For once our Alderman made the right call.

I can’t think of anything that would be somehow accountable to all of our collective whims or fancies that would end up being really good in the long run. Can you?

Why subject “public art” to this?

Of course some people will like X and some will not. What does that tell us? Nothing about work in question and perhaps a little about us.

Can you blame the alderman for being skeptical?

Look at Gordon Park or the ring at the footbridge overlooking Lincoln Memorial Drive.

Art advocates should figure out a way to remove these before arguing that “art is good”.

Whatever gets built will have to stand the test of time. Anything “cutting-edge” will, by definition, cease to be so almost immediately after being built. I therefore believe that any public art project should be evaluated on its merits rather than simply by novelty factor. In my opinion, Zweig’s project is interesting, human-scaled, and will almost certainly liven-up areas for pedestrians (isn’t this the goal of the federal project?). If this gets built, I look forward to stopping at the various installations and admiring and examining the animated scenes.

What I find particular particularly bothersome is that over $800,000 dollars gets spend on lighting a free interchange with no controversy (or any perceived need for public input), while a thoughtful public art project made in consultation with the local art community causes such a furore and is cited by many as an anachronistic waste of taxpayer dollars. Perhaps it is the prevalence of parochial attitudes like these (and senseless grandstanding by politicians who seek to halt a project on which much time, consideration, and public money has already been spend) that is more responsible for Milwaukee’s image as backwards and provincial.