How about sharing
1 percent with culture
as well?A change in the public arts law
By Burl Burlingame
would provide for overlooked
historical interpretationUnlike the solid lines and firm foundations of architecture, the decor of public structures is a fuzzy subject. Ideally, the decor should be tasteful and inspiring; it should fire the creative brain cells while tugging at emotional heartstrings; it should provide a vision of the future while also opening a window on the past. And it shouldn't cost too much.
It's a matter of interpretation, and also of who handles the interpretation.
Decor in public buildings is generally left to the architect, whose interests are understandably architectural, or to the agency, whose interests are confined to the type of businesses it conducts under the building's roof. Those generally left out of the equation are the public -- the taxpayers whose primary interaction with government agencies will be in the buildings that house them.
One notable exception to this rule is defined in Hawaii Statute 103-8.5, the "Works of Art Special Fund." Boiled down, it stipulates that 1 percent of all state monies appropriated for buildings, either new or renovated, be set aside to buy works of art for display in public areas.
The art works do not have to go into the particular building being funded, nor does the money have to be spent right away. It stays in a special fund just for this purpose. It's managed by the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts, which works with the state comptroller and the "affected agency or department" where the art work is to be placed. Sometimes professionals or committees are polled for additional consultation. Thanks to this statute, Hawaii has enjoyed a generally terrific public-arts program.
The idea is clear enough. The problem with it is turf.
Government agencies don't care about artwork. Never have. They confuse decor with decoration. But they don't want another government agency -- such as the State Foundation -- telling them what to do within their own buildings.
So, unless the architect has designed-in spaces for artwork, the artwork tends to be appended to the structure instead of being organically incorporated. Sometimes this works, as in the Kalanimoku Building, or it doesn't, as when Honolulu International Airport is used as a dumping ground for odd-shaped or too-big pieces.
The biggest new variable to this equation is the recent trend in creating public buildings that are culturally significant as well as pretty to look at. A key element is the notion of a "Hawaiian sense of place" that drove structures such as the Hawaii Convention Center.
And even though committees were formed, consultants were hired, and researchers pored through collections, the Convention Center blundered in some matters of sensitivity. For example, although an absolutely accurate kapa pattern was used on rugs, you don't walk on kapa. And although an effort was made to incorporate accurate Hawaiian spelling patterns, the 'okina glottal stop throughout the building's signage is upside down and backwards.
Oops. This is the same kind of compartmentalized mind-set that created a University of Hawaii softball field that can't be seen from the bleachers. At some point, they should have talked to someone who plays softball.
This is going to get tougher, not easier, because everyone feels that he is entitled to second-guess the opinions of experts. (And they may be right.) And, because there's no lead agency in interpreting a structure's cultural and historical focus, confusion and power vacuums reign. This is how you wind up with a committee to advise on the airport's future cultural interpretation with opinions to burn and no power to enact them. It's an exercise in futility.
The usual government reaction is to hire a "consultant," which both gets government officials off the hook if things go awry, and provides easy money to relatives and retired bureaucrats.
One possible solution is simple, and follows the path of real power in government -- funds allocation. Statute 103-8.5 should be amended in the upcoming legislative session to read "works of art and historical and cultural exhibitry," with a state building's cultural interpretation also handled by the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts.
The foundation would, in turn, have a regular stable of public-interest experts in various fields. The foundation would serve as the funnel for sensitivity-planning funds: Expertise should be considered a commodity, not a giveaway. The primary sources of cultural sensitivity in the community are museums. These organizations are also expert in involving the community in displays, giving the average citizen a sense of ownership in the exhibitry.
The Bishop Museum, for example, could be contracted to consult on Hawaiiana and science, the Maritime Center on maritime culture, the Historic Hawaii Foundation and the State Historic Preservation Division on historic structures, Hawaii's Plantation Village on agriculture, etc.
The federal government uses the National Park Service for most of its public cultural interpretation of historical sites, and relies on the "nation's museum," the Smithsonian, to interpret ongoing events. It's a simple and effective partnership.
The State Foundation on Culture and the Arts isn't perfect. I'm not happy with the way it dwells on Western art and goes outside of Hawaii for public commissions. But using a single agency would clarify and codify cultural and historical jurisdictions across state-government lines, as well as provide a consistent theme and style of interpretation for all agencies. As a bonus, we'd know who to blame as well.
Burl Burlingame is a Star-Bulletin staff writer with
an interest in history, architecture and museums. My Turn is a periodic
column written by Star-Bulletin staff writers.
