$20K to produce a phone number, so that when you're waiting at the Fremont Bridge hearing boat horns and car horns, you can call up and hear the artiste's montage of boat horns and car horns. $800,000 for art in Beacon Hill station when a few colored lanterns would achieve 70% of the same benefit and many trains around the world seem to function just fine, without art, and when there are neighborhoods that are seeing cuts in bus service and lack transit facilities. And where many other train systems get along just fine with 5-6 poster boards advertising local theater or movies. You know, getting the art in those ads, for free, or actually getting paid. Then we see $60,000 for a movie in the city building on a floro the public doesn't even hardly go to, the film is about vague human shapes in fire and water that disturbs workers, this leads to additional wasted funds for hours of staff time to bitch, moan, discuss, rehash, "solve" the situation -- really, why aren't these people doint work -- then more money to send the "artist" back to another vacation in Central America to shoot more film. When there are tens of thousands of screen savers for free, or you could use photos or film clips from the workers themselves for free, or you could go to National Gallery and take jpegs of 10,000 masterpieces at a cost of about $900 (round trip fare, one night in a hotel, and a few extra memory chips; borrow the damn Powershot camera) and any of that would achieve all or more of the "benefit" from this work of "art."

None of this stuff is productive, like investements in education or health. None of it is even good art, really. The ephemeral stuff is, um, ephemeral. None of it is needed. And even if you wanted this much money to go to art (some $880,000 in the above examples) it would be better spent on art teachers and paint brushes (and laptops) for school kids so that thousands of kids would learn about art; or paying to take kids on day trips to museums -- which a recent report says we're not doing enough of anymore. In fact, local schools are eliminating many art classes and those kinds of "extras."

This public art deal isn't for the public. It's a trough filled with dollars that are consumed by a narrow, special interest group ("artists") that not only doesn't care a fig for what people really need or want, but even trashes those who say this stuff generally or individual works are bad art or a bad use of public funds.

Sigh.

You: "And where many other train systems get along just fine with 5-6 poster boards advertising local theater or movies. You know, getting the art in those ads, for free, or actually getting paid."

I direct you now to David Foster Wallace or anyone else writing about why "art" in ads is not art. A representative quote: "[E]ven a really beautiful, ingenious, powerful ad (of which there are a lot) can never be any kind of real art: an ad has no status as gift, i.e. it's never really for the person it's directed at."

You: "When there are tens of thousands of screen savers for free or you could use photos or film clips from the workers themselves for free, or you could go to National Gallery and take jpegs of 10,000 masterpieces ... and any of that would achieve all or more of the 'benefit' from this work of 'art.'"

Wow. Seriously? You lost it there. Sorry to break it to you: free screensavers /= art. Jpgs of "masterpieces" /= art.

You: "None of this stuff is productive, like investements in education or health."

First half is wrong, second makes a fallacious assumption that spending $800K on education would be productive. Please provide evidence demonstrating how a mere $800K devoted to education would make as substantial a difference in people's lives as a permanent piece of public art.

You: "None of it is even good art, really."

Please provide examples of "good" art to demonstrate your ignorance. (Anyone who says that no public art is "good" is clearly ignorant.)

You: "This public art deal isn't for the public. It's a trough filled with dollars that are consumed by a narrow, special interest group ("artists")"

Yes, the cabal of wealthy artists that runs the world is looking for ways to siphon even more millions from an unsuspecting public.

Do you know anything about the relative numbers involved here? Seriously? Do you? I'd suggest rereading this: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

OK, done? I'm sure you can find a dozen "misuses" of public funds that are far more egregious than the miniscule amount that goes to art.

You know what PC? The distribution of your tax dollars to public art is so low it's nearly insignificant. If you want to get angry about how your tax dollars are spent, go here and dig around to find true disproportion of government spending. I promise there's an easy-to-read aesthetically pleasing chart to go with the numbers.

Pish posh, "public art" is an oxymoron, but I must admit that Kristen Ramirez looks quite fetching in her bib overalls and tee-shirt. Just think, she's spending the summer in the Fremont Bridge Tower. Sure hope the Fremont Troll doesn't get a hankering for some nice succulent artist flesh late at night and one public art project gets eaten by another; she may need rescuing by a prince declaiming "Ramirez, Ramirez let down your hair, so that I may climb the russet stair." I wonder how she feels about shrimp and Freudians.

Yeah Ralph! and PC I reiterate--you are fucking retarded!!!!

Wait. Seattle has a reputation for great public art? Seriously!?!? I am admittedly not a part of the art scene, but when I got to a real city -- Chicago, say -- I see lots and lots of serious public art. Fabulous neo-classical stuff in the background everywhere. Real architecture, spanning more than a century of styles. Sculpture, from Picasso, Miro, Dubuffet to the incredible stuff in Millennium Park. And that's not even touching the ephemera!

What does Seattle have? Some tired Claes Oldenburg crap that was cutting-edge back in the 60s but only came to Seattle a few years ago? Seriously, the whole premise of this article is so deeply off-base.

I haven't been to Seattle in years, but I've seen pics and read articles etc. I don't want to be too harsh but I'm kinda on the side of pdp. I'm an amateur artist. I have a lot of activities and I also attend night art classes and for decades pump out the best stuff I can. So it may be me, but I see some "odd" things--not all that personally creative that get run by the "public art" title. I live in the SF bay area, and we've got tons of great pro galleries and museums and stuff. I often appreciate the "volunteer" public art-some legal-some not-more than what the well meaning government groups decide to buy.

Ditto with 6&7....the weakest of Chicago's Public Art kicks the best of Seattle's. The sculpture park looks like the bits that nobody else wanted but it remains a great concept. It comes down to who's doing the curating/selecting, not so much the $'s. Something is better than nothing, but SEA could use some new filters. Perhaps a group of people who are a little edgier and a lot less passive. Maybe fresh off of the boat. In the meantime, just let Trimpin have the run of the place!!!

Most Seattle art is overrated. And I'm one who grew up here.

Anyone who thinks Seattle's a great art town needs to get out more.

Before I moved here, I heard from many people that Seattle was a great city for public art. Though, I wouldn't come to that conclusion after seeing the public art that is here now.

Seattle seems to have a very conservative take on public art. Lots of heavy, metal "plops" as you call them (I refer to them as art turds).

A few years ago, a friend's ephemeral public work (which is excellent and has been celebrated in more prestigious art cities internationally) was denied public works grants at both Artist Trust and 4culture. When he wrote 4culture and asked why he didn't get the grant, he was told that what he does "isn't art." This was news to him! and I was totally blown away. Crazy.

Maybe some arts education is in order?

Alas, the SAM sculpture park couldn't really be any safer. The one conceptually interesting piece (Mark Dion's) is NEVER OPEN! I've been to the sculpture park at least 7 times, always eager, and have NEVER SEEN IT! Apparently it is only open when a volunteer comes??? What a weird allocation of funding? (Really? a volunteer?!)

Thanks to Jen Graves for bringing up the issue! Asking publicartists to say this is like asking them to slit their own throats. Public "art" in Seattle and many places suffers from trying to satisfy everyone so that no one like PC can say what a waste it is - and yet they still say it! - so I guess it is not a very effective strategy. Talk about homogenized! Risk is necessary for most good art and lets face it the panel/jury/selection process manages to eliminate much of it because they often only choose artists who have proven track records and spend lots of dough on making slick presentations. You don't really have a chance to be a public artist until you've been a public artist. Talk about catch-22. It is no wonder the artists are not putting much energy into the commissions they get. They have already shot their wad by jumping so many hoops just to get it. Besides most who are successful at obtaining commissions already have a name for themselves and have 13 other projects going at the same time just to make a "living". The process is overly bureacratic and lends itself to left brained overly analytical paper pushers - in other words not passionately creative people. All boxes must be checked and all blanks must be filled out with the proper inputs. The environment necessary for great art has been carefully eliminated from all but a few low paying low profile projects along with any discernable or meaningful content. Modernism is DEAD and it died before its evil heartless POST-Modernist child ever took a breath! Good luck :1-

Ha! you people...can't please everybody...
You people that gloat on and on about Chicago, do you know how much that stuff costs? do you? you know alot of that money comes from wealthy wealthy private donors right?
I think Seattle's quite well, thank you. Bitches.