Let’s start by making one thing clear: subversive likes to be supportive of just about any public art project that takes place in the city.
That being said, the Downtown Frederick Partnership’s “Pitchcraft” event, which takes place tonight, has raised some interesting questions. What is Pitchcraft? The event page describes it as “Downtown Frederick’s first-ever placemaking competition” WTF is a placemaking competition? No need to worry, we’ll cut the buzzwords and get to the nitty-gritty of what this is all about.
Pitchcraft is a competition. Anyone in the city can submit an idea to remake a public space…so think public art. It can be functional or not, and the website makes a myriad of hip suggestions based on art projects completed in other cities. Entries are then narrowed down to 4 finalists by a panel of judges. These finalists then get to present their ideas at an event where the attendees vote to determine the winner. Seems simple enough right? Well, here are the issues:
- The Downtown Frederick Partnership is a nonprofit organization that essentially manages Market Street and many events that go on downtown (think Alive at Five, First Saturdays, etc.). Their goal is to keep downtown prosperous and attractive to businesses and visitors. That means a lot of downtown businesses are “investors” in the Partnership and help fund their projects. That’s cool, supporting downtown businesses supports local owners and employees and helps avoid all of Frederick looking like big-box homogenized America.
- The Downtown Frederick Partnership IS NOT your local government. They may acquire grants to help the city and run events that are promoted by the city, but be aware that they do not necessarily represent the interests of all Frederick residents. They don’t. They represent the interests of those who want to keep downtown attractive for visitors and businesses (so, predominantly downtown business owners). This is not a bad thing, but be aware that the Partnership’s idea of what makes downtown “great” may differ significantly from what you think. Also, a glance at their Board reveals it’s a group of white folks aged, let’s say, 30-55. That’s not to say that is a bad thing, but it is important to know when trying to determine their agenda and whose interests they represent as they plan for the future of downtown.
- The entries to Pitchcraft were narrowed down by a panel of judges. Who exactly are those judges? Who do they represent? Are they representative of the entire city of 60,000+ people? Do they represent the businesses that are downtown? Are they from the Partnership? It would be good to know in order to figure out what motivated their choices.
- OMFG ARE YOU KIDDING? YOU HAVE TO PAY TO VOTE? Okay, hold on. This makes some sense but raises some real issues about art. Those with a lot of money often provide funding for the arts (the Ausherman Family’s support of the Delaplaine and certain Weinberg events is a good example). Since it is their money, they can choose how it will be spent in the art world…fine. The masses often do benefit from the wealthy choosing to support the arts. This competition, however, seems different. The cost of entry will fund the artist, but, is this sending a message that people without time and money have no say in the public art/interpretations that will grace our downtown streets? Is that fair? If this competition is supposed to “maximize shared value,” as the Partnership claims, then shouldn’t all the people of Frederick (or at least the downtown) have some kind of say…or is it fair that it is a “pay to play” scenario? Art costs money and artists absolutely need to be paid for their work, but it is a little strange to try and support public art for all that actually is decided by those with the time and money to vote. On the other hand, the cost ($20) is a low barrier for many, and there will actually be a vote rather than an organization choosing the winning art entirely on their own. Is that some kind of progress?
Now, don’t get us wrong. Yes, A LOT OF ART HAS BEEN FUNDED/SUPPORTED BY THE WEALTHY FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL. We get it. Museums need benefactors and endowments etc. but this competition format still feels like a bit of a blunder, even though in this case “wealthy” is just having $20. A good fix would be having a City government and Arts Commission that put more effort into supporting the arts across the city for the enjoyment of everyone (see another article in our recent issue about this topic). That helps eliminate the problem of whatever motives and agendas private groups and individuals have–it’s called transparency. Certainly the Partnership has its own agenda and preferences–it doesn’t make them evil, but it does raise questions as to whether or not they are the appropriate entity for promoting public art. On a positive note, maybe we can all learn from this event and the reactions to it, and it can be just one step on the way to creating a City that is truly supportive of the arts for everyone.
ART IN A PUBLIC SPACE SHOULD BE FOR EVERYONE. NOT DETERMINED BY A FEW
Best of luck to the four proposals that made it through (check em out here)–there are some interesting choices! Clearly there was a lot of interest in the event, as the Partnership received 28 entries. What are your thoughts? Here at subversive we do not have the answers, but we think this event raises some good questions. Let us know what you think.
