County Issue / Funding Public Art...

Michael A. Maynez, Director/producer, Plaza Players

Oh, I think it’s very important that there be subsidies for the arts. Any art project is worth subsidizing, as long as there is no interference or no strings attached. In other words, art is art and it should be left alone. Subsidies without any strings are needed by all the arts: music, ballet, theater or public art. There is always going to be controversy. What is art without controversy? Every time they put up a statue in L.A., the critics comment, “O dear.” The homeless and the hungry are going to be with us for a long, long time, but art is homeless too if it doesn’t have a place where the public can see it or admire it. There’s going to be people objecting if you put a calla lily out there! I think it’s very necessary that we enhance our city with beauty and art. I could be greedy and say I want it all for theater or ballet, but I think when you place a statue or creative work in public, a lot of people will get a lot of enjoyment out of it.

Barbara M. Harison, Director, Ventura Parks and Recreation Department

Yes, I think cities should participate in funding arts. I think it’s an investment in the future. The art will long outlive its creators and can serve future generations. I think the art linked with capital improvement projects can contribute to a community identity, create a sense of place and at times be uplifting to the spirit. It even has been successful in mitigating negative impacts, such as growth, traffic, graffiti and vandalism. Murals on streets in L. A. and in subways in New York have been used to combat graffiti and it’s worked. So much of our built environment is hardscape, such as streets, bridges, roads and buildings. The effort to encourage art makes those hard facilities a little more human. Classical Greece was a model of egalitarian access to culture. The theater was free and the Athenians could stroll through the streets and look at the statues of Greek heroes. The public art was the best art, and it was accessible to all.

Ray Russum, Chairman, Venturans for Honest Government

I believe that art at public places should be privately funded and the people that are interested in that should go to the Getty people who have billions of dollars available or others who have money to use for such functions. And that recent example of the politicization of public art, the Art Council of Ventura’s anti-war, anti-Jesus exhibit in February, should not have happened with public funds! I will help any group that wants to join me to go out and seek funds for public art, but don’t take it out of the taxpayers’ pockets. The city manager claims that this will not use any tax dollars! Let the public be the judge. I’m against all censorship of art as well as any granting of funding to any special-interest groups who will be deciding what is appropriate public art. Let each public art expenditure stand on its own merit, instead of putting a slush fund together to be dipped into by these people.

Michele Chapin, Sculptor, Art City Gallery

Cities all over the world have public art. And that’s the problem with this country--there is no public art. We don’t have the heritage a lot of other countries have. In the city of Ventura the public art exonerates Father Serra and he was responsible for doing away with a lot of American Indians. His people wiped out an entire group of people! That’s who we’ve exonerated in this town. Ventura is also one of the few places with affordable studio space for artists. It’s ironic that we have so many good artists in this town who take their work elsewhere. If you’re telling people how to get to Ventura, you say, “Get off the freeway at the Holiday Inn!” It’s a cultural armpit. Tasteful public art is an absolute necessity. We need to upgrade the quality of public artworks. This city has an unusual opportunity to work with artists to develop something aesthetically pleasing to look at.

Richard Francis, Mayor of Ventura

The answer is yes. The fact that art is controversial is not really a very good reason that government should not be involved. Government is involved generally in only controversial issues. Furthermore,we have some excellent examples in our community that WPA works are of lasting quality. They were funded by government during the Depression and are part of our heritage. Public works are generally fairly ugly, and while there’s been some effort to put median strips in roadways, it still is appropriate that major pieces of art be allowed to show the true soul of our city. There is always a pro and con. That’s why you have government. Everything I do, somebody doesn’t like. That’s why we have two political parties. There’s always a yin and yang to every issue. I think some art is a lot like spiders. I don’t particularly like them, but I’m glad they exist.