I'm confused. Is Bojack pulling my leg with some made up legal crap coming from City of Portlandia, and a cool photoshopped picture of a big pipe? Or is this true?

Either way, this is sad.

The truth, I mean. Or the satire.

I know the location where that's located. It's on Swan Island basically in the middle of nowhere near the UP Albina switchyard. More geese see this than people ever will.

BTW, it's also near where one the giant acupunture needles was last year, probably only visible from space.

Your tax dollars at work in times of need.

Portland ranks first among american cities for sewer art. Don't be such a hater.

This piece is actually amazing. The artist did a great job and it is sad that our dollars have not made this art more accessable to all of us. The purpose of 'public art' is to offset the impervious surface and cold effect of industry by beautifying our built environment. I think the river dies a great job of that in and of itself.

Fruedian slip- does not dies.

It's a cover up. They're actually constructing a Stargate.

Har har.

There is some beautiful publicly funded art out at Wapato Jail, $1.1 million worth (excluding debt service charges, mothballing fees, and staff time).

Too bad nobody gets to enjoy it.

I like the Stargate theory. The plan is to build streetcars in other universes.

In reading this report it suggests that not only are funds being misappropriated from projects but also spending for the arts occurs at a level far exceeding what is to be allocated.
So in 2006 we went from a formalized percent for art to 2% for art and the last fiscal year spent 9%??!!!

It is so very very very hard for the city to just spend money on what it is levied for. In fact, it might actually be impossible for them. Like setting a two year old in front of a cupcake and telling them not to touch it.

But I must confess, I really like this peice in connection to the Big Pipe. Why didn't they put it down on the central waterfront somewhere where people could experience it?

Obviously it has already been vandalized, but which part?

A streetcar would open this up niceLy for public access.

Teresa: If you are referring to the table I think you are referring to, on page 3, you may have misread the column headings. The percent for art investment holds at 2% of any given project. The column you are looking at says that these revenues accounted for 9% of RACC's total budget in 2009-10. (RACC does many other things besides public art.)

Jeff,

Given that RACC's website shows seven employees dedicated to the Public Art program, any idea what percentage of your budget is spent on Administration vs. the percentage spent on Artists.

As an outsider looking in, the organization looks very top heavy.

Hi, Mister Tee. RACC spends 12.8% of its budget on administration and management. You can see our FY10 financials on page 20 of our annual report, www.racc.org/report. You can also see a detailed listing, including budget and funding sources, for all public art projects commissioned last year, on pages 10-11 on that report. And there's a detailed listing of all grants that were awarded last year, on pages 14-19. In case I am unable to check this blog very often, please feel free to email directly with any questions you might have.

Wait...wait...It's not completed!

It has to have the final wash of raw sewage before the fashionistas can enjoy it.

Jeff,

I wonder if those seven "Public Art" titled employees are included in the "Public Art" budget category, or are some/all of them included in the Management and General" category?

If you add the two together, they would total almost $2 million your (roughly) $6.7 million budget, or nearly 30%.

Is any of that $2 million actually spent on art installations?

MT: Those salaries are included in management and general. Please note that half our public art staff are part-time. Public art salaries totaled $237K last year. Payments to artists (including their materials) totaled $1.16 million last year. We also receive many contributions for public art maintenance, and RACC charges consulting rates to other organizations (the Denver Hospital, for example) that want to tap into our public art expertise. These revenues go a long way toward offsetting the costs of Portland's public art program.

They have to put it where nobody can see it. Otherwise the meth heads will take it.

In my opinion, government involvement in art should be the same as government involvement in religion.

ANY public art should be 100% funded by patrons of the art. Tax dollars shound never under any circumstance go to fund 'art'. How many tax payers have had extra money to purchase art they might want to enjoy?
If we the tax payers can't afford something - the government sure can't afford it!
It is just like the national tax breaks that were held in place for 2 more years. Those who don't need the tax cut can donate their money to public art or any other pet project.
Just let average working people keep their money.

I'm just glad I don't live in Dman and Barbara's world.