Public Art Commission
May 12, 2014
Commissioners: Bussell, Friend, Garrington, Hepford, Seltzer (staff),
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 3:15 p.m.
After previous PAC meetings and reviews of the 63 submissions, eighteen submissions remain on the list for further consideration and review.
Garrington explained her proposed scoring system (see attached). She converted Yes, No and Maybe scores of submissions reviewed in previous meetings to numbers (yes=2, maybe=1, no=0, plus or minus notations = .5). The numerical system allows the PAC to quantitatively compare the remaining submissions. She then explained a numerical scoring system to specific required components of each submission: Letter of Interest, Artist Statement, Professional Qualifications and Body of Work. Each component includes specific considerations. After group discussion, the commission agreed to the process, combined the components of Letter of Interest and Artist Statement and eliminated three of the considerations listed under Professional Qualifications. The score ‘3’ indicates the submission shows substantial evidence, 2 shows sufficient evidence and 1 meets minimum evidence and 0 does not mean any evidence.
The following is what the commission agreed to use to score each of the remaining 18 submissions under consideration:
Letter of Interest and Artist Statement (scoring 3 – 2 – 1 – 0)
Professional Qualifications (scoring 3 – 2 – 1 – 0)
- Answers why artist is interested in this project
- Demonstrates why artist work is appropriate for project
- Shows understanding of project goals
- Addresses ability and interest in collaboration with public
Body of Work (scoring 3 – 2- 1 – 0)
- Education – Degrees (BFA, MFA) in art, (also engineering is a plus) or equivalent competency shown based on extensive work history in the art field, specifically sculptural outdoor projects
- Past projects demonstrate knowledge of working with materials for an outdoor setting e.g.: stone, metal glass etc.
- Technical competence demonstrated in fabrication and installation based on work history
- Grants and awards received.
- Actual commissions with projects similar in scope based on outdoor pieces in $50,000 plus range
- Number of experiences working within the public process
- National/international, state/regional, local commissions with more weight given to a wider area of placements
- Finalist listings for projects similar in scope
- Experience is relatively current – the past 15 years.
The submissions from the April 28 meeting were reviewed using the numerical scoring system.
Meeting adjourned at 5:30 pm.
The following was provided to the PAC by Chair Margaret Garrington
Transparency is important in showing the review process is as fair as possible in the PAC Gateway RFQ deliberations. The goal of narrowing the field of 5 artists from the 60 + submissions requires a structure upon which to base these decisions. To this end, a numerical scoring system allows the PAC to compare the remaining submissions under consideration.
The PAC has narrowed the submissions based on review and discussion of artwork images and public art experience. Scoring for this part of the review process has been converted to a numerical basis as follows:
- Yes = 2 points
- Maybe = 1 point
- No = 0 point
- Plus or minus add or subtract .5
Suggested scoring for the 3rd round, which addresses letter of interest, artist statement, professional qualifications, and body of work, follows:
- 3 = significant evidence
- 2= some evidence
- 1 = minimally met
- 0= no evidence
It is hoped this part of the review can be a team effort as the PAC reviews each submission together at the special meeting.
1) Letter of Interest - scoring 3 -2 -1 -0
a) Answers why artist interested in this project
b) Demonstrates why artist work is appropriate for project
c) Shows understanding of project goals
d) Addresses ability and interest in collaboration with public
2) Artist Statement scoring 1 -0
a) Addresses philosophical approach to public art the PAC finds compatible with our expectations for the Gateway
3) Professional Qualifications scoring 3 -2-1-0
a) Education - Degrees (BFA, MFA) in art, (also engineering is a plus) or equivalent competency shown based on extensive work history in the art field, specifically sculptural outdoor projects
b) Past projects demonstrate knowledge of working with materials for an outdoor setting eg: stone, metal, glass etc.
c) Technical competence demonstrated in fabrication and installation based on work history
d) Grants and awards received
e) Special recognition
f) Art pieces in museum collections
g) Exhibitions national/international, state/regional, local with more weight given those artists with a wider field
4) Body of Work scoring 3 -2 -1 -0
a) Actual Commissions with projects similar in scope based on outdoor pieces in $50,000 plus range
b) Number of experiences working within the public process
Review Process Gateway RFQ
- National/international, state/regional, local commissions with more weight given to wider area of placements
- Finalist listings for projects similar in scope
- Experience is relatively current, say much in the past 15 years
The PAC received 68 artist submissions for the Gateway Sculpture site. Among other items, the call for artists outlined the project intent, eligibility requirements, and details on how to apply. The following outlines the process the PAC used to review the submissions based on the guidance provided in the RFQ.
1. Ashland City staff , Ann Selzer, first removed RFQ submissions from further consideration deemed incomplete based on the basic requirements of how to apply outlined in the RFQ. These included: letter of interest, artist statement, current resume, 3 professional references, and images of work.
Result: 7 submissions incomplete
2. On April 9, 2014, the PAC met to discuss the review process for the remaining submissions. These discussions resulted in the acknowledgement art work samples submitted should be the first round of elimination. Recognition is given the qualitative/aesthetic aspect of the art work samples. This is a subjective decision making activity. However, the original vision of the artist and the tenor, in terms of perceived quality and character, of the art work samples was deemed very important to the elimination process (see Attachment 1). With these thoughts in mind, PAC members were to look at the submission images and base an artist’s suitability for Gateway on a simple rating system of yes, maybe, and no. In this process, the PAC also looked for certain relevant elements for the Gateway site be displayed in the art work samples. These included:
- Scale, monumental
- Type, freestanding
- Examples, exterior
- Materials, durable
- Construction, high quality
3. On April 18th
, PAC members came to the meeting with their ratings. Each artist’s work was rated based on the three tier system, and then discussed by members. After the discussion of each submission, members were free to change their rating. Those submissions with a majority of no ratings were eliminated from further consideration.
- 31 submissions eliminated
- 4 submssions set aside for further study
- 1 submission on further study found to be incomplete
- 18 submissions accepted for second round
- 1 submission received all yes votes
- 6 submissions remained for discussion (subsequent to the meeting, these were incorrectly added to the no list but were brought forward when PAC reviewed the master list at the next meeting)
4. April 28th
, a special PAC meeting met to further discuss the submissions. In the interim period between this and the previous meeting, members were asked to further review the second round submissions. This included a more detailed look at the body of artwork image submissions, artist supplied web sites, and submission references for public art. Discussion among members highlighted in a more detailed way the merits of the artwork samples including:
a) Artistic excellence as defined by how original a “voice” the artist demonstrates
b) Experience with projects similar in scope
c) Innovative and iconic design ideas for each project
d) Original pieces produced rather than derivative ideas
e) Will the artist’s aesthetic sense provide another dimension to the diversity of art for the Ashland Public Art Collection
f) Is the artist’s work already a part of the Ashland Public Art collection
After discussion of the submissions, members were free to change their ratings.
- 4 submissons from the second round listing eliminated
- 1 submission in the further study category moved to consideration
- Of the 6 submissions that remained for discussion from previous meeting, 4 were eliminated and 2 were moved to consideration
- Total submissions still under consideration is 17, with 1 submission in the yes category
- In order to meet the review deadline, it was decided another special meeting was required before the next regular PAC meeting.
5. The 18 submissions still under consideration have each met the basic requirements of the RFQ eligibility in the:
- How to Apply section
- Selection Criteria section including
- Art work images submitted have proven artistic merit based on review by the PAC in terms of qualitative/aesthetic aspects (refer to Qualitative GATEWAY Attachment 1)
- Demonstrated experience working in the public process
- Demonstrated skill fabricating and installing permanent outdoor artwork
Because the goal of the review process is to narrow the field to 5 artists, the PAC must move on to the other Criteria for Selection of finalists as outlined in the RFQ. These include:
- Professional Qualifications
- Proven Artistic Merit
- Artistic excellence with proven ability to create a high quality, easily maintained durable large scale art work
- Proven capacity to deliver project on time and on budget
The goal of the 3rd
round review by the PAC is to narrow the finalists remaining based on number 1 and 2 above. Due to the nature of 3 and 4, these will be addressed when the references are contacted.
Attachment 1: Qualitative GATEWAY
GATEWAY: Thoughts on qualitative/aesthetic aspects of the art piece
What does the PAC want the Gateway piece to accomplish? What distinguishing characteristics are important and are these demonstrated in the submission images? Aesthetic elements considered in the review of artwork submissions include:
- Scale- monumental
- Develops a specific mood eg: dignified, quiet, sense of levity, funny, sophisticated, sober, wild, interactive, kinetic, colorful, environmental
- Iconic images
- Creates sense of identity and articulates the space
- Creates a landmark
- Visually memorable
- Size and character enhance the setting
- Activates the setting in a new way
- Made of durable outdoor materials eg: carved stone, sculpted metal, fabricated metal, recycled materials, ceramic, glass, etc.
- Finely crafted