Comments on: CCC mural completed, celebration planned

By: If This Were Art Redux « What I Saw from My Bike Today

If This Were Art Redux « What I Saw from My Bike Today — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:47:05 +0000

[...] biking such a part of the region’s culture? I know that the Community Cycling Center has a beautiful mural celebrating bike transit, but it would be great to see something in North Portland highlighting the [...]

By: Marc

Marc — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:47:18 +0000

I was a volunteer painter for the mural and the experience game me and dozens of volunteers from the community a great experience and skills that will help me with future mural work.

By: Tecumseh

Tecumseh — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 02:53:49 +0000

I completely respect Vladislav Davidzon’s concerns about the cost of financing public art. There’s always something worthwhile that would benefit from increased or continued funding, but Robin — who lives in a group house, rides a bike to work, and doesn’t own a car — was not exactly enriched by this commission. The money for painting the mural (once the materials, equipment, scaffolding rental, et al., was covered) was spread out among Robin and at least three other compensated artists on the mural project. For the execution, she paid herself the same hourly wage she paid them. The time she spent developing and refining the design, and coordinating the dozens of volunteer artists and other helpers, was pretty much pro bono.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 05:44:09 +0000

Ok, let’s not kid ourselves about fiscal responsibility when it comes to art. Art is so subjective, the money spent will always cheese someone off and for those who moan, “My taxes! My taxes!” I say shaddup with all the sarcastic politeness I can muster.

We don’t live in a society where the wealthy pay for and present art to the masses because it is beautiful. That seemed to die, ironically enough, with the beginning of monopoly busting. Those who were the most ruthless in business seemed to accumulate enough wealth to take care of themselves, their progeny for the next 20 generations or so, and a huge arts and sciences endowment. Bill Gates is the closest we have to a Carnegie or Rockefeller and he ain’t so big on the purty stuff.

So, a while back, some lawmakers figured feeding the starving artists was a good idea and made it a requirement that a certain percentage of the money used in public capital improvement projects, like buildings, be spent on art. If you happen to think spending on art is wasteful, take heart, it’s probably less than a penny a year for you, but I’ll round up if you want your penny back.

Given the time it took to complete the mural, cost of supplies and the payment of a living wage to the artist for her time, $15,000 is a pretty darn good deal. Save the “My taxes! My taxes!” for your legislator, who just might be all that concerned about your penny. :-P

By: Vladislav Davidzon

Vladislav Davidzon — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 03:33:22 +0000

I do not oppose spending on art, in fact I think it is a great idea to do so. However, I do oppose fiscal irresponsibility, and this seems like the artist walked off with a nice pile of cash that seems like it may have been more than market rate.

Having hired a number of artists over the years for various projects, I know how wildly the rates can vary. This painting, while beautiful, seems to have been… excessively well paid for. I am not sure where the RACC gets its money from, but if it is tax dollars, this seems quite excessive.

Again, I have no opposition to spending money on art. It is a good idea to do so. I just really think you need to be responsible about how you spend money, particularly tax dollars. The price tag sure seems excessive.

As for the comment of what I have paid my own staff for SEiM — it is merely a function of revenue vs salaries, and something that will drastically change as we scale again next year. I agree that $8 is not a living wage, but then again this is Portland, a town not exactly known for its great job market or high salaries. :|

Which brings me back to the point of questioning the $15,000 price tag given that there are plenty of starving artists in this town who would gladly work for far less.

Just my $0.02. To be clear though, I do *not* oppose spending on art and really think it is great. Just the tag seems a bit… excessive, especially if it was tax dollars.

By: @

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 01:16:45 +0000

just to add that the amazingly beautiful mural depicts local personalities of the community, including cyclists are no longer with us (note the flag with the constillation orion). it is a wonderful addition to portland. thanks, robin (who also is an amazing asset to the local homeless community in the wonderful advocacy work she does with youth).

By: david

david — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 03:42:04 +0000

If Vladislav is really so concerned about how money is spent, he should consider paying more than just-slightly-above-minimum-wage for his office assistant position. I mean jeez, $8 an hour for the workload you ask? People in glass houses…

By: Kirsty

Kirsty — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:53:19 +0000

Absolutely beautiful! It’s helped turn a blandscape into a landscape!

By: Hawthorne rider

Hawthorne rider — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:05:23 +0000

$15k may seem like a lot – but really it’s a long-term investment in the neighborhood by RACC. That mural should last many, many years hopefully and make a meaningful statement that the Alberta neigborhood supports biking and walking. As well, I think with more condos and Pearl-esque developments occurring to make our city more “urban”, murals like this help soften the grayness of concrete and cement. and, it supports a local artist, too, which keeps the money in the area.

By: Vigilante

Vigilante — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 21:53:54 +0000

15k is around half of what one space in a new high-capacity parking garage costs.