And really, that’s all I have to say, except that finally Red Grooms has a shot at being displaced for the ugliest piece of sports venue art.
8 comments on “Sacramento spending $4m in public funds on giant poorly-colored Piglet”
Comments are closed.
And really, that’s all I have to say, except that finally Red Grooms has a shot at being displaced for the ugliest piece of sports venue art.
Comments are closed.
Nothing will ever eclipse Fishgod.
No contest, this is uglier. There are a few things that really bother me about the selection of this piece:
1. When the committee was formed, they implied many times that they would be looking locally for art.
2. The math on the funding does not add up. There is a city ordinance that requires 2% of the construction budget to be spent on art. The budget is $477 million which leads to a $9.5 million art budget. Now, in addition to this budget, there has been $3 million in donations from kings partners and $1 million from a local art patron bringing the total to $13.5 million. They have now spent $8 million and claim that there is only $1.5 million left that will be spent on work by local artists. Huh?
3. This piece is designed for indoor display. The artist is adding a special coating to make it last longer outdoors, but it has never been tested. How long before major repairs are needed and will the money left over after transportation costs are subtracted from the $500K be enough?
Art is subjective, and I get that. Some people will love this piece, some hate it.
Irrelevant.
What is relevant is the process they went through to approve this. They say that Sac Metro Art Meetings are subject to the Brown Act, so the meeting at which they made this decision was “noticed” at their website, and at a sign outside their HQ. That’s adequate notice? Local artists had no idea at all this idea was being discussed. Some blame the local media for this lack of notice, but it’s not as though the arts commission really tried.
I don’t see where Piglet has much of a connection to Sacramento, except in the most generic terms (“It reminds me of the whimsy of youth!”). So, in my opinion, they needed to notify the public of the meeting far more vocally, and they also needed to turn this into a contest, not a “selection.” The people on that commission don’t particularly strike me as people who know art.
As for testing this outdoors, yeah, this thing’s going to look like shit pretty fast. “Won’t crack, chip, fade nor peel”. Remember those ads? Yeah, sitting in that plaza for 90 days a year when it’ll average 95 degrees every day, hitting 105+ for stretches of that shouldn’t cause any problems. I don’t think you want to use car paint on a sculpture like this.
One guy suggested this artwork will be worth $50M within 10 years. I laughed.
MikeM,
Remember the kings will own that piece of “art” – lock, stock, and barrel – while the city is responsible for the maintenance. If it does appreciate, I would not put it past the organization to put it up for sale – their $5.5 million contribution turning into $50 million.
Is this Jeff Koons sculpture not available for the Kings?
https://ribbonstoriches.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/img_3833.jpg
The City will pay $2.5 million – if you can believe the sack Bee – out of it’s arena subsidy. That is, if the judge lets them sell the bonds. Whoever owns it can probably junk it in 15 or 20 years, along with the arena.
According to an article in the Bee last weekend, the suits will cost Sacramento about $2.5M/year for the duration of the loan, but also, the City can sell its bonds right now, although with pending litigation, they’d be hard to market.
I still say they won’t be able to raise parking rates to make the bond payments, though, and that’s why they won’t sell the bonds yet — they’re waiting for the judge’s decision in late June to make that official.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/city-arena/article12879443.html
The city was looking at interest rates in the 6.7% range. If they had sold the bonds when they wanted to this would have been the rate. Now the rates are around 5% and there is a possibility of them rising by 0.75% to 1%. Even if they rise 1%, they will still be well below what they city was planning on – by 0.7%.
The lawsuits are actually saving the city money, not increasing the costs.
Either way, they will not be able to generate the revenue they need from the six “possible sources” cited in the bond resolution – only one of which is parking – and will have to rely on increasing or extending taxes or cutting other general fund spending.