Is the Dunedin City Council digging a hole for itself at the Botanic Garden? Whatever the outcome of the process it has set up to commission a public memorial of the garden's 150th anniversary, I rather think it is.
The Friends of the Botanic Garden, wishing to commemorate the anniversary, commissioned Stewart Griffiths to come up with a concept and design.
They chose him because he has made works for the garden before, such as the installation near the entrance marking the city's sesquicentenary, which has been critically well received and the public seems to like.
The work would be called Waterhead and is monumental rather than sculptural. It would be something like those metal covered wellheads you see in Italian piazzas, with a circular base and a cover. The metal would be stainless steel, not the bronze you see in Italy.
In the tradition of commemorative medallions it would be inscribed to indicate what it commemorates. Also, while the Italian ones have masonry plinths, this would be all stainless steel.
The reason it is monumental rather than sculptural or figurative is because its setting includes figurative sculpture such as the Peter Pan statue. In fact there's rather a plethora of such things around there so that any such addition is likely to produce visual collisions. Waterhead aims to avoid that. I think it would and serve its purpose.
The Friends didn't have time to raise the $60,000 needed before the anniversary. They asked to use endowment funds which requires the council's permission. The request apparently caused ''outrage'' (ODT. 14.5.13). After a hung vote, Mayor Dave Cull used his casting vote to set up a new committee and seek more options (ODT, 21.5.13).
The outrage was partly caused by a misperception Mr Griffiths is not a Dunedin artist caused by some councillors getting busy online while debate was in progress. Cr Kate Wilson has since apologised but it illustrates the adage ''a little knowledge is a dangerous thing''.
What is more troubling is the new committee and what has been said about it. The proposed panel is to have representatives of garden management, a landscape architect and art sector representatives who would select local artists to make proposals.
It was suggested this would serve as a model for how art for public places was procured in Dunedin, thus replacing the present committee or its modus operandi. (ODT, 21.5.13)In support of his vote Mr Cull said, ''I think the sculpture suggested [by Mr Griffiths] is fine. but we want the best we can get and we only get it when we have a choice and if his is the best, it will be chosen.''
You have to have a lot of faith in committees to believe that.
The present art in public places committee has had its ups and downs. Some of its choices have been controversial such as Harbour Mouth Molars on Portsmouth Dr. Some people, many, have asserted that art needs to be controversial to be good. I don't agree and there's plenty of history which backs me.
Despite the controversy, not because of it, I think the molars succeed and will win acceptance. What I thought was mistaken was Haka Peep Show in the Octagon, which was temporary, phallic and not outstanding artistically. But the real mistake was its link to the stadium, spending funds, not the committee's, earmarked for boosting the Rugby World Cup. That was bound to outrage. The committee shouldn't have touched it.
Waterhead is anomalous because it comes from another group putting a permanent monument in a public place. You can argue whether it's a work of art or not but it has an aesthetic dimension, is in a public place and the funds are public money.
One sees how the council came to be involved but it is getting perilously close to making aesthetic decisions, or having other lay people making such decisions for it.
The panel should be principally art people. There need to be existing and regularly updated lists of candidate artists. These should not be only Dunedin people.
There should be lists of candidate places and aesthetic profiles for them. I understand a number of these things have already been developed for the present art in public places programme.
In the discussion of Waterhead a number of councillors expressed aesthetic opinions about the proposal - not all negative. Councillors are entitled to those opinions but their minds shouldn't be on aesthetics.
They should focus on whether the processes are robust and cast their votes around that. If they choose between candidate proposals they have got beyond their expertise and role.
A recent survey shows Wellington currently has the best system. There are stages and councillors have several chances to veto. Our council should study that before digging itself a prat trap.
Peter Entwisle is a Dunedin curator, historian and writer.
