Agenda of Extraordinary Public Art Panel Meeting

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 4.1 - Attachment 1

MOVING FORWARD at THE MULLUMBIMBY GATEWAY 2018

A Byron Shire Council and Mullumbimby Gateway Project

Prepared by the Mullumbimby Gateway Committee

Revitalising, Repairing and Renewing this important site at the entrance to Mullumbimby.

THE MULLUMBIMBY GATEWAY was constructed in 1988 with the aim of creating a dramatic visual and high impact new entrance to the town of Mullumbimby off the Pacific Highway. It stands at the crossroad intersection that provides the main vehicular access to the town of Mullumbimby (population 3,676). Mullumbimby is the home of Byron Shire Council and the Gateway is used as a major drop off and rest stop everyday, for busloads of school aged children, visitors and local residents.

The repair and renewal of the Mullumbimby Gateway is a major community building project .

It is now a priority to repair and restore the sculptures which are the centrepiece of the Mullumbimby Gateway site. Over the years the Gateway has become a significant Byron Shire icon. However, due to the ravages of time in a moist tropical environment, the totem sculptures have deteriorated and are now in urgent need of repair.

Our project is to repair and protect the sculptures and bring the Mullumbimby Gateway back to life. It is an important piece of the cultural and heritage fabric of our community, much loved by this community and the thousands of people who visit Byron and Mullumbimby. The Gateway is unique in this area and restoring it is very important to the spirit of this community.

STAGE 1

At the centre of the Gateway is the sculptural installation, which was a Bicentennial Project funded by the NSW Government, the Byron Shire Council and the Mullumbimby Community.

The main concept and impetus behind the project was to showcase our region’s renowned artistic skills, environmental awareness and cultural heritage.

Project Background

The sculptures: on completion in 1988, consisted of three large totem style carvings.

· The largest sculpture is the Nature Pole depicting the animal and plant life of this region. It is 15 metres high, starting with carvings of tortoises and water symbols, it climbs through carvings of egrets and spoonbills, Bangalow palms and black bean pods, with a 14-ft. carpet snake climbing up around the carving; higher up a large goanna reaches up below a frieze of nightcap daisies. This pole is topped by a magnificent 8ft high pelican sitting on the shape of a locally found Aboriginal Nullla Nulla.

· Next to it is the 8 metre high Peace Pole, more abstract in form, it has messages reminding us of the fragility of the world we live in.

· The third sculpture was the 5 metre high Lady Pole. An unfolding leaf form, it was removed after it was eaten out by white ants. We will be inviting expressions of interest to replace this later this year.

· The project was designed and co-ordinated by Richard Mordaunt and Bob Gray.

Our team was Rose McKinley and Diana Barbara with carving done by Bob Gray, Jim Nutter, Roger Garlick and Ruby Collins.

· The Rotunda was designed by Christina Vadasz and built by Greg Tollis and the Mullumbimby Community.

· This is the first Gateway in Byron Shire and was supported by Mayor Oliver Dunne and Shire engineer, Greg Alderson

MULLUMBIMBY GATEWAY RENEWAL – STAGE 1 - PROJECT PLAN 2018

The Proposal

To achieve the repair of the sculptures and the renewal of the site, we have created:

· A new Mullumbimby Gateway Committee

· An expert advisory panel

· A working group of senior Byron Shire Council staff, with which we have held productive meetings including with Mayor Simon Richardson, Council’s infrastructure and planning Manager Phil Holloway, BSC Councillor Jan Hackett, Tara McGready Mullumbimby Master Plan, Andy Erskine Parks and open spaces (BSC) and the owners of all the adjacent land surrounding the Gateway.

· Essential Energy are supporting us and have agreed to lift and replace the sculptures while we are repairing them.

· We have an auspice relationship with Brunswick Valley Historical Society

· Identified appropriate funding sources

PROTECTING AND REPAIRING THE SCULPTURES

It was important in the original design concept that there were 3 sculptures, inside a circle of stones from Mt Warning.

1. The largest sculpture is the Nature Pole depicting the animal and plant life of this region.

2. The Peace Pole.

3. The third sculpture, the Lady Pole, was removed after it was destroyed by white ants*

* In June 2018, Mullumbimby Gateway Inc, will invite expressions of interest from the community, to replace the absent Lady's Sculpture with a new work. Existing footings are still in place.

Greg Alderson is part of the Gateway Committee and was Shire Engineer when the carvings were first put in place in 1988. He has been advising us on new technologies that will ensure longevity and sustainability of the proposed repairs.

THE WORK

1. To protect the sculptures into the future they will be cut at ground level, and utilising a technology developed by ‘Adapt-a-pole’, www.adaptapole.com, we will use stainless steel sleeves made by Hayes Engineering in Murwillumbah to protect the base of the sculptures above the ground. This is an approved technology used to protect electricity poles across NSW and Victoria. Essential Energy have agreed to support us and will use their crane to lift and replace the sculptures while we are repairing them

2. The carvings above ground level will be sanded back, filled, repaired with Megabond and then painted. By painting the sculptures with oil based lacquers, they will be protected and become highly visual and contemporary.

3. Following this process, the sculptures will last for another 50 years. The circle of rocks encircling the sculptures is important. These rocks were blasted from Mt Warning and will be moved closer to the carvings, thereby creating a circle of ‘Standing Stones’ through which portal one enters to view the sculptures.

4. The Gazebo will become a much used waiting area for the community, with a path leading from the bus and parking areas to the Gazebo. The Gazebo will contain documentation of the making and meaning of the Gateway, a map of the Caldera to Mullumbimy and a list of the Gateway sponsors.

The sculptures will be illuminated at night with solar LED’s, providing a welcoming light back to Mullumbimby.

The Stage 1 Plan will be submitted to Byron Shire Council (BSC) and the Mullumbimby Master Plan Committee. We hope that BSC will assist this project on a 50/50% funds matching basis.

Project design and co-ordination,

Richard Mordaunt

Artist, arts co-ordinator and Film Producer

0407466461

richardmordaunt@bigpond.com

Bob Gray

Artist, arts co-ordinator, builder and wood creator.

66849168

spiceyfarming@gmail.com

The Mullumbimby Gateway Committee is supported by an expert advisory group that we inform and consult with at each new stage of the Gateway Project.

Advisory panel :

Simon Richardson - Mayor of Byron Shire, Phil Holloway - Byron Council infrastructure and planning Manager, Jan Hackett -Byron Shire Councillor, Tara McGready - BSC Mullumbimby MasterplanAndy Erskine - BSC Parks and Gardens ,

Peter Wood - President Arts Northern River, Lisa Hochhauser -Landscape Architect, Oliver Dunne - Ex Mayor of Byron Shire, Greg Alderson -Ex BSC Shire Engineer,

Maggie Brown - Social and Community Planner, Greg Aitken - Mullumbimby Drill Hall Theatre, Madelaine Faught- Social scientist, educator, Rainforest Rescue, Stephen Hall- President Brunswick Valley Historical Society Inc

Mullumbimby Creative, Malcolm Price - Architect, Joey Rulgrok Public - Art professional,

Suvira McDonald - Ceramic artist and sculptor, Michael Murray - Byron Property Search and filmmaker, Adam Jeffrey - builder and owner of Uncle Tom, Victoria Baldock & David Dombroski.

Artists - Gerhard Veit, Rose McKinley, Helen Adams, Diana Mordaunt, Jules Hunt, Mark Williams,

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 4.1 - Attachment 2

bsc_logo_cmyk_solid_colour Public Art Asset Application pro forma

Please refer to Sections 6 and 7 of the Public Art Guidelines and Criteria.

Title of Artwork:

THE MULLUMBIMBY GATEWAY SCULPTURES

Name of Artist:

RICHARD MORDAUNT & BOB GRAY

WE ARE THE PROJECT DESIGNERS AND CO-ORDINATORS OF THE MULLUMBIMBY GATEWAY SITE.

Type of Artwo ed:rk Propos

OUR PROJECT IS TO REPAIR THE SCULPTURES AND TO REFRESH AND RENEW THE GATEWAY SITE. WE WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING THE MULLUMBIMBY GATEWAY IN 1987 AND THERE IS NOW AN URGENCY TO PROTECT AND REPAIR THE SCULPTURES AND BRING THIS SITE BACK TO LIFE.

Artwork Materials and Construction Details:

THE SCULPTURES ARE CARVED OUT OF GREY GUM. ESSENTAIL ENERGY HAVE AGREED TO SUPPORT US AND WILL BE LIFTING AND REPLACING THE SCULPTURES AFTER WEVE REPAIRED THEM.

WE WILL GRIND BACK AND REPAIR ALL ASPECTS OF THE SCULPTURES, FROM TOP TO BOTTOM.

THEN USING AN APPROVED TECHNOLOGY DESIGNED BY ADAPTABPOLE AND USED ALL OVER AUSTRALIA TO PROTECT ELECTRICITY POLES, WE WILL CUT OFF ALL TIMBER BELOW THE GROUND AND ONLY USING TIMBER FROM ABOVE THE GROUND, WE WILL FIT STAINLESS STEEL SLEEVES TO THE BASE OF THE SCULPTURES. THE SLEEVES ARE DESIGNED BY GREG ALDERSON AND MADE BY HAYES ENGINEERING IN MURWILLUMBAH.

ABOVE THIS POINT, FIRST USING OIL BASED UNDERCOAT, THE CARVINGS WILL BE PAINTED WITH OIL BASED COLOURS SO THAT THEY BECOME COMPLETELY VISUAL AND CONTEMPORARY. THEY WILL BE FINISHED WITH COATS OF UV PROTECTION COAT. THEY WILL THEN BE REINSERTED INTO THE TWO METRE LONG CONCRETE FOOTINGS THAT ALREADY EXIST AND WERE ENGINEERED BY GREG ALDERSON.

Date of creation (date of artwork)

THE SCULPTURES WERE CREATED IN 1987.

OUR JOB IS TO RESTORE AND REPAIR THEM SO THAT NO GROUND WATER AND MOISTURE CAN AFFECT THEM INTO THE FUTURE.

WE WILL INSPECT THE SCULPTURES EACH YEAR AND REPAINT THE SCULPTURES EVERY SIX YEARS - THIS MAINTENANCE PROGRAM IS ESSENTIAL -THEY WILL THEN LAST FOR THE NEXT 40 YEARS.

Dimensions

Proposed Location of Artwork:

THE MULLUMBIMBY GATEWAY IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF GULGAN ROAD AND MULLUMBIMBY ROAD OPPOSITE UNCLE TOMS LEADING INTO MULLUMBIMBY..

Proposed Signage for Artwork:

THE GATEWAY TO MULLUMBIMY

Do you have public liability insurance?

YES.

THIS IS A BYRON SHIRE AND MULLUMBIMBY GATEWAY COMMUNITY PROJECT.

BECAUSE THESE ARE EXISTING ARTWOKS ON COUNCIL LAND AND ARE OWNED BY BSC,

WE CAN BECOME COUNCIL VOLUNTEERS.

BECAUSE IT IS A COUNCIL RESERVE, BSC HAVE SAID THAT WE NEED TO COMPLETE SECTION 138 IN ODER TO START WORK THERE.

Procurement Method (check box as applicable):

Commission

THIS IS A REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE PROJECT. WE WILL SUBMIT A BRIEF FOR THE 3^RD SCULPTURE WHICH WILL BE MADE OUT OF STEEL AND CALL FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST WITHIN THE COMMUNITY IN THE NEXT ROUND OF BYRON PUBLIC ART AND ARTS NORTHERN RIVERS.

Direct purchase

Donation

Loan – proposed period of loan:_______________

Date of Procurement:

Estimated Life of Artwork:

50 YEARS

Value of Artwork (estimate if unknown):

ESTIMATED VALUE OF ARTWORK AND GAZEBO $180,000

Attach copies of the following (check box as applicable):

Artist’s CV (including examples of previous relevant work)

Artistic statement

Photos/design drawings/ specifications providing visual samples of proposed work (photo’s should be attached as jpegs no less than 300dpi)

Risk Assessment (template available)

Maintenance manual (template available)

This form, with attachments, should be sent to the Public Art Asset Officer.

Your application will be considered at the next available PAAP meeting.

An early representation of the colours we will use on the Nature Carving at the Gateway (this is not a final drawing)

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 4.1 - Attachment 4

Public Art Risk Assessment

Please refer to Section 11 of the Public Art Guidelines and Criteria to ensure all aspects of risk assessment are considered.

Risk Assessment and Hazard Control Summary of Public Art

Risk Category & Hazard	Risk Rating	Possible Cause	Control Measure	Residual Risk Rating
OH&S
Slippery or loose surfaces/sharp edges on artwork.		There are no sharp or slippery surfaces.
Potential for injury or illness to public.			After we’ve repaired the sculptures there will be no danger to the public
Manual handling required during installation.			Essential Energy are lifting and replacing the sculptures.
Traffic Hazards.		This is a Council Roadside Reserve. We will require a section 138 to carry out work there.
Engineer report required?			Greg Alderson will give an engineering report.
Concrete pads or barriers required?		These are already in place
Public Liability
Stable foundation.		YES
Need for lighting/illumination.			Solar LED’s
Need for enclosure.		The Current perimeter fence is in bad shape and needs to be replaced
Is infrastructure sound?		The Gazebo is sound and in good shape
Ongoing safety checks required to ensure stability?			Annual checks

Environmental hazard check including earthquake, winds and flood required?
Environment
Impact on environment/earth collapse or erosion.
Potential impact on flora and fauna, air, soil, waterways or drains, noise.
Financial
Financial impacts – immediate and ongoing.
Governance, Contractual & Legal

Political, Reputation & Image

Other

Risk Rating Matrix

			Insignificant	Minor	Moderate	Major	Catastrophic
		Governance, Contractual and Legal	Isolated non-compliance or breach; minimal failure of internal controls managed by normal operations; negligible financial impact.	Contained non-compliance or breach with short term significance, some impact on normal operations and minor financial impact.	Serious breach involving statutory authority or investigation; significant failure of internal controls; prosecution possible with significant financial impact.	Major breach with fines and litigation; critical failure of internal controls; long term significance and major financial impact.	Extensive fines and litigation with possible class action; threat to viability of organisation, program or service.
		Public Liability or OH&S	Injuries or ailments not requiring medical treatment; minimal loss to organisation.	Minor injury or First Aid Treatment Case; medium loss to organisation.	Serious injury causing hospitalisation or multiple medical treatment cases; high loss to organisation.	Life threatening injury or multiple serious injuries causing hospitalisation; very high loss to organisation.	Death or multiple life threatening injuries; worst case loss to organisation.
		OH&S	Injuries or ailments not requiring medical treatment	Minor injury or First Aid Treatment Case	Serious injury causing hospitalisation or multiple medical treatment cases	Life threatening injury or multiple serious injuries causing hospitalisation	Death or multiple life threatening injuries
		Environment	Minimal environmental impact; isolated release only	Minor environmental impact; on-site release immediately controlled.	Significant environmental impact; on-site release contained with assistance.	Major environmental impact; release spreading off-site; contained with external assistance.	Fatalities occur; extensive release off-site; requires long term remediation.
		Financial	1% of Budget or <$5K	2.5% of Budget or <$50K	> 5% of Budget or <$500K	> 10% of Budget or <$5M	>25% of Budget or >$5M
		Political, Reputation & Image	Isolated, internal or minimal adverse attention or complaint. No impact on funding or political support.	Heightened local community concern or criticism. Possible minor impact on funding and political support at local level.	Significant public criticism with or without media attention. Significant impact on funding and/or political support at local level.	Serious public or media outcry, broad media attention. Major impact on funding and/or political support at local and state level.	Extensive public outcry; potential national media attention. Complete removal of funding source and/or political support.
		Matrix	1	2	3	4	5
Almost Certain	Is expected to occur in most circumstances	5	Medium	High	High	Extreme	Extreme
Likely	Will probably occur	4	Medium	Medium	High	High	Extreme
Possible	Might occur at some time in the future	3	Low	Medium	Medium	High	Extreme
Unlikely	Could occur but doubtful	2	Low	Medium	Medium	High	High *
Rare	May occur in exceptional circumstances	1	Low	Low	Medium	Medium	High *

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 4.3 - Attachment 3

Submissions received re Draft Public Art Strategy

Doc No.	Submitter	Summary of submission
E2018/28894	Russell Vitale Vita Yoga/ Heartspace Byron Bay	I urge you to reconsider spending vast amounts of money on ridiculously heavy, art sculptures in Byron Bay. Lets keep Byron real for the tourists and locals who enjoy a fresh, colourful coat of paint as street art, changeable over the months and over the years.. rather than some expensive, lawn occupying, heavy weight objects that are immovable and fixed. Please try to keep Byron Bay colourful and flexible. A small town of colours and feelings that is lovingly reflected externally on brick and render, by the people who live here.In any shape or form, may the decisions always support the local artists.
E2018/29007	Kye Underhill	I am devastated to hear that the council wants to limit the street art in Byron. The street art that is around town and the industrial estate is amazing. It allows a legal outlet for our local street artists, cleans up the illegal graffiti that is around and makes the town look colourful and cultural - which Byron is known for. People travel to see the street art around the world and it is growing in popularity for all walks of life. Please don’t stop this creative outlet in Byron!!
E2018/29009	Mindy Clarke	As an artist and an event organiser and also a business owner I couldn't be more supportive of public art and since living in byron 14years ago and moving on (now residing in Tweed Heads) i still frequently visit. For myself, the street art is one of the most attractive charms of byron shire, an reflection of the vibrant creative energy of the residents and the artist's who pass through. To extinguish the flame, so to speak, for artist's and appreciators alike, by removing the funds and support of public art as it is and has always been would be a terrible loss for everyone involved.
E2018/29011	David Frappell	Street art is a surprising and innovative way of connecting with the community Please do not do anything to stop it from happening
E2018/29014	Austin Nitsua (6 page submission)	Key points of the submission: · I am writing this submission on behalf of the Professional Street Art Community in Byron Shire. I am writing AGAINST the Draft Policy on Public Art and Public Art Strategy currently on exhibition. · Street art has been condemned throughout this documentation despite being a widely loved and appreciated form of art in Byron Shire. The policy and strategy completely disregard street art as a contemporary, well respected and desired part of a vibrant and inclusive arts community. · Given the strong reception street art has on Facebook and particularly Instagram by locals and tourists alike, I doubt that a selection of younger community members would agree with your strategic direction – sculptures over murals. · How are you going to find sculptures that can stand the test of 20 years in such a dynamic place? They are going to get ‘old’ very quickly. Mural artwork however can be easily changed with a fresh lick of paint and new artists. This is done extremely well by Waverley Shire Council for example who manage the Bondi Seawall and continually rotate artists featured in this space. · Using the amount it would cost to attain one sculpture you could pay for 5 or more new mural with fresh insight over it’s lifetime. · I write strongly against the recommendation that the DCP be amended to include painted murals as development and subsequently all murals to be approved by the public art panel. · Furthermore if you ban something, or make it harder and more coveted to do you are only fuelling the fire for more guerrilla street art. · Instead Council’s strategy should include more detail on designated spots that would be acceptable for street art to be placed. It should identify laneways and infrastructure that could be used as a canvas for street art. We get that Council can’t afford the upkeep of mural and street art – so put a clause in your policy to say the maintenance responsibility lies with the artist. · In the strategic document you have referred to my own artwork as an ‘offensive piece’ situated across from the mosaic roundabout in central Byron. However you only have to look at Lateen Lane across the road to see what happens when you don’t use local artists for a community project. It has been heavily graffitied and as the artists are from as far away as Germany and Sydney – it’s unlikely they will return and fix the work. · The reality is – street art will continue to flourish in Byron whether Council supports it or not. If you ban something, or it is discouraged it only becomes more enticing. You will find more and more uncontrolled forms of street art coming up, both good and bad. · So why not work with us, not against us. Include us in your discussions, and help find spaces where our artform can flourish, activate spaces and build places for community enjoyment.
E2018/29016	Stuart Collins	Public Art Policy & Strategy = disgraceful policy. As someone who spends a lot of time with tourists and locals on the streets in Byron and around the hostels working as a promoter and musician in many venues. I can tell you that the street art and murals are a massive part of what people notice and talk about when coming to byron. With people literally taking a day to walk around and taking time to see them all. No-one wants ugly, bland, and expensive statues over colour in our streets. Artists should be free to make murals as they please on the ugly unkept parts of byron as they do. You should be thanking them for doing your job and keeping byron looking good. One thing you could possibly spend your money on and attention is the pot holes and roads. Get your priorities in order. Complete incompetence and a misguided council. If you are going to use any money on art, give it to the muralists and support them keeping our town vibrant and art alive. Inspire the youth to be creative and artistic as well. We aren't the Gold coast or an extension of Queensland, stop trying to make us into another sterile beach town with no character and council dictatorship. Keep the art alive and therefore our culture and spirit of Byron.
E2018/29856	David McElvenny Aka teazer /stay gold	· I am writing this submission on behalf of the Professional Street Art Community in Byron Shire. I am writing AGAINST the Draft Policy on Public Art and Public Art Strategy currently on exhibition. · I am a Byron Bay local and home owner and street art lover, I am Originally from Bondi Beach in Sydney, where I am still active in the street art community, I am a panel member on the judging panel for the bondi beach Seawall and just did a mural there last week and I have done numerous projects with waverley council in particular over the years. · Street art has been condemned throughout this documentation despite being a widely loved and appreciated form of art in Byron Shire. The policy and strategy completely disregard street art as a contemporary, well respected and desired part of a vibrant and inclusive arts community. I question whether the Panel is a fair representation of the Byron Community’s view on public art. · Personally I have been responsible for some of Byron’s most loved and applauded murals including freckles ‘bay seafood’ , Aquarius cafe/ Byron property sales kookaburra mural, The Farm Byron Bays ‘mermaid’ mural, and the ‘surf alley project’, I also have a beautiful relationship with Feros care , mentoring the residents through a street art workshop and creating a mural together which has been met by national approval on the today show and sunrise. · Given the strong reception street art has on Facebook, television and particularly Instagram by locals and tourists alike, I doubt that a selection of younger community members would agree with your strategic direction – sculptures over murals. Your strategy aims to focus resources on permanent sculptures that require low maintenance. Byron Shire is one of the most diverse and dynamic places in Australia if not the world. How are you going to find sculptures that can stand the test of 20 years in such a dynamic place? They are going to get ‘old’ very quickly. · I have Personally taken it upon myself, together with other local street art colleagues, to beautify the shire. We have documented evidence of over 20 sites in the northern rivers, where we have approached a vandalised business or residential wall, and offered a beautiful mural to replace it (often at our own expense) murals which firstly are respected by vandals and taggers alike, and secondly, better represents the shires international and multicultural profile. Imagine the clean up costs that are avoided! · I feel as though this draft is ludicrous, as in my Experience, our free public art is only met with love and appreciation by tourists and locals alike, and we need a lot more of it! Look around at the murals; whales, dolphins, mermaids, surfers, hippie vans, protest and free speech , surely this represents the essence of Byron bay. · I still have a photo log of approximately 10 public spaces in the Byron shire which are frankly disgusting, and desperately need some Street art love! For example the Lawson street carparks and beach front carpark. The construction site along from Woolworths, the water towers, the list goes on and on, and unfortunately sculptures can’t even remotely help us.
E2018/31502	Gwyn (& Neil) Aitkenhead	We are very disappointed to hear that the street art in Byron may come to an end! My husband & I are in our 70’s and reside on The Gold Coast. We regularly enjoy a day at Byron and take time to view the local street art talent which is always changing. It would be a sad thing to remove this colourful talent that Byron Bay is so well known for!
E2018/31692	Rick Slater	I do not support the draft Public Art Policy and Public Art Strategy currently on exhibition. I do not believe that the quality of public art should be monitored or managed by the council with the goal of producing ‘professional’ artworks. Street artists should be free to express themselves in an appropriate manner; their creative process should not be dictated by the council or commercial sector.
E2018/31694	Mia Slater	I do not support the draft public art policy or draft public art strategy currently on exhibition. I do not think public artworks should be 'monitored' or 'managed' by the council with the goal of producing 'professional' artworks. The eclectic collection of street art in Byron adds character - commissioned sculptures possibly sponsored by commercial bodies could take that character away.
E2018/36181	Kerry Tolson Alstonville (4 page submission)	Key points of the submission: · Although I am not a resident or rate payer of the Byron Shire Council, I visit Byron Bay and Bangalow on an almost weekly basis. I am also a writer and photographer with an interest in Street Art, in particular, murals and GRAFF art. I have been photographing, documenting and writing about Byron Bay’s street art for a number of years and am currently working on a book about Byron Bay’s murals and GRAFF art. I also regularly travel throughout Australia and overseas photographing and documenting Street Art murals and GRAFF art. · It greatly concerns me that the Draft Public Art Policy and Draft Public Art Strategy currently being amended will give preference to “Sculptural projects rather than murals” and recommends that the DCP be amended to include painted murals as development thereby requiring a Development Application for murals on external walls and to be approved by the council’s Public Art Panel. · The document’s language when referring to murals is quite negative. · Although I am not opposed to sculptures as a form of public art, I feel that the importance and respect of murals and GRAFF art as an integral and significant component of public street art is being overlooked by the Council and the creators of the Plan. · Mural walls are more likely to discourage graffiti and vandalism and it helps create a greater appreciation for the visual arts, encouraging people to venture into boutique art galleries. Not only do tourists venture out of ‘high traffic areas’ into other parts of a town, giving them a glimpse of the local culture, but it also gives locals a unique experience in their own surroundings, it encourages them to explore their hometown more, giving them reason to have a ‘staycation’ in their own locality and fosters a ‘pride of place’ and connection to their local artists. · The concept of “high quality” street art is impossible to define. What might appear to be scrawled graffiti/tagging to one may be considered highbrow culture to another. A case in point being that of Australia's most internationally renowned contemporary artist, Anthony Lister, whose work commissioned by Brisbane City Council was later ‘buffed out’ by a Brisbane City Council worker because it was thought to be graffiti. · Requiring artists to submit a DA could stifle creativity, expression and become costly. It would also reduce the opportunity for the community and area to receive works by renowned street artists who could be passing through the area. Over the years Byron Bay has received spontaneous art works by world renowned artists visiting the Bay, such as Mike Makatron, AUM, Kelsey Montague, Raiz, Dscreet, HaHa and Sofles to name but a few. The Bryon Shire has many talented street artists in its region, artists who work hard to foster a sense of pride in the town and to promote Byron Bay and the surrounding localities with their artworks. To have their work labelled as ‘poor quality’, ‘confusing’ and making ‘over excited’ statements is not only an insult but shows a total lack of respect of their commitment to the town and the Shire as a whole. · By its nature, Street Art is transient, ever changing, ever evolving. Like the street itself, life varies as it goes about its daily business, and so should the visual stimulation that bedecks it. To remain the same is to become staid and tired. Art should be exciting, refreshing and transforming, it should be diverse from every way you look at it. A changing canvas encourages people – tourists and locals – to venture back, time and time again, to discover new visions. If Byron Bay and the Shire was to lose its murals and GRAFF art, it would lose its colour and soul.
E2018/36192	Geoffrey Cotton (14 page submission)	Key points of submission: · Confusion regarding the status of the draft strategy. The Strategy document does not have the word ‘draft’ on it and the consultant that developed the document had a misleading statement on her website. · Would like to strongly recommend that a set of genuine consultations be conducted. · The definition of Public Art is an ‘unusual’ one and several others are suggested. · Questions were raised about the selection of the consultant and the process used to develop the draft strategy. · It is the writers opinion that the strategy is unlikely to deliver on the vision ‘as it is even more timid than the previous strategy’. · Vision – the ‘unique character and lifestyle’ of the area should be described, and some suggestions are included in the submission. · Wording changes to the key principles listed in the Public Art Policy are suggested (3 pages in the submission) · The draft objectives are broadly supported in the submission, subject to qualifications outlined . · None of the draft recommendations are supported in their entirety or without qualification (4 pages in the submission) · Serious concerns are raised about the suggested project priorities. For example, the placement of works on roundabouts is strongly not supported. · The submission identifies that the project budgets remain low increasing the risk that commissioned works will not be able to fulfil the draft strategy’s vision. · It is suggested that the Public Art Policy and final Strategy specifically follow NAVA funding guidelines and commissioning policy.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 4.3 - Attachment 6

Geoffrey Cotton

55 Eureka Rd

CLUNES NSW 2480

Mob. 0417 031 302

Email geoffcotton.sculptor@gmail.com

Response: Draft public art strategy 2018

The following comments are provided on the draft Public Art Strategy. Concerns are raised regarding the status of the strategy and the process used to develop it, and its contents.

1. Confusion regarding the status of the draft strategy

The strategy document fails to identify that it is a draft. This is compounded by an entry on the website of the external consultant who developed the document. That entry reads:

Byron Shire Public Art Strategy

The recently completed Byron Shire Public Art Strategy has been unanimously endorsed by the Public Art Panel, subject to one word change. One of the key recommendations of the Strategy was to enact a ‘moratorium’ on paint, in an effort to kerb the proliferation of street art, much of dubious quality, some of which was endorsed by Council. In a regional Shire with next to nothing to spend on public art, the polies were reluctant to say No to anything.

The Shire DCP however, offered some sound revenue raising opportunities through development levies which see public art grow over the next decade. PublicArt Works recommended a raft of amendments that would gradually see the coffers grow, including encouraging developers to make a contribution to the Council’s public art fund rather than to commission their own artwork. We consulted extensively with local artists and visual artists, Councillors and the Public Art Panel – comprising a powerhouse of talent and skill – and focussed on ways which would help the Shire ‘do more with less’, and to get some bigger ticket projects off the ground.^{^[1]}

If the consultant’s claim is correct, and the strategy has been endorsed by the PAP, any pretense that public comment is welcome and might result in changes to the draft, is deceptive.

The document also confuses its own nature. Although it is titled a ‘strategy’ (front cover), it also considers itself a ‘report’ (page heading, p.6). It also looks more like a report than a strategy, as it appears to be as presented by the consultant. That is, it does not follow the format typically used by Byron Shire policy-related documents. If the consultant’s claim is correct, that only one word was changed by the PAP, this is a highly unusual situation.

In light of this, it is strongly recommended that a set of genuine consultations be conducted, using the draft strategy as a discussion paper. These consultations should be advertised widely and supported by briefings by Council staff and/or PAP members, regarding the thinking behind the current draft strategy.

Definition of ‘public art’

The clear and early definition of terms, especially the term ‘public art’, crucially underpins what follows in the strategy document.

The draft strategy uses an unusual definition of ‘public art’, taken from the draft Public Art Policy under development in 2017:

“… artistic works or activities created for, located in, or part of a public space or facility, and/or the conceptual contribution of artists to the design of public spaces and architecture.” (p.14)

This definition has been used elsewhere (e.g. in Tweed Shire Council’s Policy on Placemaking and Public Art, 2014), and appears to derive from placemaking theory. It is unusual in its reference to public art including “conceptual contribution of artists … to design”. The Tate and NAVA definitions below imply that it is the physical expression of the artistic concept that is central: the concept alone cannot be viewed or otherwise experienced.

Alternative definitions are those applied by the Tate Britain (gallery) and by NAVA (National Association for the Visual Arts):

The term public art refers to art that is in the public realm, regardless of whether it is situated on public or private property or whether it has been purchased with public or private money ^{^[2]}

Public art is art work located in public spaces and buildings other than galleries and museums.^{^[3]}

The Tate definition recognizes that it is the visibility of the work from a publicly accessible area, and not its location on public lands, that is the distinguishing feature. The NAVA definition specifically notes that public art may be located in buildings. Under Australian law, ‘public place’ includes any location – whether publicly or privately owned – which the public may freely access. So, the foyer of the Elements resort at Byron Bay (or the grounds of The Farm at Ewingsdale, or the Art Cube inside the entrance to the Byron Council Chambers) are valid sites for the display of public art.

The draft Policy also seeks to constrain the interpretation of the term ‘public art’ by limiting its scope to areas “deemed appropriate by Council”, and excluding “privately owned or managed land and buildings for domestic purposes”. No criteria are given in either the draft PA Policy or the draft PA Strategy for making decisions about “deeming appropriateness”. Nor does the draft strategy identify who would make this decision, or what right of appeal would exist if a private sector property owner wished to object to a Council decision affecting his/her development if over the $1 million threshold requiring the provision of public art.

It is recommended that the PAP revisits the definition supplied by the consultant, and consider whether it wishes Byron’s public art strategy to focus on limiting or broadening the range of sites on which council-funded art works could be located.

2. Process used to develop the draft strategy

In a community such as Byron’s that is very sensitive to the need to be open, transparent and inclusive in all aspects of public policy (some would say ‘Bolshy’), the process for developing any policy or strategy is politically sensitive and critically important. The process for developing the draft public art strategy fails this test.

The use of a public art consultant to assist in the development of the draft strategy is supported. However, the consultant must not be, or be seen to be, the tail that wags the council dog. This requires that:

a) a suitably-skilled, experienced and unconflicted consultant is selected, via a transparent process

b) the consultant is briefed thoroughly, and that this brief be via a public document, easily accessible to all (for example, via Council’s website)

c) Council, on behalf of the community, facilitates the gathering of a wide range of views using a range of methods

d) the consultant reports to Council and it is Council, using advice from the PAP, that decides the strategy.

Above all, it is essential to ensure wide input by stakeholders, residents, ratepayers and other interested parties into the development of the strategy, at a stage when such input can genuinely inform and influence the content of the draft strategy. A good model is provided by the recent development of the Byron Shire Community Strategic Plan, or by the development of the Byron Bay Masterplan. Both of these involved many and varied opportunities for interested people to have a say, early in the process.

The Byron Shire Community Strategic Plan 2027 clearly enunciated an action to build real community participation into council decision-making: under Community Objective CM2, Informed and Engaged Community, the following strategy was adopted:

CM2.1 Use a range of effective communication to engage the community and support transparent and accountable Council decision making.  ^{^[4]}

This thrust is reiterated in the recent Draft Our Byron Our Future – Community Strategic Plan 2028, in Community Objective 5: We have community led decision making which is open and inclusive.^{^[5]}

The Byron public art strategy development process diverged from those principles of community participation. No public opportunity existed, to provide community and stakeholder input either before the consultant was appointed or during the consultant’s tenure.

Although Council has a Public Art Panel whose role is, amongst other things, to “ … devise a strategic Public Art Statement…”, most members of the PAP are not representatives of any interest group or association (the exceptions are the two Councillors and the representatives of the Bundjalung Aboriginal Corporation and Arts Northern Rivers). This non-representative status should require Council to be even more diligent in ensuring that the wider community can have genuine, timely input into the development of relevant policies, strategies and guidelines.

It is clear that, in this case, Council has unfairly let down the members of the PAP, by failing to apply a public input process to enable them to be fully informed of the views of community members, stakeholders and others.

3. Content of the draft strategy

Although elements of the draft strategy are supported, overall the strategy is unlikely to deliver on the vision, as it is even more timid than the previous strategy.

3.1 Vision

The broad threads of the vision outlined in the draft strategy – seeing Byron Shire as an arts and cultural capital; having a vibrant, contemporary public art presence; and having an innovative program - are supported, although they are not in any way unusual. Where the vision falters is in its reference to promoting the “…unique character and lifestyle of the region”.

Nowhere is this “unique character and lifestyle” described. This catch-all phrase could be applied by any location. In Byron Shire’s case, is it:

· the social and environmental impact of the dispossession of the original Bundjalung inhabitants, including the Arakwal people at Cavvanba, and the theft of their land’s resources by early European settlers?

· The focus on property and wealth that sees service workers driven further and further from the locations in which they work to serve better-resourced locals and tourists who can afford Airbnb rents?

· The skills rural residents at Main Arm develop in dodging potholes, and in alerting each other via painted road markings?

· The aggression on show as one surfer moves in on a local in the crowd at The Pass?

· The overzealousness of local police in arresting nude bathers who stray outside marked areas at Tyagarah, or in repeatedly baton-striking an off-his-face backpacker in a Byron back lane?

· The exuberant carelessness of noisy partygoers at midnight celebrating at an illegal wedding venue near Eureka?

· The grizzling of letter-writers from Ocean Shores in the pages of The Echo?

· The NIMBY parochialness of Bangalow residents who fought against what some called “lower class jobs” in the proposed – now abandoned - food manufacturing hub?

Take out the names of these locations, and any of these ‘characteristics’ could be claimed by many shires. So “unique character and lifestyle” may be an unhelpful descriptor. What is more important, is to recognize that such distinguishing characteristics (if they exist) change over time, and will continue to change. And to recognize that artworks that have no apparent relation to their site – its “narratives”, its history, even its physical features – may be far more “vibrant” and “innovative” than those that are developed as “site specific” works.

It is recommended that the value of promoting the “…unique character and lifestyle of the region” be re-examined, and that if this is still valued as a basis for the public art strategy, that such character and lifestyle be described in ways that are useful to the fulfillment of the strategy.

3.2 Key Principles

The following comments are provided against the six principles outlined in the draft strategy.

3.2.1. Leadership

It is unclear what is meant by “augmenting” public art projects. A better measure of council’s leadership would be to initiate, encourage and facilitate the placement of public art works throughout the shire. True leadership requires enunciation of a vision (and getting buy-in by those who follow) and the creation of circumstances that will encourage and support the achievement of that vision.

It is recommended that this principle be strengthened by redefining leadership as above.

3.2.2. Quality

“High quality” is a loose and fraught descriptor, mainly because it remains subjective unless qualified. What is “high quality” to me may be “absolute crap” to you.

“Quality” may be thought of in terms of fitness for purpose. That is, ‘quality’ is evaluated by the consumer or customer, against his or her expectations of what a particular product or service should be.

Who, then, is/are the ‘customer/s’ for public art? What, then, are the expectations of these various customers? What characteristics do these customers look for, in a work of public art, when making their assessment – relevance, aesthetics, wit, agreement, provocation, durability, value for money? Can these customers and their expectations even be identified before a public work of art is shown in its space and context? Whose expectations should prevail? These are all questions that must be answered.

One tongue-in-cheek measure of quality is “when the customer returns and the product doesn’t”. In our case in Byron Shire this translates as a desire of locals and visitors to actually see/experience the art work, and be satisfied – or even better, be moved or otherwise affected emotionally. Sometimes this cannot be measured before the work is made and in place.

It is recommended that ‘quality’ be qualified, in specific terms, using the questions above as a starting point.

3.2.3. Site specificity

The claim that “… all public art has to be relevant to its site” is not supported. Some of the most-visited and acclaimed public art works bear no apparent relationship to their site. The most obvious example is Cloud Gate (a.k.a. ‘The Bean’) by Anish Kapoor, in the Millenium Park in Chicago. This work bears no relationship to the former uses of the site (railway yards and parking space) nor to the current surrounding buildings (office towers). Possibly because of that, it creates surprise.

What is more important than site-specificity is that the art work “works” in the space where it is located. That is, it generates a response from viewers and from users of the space. It makes people want to tell their friends about it, and to spend more than two seconds in its presence. It makes people from elsewhere want to come and see and feel it for themselves. Today, we have the ‘selfie test’ to assist us to measure whether a public artwork excites responses. Any commissioning or purchasing process should require a pre-emptive equivalent, such as the creation of a maquette – even at full size – or at the very least, large ‘artist’s impressions’ of the proposed work, made available to the public for a response.

It is recommended that the requirement that all public art be relevant to its site is removed.

3.2.4. Meaning

The claim that public art “… must reflect the cultural narratives of the Shire” is also not supported. ‘Cultural narratives’ often are fictionalized, romanticized and backward-looking creations of those who have a particular wheelbarrow to push or who are placed, by victory of some sort, to write history.

It is also unclear what these Byron Shire “cultural narratives” are, as there appears to be no statement of them in the draft strategy or on Council’s website. A Google search using the term “Byron Bay cultural narratives” brought up only one direct reference in the first 20 results: it was to the debate over immunization. Not our finest moment.

Even if these “cultural narratives” can be identified, not all public art works should identifiably relate to them. They do not necessarily lead to artworks that are memorable or that ‘activate’ spaces.

Further, cultural narratives often are period-specific, and are later found to be blinkered. Consider the ‘re-imagining’ of the Captain Cook statues in Hyde Park, Sydney in 2017 (by painting slogans on it) and in St Kilda in 2018 (by pouring pink paint over it). This ‘vandalism’ pointed to the one-sided nature of the original ‘founding father’ narrative that led to the erection of the statues.

It should also be recognized that there is social value in an artwork engendering a range of views, including strongly opposed views.

It is recommended that ‘meaning’ be interpreted much more widely than in the current draft, and that ‘meaninglessness’ of a work not be a reason for excluding it from display.

3.2.5. Sustainability

The claim that the “… longevity and robustness of an artwork is vital to … its artistic integrity” also is not supported. This principle presumes that public art works will occupy a site for an extended period, measured in years or decades, and that remaining in its original form during that period is necessarily valuable. By contrast, a work that has a short life or that transforms during its period of display may make a point better than one that endures. For example, American sculptor John Grade makes works from shorter-lasting materials such as wood or paper. When exposed to the elements (including termites) these transform. Such transformations both highlight the transience of life and result in the work assuming a new and possibly more interesting form.

In the Byron shire, an artwork that reflects ongoing environmental changes – such as sea level rise from global warming – or social changes – such as the driving-out of lower-paid workers from housing in the shire’s town centres - might be more appropriate.

This presumption of the need for durability also enables the consultant to claim that there should be a ‘moratorium’ on painted (surface) works. This recommendation, and the recommendations to paint over faded murals (literally ‘airbrushing’ them from history), and to require painted murals to be considered as ‘development’ within the Development Control Plan, are not supported.

It is recommended that not all major public artworks be made of durable materials, and that intentional – or even accidental – transformation be considered as valuable in some instances.

3.2.6. Value

As with the previous principles, this principle includes terms that must be defined more exactly. How will “value for money” be assessed? Does it mean that large, sparkly and prominently-positioned works will automatically be considered as more worthy and ‘better value’ than small, subtle and partly-obscured works? How will the “adding value to community quality of life” be measured? What other dimensions or characteristics might “value” have? Nowhere in the draft strategy is this principle expanded upon.

It is recommended that the notion of ‘value’ be qualified and that a range of possible dimensions be articulated.

3.3 Objectives

The draft objectives are broadly supported, subject to the qualifications outlined below. Comments on specific objectives follow in the section on Recommendations, which broadly align with the objectives.

3.4 Recommendations

None of the draft recommendations is supported in its entirety or without qualification.

3.4.1 Funding and resourcing public art

The recommendation to pool funding to enable the commissioning (or purchase) of significant works is supported as one element of funding public art.

However, this should not be to the exclusion of a parallel action to enable artists in the shire to display works for a short period (say, 3-6 months) in specific locations across the shire. These locations should be equipped with secure hold-down facilities. Precedents already exist for this: the Art Cube inside the council chambers allows small works to be displayed, and the works formerly around the sportsfields at Bangalow enabled local artists to display their talents. On a larger scale, the Fourth Plinth in Trafalgar Square, London enables works – often quirky, sometimes controversial – to be displayed for a limited period (1-2 years), contrasting with the traditional works on the other three plinths.

The artists selected for display should be remunerated accordingly. Guidelines from NAVA provide a reference point for remuneration.

The recommendation (p. 8) that there be a deferment on acceptance of gifts of artworks, at least for the duration of this new strategy, is not supported. The reasons put forward by the consultant, that such gifts “… end up looking like ‘plonk’ art”, and that “… site specificity (is) the most critical factor in best practice public art”, simply are not necessarily true and don’t apply. Council is not obliged to accept any work proposed for gifting. This is made clear in the current Public Art Policy and restated in the new Draft Public Art Policy 2018 in section 6.1. (b), which states that each proposed donation or loan of public art will be considered “… according to criteria set out in the Guidelines and Criteria.”^{^[6]}

In a shire which is critically unable to fund public art, it makes no sense to shut off any possible way of expanding the range of works on display, the range of artists who are given an opportunity to show their work, and the range of residents and visitors who are exposed to such works. Instead, it is recommended that the PAP consider ways to expand the range of works on display throughout all parts of the shire, including by embracing loans and donations and finding ways to circumvent issues posed by public liability insurance of loans on display on Council land.

3.4.2 Building strength into the development process

Although this writer supports the option for developers to pay a contribution ‘in lieu of’ installing public art in a development, this should be made less acceptable than actually installing an art work within the development. The intent of requiring developers to install public artworks is to achieve those other aims of public art – aesthetic improvement of the development, creating a more pleasant space etc.

The proposed aim of requiring developers to consider the public art component of a development up-front rather than as an add-on, is supported. As noted in this writer’s (unacknowledged) submission on amendments to the Development Control Plan, the ‘tacking on’ of public art at the end of a development devalues public art.

The recommendation that developers who commission their own public art would be required to submit their art concepts to the PAP early, is supported; however, it would require the PAP to meet more frequently than it does currently, to avoid holding up development approval or Construction Certificate approval.

The recommended requirement that developer-commissioned public art not be installed in interior spaces, is not supportable. This would require Council to redefine the nature of ‘public art’ and ‘public place’, which is outside its authority.

The recommendation that property owners seek PAP approval for paintings on street-facing walls, is not supportable. There is no logical reason for requiring such approval, as it is not required if the property owner chooses other facing materials. Although the recent ‘transformation’ of Lateen Lane in Byron Bay shows up the challenges created by painted wall-works, home-grown murals may be quirky and more interesting than Council-sanctioned ones. Part of Byron Bay’s (fading) charm is the local colour applied by less-inhibited inhabitants.

This recommendation is also virtually un-policeable, and would lead – rightly, in this writer’s view – to claims of administrative overreach.

Also not supported is the ‘test’ that is recommended to be applied to gauge the suitability of murals (draft Strategy, p. 19). The four questions posed would see any authorized painted work reduced to blandness. They completely fail to acknowledge that one social purpose of art is to question the status quo and to make us see ourselves from a different viewpoint. Under this proposed test, the most recognized ‘murals’ in the world – Banksy’s - would be rejected.

3.4.3 Identification of priority sites and locations

The recommendation that public artworks should (all) be located where they are accessible and enjoy high visibility, is not supported. Although most works should be so located, there is value in having some works that reward exploration and discovery. Such works – if sufficiently engaging - build up a following, especially through social media posts. For example, the City of Sydney recently installed The Distance of Your Heart, a work by Tracy Emin featuring bronze small birds placed in various obscure locations. Although not an original concept, the work is effective, as it rewards exploration and observation.

The placement of public art works on roundabouts is also not generally supported. Roundabouts exist to facilitate the smooth and safe flow of traffic. Their effectiveness depends on drivers being able to see approaching traffic and judge its speed and the driver’s signaled intentions of turning. Therefore, visual distractions must be minimized. National and state standards govern the design of roundabouts; one key principle is to keep any structure on the central island well below a driver’s eye level. Several key roundabouts in Byron fail these design imperatives.

Neither does a roundabout allow pedestrians to access it easily and congregate there. As noted by Zamora and Carballo, the roundabout “ … is not a space for sociability and collective conviviality, and neither can it assume functions of centrality and urban qualification or identity reference.”^{^[7]} And of public art upon it, they say “It is an art that is to be appreciated from the car, with the limitations that this implies: one observes rapidly and from a certain distance, and besides it should not constitute either a means for distraction or an obstacle faced with the perspective.”^{^[8]}

3.4.4 Integrating art into landscape and streetscape elements

This recommendation is supported. However, it should not result in the public art budget being spent on such functional works. Rather, these elements – which might equally be considered street furniture - should always have input by artists into the aesthetics of their design.

3.4.5 Innovation and curatorial direction

It is acknowledged that curatorial direction does often help in managing public art projects. However, responsibility for determining themes, forms and placement must remain actively with Council, through the PAP. In undertaking these activities, Council staff and PAP members must remain aware of their roles and of their responsibilities to those who are funding the works – ratepayers and developers – and to those who will use the works – residents and visitors.

Commissioning public artworks is fraught with possible conflicts – between ideas for the works; between boldness and risk-aversion; between the various decision-makers; between artist and supervising bodies; between curatorial decision-makers and the ultimate viewing public. The competing advantages of having a joint decision made by a panel or a by a single, clear-minded individual must be balanced. The potential remains, of a panel choosing a camel against an individual choosing an upside-down pony. If the proposed vision of ”vibrant, contemporary public art” is to realized, it must not be hobbled by curatorial risk-aversion.

3.5.6 Conservation and maintenance

The need to ensure public artworks are maintained is supported.

The recommendation that all permanent public art commissions have a minimum 20 year design life is not fully supported. As noted earlier, some works designed to decay and transform have a place in the public sphere, especially with themes relating to the environment. Where a work is designed to last 20 years with minimal maintenance, the range of acceptable materials should be broadened to include stainless and weathering steels, concrete and plastic composites, as well as stones such as granite, sandstone and marble. Some local timbers also can have a long life, such as durable eucalypts and Australian teak (Flindersia australis), which are native to the shire and provide a connection with the history of European settlement and its impact on the original inhabitants and environment.

3.5.7 Partnerships with community organisations

This recommendation is supported, subject to strengthening by adding that Council involvement must be supported by Council funding.

3.5.8 Education and advocacy

This recommendation is supported. In particular, the PAP needs to bring in those staff from other areas of Council whose role overlaps with moves to ensure Council adopts a public art focus in its own infrastructure works planning and construction.

4. Part Two: Projects

Serious concerns are raised about the suggested priorities and aspects of their design.

4.1 2017 onwards priorities

Ewingsdale Road roundabouts

As noted earlier, the placement of works on roundabouts is strongly not supported. It is also noted that contracts have already been let for the construction of the two new roundabouts on Ewingsdale Road. This removes the opportunity for public art to be integral to the design of the roundabout.

It is also not appropriate to forestall decisions about the form and material used in any artworks on these roundabouts, if Council ignores the obvious unsuitability of roundabouts as platforms for public art works. In recommending the use of basalt, which is incorrectly claimed to be ‘unique’ to Byron, the consultant severely limits the PAP’s thinking.

Bangalow Weir

It is unclear why only interpretive content around an indigenous theme of native fish migration has been recommended. The theme for this location could be left open.

Ocean Shores Town Entry Roundabout

This proposed project presents some problems, as it appears that some local artists have already submitted an (uninvited?) proposal to Council. In view of the unsuitability of roundabouts as locations for public art, it is recommended that an alternative site be identified for a ‘marker’ work for Ocean Shores, so that any commissioning can proceed from a clean slate.

4.2 General comment on suggested project budgets

The proposed project budgets remain low. This increases the risk that commissioned works will not be able to fulfill the draft strategy’s vision, and that artists will not be remunerated adequately.

NAVA indicates that the artist often receives only about 10 percent of the cost of a completed public artwork, as the artist’s fee.^{^[9]} If the artist fabricates the work himself/herself, he/she may receive more. However, much of the cost of a project is eaten up by the costs of fabrication, footings, installation, traffic management, insurances, agent’s fees, consultant’s fees etc.

The project budgets suggested for the priority projects identified in the draft are very low e.g. $40K for the proposed Suffolk Park Education Lands project. If Council follows the processes recommended by NAVA (using an initial EOI, followed by the paid development of detailed concept proposals and maquettes by a small number of chosen respondent artists), the actual budget passing to the chosen artist could be very small.

Therefore, it is recommended to clarify how the proposed budgets will be split between the various people and organisations involved in the project, and identify which services (such as engineering design, traffic management and installation) will be provided internally by Council.

It also is recommended that the Public Art Policy and final Strategy specifically follow NAVA funding guidelines and commissioning policy and ensure that any commissioned project should aim to ensure that the artist is rewarded fairly.

Geoffrey Cotton

30 April 2018

[1] News: Byron Shire Public Art Strategy publicArt.Works http://publicartworks.com.au/2017/byron-shire-public-art-strategy/ , accessed 24/4/18

[3] National Association for Visual Artists (NAVA) https://visualarts.net.au/advocacy/campaigns/public-art/ accessed 26/4/18

[4] Byron Shire Council Community Strategic Plan 2027 Byron Shire Council, June 2017, p. 23

[5] Draft Our Byron Our Future – Community Strategic Plan 2028, Byron Shire Council, undated 2018, p. 24

[6] Byron Shire Council Draft Policy: Public Art 2018, Byron Shire Council, 2018 p. 5

[7] Zamora, Elia Canosa & Carballo, Angela Garcia Disguising the Poverty of Urban Space: Roundabouts and Public Art Boletin de la A.G.E. No. 51 – 2009, p421

Venue	Conference Room, Station Street, Mullumbimby
Date	Tuesday, 15 May 2018
Time	3.30pm