Milwaukee has a talent for making benign art controversial. Recently, innovative ideas were presented and, unsurprisingly, almost killed on the spot.
Talk about a serious case of déjà vu.
Reminiscent of Milwaukee County's ill-fated "Blue Shirt" by Dennis Oppenheim, local policy-makers tried to put the kibosh last week on award-winning artist Janet Zweig's public art project - despite the acclaim from an advisory committee of business leaders and art experts - because, well, they just didn't like it or, rather, understand it.
I was dismayed to hear that the Common Council's Public Works Committee wasn't receptive to the project initially. I found the interactive piece exciting for its ability to engage Milwaukee in a thoughtful and playful manner, as well as for its uniqueness in the overall inventory of Milwaukee's public art.
Several aldermen considered Zweig's plan "old school," referring to the old-fashioned signs she uses to create her short animations. But her flip-sign technology isn't what's outdated; Milwaukee's perception of public art is. It's a huge problem that most of the previously proposed art for our city has been left to collect dust and that a project, which essentially already had passed, faced rejection.
That's why it's no surprise that just a few years ago, the Public Art Network used Milwaukee as a case study for how not to administer public art. It seems that Milwaukee always has struggled when it comes to approving such projects. Artists are continually forced to be sensitive to people like those who objected to the "Blue Shirt" installation, the Third Ward's highly criticized "Stratiformis" by Jin Soo Kim, the bemoaned Mark di Suvero's "The Calling" and the recent controversy over the bronze Fonz. The furor just shows that some Milwaukeeans are narrow-minded whenever it comes to art.
I'm sympathetic to the fact that we live in a truly colorful city with an unfortunate and chronic image issue. Milwaukee has long battled with preconceived notions regarding its workforce, its competitive advantages, its ability to attract and retain young talent, its openness to change and its intolerance for new ideas.
I'm convinced that the best way to combat these stereotypes is not to stamp out new ideas in both public art and otherwise, but to make smart, measured decisions while embracing the occasional risk. Undoubtedly, places besides Milwaukee have dealt with controversies surrounding art. When looking at cities with prominent works of art, it's rarely the safe and conservative pieces that are memorable. Denver's "Blue Mustang" still is not without criticism, yet the piece remains on display for the public to debate.
Public art shouldn't consist entirely of conventional statues that disappear into the landscape. That's what's so great about Zweig's project: It has the potential to make an impression for its originality and its ability to enliven downtown.
Thankfully, there's an arts community here that has a strong interest in living in a creative and vibrant city, which showed up in force at Tuesday's hearing and encouraged the Common Council's 12-2 vote in favor of the project. Green-lighting Zweig's project will go far toward convincing both outsiders and many Milwaukeeans that our city is ready to embrace a more intriguing, innovative and dynamic image.
Perhaps we've finally learned from the "Blue Shirt" debacle.
Originally published here.
Recent Comments