY JANUARY 25, 1984 AT 3:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Marie Sands at 3:25 p.m. with the following members present: Enid Abel, Dr. Joseph Atkins, Lowell Rogers and Betty Wade. Also present was: Beverley Miller, Staff Coordinator for the Arts Commission and Gary Caggiano, a local artist. DISCUSSION The first topic for discussion on the agenda, was a slide presentation by Debra Whitehurst, Museum/Special Project Coordinator for the State Arts Commission. Debra called to say she was having car problems and would be late. While we were waiting for Debra, and the other commissioners not yet present, Gary Caggiano, the artist at our meeting gave a brief description of his background and himself and his work. There is a sculpture of his at the Grand Canyon College and also a.paintingin the Fleming Library. Marie Sands suggested that as many members of the commission who can, should go and take a look at his work. There being a quorum present, a motion was made by Lowell Rogers, seconded by Dr. Joseph Atkins to invite this artist back to our next meeting to make a presentation of his work. Motion passed unanimously. Discussion surrounding the next meeting date occurred, Motion by Enid Abel, seconded by Betty Wade to hold our next meeting on Wednesday, February 15, 1984 at 3:00 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. At this time, Debra Whitehurst appeared along with commissioners Nelda Crowell and Robert Page. The next order of discussion on the agenda, was the grant application process for the National Endowment for the Arts and the State Arts Commission. Debra spoke first about the State. We must first submit a letter of intent on City letterhead, that we intend to apply. This letter is due February 15, 1984. This letter starts the planning process only, it does not absolutely obligate you to apply. If you decide not to, there is no problem as far as the State is concerned. Debra spoke of various other projects currently going on throughout the State. Beverley will mail out this list of projects along with the minutes and agendas. Motion by Enid Abel, seconded by Robert Page to submit a letter of intent to the State Arts Commission. Motion passed unanimously. With the National Endowment for the Arts, a letter of intent must be submitted by June 1, 1984. This is a long term process, you probably would not see any funds until July, 1985. Debra had a brochure of the guidelines and regulations for the grant process. Marie Sands then gave the brochure to Lowell Rogers and asked him to study the guidelines and make a report for our next meeting. The National Endowment for the Arts rarely dedicates all the funds to one project, grants are typically $25,000, and all funds have to be spent or at least in the process of being spent within one year. Debra brought with her a slide show of approximately half of the 45 artists that have been placed on this years commission roster; for art in public places. This roster serves as a resource on different artists who have been selected to serve as an illustration of the type of art available for commission and purchase by committees, govern- mental agencies and businessess. She spoke briefly about each artist and showed several slides of their work. After the slide presentation, discussion then went -10- back to the State Arts program. Debra explained that you do not have to go with one of the 45 artists listed on the roster. You can hold your own competition; it is expensive but does give a good range of possibilities. You can have a selection committee, who could help narrow the list down or you could do it yourselves. You may want to consider using outside expertise to help you jury the art work. Take a look at using professional people such as, museum directors, individual curators, or professional visual artists to help you narrow your list of artists under consideration. You could then, make the final decision yourselves. Jurors typically get paid $50 to $100 per day in most cases. They can review approximately 100 artists per day, these are professionals and they can go through a list quite quickly. You should have a minimum of 3 jurors. Also, if you find an artist on your own, this is referred to as a "favorite son clause". This artist can make an application and the review panel can make the decision to select him/her. Sometimes there is alot of controversy with doing this, particularity from other artists who were not given an opportunity to participate. You can then, do just about what you want. You are using publicfunds and you want to make it as safe as possible. The greatest cost as far as holding your own competition is concerned is for printing which would describe the site, the amount of money to be spent for the project the conditions etc. Also, you may have travel expenses for artists outside the Stateand also publicity costs. Publicity may be worth the cost as it gives the public a chance to get involved. The models submitted typically could cost from a few hundred dollars to a thousand dollars, but the City can keep the models. There is a wide range of artists and art work to be considered. You could for example, do a documentary on the City with different landscape pictures or photographs. You could then have limited edition prints made which you can later sell as a fund raiser. It was mentioned that we are in the process of talking with artists and learning about them and their work. Debra said there are hundreds of artists on file, any artists who has applied to the State Commission to be on their roster would be on file, and are listed alpha- betically. You are welcome to come down and take a look at our files. Also, you can call the artists and ask prices, they are business people too. Marie Sands then thanked Debra for coming and sharing all this information with us. Marie Sands then brought up the fact that several meetings ago, we had discussed acquisition procedures which are used by the Phoenix Art Museum but we had not yet decided on anything. Discussion then centered around accepting gifts and/or donations and what we should do about this. Several commissioners felt that we had to have some method(s) for disposing of things. The idea of trying to return the art work was discussed, then again gifts are gifts and that is the only guarantee we should give. Gifts are permanent and should not be returned as they are not loans. The artists should know the policy before he donates art work. Appraisals are up to the donor and the commission does not have to accept everything. Motion by Nelda Crowell, seconded by Bob Page to use the Phoenix :Arts Musuem procedures as a model to formulate our own policy. Motion passed unanimously. Bob Page will present a draft at our next meeting. The topic of art for the Municipal Office Complex was brought up. The commission expressed their desire to obtain art for the main lobby of the office tower. Motion by Nelda Crowell, seconded by Robert Page to be responsible for acquiring art for the main lobby. Motion passed unanimously. Beverley Miller was directed to notify the architect of the committees decision. Beverley was also directed to notify all of the artists who have, as of now, notified us of themselves and have expressed a desire to make a presentation to the committee. The artists will be placed on our next agenda to make these presentations at our next meeting which is scheduled for February 15, 1984 at 3:00 p.m. MIE There being no further business, Motion by Enid Abel, seconded by Dr. Joseph Atkins to adjourn the meeting at 5:00 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Bever-ey Mil "eY/Staff Coordinator for the Glendale Art§,-Cbmmission -12-