Here’s what happened…
- Opening (10 mins)
- Introductions (by everyone)
- Background to DCC Beta
- Traffic Light Boxes (40 mins)
- Why the trial.
- Trial has now run for approx 9 months, so getting feedback to help decide whether the idea should be extended.
- Getting feedback from the individual artists (they’re sending in their advice and thoughts)
- Reason for this meeting.
- If extended…
- How should people be able to apply for them?
- Moss Wall Voting (20 mins)
- Discussion of what to think about when voting.
- Close (5 mins)
- 17 people in total.
- 4 DCC, 13 non-DCC.
- 4 people there who did traffic light box artworks, 4 people who entered moss-wall ideas, 9 others.
Traffic Light Boxes
- We discussed that there had to be ‘good payback’ for everyone involved (including DCC) for something to be realistic but fair, and for it to keep going.
- There were two differing opinions which seemed to divide along the ‘professional’/’hobby’ divide. One of the professional artists noted that doing them “takes them away from a paid job” so ideally that would be covered in some way, whereas one of the others noted that “it’s a hobby for me”, it “was something I hadn’t done before”, and it “was great to be able to show my friends what I did” so were happy with the payback as it was. (The project had covered direct expenses only.)
- There was then discussion regarding the (traffic light box artwork) project becoming more established with a website with links from each pinned box back to the artists website or with info on where their work is being exhibited and could be bought. The above professional artist felt that that would be good payback for them.
How long should art remain on a box?
- We discussed the question as to how long a piece of art might remain on a box. (Some of the artists involved in the original 11 trial boxes had noted to us that they felt their boxes had “become part of that community now”.)
- One person (hadn’t been involved with one of the 11 trial boxes) noted that after a while “they’ll need refreshing”, so perhaps they’re just reviewed and redone only as they need to be.
- We discussed (via some method) allowing people to vote to retain a certain percentage of the artworks (their favourites) each year, and whether it might work, or how it might function. (No clear ideas or opinions arose.)
- Another artist (had done a trial box artwork) suggested that it would be better for it to be a case of “Tough! You got your chance, now it’s someone else’s turn”.
- Several people felt that they should be there for about a year at least (links back to good payback above…about a year was felt to be the least for good payback).
Rolling out – mechanism
- We discussed by what means the idea could be rolled out (if the idea is adopted by the City).
- It was suggested that it might be best to phase the rollout – a few in each area at a time to build experience.
- Some also suggested focussing on busier areas (for example village centres or busy streets or main approach roads into the city).
- Another approach suggested was to focus on neighbourhoods. One person also suggested the idea of including residents’ associations to set them up in their areas.
- Much of the group seemed to feel that mapping the boxes and making more use of online would be key.
Rolling out – selection process & quality
- We also discussed the question of maintaining quality, and whether a selection process was required or preferable – and if so, how it might be done in a sustainable way (for example using this selection process for all 800 boxes in Dublin City would probably be a daunting task and not sustainable for Dublin City Council).
- One (street) artist noted, that maintaining a good level of quality is important for avoiding tagging, dubbing, etc over them.
- Someone suggested the idea of linking in with this vacant properties Beta Project, and displaying possible designs in a vacant shop window and (somehow) allowing the community to vote for their favourites.
- We also discussed the idea of online voting…
- Does online voting risk it becoming about “more mates” than quality? Does that matter? If so, how might that be avoided? One solution suggested was combining some selection + voting. (There was also discussion over whether curation then voting, or voting then curation was better. One person noted that the former would be easier on the selection process – less to have to choose from and say no to.)
- It was noted that there would be much greater engagement using online.
- Also noted that online is very valuable for keeping a record of all entries and artworks.
- The group noted that there was “more engagement” via the current-type process (a group selecting – a bottom-up process) rather via a “silent curator” (a single person or entity selecting – a top-down process).
- A suggestion was made that it could be interesting to also work with guest curators.
- Tie in with teaching/mentoring with nearby communities & kids.
- Adding advertising on the boxes was discussed. Some also suggested that perhaps the value of the art on the boxes is that they’re not advertising.
- Use in defining an area (an eg given of linking in with festivals such as Phizzfest)
- Map of the area (“You are here”).
- Name of the street
- Village theme – using to reinforce a sense of the area/community.
- Blackboard & chalk (and use for community conversations?)
- Keep some boxes for international artists:
- “Every festival might get some boxes” and this ‘12 Doors‘ project was mentioned.
- One person noted that he’s had several international requests about “how to people get to paint one” (a large number of requests from the U.S. in particular).
- Another suggestion was to consider keeping certain percentages for different groups or types of content/uses (10% for international artists, 10% for local schools, etc).
(Here’s some links to previous discussions also about the traffic light box Beta Project…
…these don’t form part of the minutes of this meeting – just as shortcuts in case useful.)
Moss Wall Selection
Everyone gave a very short description of what the “identity of the immediate area” (around the moss wall location) meant to each of us.
Everyone was asked to write on their sheet which was their 1st, 2nd and 3rd favourite submissions – which they were to base on these 3 items summed up:
- How it answered the Brief: “Enhances the identity of the immediate area”
- Suitable for testing moss (different types, not too detailed)
- Quality (that you like it/think it’s a good design)
(We also noted that everyone might want to also think about how it might allow for the involvement of others – ie could it be a ‘platform’.)
We allocated 3 points to a 1st preference, 2 to 2nd and 1 point to a 3rd preference. (No vote for, zero points.)
This entry came a clear 1st with 35 points (the next nearest one got 19 points), so there was a clear consensus on.
Next Steps on this Beta Project over here…