Hopefully Chase Gray’s valid commentary on the City of Chilliwack’s anniversary banner art call represents a constructive opportunity for the city to re-evaluate and restructure how they conduct their now outdated public art program.
READ MORE: Call-out offering artists $300 per design for Chilliwack street banners draws criticism
The current Chilliwack public art call process, initially established in 2014, is in dire need of a complete overhaul better aligning it with similar programs in other cities and municipalities that have developed successful strategies beneficial to both artists and the community alike. Unfortunately, the Public Arts Advisory Committee (PAAC) upon which the city supposedly relies for consultation on these matters, appears to be equally uninformed as to how the process of public art calls are structured in today’s art world. Easily accessed research on their behalf followed by recommendations to the City might help mitigate and resolve the current issues which are unsustainable in moving forward seeking professional fairness, accountability and inclusivity.
The current process involves creative exploitation, as there is an unapologetic expectation that submitting artists develop time-intensive, in-depth concepts based purely on speculation. This applies not only to smaller but also larger projects, such as those involving a Request for Proposal (RFP) where artists are not only called upon to submit a creative concept, but are additionally required to provide a comprehensive production overview demonstrating upfront ‘financial and engineering support and capabilities.’ The City of Chilliwack’s archaic perspective, and the accompanying process involving the creation of public art, demonstrates a vetting process that is akin to contracting for a bridge or concrete sidewalk, all of which requires a complete procedural re-think.
For those unfamiliar with the current public art call process and how this fundamentally differs from similar art calls elsewhere, the City of Chilliwack requires that more extensive RFP art call submissions be ‘first’ approved by the city engineering department who are the arbiters of what proposals can proceed to the next level of consideration. As artists in our proposal for the recently installed Meetcha at the 5 public artwork, we had to place ourselves in a subservient position to the fabricators in order to be considered for the initial engineering approval. In our professional opinion this is not unlike the idiom of putting the cart before the horse.
While engineering is a critical technical aspect of any larger public art project, placing this at the very forefront of the vetting process relegates artistic creativity to a secondary position. This process also alienates and excludes submission consideration by many artists that are not already working in the public arts arena. Most arts studios may only engage engineering services on a need-to basis and are not in a position to pay for engineering consultation on a speculative project proposal which may never see the light of day.
Public art in Chilliwack is experiencing growing pains that are easily resolvable. Hopefully this will continue to ultimately evolve and enrich the city well beyond the placement of antique farm equipment in the centre of a roundabout and calling it ‘sculptural public art.’ Let’s just call it what it is: a heritage-based display of old tractors. This type of misrepresentation fosters community confusion and misunderstanding about what public art is – and its intentions.
David Kilvert, designer and Krista Kilvert, artist
• Send your letter to the editor via email to editor@theprogress.com. Please include your first and last name, address, and phone number.
• READ MORE: Chilliwack Progress Letters