SF Arts Commission to Regulate Private Aesthetic Decisions

Discussion
1

While its never surprising to hear that bureaucrats voting to give
themselves more power, I find this particular case to be uniquely
disturbing. The SF Arts Commission has decided that their approval
should be required for downtown art for public display (yet on private
property).
SF may Oversee Downtown Developers Art Selections
<http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/04/city-may-oversee-art-selections\\

We all have our little opinions as to what constitutes "good art" and
"bad art". With no real objective criteria for which opinions are
"right" or "wrong", I would posit that all these opinions are more or
less equal, and that there's no reason for any tax funded institution to
have any formal policy on artistic merit. As citizens and consumers, we
should be free to make our own individual decisions on such matters, and
not have our taxes subsidize decisions we may well disagree with.
Here in SF, on the other hand, we have a board of appointed (as opposed
to elected) "art experts" who are paid with public funds so that their
little opinions can be exalted to a legally binding status.
For anybody familiar with constitutional law, this power grab should
send up major red flags; the legal term for what the arts commission is
asking for is PRIOR RESTRAINT. This could set a downright draconian
precedent.

2

A follow up that some of you find interesting, apparently the arts
commission, with an annual budget exceeding $10 million, is looking for
a new Director of Cultural Affairs.
<JobAps | Government Public Sector Recruiting & Applicant Tracking;
The position, with an annual salary over 100k, requires someone with a
BA in "the arts", and 5 years of "leadership in arts administration",
whatever that means. Perks include life insurance, 11 paid and 5
floating holidays.
If the position isn't filled soon, there may be nobody to review grants
for murals in the Mission celebrating diversity or the labor struggle.
Surely art and culture in the city would wither and die, without the
nurturing and guiding influence of someone with the perspective to
understand what kind of art is right for us.

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "MyklValentine" <highermonkey@...>
wrote:

While its never surprising to hear that bureaucrats voting to give
themselves more power, I find this particular case to be uniquely
disturbing. The SF Arts Commission has decided that their approval
should be required for downtown art for public display (yet on private
property).
SF may Oversee Downtown Developers Art Selections

<http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/04/city-may-oversee-art-selections\\
\

>
We all have our little opinions as to what constitutes "good art" and
"bad art". With no real objective criteria for which opinions are
"right" or "wrong", I would posit that all these opinions are more or
less equal, and that there's no reason for any tax funded institution

to

have any formal policy on artistic merit. As citizens and consumers,

we

should be free to make our own individual decisions on such matters,

and

not have our taxes subsidize decisions we may well disagree with.
Here in SF, on the other hand, we have a board of appointed (as

opposed

to elected) "art experts" who are paid with public funds so that their
little opinions can be exalted to a legally binding status.
For anybody familiar with constitutional law, this power grab should
send up major red flags; the legal term for what the arts commission

is

3

Mykl,

  Good find! This is an excellent example to point out to people when explaining that there is plenty of waste in San Francisco city government, and they need to make cuts, not take more from the taxpayers.

  Excellent commentary as well. Do you live in SF, by the way? I don't recall whether I've seen you at any of our meetings. If you're local, have you thought about getting involved in working with us to advance the cause of freedom here?

Love & Liberty,
                                         ((( starchild )))