My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 01/09/2025
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
2025
>
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 01/09/2025
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/13/2025 1:53:42 PM
Creation date
1/17/2025 10:52:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Parks and Recreation Commission
Document Date
01/09/2025
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
496
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
being a request for proposals or a request for qualifications.The author also mentions lesser used <br /> methods such as nomination, direct selection, and slide registry.The article then goes on to compare <br /> the advantages and disadvantages of these methods. A request for qualifications tends to favor more <br /> experienced artists, while a request for proposals favors those with less experience.The recommended <br /> method is a five step process that starts with an open call to artists for qualifications, followed by a <br /> narrowing of the artist pool, removing those who do not meet the qualification criteria. The next step is <br /> the solicitation of proposals from the artists, followed by artist interviews.This process is completed <br /> with a design contract with the selected artist. The author acknowledges that the goals of the project <br /> have an impact on the process and states that if a goal is to bring a new artist into the program,the rigor <br /> of the five step process is not suitable (Esser, 2004). <br /> Marc Pally's article on public art planning for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) <br /> provides background information on public art planning and identifies key elements in the planning <br /> process. In summary, Pally looks at defining the scope of public art in a particular community,the role of <br /> government officials in this process,the establishment of oversight committees, how an interdisciplinary <br /> approach to art planning can be incorporated into other areas such tourism and economic development, <br /> inclusion and dialogue, and the identification of community resources and preferences. He suggests the <br /> following nine elements as needing to be included in a public art plan: public art context, current <br /> practices, program directions and opportunities, administration operation, funding sources, community <br /> involvement, artist selection and project review, maintenance, and program review(Pally, n.d.). <br /> Of particular relevance is the author's focus on establishing oversight committees to develop a <br /> plan. Pally states that oversight committees that are too large may make planning cumbersome, <br /> suggesting a diverse group of seven to nine members. Public input is also argued to be important in <br /> order to define the scope of public art that is desired and where it should be located. After the plan is <br /> formed, decisions on the implementation of the plan are recommended to be directed to a formal <br /> 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.