FOREWORD
This paper is a speculative unsolicited response to recent events in the ARTworld in lutruwitaTasmania that have alerted a number of cultural producers to the mindsets that drive these projects. What comes to the attention of many is that public patronage in the arena of public artmaking and cultural production seems to have become distorted and embroiled in politics.
That is, distorted politically and otherwise in ways that leave Communities of Ownership and Interest haplessly standing on the sidelines in their CULTURALlandscapes – relative to their placemaking aspirations and abilities.
People belong to places and places do not belong to people.
'Places' are not merely spaces waiting for someone to happen along and occupy them or spaces waiting for something to happen in. Cultures transform spaces into 'places' and in turn our cultural realities shape them.
Likewise, a place's geography in its turn shapes and makes cultures in all their diversity. It has ever been thus.
CULTURAL PRODUCTION IN PUBLIC SPACES AND PLACES
It often happens that an art student will ask their lecturers what they must do to become famous – AKA rich. It's a really silly question because if their lecturer had the remotest idea about getting to be famous they would not be where they are to have such questions put to them. Making 'Art' is a tricky business! ...... TO READ MORE CLICK HERE
...................
Well Hugh,
I have to agree with Doreen except for the fact that I might have used stronger language. I did discuss this matter with her and someone called Markus at Town Hall as I recall largely making the same point. I went as far as putting in nan expression of interest just to see how all this tracked. I wrote a piece about THE BURNIE PRPJECT – https://yellagate.blogspot.com/– and this machination is grist for that mill.
Having spent well over 50 years as a cultural producer advocating for fairness for cultural producers and having advised the Tasmanian Govt on Art in Public Places I have a bit to back up my perception of inequity.
In this case I have to say that it ranks amongst the most outrageous of RIPoffs artist have had to deal with AND there is absolutely no reason for it, none whatsoever! The only excuse could be insensitive ineptitude and for whatever reason you seem to be OK with it.
Here we are again making Councillors determinations ‘IN CAMERA’ and to the detriment of cultural producers simply because you and others think that it is OK. Please know that once the election dust has settled, I will use every means at my disposal to expose this outrageousness. I have the inclination, and I’ll make the time available.
I might falter as I teeter on my twig but if I concentrate who knows?
Till next time,
Ray
Ray Norman
Polemicist, Cultural Producer,
Cultural Geographer, Researcher
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network
PH: 0488 011 376
eMAIL: raynorman7250@gmail.com
40 Delamere Cres Trevallyn TAS 7250
WEBsites: http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com
“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” Thomas Paine
“The standard you walk past is the standard you accept” David Morrison
Consultant
https://raynorman7250.blogspot.com/p/zingconsult.html
https://notrubbish.blogspot.com/
I acknowledge the First Peoples – the Traditional Owners of the lands where we live and work, and recognise their continuing connection to land, water and community. I pay respect to Elders – past, present and emerging – and acknowledge the important role Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people continue to play within the research zingHOUSEunlimited undertakes
Dear Councillor,
What you submit here totally misses the point and it demonstrates the level of inequity in Public Art matters that you personally will tolerate. This is not a legal matter as you suggest, rather it is a matter to do with equity and fairness. Excuse me but you come across as someone who wouldn’t noticed Public Art unless it was big and shiny and plopped somewhere supposedly important – and only then after it was said to be important by somebody.
Everyone else who has no need for a reputation boost will laugh all the way to the bank with their proceeds of a project that they lacked the wherewithal to win on their own merits. For instance, are you actually telling me that LINDY LEE settled for a microscopic potion of the budget for her Ouroboros sculpture, realised by USP, commissioned by the National Gallery of Australia, and that had a budget of $14 million?
Lindy Lee is a professional and you can be assured that her recompense was equitable. Anyway, her Ouroboros sculpture is the most expensive single artwork commission in Australian history. This Northern Gateway Project may well be the single most expensive artwork ever commissioned in the region.
Yes, Lindy Lee's work’s realisation was expensive, and time consuming, four years in fact, but it wouldn't have been unrealisable without the artist and her ‘vision’, not to mention a lifetime invested in her vision and art practice – her ‘overheads’ if you like.
So, your justification for the planned inequity Launceston Council, and now with your ringing endorsement, was apparently deliberate along with the Council leaving the artist with no power to negotiate, is as you indicate, it is legal. Are you serious? A rip off is a rip off and like turds you just cannot make them shiny no matter how much polish you apply – and it is what it is. To claim that NAVA’s guidelines have been adhered to in any way is questionable and I am sure it does not come with NAVA’s endorsement. Or am I wrong?
Has anyone consulted NAVA? Did anyone consult Arts Tasmania? What, and whose, expert domain knowledge is relied upon here? Moreover, you will note that NAVA recommends that a ‘Design Only Fee’ is negotiable.
However, Launceston City Council is using State Govt. funding and it is Council that has provided the artist with no room whatsoever to “negotiate" their fee. Your explanation is entirely at odds with fair dealing and no doubt there will be artists who will take whatever they can get just ’to keep the wolf from the door’. That’s an experience that nobody making the planning decision they have here, and notably in the dark, is unlikely to have to contemplate anything of the like for themselves – your good self too perhaps.
So, empathy cannot be relied upon as it hasn’t been for a very long time in the arts, and now not from you apparently, and with you speaking for your fellow Councillors too it seems.
As is typically the case with many, if not most, elected representatives, I submit that you lack the domain knowledge to be authoritatively making the case that you make without external expert advice. It is my understanding that this is provided for in the Act that guides local government. However, was it sought? If so,. what was the advice? Is it on record anywhere? If not why not? After all, we are talking about the expenditure of $1Million of public money.
Your suggestion that this matter might be tested "at law" is entirely inappropriate and a very bad joke. Typical of the likes of those who find themselves wanting, they simply call on the lawyers to have a picnic to scare off their detractors. And here it will not be the be Councillors who pay for the KCs etc.
If you, and all your fellow Councillors, have a clear conscience in regard to this matter, then I challenge you personally to make a statement to that effect on the record in open council. Your willingness or unwillingness will be the test of your conviction as well it will be your accountability and your community values that will be of interest and on display too. The challenge is there and as they say, the ball is now in your court now.
I look forward with great expectation to what happens next after the dust of the election settles. Thank you for your response it is edifying.
Sincerely yours,
Doreen Bowen
Administrative Assistant
Launceston Projects
- PH (03) 6334 2176
Dear Doreen
As advised, I referred your enquiry internally for comment and it is important to note the fee is for design only, not construct . Further information is outlined below about the process that is undertaken.
Council has undergone an extensive and robust process for the selection of artists for the Northern Gateway project using respected and well-known Urban Art Projects (UAP). UAP won a competitive tender for the project in early 2025.
UAP is engaged to manage the project, provide significant design support including, visualisation and 3D modelling, materials research, estimation, technical design, engineering advice and final certification, manufacturing, transportation, site management including, earthworks, traffic management and artwork installation.
The Artist is being engaged to design the artwork in collaboration with UAP and to oversee the artwork vision from concept to completion, therefore the project falls into the 'Design Only' Fees category of NAVA's guidelines, which the project follows.
Of course, you are welcome to seek your own legal advice if you remain unsatisfied with my answer to you.
I thank you for your interest in this project.
Regards
Hugh McKenzie
Deputy Mayor | | |
| |
|
 |
REFERENCES
A concept design fee of $5,000 will be paid to each of the three shortlisted artists. The shortlisted artists will receive a detailed briefing from UAP on the project site, curatorial theme, artwork production budget and artwork opportunity.
UAP will support the shortlisted artists in the development of their designs through visualisation, material exploration and budget feasibility of artwork concepts. The artist awarded the commission will be paid a fee of $50,000.
Dear Cr McKenzie,
I have been advised that you are here to help, and Tasmania’s CULTURAL PRODUCERS (AKA ARTISTS) are indeed in need of an explanation given the inequity that ‘artists’ ( any artist) are faced with in this project. The National Association of Visual Artists (NAVA) say that for a Million Dollar Project artist should receive between $19,000 & $28,000 but your Audit Committee, it is reported by an officer, that you signed off on this financially inequitable project. Why? How?
Perhaps, the committee just doesn’t “equitable” in terms of arts practice! If you can explain the ‘equity’ ion all this I/we would appreciate your advice as to how wrong we are, or how greedy you think us artists are or how deluded you think artists and or NAVA are! It is entirely possible that we have got it wrong and that we are mistaken in relying on NAVA’s advice in this instance.
We could refer this matter to Arts Law but at this point, given that you have offered to be of assistance, that would be unhelpful.
We sought advice and we were advised to “take it to the Councillors” and here we are. We look forward to your response and enlightenment.
Yours sincerely
Doreen Bowen
Administrative Assistant
Launceston Projects
PH (03) 6334 2176
Please consider the environment before printing this, or any other e-mail or document.
________________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
Information in this transmission is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorised and you should delete/destroy all copies and notify the sender. No liability is accepted for any unauthorised use of the information contained in this transmission.
This disclaimer has been automatically added.
No comments:
Post a Comment