$200K council-funded phallus for West Auckland

I don't hold a lot of truck with people who whine about ratepayer money being used for public art. Most of the time, it makes a city a better place.

But Auckland often seems to get the short end of the stick.

First it was the giant cheezel. Now, people in the inner west Auckland suburb of New Lynn are reportedly stunned at a new piece of artwork that now hangs over a lane in its town centre.

Sorry, but there's no delicate way to put this. The sculpture known as "Transit Cloud", commissioned by Auckland Council at a cost of $200,000, looks like a cock and balls (photo here). And not in any challenging sense but a Munter from Outrageous Fortune has a giggle during a fourth form art class sense (though I have to add it's part of a wider installation, see pic end of story).

Being a bit of a heathen, I asked arts commentator Hamish Keith for his take. He made a quip about the "l" being left out of public art. On Twitter, Ben Gracewood asked if it was taking gentrification a little too far and (kids close your eyes) did the council not see it coming? It was gettng that sort of response. 

No free willy
The Taxpayers Union didn't need much nudging from NBR to unload on the sculpture.

"We thought it was a piss-take. Who are these mysterious Council officials with $200,000 to spend on this?," spokesman Jordan Williams said.

"The best comment we've seen to date is one suggesting the sculpture is intended to represent the Council's treatment of Auckland ratepayers.

"Auckland desperately needs an equivalent to the highly successful Wellington Sculpture Trust, which works with the local council and private donors. That would more likely produce art to be admired rather than sniggered at."

I have to agree with Jordan on this one. Wellington's public artwork is clever and intriguing, for the most part. "Transit Cloud" will make New Lynn a laughing stock.

Westies shafted
I've asked Auckland Council two questions:

1). How much does the Council spend on public art; and

2) Who decides how it gets spent? Who signed off on the cock and balls? Did the good folk of New Lynn get any say?

[UPDATE: Kaye Glamuzina, Auckland Council’s arts and culture manager​ sent the statement, "The Auckland Council Arts team has a budget of $2 million dollars annually to spend on public art. This figures is in the long term plan. The team comes under the the Arts, Culture and Events Committee, chaired by Alf Filipaina. The team reports into the committee quarterly in what council describes as a robust process." Alf Filipaina is a coucillor for the Manukau ward. I've asked a follow-up about what kind of consultation the committee's process involves. The council is gathering together some info and expects to update Monday.]

I'm not so concerned about the former, which I'm assuming will be a relative slither of the Council's overall budget. But I am curious about the latter.

The artist concerned, Gregor Kregar, might take fright at the community having a say. But that goes with the territory when you take public money, and define a public space.

I guess mob rule probably wouldn't make for great public art. But can't the chattering classes at least get their act together? Why can't we have an equivalent of the Wellington Sculpture Trust?

Do it like Wellington?
While waiting for an response from the council, I asked Hamish Keith for a backgrounder. 

He came back with one, and a proposal for how Auckland should handle public art.

From Melbourne ("a city not short of good public art" he sent the following:

"We had one [an equivalent to the Wellington Sculpture Committee] and it expired in a swamp of reports. Then we had a Public Arts Committee which did the same. I resigned from both.

"A simple solution is for public arts proposals to be put to council supported by genuine consultants independent of sponsors, galleries or dealers.

"Art does not flourish in committees.

"Public art is shaped first by the place and the reason for the work then by the public who own and use that place, then by the budget and then designed by an artist commissioned to respond to a simple brief defined by all those things and managed by a commissioner who understands all that.

"It is not some arcane science but a simple process almost as old as public art

"The city will not get good public art by a committee of folk who apply to be on that committee but by tapping into the lifetime's experience of those who have proved their knowledge of art and the city – we have plenty of those.

"Public art is not simply popping a piece of art into a public space. It has to have a reason to be there. That's where it starts."

ckeall@nbr.co.nz

Follow @ChrisKeall

The (cough) offending piece of the installation (above) and the wider installation (below):

And here’s what the whole work looked like in preview. [3/3] pic.twitter.com/VvS7QHpFzv

— Russell Brown (@publicaddress) February 6, 2015

POSTSCRIPT: Artst Gregor Kregar says he didn't intend anything phallic with the "cloud" in question, and has been surprised by the debate. He says changes are been made to make it look less phallic, and that lighting will also make it less phallic when it's finished. And it's also worth noting it's just one part of a larger installation, which has some gee-whiz Art  in the Dark appeal (see the pic posted by Russell Brown, above). At the end of the day though I'm less interested in the merits of "Transit Cloud" than the process behind it and who decides what.