WHERE IS THE PUBLIC IN PUBLIC ART? A CASE STUDY OF MILLENNIUM PARK

A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

The Degree Master of Arts in the

Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Corrinn Conard, B.A.

*****

The Ohio State University 2008

Masters Examination Committee: Approved by

Dr. James Sanders III, Advisor Advisor Professor Malcolm Cochran Graduate Program in Art Education

ABSTRACT

For centuries, public art has been a popular tool used to celebrate heroes,

commemorate historical events, decorate public spaces, inspire citizens, and attract

tourists. Public art has been created by the most renowned artists and commissioned by

powerful political leaders. But, where is the public in public art? What is the role of that

group believed to be the primary client of such public endeavors? How much power does

the public have? Should they have? Do they want? In this thesis, I address these and other

related questions through a case study of Millennium Park in Chicago. In contrast to

other studies on this topic, this thesis focuses on the perspectives and opinions of the

public; a group which I have found to be scarcely represented in the literature about

public participation in public art. To reveal public opinion, I have conducted a total of

165 surveys at Millennium Park with both Chicago residents and tourists. I have also

collected the voices of Chicagoans as I found them in Chicago’s major media source, The

Chicago Tribune . The collection of data from my research reveal a glimpse of the

Chicago public’s opinion on public art, its value to them, and their rights and roles in the creation of such endeavors. Surprisingly, this research has transformed, rather than confirmed, personal perceptions I originally held about the public’s relationship with public art.

ii

Dedicated to

My fiancé Greg whose support has been immeasurable throughout this process

&

My family who has made this accomplishment possible

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would first like to thank my advisor, Dr. James Sanders III, for his incredible assistance and guidance throughout this process. The time and insight that he has given to help strengthen and refine this thesis has been extraordinary. I would also like to thank

Professor Malcolm Cochran for donating his time and expertise to be a vital part of my thesis committee. I wish to thank Dr. Margaret Wyszomirski who has been a tremendous mentor throughout my entire graduate career at Ohio State University. The time, advice, consideration, and opportunity that she has given to me over the past three years have been immeasurable.

I would like to thank the Art Education department at Ohio State University which has been so helpful throughout my entire time as an Ohio State graduate student. I would especially like to thank Kirsten Thomas, Savenda Fulton, Pat Stuhr, and Dean

Karen Bell. I would like to thank Millennium Park Inc. and the Chicago Department of

Cultural Affairs who assisted me with my research. I would like to thank the citizens of

Chicago who were so eager to share their personal opinions, beliefs, and suggestions with me about Millennium Park, public art, and their own participation experiences.

Finally, I would like to thank my loving fiancé, Greg and my entire family who provided the support necessary for me to complete this research.

iv

VITA

January 2, 1978……………………….Born – Columbus, Ohio

2001…………………………………..B.A. History of Art, Ohio State University

2001 – 2005…………………………..Manager, Museum Stores and Publications Columbus Museum of Art Columbus, Ohio

2005 – 2006…………………………..Executive Director Abstract Earth Gallery Columbus, Ohio

2006 – SU2007……………………….Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University

2006 – SU2007……………………….Research Intern, Ohio Cultural Facilities Commission

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Art Education

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract……….………………………………………………………….………………ii Dedication…………………………………………….………………….……………...iii Acknowledgments…………………………………….………………………..………..iv Vita……………………….…………………………….……………….………………..v List of Figures………………………………………….………………..……………….ix

Chapters:

INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Discovering the Thesis Topic...... 1 1.2 Purpose of the Study ...... 4 1.3 Ontological perspective...... 5 1.4 Epistemological Perspective ...... 6 1.5 Chapter Descriptions...... 7 1.6 Necessary Considerations ...... 8 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... 10 2.1 Thesis Terminology ...... 10 2.1.1 Defining Public Art ...... 11 2.1.2 Identifying Public Participation ...... 12 2.1.3 Defining the Public ...... 17 2.1.4 Veiled Implications of “Public” and “Public Art” ...... 18 2.2 The Importance of Public Participation in Public Art...... 20 2.3 An Overview of Public Art and Public Participation...... 23 2.3.1 Public Participation in Politics ...... 23 2.3.2 Changes in Art and Public Reaction ...... 25 2.3.3 Urbanization and its Effects on Public Art ...... 30 2.4 Evidence of the Public in Public Art...... 33 2.4.1 Controversy is a Voice ...... 33 2.4.2 In the Presence of Public Art ...... 38 2.4.3 Speaking through the Media ...... 42 2.5 The Private Sector in Public Art ...... 43 2.6 Chapter Conclusion...... 44 METHODOLOGY ...... 47 3.1 Case Study Research...... 48 vi 3.2 Survey Research...... 49 3.3 Discourse and Textual Analysis...... 51 3.4 Ethnographic Fieldwork...... 52 MILLENNIUM PARK ...... 53 4.1 A Brief History of Public Art in Chicago ...... 53 4.2 A Tour of Millennium Park...... 57 4.3 Roots of the Park...... 68 4.4 A Chicago Tradition of Private Support ...... 71 4.5 Why a Millennium Park? ...... 72 4.6 The Creation of Millennium Park ...... 76 4.6.1 Fundraising for the Park ...... 77 4.6.2 Dipping into Public Funds ...... 79 4.6.3 Public Involvement in the Park’s Creation ...... 80 4.6.4 Excluding the Public in the Park’s Creation ...... 83 4.6.5 Bumps in the Road ...... 85 4.6.6 The Role of the Media in Millennium Park ...... 89 4.7 Chapter Conclusion...... 91 FINDING THE PUBLIC IN PUBLIC ART...... 92 5.1 Demographics of Survey Participants...... 94 5.2 Visitation to the Park...... 95 5.3 Opinions of the Art in the Park ...... 97 5.4 What Participants Want from Public Art ...... 100 5.4.1 Art that is Physically and Cognitively Accessibile ...... 103 5.4.2 Art that is Interactive ...... 104 5.4.3 Art that Attracts Attention and Embodies Civic Pride .... 107 5.4.4 Art as a Placemaking Tactic for Chicagoans ...... 108 5.4.5 Art that Offers an Escape ...... 110 5.4.6 Art that Educates ...... 110 5.5 Public Participation in Millennium Park and Chicago Public Art Endeavors...... 111 ANALYZING THE DATA ...... 116 6.1 (Not) Representing Chicago’s Demographics ...... 116 6.2 (Not) Just About Public Art ...... 122 6.2.1 Public Sentiment toward the Daley Administration ...... 124 6.2.2 Private Donors as a Threat to Public Space ...... 125 6.2.3 Contradictions to the Literature ...... 127 6.3 The Public as Receivers, Not Creators...... 131 6.3.1 Self-Disqualification (inadequacies of art education) .... 131 6.3.2 (Un)Intentional Public Exclusion ...... 132 6.3.3 Participation if Necessary ...... 133 CONCLUSION...... 135 7.1 Readdressing the Participation Teeter Totter...... 135 7.2 Searching for a Solution...... 138 7.3 (Not) Answering the Thesis Question...... 142 7.4 Considerations for Future Research...... 144

vii 7.5 Final Thought...... 144

APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………….145 Appendix A: CITI CERTIFICATION………………………………….145 Appendix B: IRB APPROVAL LETTER……………………………...146 Appendix C: SAMPLE SURVEY (FRONT)…………………………..147 Appendix D: SAMPLE SURVEY (BACK)……………………………148 Appendix E: DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS………………...149 Appendix F: COMMENTARY OF SURVEY PARTICIPANTS……...155 Appendix G: THE TRIBUNE’S ONLINE BLOG……………………..167 Appendix H: THE “VOICE OF THE PEOPLE” (1998-2006)…………180 LIST OF REFERENCES……………………………………………………………….196

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

2.1 Cornwell’s Model of Active Participation in the Arts...... 13

2.2 Cornwell’s Model of Passive Participation in the Arts...... 14

2.3 Public Art Participation Teeter Totter Model...... 16

2.4 Timeline of Publicly Funded Art in the U.S...... 28

2.5 Public Art Participation Teeter Totter Model during Controversies ...... 34

2.6 Leaves from Public Artwork, “Where Sky Meets Water”...... 39

2.7 Spectators watch Public Artwork, “Where Sky Meets Water”...... 40

2.8 Spectators Gathering at Public Artwork on the Clark Street Bridge ...... 41

2.9 The Public Pounds on the Clark Street Bridge for Public Art Display...... 41

2.10 Historical Changes of NEA Doctrine ...... 46

4.1 Historical Events of Chicago Leading to Millennium Park...... 56

4.2 Map of Millennium Park...... 58

4.3 Millennium Monument ...... 59

4.4 Millennium Monument ...... 59

4.5 Cloud Gate from the Lawn of The Pritzker Pavilion (looking West) ...... 60

4.6 Crown Fountain (looking north)...... 61

4.7 The Lurie Garden (looking southwest)...... 62

ix

4.8 The Jay Pritzker Pavilion ...... 63

4.9 The Jay Pritzker Pavilion ...... 64

4.10 BP Bridge (looking east)...... 65

4.11 BP Bridge (looking west)...... 65

4.12 The Glass Front of The Harris Theatre ...... 66

4.13 Exelon Pavilion ...... 67

4.14 McDonald Cycle Center ...... 67

4.15 Mark di Suvero in Boeing Gallery (looking north) ...... 68

4.16 Revenue Sources for Millennium Park Approximated...... 80

5.1 Visiting Trends of Millennium Park...... 96

5.2 Common Uses of Millennium Park ...... 97

5.3 Participants Opinion of the Art in the Park...... 98

5.4 Residents and Non-Residents Opinion of Art in Millennium Park ...... 100

5.5 The Importance of Public Art to Chicago’s Public...... 101

5.6 Importance of Public Art According to Residents and Nonresidents...... 102

5.7 The Public Interacts with Cloud Gate ...... 105

5.8 The Public Interacts with Crown Fountain ...... 106

5.9 How the Public Participated in Millennium Park...... 112

5.10 How the Public Would Have Participated in Millennium Park...... 113

5.11 The Purpose of Chicago’s Public Art ...... 114

5.12 The Public’s Say in Chicago’s Public Art ...... 115

6.1 Demographic Maps of Chicago’s African American Population and the City’s Median Household Income Levels ...... 117

x

6.2 Sex of Survey Participants as Compared to Chicago Demographics ...... 118

6.3 Race of Chicago Resident Survey Participants as Compared to Chicago Demographics ...... 119

6.4 Employment Statuses of Survey Participants ...... 120

6.5 Income of Survey Participants as Compared to Chicago Demographics ...... 121

6.6 A Comparison of the Importance of Public Art According to Residents Who Are Black/African American or White...... 129

6.7 A Comparison of the Importance of Public Art According to Income Levels ....130

7.1 A Balanced Participation Teeter Totter Model...... 136

7.2 Recommended Participation Teeter Totter Model...... 140

xi

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Probably more than any other art form today, the preparation, production and completion of public art allows for and requires the collaboration of numerous parties, including public artists, administrators, and government officials. A vast amount of literature has been written by these participants revealing a variety of public art purposes including city beautification, education, community building, the revitalization of blighted areas, and the support of artists. But, the question that I propose here is: Where is the public in public art? Where are those individuals, who in a democratic society, one might expect to be at the forefront of the endeavors that identify and characterize their public spaces? Does the public sit passively as a receiver of these creations, or do they ultimately determine public art’s existence? Do they have a choice in public art? Do they want a choice? The more I explore these seemingly simple questions, the more wrought with complexity they become.

1.1 Discovering the Thesis Topic

I will always remember the first time that I traveled to Chicago. The new millennium had just begun, I was twenty-two years old, and I was an undergraduate student at Ohio State University studying Art History. I could not have been more

1 impressionable; I was a sponge. From the moment that I stepped off of the airplane and onto the El Train, I could feel the artistic pulse of Chicago. For the next four days, I visited public fountains, peaceful gardens, exciting architecture, and popular museums.

The pulse that I sensed resonated with my being, and I returned to Columbus inspired by the possibility of creating cohesive communal energy through attentiveness to aesthetic and preservation of public spaces. Every time I returned to Chicago after that (which was many times), my appreciation for Chicago’s infrastructural support of public art began to grow.

Due to my visits to Chicago, as well as a three-month cross-country solo exploration and six weeks backpacking through Western Europe, I began to form distinct relationships with physical public spaces that befriended me in comforting and intriguing ways. It was not until I began my graduate studies in Cultural Policy and Arts

Administration at Ohio State that the relationships I had formed with public places came into focus. Through my introduction to numerous studies, literature and philosophies, I began to examine the phenomena of art in public spaces. Since that time, I have become increasingly interested in the many public art programs that are thriving (or barely surviving) throughout the United States today. Many of the texts that I have read, issues I have followed, and observations that I have made over the last few years have le to ask,

“Where is the public in public art?”

What initially attracted me to a search for the public in public art, were the numerous controversies in the arts that I became exposed to as an undergraduate student in Art History. I read a great amount from artists, historians, philosophers, sociologists, etc. about why these controversies had occurred and how they could possibly be avoided

2 in future endeavors. What I could not find however, was a cohesive public voice regarding these public art issues. Robinson and Filicko support this in their observation that “while much has been written about the benefits of the arts to the proper functioning of a democracy, almost nothing is known about the role of the arts in America, as perceived by the public ” (Robinson & Filicko, 2000, p. 110). The authors also write that

“American citizens have been polled about almost every imaginable aspect of their lives” except for “their attitudes and behaviors regarding the arts and culture” (Robinson &

Filicko, 2000, p. 109). I began to wonder if this lack of regard for public opinion was the very seed that spawned numerous public art controversies.

A disregard for the public’s voice in public art is often attributed to difficulties in identifying and quantifying public interests which “are likely to be diverse, disorganized, and less articulate” (Balfe & Wyzsomirski, 1986, p. 24). There have been attempts at collecting information about the public’s participation in the arts. For example, Surveys of Public Participation conducted by the National Endowment for the Arts (The National

Endowment for the Arts, 2003), the “Americans’ Use of Time” project by John P.

Robinson and Geoffrey Godbey, Filicko’s study of arts-related questions found at the

Roper Center, and the Americans and the Arts series done by Louis Harris (Robinson &

Filicko, 2000, p. 113). These studies do not however satisfy a search for finding the voice of the public in public art. Instead, they measure the frequency and methods of public participation in the arts. They “mainly track behavior (for example, the proportions of the public attending ballet versus jazz performances), rather than attitudes in the form of public preferences, values, and opinions about the arts” (Robinson & Filicko, 2000, p.

112).

3 While these studies ask questions about how Americans have participated in “viewing or listening to performing arts on television or radio, reading literature, visiting historic sites, performing and creating art, owning art and taking arts classes” (The National

Endowment for the Arts, 2003, p. 1), they do not ask the public what they feel about art, how they perceive its value, or what they believe it accomplishes.

1.2 Purpose of the Study

This thesis studies the public’s voice on public art. In this thesis, I build upon

current literature about the public in public art, adding the public’s voice to current

conversations on the topic. I try to act as a megaphone for the public, humbly offer my

findings to public art administrators, educators, artists, and community leaders.

Ultimately, I intend to help bridge the gap between public art policies and practices in

order to improve the effectiveness and value of future public art endeavors.

I have chosen to study the voice of the public in public art through a case study of

Millennium Park in Chicago. Since it opened in 2004, Millennium Park has drawn

international attention, representing one of the most successful public space projects in

American history. I first encountered the Park in 2004 during one of my visits to

Chicago. I was instantly interested in its impact on the residents and visitors of the City. I

especially wondered about the role of Chicago’s public in such an immense and costly

endeavor. Due to the Park’s reputation and my personal affinity with the space, I selected

Millennium Park as a case study through which I could discover how the public

perceived their influence on public art, how much of a voice they believed they had, and

how much of a voice they actually wanted in its design and function.

4 1.3 Ontological perspective

It is important that I understand and proclaim my ontological perspective before I begin delving into the research for this thesis. Ontology is the way in which one views one’s surroundings, how one perceives the “very nature and essence of things in the social world” (Schwandt, 2007, p. 14). Though rarely consciously questioned, our ontological perspectives are unique and can vary greatly between individuals. My ontology will effect the ways in which I question and learn (i.e. my epistemology), the way in which I collect data (i.e. my methodology), and the way in which I will interpret that data that I collect.

In general, my ontological perspective closely mirrors the philosophical ideals of a social constructivist. Social constructivism is an ontological perspective that considers human beings to be social creatures constantly interacting, sharing ideas, and forming collective realities (Schwandt, 2007). It was first introduced by the Soviet psychologist

Lev Vygotsky in conjunction with the constructivist ideas of Piaget and Perry and in reaction to the objective-oriented views of positivists. Social constructivism considers the mind “active in the construction of knowledge” and “means that human beings do not find or discover knowledge so much as (they) construct or make it” (Schwandt, 2007). In addition, influences from the surrounding social environment, including interpersonal relationships and the culturally embedded meanings of objects established through language and communication greatly affect these realities. Through this ontological lens,

I avoid the search for an objective, static, and unquestionable reality in my research.

Instead, I focus on the fluctuating perspectives of the public concerning public art as well

5 as the complex combinations of social, political and economic factors contributing to the construction of such perspectives.

It is also important to point out that when I began my research for this thesis, I was a new resident of Chicago. I had previously lived in Columbus, Ohio where I grew up and lived my entire life. I moved to Chicago on September 1, 2007 and began conducting surveys in the middle of October, 2007. Therefore, my observations and perspectives are generally those of an “outsider” looking in at Chicago’s public.

However, as my research progressed and my residency in Chicago lengthened, my lens began to change to that of an “insider’s perspective.”

1.4 Epistemological Perspective

In addition to explaining my ontological perspective, it is also important for me to identify and explain my epistemological perspective. Epistemology is one’s “theory of knowledge” and determines what would “count as evidence or knowledge of social things” (Schwandt, 2007, p. 16). In relation to my thesis, my epistemology helped establish the kind of data that I collected and that I believed to be pertinent aspects of the public’s participation in public art. In conjunction with my ontology, social constructivism, I epistemologically approach my thesis as an existential phenomenologist. Phenomenology is “a matter of studying everyday experience from the point of view of the subject” (Schwandt, 2007, p. 226). Existential phenomenologists highly value the beliefs and perceptions of individuals that they study. They are specifically interested in the ways that a subject’s outlook is formed through the internalization of factors existing in their external world. Given this epistemological

6 perspective, I rely heavily on the words and expressions of the public themselves. My research methodologies specifically revolve around the interactions, conversations and personal writings of the public.

1.5 Chapter Descriptions

In Chapter Two, I examine existing literature on the history, magnitude, and

tribulations of the public’s participation in public art. The literature review is an

important step towards contextualizing the issues of this thesis. In this chapter, I establish

this study’s basic terminology including the terms “public,” “public art,” and “public

participation.” Defining these terms through a review of current literature helps structure,

direct, inform, and narrow my research. Historical overviews of these activities as well as

the published opinions of various scholars also help set the stage for the rest of the thesis.

In Chapter Three, I present the range of methodologies used in my research,

including case study research, survey research, discourse and textual analysis, and

ethnographic fieldwork. First, I explore the concepts and philosophies behind these

various methodologies, I explain why I have chosen them for my research, and I describe

their relationship to my ontological and epistemological outlooks. I also highlight the

opportunities and the limitations of these methodologies of which I needed to be aware

throughout my research.

Chapter Four marks the beginning of my case study on Millennium Park. Just as

Chapter Two contextualize the issues of this entire thesis, Chapter Four contextualizes

Millennium Park by explaining the history of the Park, its various components, and the

processes used for its creation. In this chapter, the accomplishments as well as the

7 struggles concerning the Park are outlined. Additionally, Chapter Four begins to explore the public’s (lack of) participation in this public art endeavor, including the role of private philanthropists and Chicago’s media.

In Chapter Five, the results of my research are presented and in Chapter Six, these results are analyzed. Analyzing the data from my research entailed readdressing the issues discussed in Chapter Two and Chapter Four, cross-analyzing found data, and applying the new knowledge to my main thesis question, “Where is the public in public art?” Finally, in Chapter Seven, conclusions are made based on the case study research, survey research, discourse and textual analysis, and ethnographic fieldwork conducted throughout this process.

1.6 Necessary Considerations

In the book Qualitative Researching , Jennifer Mason explains that one’s research should always include critical self-analysis or what she terms “active reflexivity” (Mason,

2005). Mason explains that “a researcher cannot be neutral, or objective, or detached, from the knowledge and evidence they are generating” (Mason, 2005, p. 7). Since it is easy to become blind sided by ones own investigations and convictions, it is necessary that I acknowledge some personal biases that unavoidably influenced the data I used, the conclusions that I drew, and the analyses that I made. Throughout my research I continuously considered the filter of my own mind through which all material collected and written was sifted. I remained aware of my experiences as a Caucasian woman in my late 20’s; as a graduate student in cultural policy; as a heterosexual; as a as a moderate liberal; as one who has never had to worry about my next meal; as a possible agnostic

8 with lingering elements of my Catholic upbringing; and as an eternal optimist. I understand that these characteristics influence the ways in which this thesis was approached, conceived and presented. I attempted to remain self-reflexive throughout this research process, and I hope that I presented the research in ways that made these influences transparent to readers.

9

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This review of literature on the public’s participation in public art contextualizes the issues explored in this thesis. Through the writings of scholars, artists, sociologists, and historians, I define pertinent terms (2.1), establish the importance of public participation in public art (2.2), review the history of public art and public participation

(2.3), and discuss how controversy (2.4.1), the public’s physical presence (2.4.2), media

(2.4.3), and the private sector (2.5) affect public art today. The literature reviewed in this chapter identifies a variety of influences on the public’s participation in public art, and suggests what is missing from the present literary conversation.

2.1 Thesis Terminology

Before delving further into a search for the public in public art, it is necessary to define the terms “public,” “public art,” and “public participation.” There are many ways that these terms can be defined, and their meanings may change based on context.

Therefore, this section will clarify how I use these terms throughout my research and in this paper.

10 2.1.1 Defining Public Art

Defining public art is simple, Right? Public art is “art to be integrated with spaces

open to the public” (Cornwell, 1990). But, public art is not this simple. A work of art can

not be considered public simply based on the nature of the space which it occupies – “no

more than placing a tiger in a barnyard would make it a domestic animal” (Hein, 1996

p.4). Rather, public art exists in a variety of forms, for a variety of purposes, satisfying a

variety of tastes and interests. Narrowing this general definition is W. J. T. Mitchell, who

identifies public art based on three characteristics; 1) art that has been initiated or

overseen by a public agency, 2) is displayed in a public place, and 3) has been paid for

with public money (Mitchell, 1992). The specificity of Mitchell’s definition is ideal for

this thesis, but its exclusiveness is not. Take for example, an artwork that has been

purchased with public funds and overseen by a public agency, but that sits in a

conference room within a secured government building? Is this not public art? How about

a work that is managed by a government agency, displayed in a public setting, but was

purchased with private money? Is this not public art? I would argue that indeed it is. For

this reason, I define public art as an artwork that may exist in a public space, is overseen

by a public agency, or is purchased with public money. I consider any one of these three characteristics sufficient to define a work of art as public .

Public art can also be viewed as a “public good,” like national defense or clean air, with “a potential for all citizens to benefit” (Filicko, 1992, p. 9). This implies that every individual, regardless of economic class, race, sex, validity, gender, or ability, has the right and opportunity to experience the advantages of public art. In contrast, public art can be considered an oppressive tool, “thrust upon the public” like the “public display of 11 pornography,” leaving the public no choice in its exposure (Stalker & Glymour, 1982). In both cases, public art is the creation of one group of individuals, presented to another group of individuals, rather than something created collaboratively. It is my belief that public art can be either a public good or a tool for oppression, depending on the standpoint of the viewer and the degree of public influence on the public art process.

2.1.2 Identifying Public Participation

In addition to defining public art, it is useful to narrow my definition of public participation . Balfe (2000) explains that a wide variety of arts participation exists, including “anonymous casual art consumers, the live audience seeking entertainment, the identifiable collectors, members, and patrons, the amateur hobbyists and the semi pros and professionals” (p. 83-84). To organize this diversity of art participants, Terri

Cornwell separates the “active” from the “passive” ones. These range “from the artist whose entire life is his art, to the individual who merely happens upon a cultural program while turning the dial of the television set” (Cornwell, 1990, p. 52). To illustrate these differences, Cornwell has created a diagram (see Figure 2.1) that includes amateur and professional artists, arts advocates, administrators, managers, technicians, and board members, while “passive” participants (see Figure 2.2) include audiences, subscribers, volunteers, and patrons (Cornwell, 1990).

12 Active Participation

Arts Education

Managers Administrators Theatre Music Dance Professional Technicians Visual Arts Artists Amateur Artists

Arts Advocates Opera

Bo ard Members Literature Media Arts

Controversial Public Causes Art Participation

a) Monuments & Memorials b) Public Art

Figure 2.1 Cornwell’s Model of Active Participation in the Arts Cornwell, 1990, p. 53

13 Passive Participation

Audience

Opera Classical Music Jazz Music Subscribers Patrons Theatre $ Dance Museums Live Arts Events Reading Movies Television VCRs Volunteers

Time / Talent

Figure 2.2 Cornwell’s Model of Passive Participation in the Arts Cornwell, 1990, p. 53

Following Cornwell’s model, I have created my own diagram demonstrating participation in public art (Figure 2.3). My diagram resembles a teeter totter sitting in a state of imbalance. The bench of the teeter totter anchors a range of participants, with the most active ones close to the fulcrum and those who are most passive on the ends. This level of activeness is represented by the X axis in the graph. The Y axis measures participants’ level of influence and voice on public art. For those participants located in the lower quadrants, influence on public art is great and the voices of individuals carry much weight. These participants are labeled, “Administrators” and include alderman, board members, and public art patrons. In the higher quadrants, “The Public” resides.

Despite the fact that the majority of people reside in this group, “The Public” has slight 14 influence on public art and their voices carry little weight. Included in the public are all city or state tax payers, voters in political elections, attendees of public meetings about public art, public art volunteers, and public art audiences. Between “The Public” and

“Administrators” is the most active of the three groups, the “Creators / Initiators.”

Included in this group are public art committees, public art advocates, public artists, local arts agencies, and public art managers. Though this group is the most active in public art endeavors and more influential than “The Public,” they are not usually as influential as

“Administrators.” In reality of course, citizens can belong to multiple groups found on the teeters bench, demonstrate multiple levels of participation and influence public art differently at different times. Though created as a static structure for clarification, citizens within the groups along the teeter bench should be understood as dynamic and ever- shifting.

15 The Public

Creators / Initiators Voters SLIGHT SLIGHT

Tax Payers Volunteers Administrator s

Public Committees meeting attendees Art ists Audience Managers Advocates Influence • Voice •Influence Patrons Local Arts Alderman Agencies

Boards GREAT

PASSIVE ACTIVE PASSIVE

Figure 2.3 Public Art Participation Teeter Totter Model Corrinn Conard (adapted from Cornwell, 1990, p. 53)

Balfe and Wyszomirski (1986) tell us that the difference in intention of various participants in public art often contributes to this imbalance. “For the artist, the primary issue is aesthetic. For the public agency, it is legal and political. For the public, a mixture of sociological and aesthetic issues is foremost” (Balfe & Wyszomirski, 1986, p. 6). A work of public art is the result of conversations and collaborations amongst these three groups of participants. But, as the diagram shows, the size of the groups and their levels of activity are incongruent with the amount of influence they have on public art decisions. For example, even though the “Administrators” represent a minimal amount of the population as compared to “The Public,” and display minimal amounts of activity as

16 compared to the “Creators / Initiators,” they are the ones who often have the most influence on public art endeavors. The “Administrators” may dominate conversations and their decisions are frequently carried through, while “The Public” is positioned as submissive receivers of public art. Balfe and Wyzsomirski (1986) discuss this dynamic in public art:

“While polarization of the controversy demonstrates the extreme positions and specific interests of artists on one hand, and of public agencies on the other, there has been little expression of the interests of the third party to the dispute, the public or, more properly, the publics who must support and find meaningful the authoritative expression of both of the other two parties if those if those parties’ competing interests are to be resolved” (p.9).

I contend that this imbalance of public representation and influence on public art, as shown in Figure 2.3 is unhealthy and maybe unnecessary. I believe that changes in communication practices between “The Public,” “Creators / Initiators,” and

“Administrators” could create a healthier balance, one that might benefit the arts, artists, and the public.

2.1.3 Defining the Public

A public can be defined as nothing more than “people in general considered a whole” (Cognitive Science Library, 2006). This inclusive definition allows for publics to

be identified geographically by country, state, neighborhood, etc.; demographically by

race, age, sex, etc.; or by choice of activities like careers and hobbies. In this thesis, I will

use both geography and personal activities to define “the public.” Geographically, “the

public” will be those who reside in or pass through the municipality in which the work of

public art is displayed. It will include those individuals who do or could encounter the

work intentionally and unintentionally, physically or not, on a somewhat regular basis.

17 This identifier implies some sense of ownership (i.e. the artwork is in my city, on my street, in my school, paid for with my tax dollars, was my visiting destination, etc.).

In conjunction with geographical location, certain roles and activities are

practiced by those who I am labeling “the public.” This is best demonstrated in the

diagram above (Figure 2.3) where I have separated participants into “Administrators”

who are ultimately responsible for the creation and maintenance of public art, and “The

Public” who participate in passive, but still significant ways.

Whether public art is considered a public good or a tool of oppression, it often

situates “The Public” into a role with slight influence upon which the art is gifted or

“thrust.” This is why I have chosen to separate the public (audience/recipients) from

administrators (decision-makers, promoters, and artists) in the manner that I have above.

2.1.4 Veiled Implications of “Public” and “Public Art”

Establishing working definitions for the terms the public , public art , and public

participation is necessary in narrowing the focus of my research, but this may

inadvertently do injustice to the complexity of social and political interaction operating

under these rubrics, their implications, and the commonly hidden agendas they contain.

In his book Dialogues in Public Art , Tom Finkelpearl (2000) poignantly points out that

terms like the public , public art and community art insinuate deeper social and political

stereotypes that are not often discussed. For example, “the word ‘public’ is associated

with the lower classes (public school, public transportation, public housing, public park,

public assistance, public defender) as opposed to the word ‘private,’ which is associated

18 with privilege (private school, private car, private home, private country club, private fortune, private attorney)” (p. x). Finkelpearl also explains:

…art created for insiders in the art world is never referred to as community art. So, when one refers to community-oriented public art, the terms are loaded, but the usage is fairly clear: it is art that includes people from the lower classes in its creation, consumption, or both. This does not mean that the upper classes are excluded from participating in the projects as well, only that they are not the exclusive audience. (Finkelpearl, 2000, p. xi)

It is clear from Finkelpearl’s insights that when he discusses the public and public

art , class is of primary concern. In this thesis however, I have attempted to construct a

more inclusive definition of public that considers individuals’ activities and interactions

with public art and explores perceptions across varying economic and educational

backgrounds. It is my perception that public art involves an entire public in one way or

another.

Since the terms public and public art imply the inclusion of all citizens, especially

those of “lower” social and economic classes or racial minorities, it should be recognized

that the terms can be misused or abused by politicians, corporations, and city developers

to help disguise or soften private interests which may in fact decrease the public’s right to

certain public spaces (Deutsche, 1992). For example, touting the construction of a new

roadway as a “public” endeavor implies an activity that is socially beneficial to all.

However, the words “public” and “community” may disguise facts regarding the

displacement of some citizens in order to make room for the structure, or the probability

that the roadway will only be used by those able to afford private passenger vehicles.

Further, such construction may increase traffic, serve as a threat to cyclists and

pedestrians, or elevate suburban flight as residents move away from the noisier urban

19 roadways. While leaving lower income citizens near these noisy structures, private interests will benefit by constructing future development along its outer borders. In similar ways, the word private can be used as an excuse for political disassociation and

isolation from the public. In a capitalist democracy, anything coined private incorrectly

implies a lack of influence on the public. The complex implications of the terms private ,

public and public art should be considered when the terms are used throughout this

thesis.

2.2 The Importance of Public Participation in Public Art

Public participation is important in public art and in public policy in general, and

is the lifeblood of a democracy. It is participation that separates democratic governments

from other regimes that oppress, overpower, and control. Obtaining democratic rights has

at times led to uprisings, revolutions, and world war events. Preserving and celebrating

the presence of democracy can be demonstrated through public participation. Robinson

and Filicko (2000) note that all forms of democracy, from the “majoritarian” model (with

high public participation) to the “elite politics” model (with very scarce participation),

“assume that there is a role for the public in the policy arena” (p. 129). They assert that in

a democracy, “public opinion plays an important role in most, if not all, public policy

discussions,” with “a fair degree of congruence between public opinion as expressed in

polling data and public policy as seen in legislation” (p. 129).

In contrast to Robinson and Filicko, Mary Timney (1998) argues that “the reality

of the public participation process rarely meets the promise of democracy” (p. 95). She

suggests that public hearings are rare, and those that do occur are treated as acts of

20 protocol rather than opportunities to listen to citizens. Joseph Disponzio (1992) concurs, noting that “in reality public hearings are just what they look like, shows of strength that rarely change anyone’s mind. Opinions are set in advance and handed out at the door via leaflets, typed position papers, scribbled notes, buttons, and the like” (p. 205).

Due to its inclusive and ambiguous nature, public art might appear to be a less intimidating policy realm for participation than other specialized policy areas such as medicine, military, or foreign diplomacy (Senie & Webster, 1992). Senie and Webster

(1992) argue that “public art with its built-in social focus would be an ideal genre for a democracy” (p. xi). Despite the accessibility of public art, public administrators often consider the public to be uninformed on most political issues and regard their participation as a hassle, rather than helpful (Timney, 1998). Filicko (1997) asserts administrators often “decry the lack of cultural and artistic sophistication in the American public, and to go on to argue that decisions about the arts should be left to the experts” (p.

2). Accordingly, Balfe and Wyzsomirski (1986) contend that expert opinions in public art choices are crucial, because “plebiscite” decisions could function as a “form of prior censorship and would inevitably inhibit creativity, if not preclude the participation of the most avant-garde artists in any program of public sculpture” (p. 24-25). These authors call for the majority of public involvement to occur after a work of art has been erected, given the public “may have internal differences and contradictions that surface only after artists and government agencies have contracted to act on the public’s behalf” (Balfe &

Wyzsomirski, 1986, p. 24). Repressing public participation before the completion of a work has at times resulted in the survival of groundbreaking works originally detested and misunderstood by the public (e.g. Maya Lin’s Veterans War Memorial). However,

21 this approach can also result in those public works of art being vandalized or dismantled by a disgruntled public (e.g. Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc in New York City). These incidents result in wasted public resources, exhausted public artists, and discredited administrators.

In addition to providing democratic opportunities to citizens, public participation can also be a potent tool for education, and an opportunity lost when participation is repressed. For example, a community-oriented HIV-prevention plan in Hawaii reported that “the surveys and interviews provided useful data but, just as important, they created a process to educate and develop networks throughout the community” (Foley, 1994, p.

142). Feedback from citizens showed that participants felt “empowered” and had

“developed ownership” of the issues. Overall, the project resulted in positive change for both the citizens of Hawaii and the government department charged with the mission.

Processes like these, that would involve the public in the decision-making steps of public art endeavors, could also yield positive results including increased education, civic pride, and citizen responsibility. It is important to note that the HIV project in Hawaii was not without difficulties and several members of the public found it to be “a frustrating experience” (Foley, 1994, p. 143). The largest obstacles included a lack of proper training for citizens, an imbalanced representation of various populations in the public, and a lack of funds necessary for such an inclusive process. Similar problems could arise when involving the public in public art decisions. However, the positive outcomes of such experiences would significantly outweigh any unavoidable difficulties.

22

2.3 An Overview of Public Art and Public Participation

There are three factors that I will examine historically in this section; 1) public participation in politics and public art, 2) the evolution of public art in America and 3) public art and urbanization. I believe that the development and interaction of these three elements had a great affect on the role of the public in public art today.

2.3.1 Public Participation in Politics

America was essentially founded on a state of distrust, born from sentiments towards the British Monarchy (King & Stivers, 1998) and resulting in our current control of power through a system of checks and balances. In a way, distrust is fundamental to democratic values of a “government by the people” (Cognitive Science Library, 2006), and is still a large part of our politics today. However, 19 th century America saw a rapidly growing middle class which adopted many practices of the wealthy, including participation in the government and politics. “For white men, party politics [became] a defining feature of masculine identity” (King & Stivers, 1998, p. 13) during the first half of the century. When the 15 th Amendment was ratified in 1870 following the Civil War, all American men were nominally given the right to vote in U.S. politics. However, racism subsequently took form in regulations like the Jim Crow laws and literacy tests which made participation in public electoral politics nearly impossible for African-

American citizens (United States Department of Justice, 2007).

As public involvement in politics declined during the end of the 19 th century, the

government’s role in public life seemed to increase. Soon, the professionalization of

23 government began produced an administration divided into numerous specialized compartments through which the public’s needs were to be served with little effort from citizens. This severing of the public’s relationship to government changed American politics “from a public process rooted in the open-air rally to a matter of invisible negotiations conducted in government offices by public officials and private interests”

(King & Stivers, 1998, p. 15). It seems plausible that The Great Depression of the 1930s and the resulting New Deal era somehow solidified a need for strong government specialization and contributed to labeling the public as passive receivers and government as active providers. This relationship was observed by Alexis de Tocqueville in

Democracy in America . He wrote: “I know of no other country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America…In the United

States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own” (pgs.117 & 148). This disengagement with government began to result in public distrust for American politics which only grew with publicly opposed activities like the

Vietnam War and government scandals like Watergate.

Over the years, distrust of government has hardened into an “us against them” attitude common in today’s society. Ban and Ricucci ((1991) (from Government is Us

(1998)) tell us that “no group is more maligned by the public than those who serve the public” (p. 7). This cynicism is reflected and enforced through television, movies, music, and literature. Take for example the “Big Onion Award for Greed, Sloth, and Exceptional

Idiocy by the People Whose Salaries You Pay,” organized by a popular Chicago magazine (King & Stivers, 1998). Some citizens react by creating interest groups for

24 which they are actively involved. Timney states that “dysfunctional citizen participation” is often the result of specific administrative processes that leave individuals no choice for participation except in the form of protest (Timney, 1998, p. 88). However, these groups’

“commitment to self-determination frequently overshadows their sense of participation in the broader fabric of society" (Senie & Webster, 1992, p. xv).

Unfortunately, many citizens have grown disheartened. Roper Polls have shown that thirty-three to fifty percent of Americans believe “public officials don’t care what people like them think” (Morin (1996) in King & Stivers, 1998, p. 11). This disheartenment has morphed into apathy in many cases. Much of the public seems to have grown comfortably accustomed to idea that politicians are “the primary expert in the political arena” (Timney, 1998, p. 88), and citizens are “more often than not, willing to leave policy to the experts” (Filicko, 1997, p. 22). It could be argued that the voting rate of eligible citizens, which has been declining since the mid-20 th century and now teeters at just over fifty percent, demonstrates this discouraged attitude turned apathetic (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2004).

2.3.2 Changes in Art and Public Reaction

The history of public participation in the arts can be traced to Ancient Greece when availability of the arts was, for the most part, limited to the wealthy elite, the sole financers of government at the time (Cornwell, 1990). Besides architectural projects built for public use, the only participation from the general public in the “high” arts was through theatre which was subsidized by the government. However, the theatre provided very little opportunity for active forms of participation from the public. Throughout the

25 middle Ages, Renaissance, and Elizabethan Age, the “high” arts remained exclusive to the elite classes (Cornwell, 1990) while the general public expressed themselves artistically through more “popular art” forms like street festivals and religious ceremonies.

In America, the arts were first considered “a luxury incompatible with republican values” and were “regarded with distrust” (Senie & Webster, 1992, p. xi). As the middle class grew during the nineteenth century however, so did a desire to mimic the practices of the higher European classes, including participation in the arts (Senie & Webster,

1992). Consequently, a fissure in Western art began to develop. As Rosand (2004) explains, “From the beginning there was a poignant awareness of the distance between practice in the New World and the achievements, traditions, and values of the Old, between empirical groping by eager, inadequately trained talents and the well-established precepts and glorious exempla of the grand heritage” (p. 2). As the popularity of art grew in America, it became available in a variety of common and accessible forms. For example, replicas of European art became massively produced in America through engravings and other printmaking processes. This new accessibility of art threatened the elitism that art once signified in the upper classes. As a result, the fissure in Western art continued to grow and a distinction between new “popular art” forms and the traditional

“high arts” of the upper classes became solidified. This division became another link in the metaphorical fence that has existed between economic and social classes for centuries. The use of art as a tool for class distinction is evident in the following comment from Tocqueville, a member of the European elite: “In aristocracies, a few

26 great pictures are produced; in democratic countries, a vast number of insignificant ones”

(Tocqueville in Cornwell, 1990, p. 37).

During the nineteenth century, public art in the United States began to germinate as commemorative and functional works were commissioned for federal buildings and were highly praised by the public (Balfe & Wyzsomirski, 1986). The first federally funded work of public art was commissioned in 1817. Public art throughout the 19 th

century was intended to narrate American history, promote patriotism, and honor the

heroic model citizens of the United States.

The Great Depression during the early twentieth century further popularized

publicly funded arts. The Works Progress Administration (WPA) program in the 1930’s

enlisted a number of working artists in public art creations. The program also opened the

door for public works that were “artistically experimental” and “politically critical of

social conditions or public policies and officials” (Balfe & Wyszomirski, 1986, p. 11). It

was at this point that public art ceased to be created solely for patriotic, commemorative,

and functional purposes and began to instead operate as vehicles for social commentary.

Additionally, public works were now in locations other than on Capital Hill, with works

being created in schools, post offices, and other public spaces. It is believed that

Roosevelt’s New Deal era was “the greatest period of federal art patronage ever” (Weber

in Elsasser, 1996, p. 6). With the rise of such social critiques, however, the WPA arts

employment initiatives were short lived. However, building upon the models created in

the New Deal, the first “percent-for-art” program was established in 1959 by the state of

Philadelphia (Finkelpearl, 2000). Soon to follow was the federal government’s creation

of the Art-in-Architecture program by the General Services Administration (GSA) and

27 subsequently, the Art-in-Public-Places program by the National Endowment for the Arts

(NEA). Both of these were government programs designed specifically to support public art. In figure 2.4 below, some significant milestones of public art in the U.S. are charted.

1965 - NEA is established 1933 – WPA 1980 – The Federal Art Congressional Project Arts Caucus is begins 1966 – formed for NEA’s Art in National arts 1817 - First Public Places advocacy federally begins funded work of public art

1900 1925 1950 1975 2000 222

1963 – GSA Art and 1980 – Reagan Architecture attempts to cut Program begins funding of NEA and NEH by 50% 1954 – Supreme Court 1973 – CETA is declares that aesthetic formed by federal matters are a part of government public welfare.

Figure 2.4 Timeline of Publicly Funded Art in the U.S. Information has come from various bibliographical sources

Though public art programs were successful on many fronts, both the Art-in-

Architecture program and the NEA encountered controversies which resulted in public suspect. Conditions became so tense that a task force comprised of members from each of the two programs convened in 1980 to discuss methods for strengthening their relationship with the public. They concluded that public education on matters of public art was the answer to their problems (Balfe & Wyzsomirski, 1986). Art education, in fact, 28 had already been acknowledged by the U.S. government as an important element of education by a Blue Ribbon Task Force convened in the early 1960s. Many arts education programs were subsequently further strengthened as a result of the

Comprehensive Employment Training Act (CETA) in 1973.

Despite efforts to improve relationships between the public and art through

education, however, the Richard Serra Tilted Arc debacle occurred in 1981. Balfe and

Wyzsomirski explain that after Tilted Arc , “the government in general and GSA in

particular have been cast by many as inept, arrogant, and willing to violate both law and

principle, either through installing artworks without adequately consulting the public, or

in subsequently attempting to remove them against the wishes of their creators” (Balfe

and Wyszomirski, 1989, p. 9).

The public art issues that surfaced during Tilted Arc came to a full head during

The Culture Wars in 1990’s, which erupted in reactions to Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ

and Robert Mapplethorpe’s homoerotic photography. The Culture Wars set off intense

debates about the value of art, the use of public money, and constitutional rights to

artists’ freedom of expression. The root of the Culture Wars, however, was not about art

as much as it was about conservative fears of moral decline, homosexuality, and big

government. Regardless, the Culture Wars had such a crippling effect on publicly-funded

arts that the National Endowment for the Arts barely survived, and the public’s distrust

for public artists and public art administrators was further intensified.

As media employed by artists including film and performance art, as well as rock

‘n’ roll grew in popularity, the line between high arts and popular arts blurred. Critical

theorists and cultural studies programs in the late twentieth century were also questioning

29 the boundaries between art and popular culture, further blurring the line between the

“high arts” (i.e. paintings, sculptures, and ballet) and the “popular arts” (i.e. graphic arts, television, and pop music). Zolberg and Cherbo (1997) explain that “in the postmodernist late 1990s, crossovers, hybrids, mixed-media, and (outsider) arts [began being] curated at

(insider) institutions” (from Balfe and Peters, 2000, p. 83). Likewise, public art began to bring the elitist art of cultural institutions to the streets traveled by “ordinary” people.

Though responding to damage from controversies like Serra’s Tilted Arc and The Culture

Wars, artists, arts funding and commissioning agencies began to more inclusively address the public, and growth in public art’s accessibility seems to be rebuilding the relationship with the public in the twenty-first century.

2.3.3 Urbanization and its Effects on Public Art

The development of public art in America can productively be considered in relationship to the suburbanization-urbanization struggles beginning in the mid-twentieth century. As Finkelpearl explains in his book, Dialogues in Public Art , the period following World War II brought immense transformations to the cities and neighborhoods of the United States. New roadways led to a spread from the city center to more spacious outlying areas, and America witnessed the birth of “Suburbia.” While suburbanization provided improved living for some, it reaped havoc on the once abundant and diverse cities. Finkelpearl explains it as a time when “highways tore the heart out of neighborhoods” providing an “exit” for those privileged enough to have the means to escape to the growing suburbs, and leaving the minorities inside the neglected cities (Finkelpearl, 2000, p. 5-6).

30 In reaction to the damage done to cities by suburbanization, the federal government began “urban renewal” initiatives in the 1960s, intended to replace deteriorating city neighborhoods with new, communal buildings for the lower classes.

Accompanying this housing were open spaces or parks for the members of the community to congregate and relax. Ironically, the federal housing initiatives only increased segregation, localized crime and became “symbols” of relevant racial issues

(Finkelpearl, 2000). The open spaces became unsupervised havens for drug activity, vandalism, and other offenses. In an interview with activist Jane Jacobs, a tenant of one of these housing divisions vented

Nobody cared what we wanted when they built this place. They threw our houses down and pushed our friends somewhere else. We don’t have a place around here to get a cup of coffee or a newspaper even, or borrow fifty cents. Nobody cared what we need. But the big men come and look at the grass and say, “Isn’t it wonderful! Now the poor have everything!” (from Finkelpearl, 2000, p. 16).

Finkelpearl tells us that “the national move toward public art came in the

1970’s…in an effort to attract people back to the downtown areas that they were abandoning” (Finkelpearl, 2000, 21). As means for beautification, the government began placing public art pieces in those open spaces and parks that were such a large part of the

1960 city. Public art at this time however was treated in isolation from its surroundings. It was created by the artist and later placed in urban open spaces which were previously unknown to the artist. This public art came to be termed “plop art,” for its tendency to be plopped down in an area without any relationship to its surroundings or audience.

Slowly, throughout the late 20 th century, conditions of blighted urban areas began to improve as more “community redevelopment” programs were established and more

31 people were attracted to cities. Percent-for-art programs developed during the late 1970’s, making public artists a larger part of public art projects. Artists began working with builders and architects, changing their role from “plop artists” to “placemakers”

(Finkelpearl, 2000). This trend seemed to reach its peak in the 1980’s, during the

“festival marketplace” movement at which time artists not only worked with builders and architects, but really became them. The “festival marketplace” movement marked the end of the Modernist city and the beginning of the “City of Spectacle” (Christine Boyer in

Finkelpearl, 2000, p. 31). During this time, cities competed to wow tourists with unique experiences, usually focused around shopping and eating. Public art during this time moved into the realms of utilitarian and included mostly bridges, seating areas, fountains, walkways, etc.; things that the public could use in everyday life.

The late 20 th century and early 21 st centuries have seen great strides in urban

revitalization, and public art is definitely playing a significant role in this movement.

Based on economic impact studies of the arts, cultural centers and arts districts are being

created in urban areas as a means to stimulate downtrodden economies. Currently, there

are more than 100 cultural districts throughout the United States (Americans for the Arts,

2007). These districts include restaurants, shops, and housing, but are advertised for their

collection of art galleries, studios, theatres, public art, and museums. Often, cultural

districts are established in suffering urban areas, become attractive to artists and young

professionals, and are ideally transformed into areas with posh housing, open spaces,

public art, and throngs of tourists. Though there are distinctions between the purpose of

public art during the urban renewal efforts of the 1960s and its purpose in cultural

32 districts today, using public art as both a beautification tool and a stimulator for urban growth continues to be a popular practice of municipalities.

2.4 Evidence of the Public in Public Art

The following section will explore ways in which the public currently participates in public art endeavors including public art controversies, visitation to public works, and through the media.

2.4.1 Controversy is a Voice

The authors of Government Is Us claim that controversy is a natural result of the

political exclusion of our times, in which the public’s voice is often disregarded or muted.

They explain that “because their concerns are most often ignored or swept away, it

should not surprise us that the citizen participants are most likely the ones who are the

angriest and the most dedicated to undermining the administrator’s careful efforts”

(Timney, 1998, p. 96). Returning to my teeter-totter model from section 2.1.2, Figure 2.5

displays this model once again, only this time in a different state of imbalance caused by

public art controversy. I propose that during times of controversy, the levels of

participation change, the board of activeness falls into an opposite state of imbalance, the

public’s influence on public art increases, and the public’s voice grows to overpower the

“Creators / Initiators” and “Administrators.” Again, I believe that this imbalance can

cause unhealthy and unnecessary consequences. Consequences which could be avoided

with improved methods of communication, inclusion, and education. We will return

again to this model at the end of this thesis in Chapter Seven.

33 Administrators

Creators / Initiators

SLIGHT The Public Boards Local Arts

Agencies Advocates Alderman Patrons Public Audience Managers Meeting attendees Artists Committees Influence Voice • Tax Payers Volunteers

Voters GREAT

ACTIVE PASSIVE ACTIVE

Figure 2.5 Public Art Participation Teeter Totter Model during Controversies Adapted from Cornwell, 1990, p. 53

Public art in America has faced its fair share of controversies over the years which have been well publicized and influential. Indeed, “‘time and time again, well-meaning individuals involved with a public art commission are shocked that their carefully considered projects are so glaringly misunderstood by a hostile audience’” (Senie, in

Tepper, 1992, p. 18). Consider the following historical examples of public art endeavors turned controversial:

Civic Virtue , a marble fountain designed for Manhattan’s City Hall, was conceived in 1891 by artist Frederick MacMonnies. Commissioned by the city in 1909, it cost $52,000, and was completed in 1922. The sculpture “consisted of a stern looking male, (Virtue) with a sword resting on his shoulder, standing astride two female figures 34 representing vice and lying amidst sea creatures at Virtue’s feet” (Bogart, 1992, p. 179).

The piece was protested vehemently by the female citizens of New York who claimed that the work was sexist and derogatory. This protesting resulted in the sculpture’s dismantling in 1941 (Bogart, 1992).

The New York Public Library Lions by artists Edward Clark Potter and Daniel

Chester French were completed in 1911 at a cost of $13,000. The design of the lions was

relentlessly mocked and ridiculed by the press and the general public. Before the lions

there was already public animosity towards the Library because of significant delays in

its completion (Larkin, 1992). Larkin suggests that the public’s hostility towards the lions

could have been due to the public’s sentiment towards the Library as a whole. Public

opinion forced significant changes in the design of completed sculptures. Unfortunately,

it was not until several years after the death of Edward Clark Potter that the public’s

response to the Lions changed from disdain to endearment (Larkin, 1992).

In 1979, the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation received an

offer for the commissioned piece, Gay Liberation by artist George Segal (Disponzio,

1992). The piece was to be placed in Christopher Park across the street from the

Stonewall Inn, a site where 13 gay activists were arrested in 1969 due to homophobic

attitudes of the City. In 1980, plaster casts for the piece were complete, and tentative

approval was given by the city. By 1985, the intended location was ready for the

installation. However, intense opposition to the piece by the public delayed its

installation. Citizens, both gay and straight, believed that a “special interest group [was]

forcing on them a sculpture whose purpose was clearly political” (Disponzio, 1992, p.

35 206). Seven years later, the sculpture was finally erected with little objection (Park,

2001).

The 24-foot long, 24-foot high Monument to Joe Louis by artist Robert Graham

was first commissioned in 1983 by the city of Detroit. The sculpture represented only the

boxer’s forearm and a clenched fist. This massive piece was erected above the street by

24-foot high steel beams. A model of the piece was approved in 1984 and the final work

was unveiled in 1986. The unveiling of this sculpture was immediately followed by

protests from the general public, interests groups and the media. The issue was, for the

most part, a matter of racism. The black community of Detroit did not feel that the

sculpture celebrated a black hero as much as it represented the black man as aggressive

and intimidating. Graves writes that “Graham appears to have ignored the monument’s

audience and the fact that such a commission must be read against the complex reality of

social, political, urban, and institutional history” (Graves, 1992, p. 225). In 1987, another

sculpture dedicated to Joe Louis was erected and deliberately termed the “people’s

tribute” by Detroit’s citizens (Graves, 1992).

Tilted Arc , by artist Richard Serra, was erected in 1981 at 26 Federal Plaza in

New York City. The 120-foot long, 12-foot high, 73 ton steel sculpture commissioned by

the federal Art-in-Architecture program cost a total of $175,000 tax dollars. The Art-in-

Architecture program omitted its normal procedure of having an “introductory” program

for the public in order to prepare them for the upcoming installation (Balfe &

Wyszomirski, 1986). When completed, this piece was probably disliked more than any

other public work in U.S. history. It was considered an enormous obstruction within the

plaza; a space that was once open for the public to socialize and retreat from the confined

36 spaces of their office buildings. Serra’s sculpture loomed over passersby who were forced to work their way around the obstacle. It represented a barrier, not a door to the art world.

Due to overwhelming public outcry, the sculpture was eventually removed by the federal government in 1989 (Cornwell, 1990).

From the examples above, it becomes clear that controversies in public art, like the Culture Wars, are less about art itself and more about complex social and political issues, often those concerning morality, sexuality, race, class distinctions, and other concerns already brewing within a community (Dubin, 1992). Similarly, Todd Gitlin

(1995) attributes controversy in art to “identity obsessions” in which people aggressively protect their personal viewpoints by participating in conflicts that reflect their perspectives (Gitlin in Tepper, 2001). Steven Tepper (2001) writes that “controversy is the product of its social context and is related to a community’s political culture, demographic profile and public opinion climate” (p. 35). He notes that conditions have to be “ripe” for controversy to occur. This is evident in many cases where in one locale, an edgy work or exhibit will go barely noticed while causing outrageous uproar in a different place and time. He says that

“…it is reasonable to conclude that the inflammatory content of an artwork is not the singular cause of conflict…We need to advance and test theories that help us understand these circumstances, or the social preconditions of conflict – such as demographic changes, the climate of public opinion and the political culture of a community” (Tepper, 2001, p. 25).

In Tom Finkelpearl’s opinion, “controversy is not such a large part of public art”

(Finkelpearl, 2000, p. 54). He explains that in his nine years as a curator for the

Department of Cultural Affairs in New York City, 97% of the public art projects “were well received, without a bit of rancor” (Finkelpearl, 2000, p. 54). Though Finkelpearl

37 may make a valid suggestion that public art is more often successful than it is controversial, the controversies that do occur can be perceived as socially detrimental, a waste of public dollars, and a disruption to society. Controversy however, can also be viewed as a healthy way in which the public has participated in public art for centuries.

Greg Esser, artist and former head of the Public Art Network of Americans for the Arts, believes that controversy actually works positively by forcing citizens to engage in “civic dialogues” about issues that are otherwise unresolved within a community. He wants both public officials and citizens to understand that “civic dialogue” is a beneficial activity that should not be avoided, as it can result in strengthened communities and the production and presentation of powerful public art (Esser, Public Art Summit, 2005).

2.4.2 In the Presence of Public Art

Whether deliberately visiting a work of public art, or stumbling upon one

unwittingly, simply being in the presence of art can be considered a method of

participation. Spectatorship could be considered the most popular form of public

participation in public art today, and it continues to gain popularity as “more people

attend arts and cultural events in community venues – such as open air spaces, schools,

and places of worship – than in conventional arts venues, such as concert halls, theatres,

museums, and art galleries” (Walker & Sherwood, 2003, p. 2).

Public art administrators and public artists have reacted to concepts of

accessibility by creating work that is exceedingly interactive with members of the public.

Two recent examples occurred in Chicago on October 6, 2007 in celebration of National

Artists’ Month. In the first work titled, Where Sky Meets Water by artist Indira Freitas,

38 the artist had invited members of the public to assist her in marking over 500 leaves with the OM symbol of peace. At noon, canoes released the leaves onto the Chicago River.

Members of the public were asked to participate that day by releasing additional leaves decorated with symbols of peace by various community members. The spectators watched as their own tokens to the project intermixed with each other’s, together forming a cohesive symbol for peace (see Figures 2.6 & 2.7).

Figure 2.6 Leaves from Public Artwork, “Where Sky Meets Water” Corrinn Conard

39

Figure 2.7 Spectators watch Public Artwork, “Where Sky Meets Water” Corrinn Conard

Another work of public art performed that day was the Clark Street Bridge

Percussion Orchestra . In this work, conceived and orchestrated by artist Hugh Musick, approximately 60 percussionists played a score by Eric Roth upon the metal beams of the bridge. Following the enthralling performance, members of the public were invited to grab drumsticks provided by the artist, and play on the bridge together. The response was immense, and the result was a gorgeous symphony of public participation (see Figures

2.8 & 2.9).

40

Figure 2.8 Spectators gathering at Public Artwork on the Clark Street Bridge Corrinn Conard

Figure 2.9 The public pounds on the Clark Street Bridge for Public Art Display Corrinn Conard

The accessibility of public art grows as art continues to be used as a tool for urban renewal and community building. As a result, the line between the “high arts,” found

41 typically within the walls of artistic institutions, and the “popular arts” continues to blur, the definition of art continues to expand, and the public’s opportunity in public art grows.

2.4.3 Speaking through the Media

Media has changed the way the public both participates in and perceives art. It also serves as both a venue for public opinion and a creator of public opinion. Author,

Steven Tepper explains that in many communities, the public receives their news from one or two major sources, making it a “media market” through which “members of a community often learn about a cultural presentation, and/or ensuing conflict, through the press; and citizens and public officials often participate in the conflict via the press – either by writing letters to the editor or by expressing positions through public statements in news articles” (Tepper, 2001). However, this form of public participation requires a certain amount of dedication that is both intimidating and inconvenient. In addition, there are editorial licenses that allow newspapers to ultimately present a story in the way that they want.

Television is probably the most powerful form of media in our society today.

Rather than discussing how television can act as a venue for the public’s voice, it seems more relevant to examine how television often informs public opinion. In his book,

Media, the Second God , author Tony Schwartz (1989) compares the culture’s sentiment towards visual and audible media to that of a religious experience. He writes that “God- like, the media can change the course of a war, bring down a president or a king, elevate the lowly, and humiliate the proud, by directing the attention of millions on the same event and in the same manner” (p. 2-3). In all of the examples of public art controversy

42 discussed in section 2.4.1, the media played a large part in spreading the controversy and molding public opinion (see Senie & Webster, 1992).

2.5 The Private Sector in Public Art

Typically when private involvement in public art is discussed, the root of the

conversation is money, particularly when private donations, rather than government

spending, builds and maintains a public art endeavor. There are many ways that public art

is funded, including local percent-for-art ordinances, city-designated tax money, or

national sources like the NEA. Greg Esser asserts that the private sector currently serves

as the main funding source for U.S. public art endeavors (Esser, 2005). In contrast to the

European tradition of government supported arts, the United States has practiced what

Balfe and Peters call “cultural privatization,” through which the American government

acts as a facilitator rather than a sponsor of the arts (Balfe & Peters, 2000, p. 97).

Considering this current lack of national, state and city funding for the arts, financial

assistance from the private sector can be a benefit to public art.

It is also argued that privately funded public art can result in the creation of more

powerful works. Barry Fagan (1999) for example, asserts that privately funded art

preserves the potency and free expression of public art creations. He explains:

“The marriage of art and politics in a democratic society is inherently contradictory. On the one hand, great art expands our boundaries by making us think, by showing us new realities of the human experience. Such efforts are bound to challenge existing arrangements, to test limits, and in many cases to offend… It is precisely because art is so powerful, because it deals with basic human needs, and because it is so essential to civilization that it needs to be left alone… (There should be) no censorship, no regulation of art, no taxpayer subsidies and no government control. Art is simply too important to be treated otherwise…Because of the inherent contradictions, the mixture of art and

43 taxpayer funding in the long run is overwhelmingly likely to produce mediocre, safe, "lowest common denominator" art that offends no one” (p. 2).

Though private support for public art has its benefits, it can also force a relinquishment of public control and an ambiguity about the “public-ness” of public art and public space. How much influence does the public really have over works that are paid for with private money? Deutsche (1992) tells us that public art and public space often “implicitly support the exclusionary rights of property as well as repressive and disciplinary power exercised in public spaces in the form of curfews, surveillance systems, policing, control through design, and forcible dispossession of users” (p. 35).

These controls can be easily justified by city officials when they are the desires of those private donors who built and maintain the space and artwork. Esser believes that even if a piece of art is funded by a private donor, it is no less the public’s if it is located in a public space (Esser, 2005). The complexities of the public/private relationship in privately funded public works will be highly significant in the case study of Millennium

Park presented later in this paper.

2.6 Chapter Conclusion

Balfe and Peters (2000) argued that to make long-lasting and unchallenged

decisions, administrators must invite the public into conversations and the decision-

making processes of the public realm. Peter Brinkerhoff tells us that “working to meet

wants is harder than just giving people what they need. It requires diligence in developing

a systematic way of asking the people served what they want” (Brinckerhoff, 2004, p. 6-

7). But, how might one go about collecting and using the public’s voice?

44 Some public art projects invite the public to design and create a work themselves

– to act as primary decision-makers, as is the case with many community murals.

Nonprofit organizations, like The Smithsonian in Washington D.C., have placed approximately 4,000 volunteers in managerial roles to increase public collaborations through administrative action. Some cities and states are conducting studies in an attempt to gather public opinions on art, like the “Ohio: A State FOR the Arts (or the SOAR)

Report,” produced by the Ohio Arts Council in 2001. On a national level, programs like the NEA and Art-in-Architecture have grown over the years in ways that (at least theoretically) increase consideration for the public’s voice. These changes are explored by Finkelpearl (2000). With information from Suzanne Lacy, the author marks pertinent transformations made over the years to NEA goals and doctrine concerning public’s involvement. I have charted these changes below:

45 1965 “To give public access to the best art of our time outside museum walls.”

1970 Art should be “appropriate to the immediate site.”

Administration should “approach 1975 creatively the wide range of possibilities for art in public situations.” Required “methods to insure an informed community response to the project.” 1980 Recipients had to have “plans for community involvement, 1985 preparation, and dialogue.”

1990 Recipients had to have “educational activities which invite community involvement.”

Figure 2.10 Historical Changes of NEA Doctrine Inspired from Finkelpearl, 2000, p. 43

Cornwell (1990) contends that practices of public inclusiveness foster and

maintain public dedication and support for the arts. Despite these attempts however, a

review of related literature reveals that the voice of the public is still muffled in current

conversations about public art and public participation. What does the public think about

public participation? How do they perceive their role in public art? It is through my

research and specific case study that I explore these questions.

46

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

To explore the role of the public in Chicago’s Millennium Park, I have chosen to conduct my research in a qualitative manner. Unlike quantitative studies usually associated with the sciences that are concerned with predictions, qualitative studies search for truth in personal stories and observations. Under the umbrella of case study research, I will be using a variety of qualitative methods in collecting valuable data about the role of the public in public art; including survey research, ethnographic observations through fieldwork, and interviews. Epistemologically, I consider these methods to be tools of phenomenological inquiry that identify human perceptions as legitimate explanations for the realities in which we live (Schwandt, 2007). In the final chapters of this paper, I dissect the collected data by using discourse and textual analyses. I do use some quantitative methods in order to make interesting comparisons and propose correlations. Overall however, this study is intended to be insightful, not predictive; a glimpse of a collective reality. Ultimately, it is meant to provide insights valuable to public art administrators, art educators and artists – those concerned with public arts needs, frustrations, and appeals.

47 3.1 Case Study Research

Through case studies, researchers try “hard to understand how the actors, the people being studied, see things” (Stake, 1995). Furthermore, case study researchers attempt to “preserve the multiple realities, the different and even contradictory views of what is happening” (Stake, 1995). The case study in this thesis focuses on the “multiple realities” of Chicago’s public concerning their involvement with the design, funding, creation, maintenance and use of Millennium Park. In short, I attempt to understand how the public “sees” and values its relationship to this particular public art endeavor. My choice of Millennium Park as a case study reflects my personal affinity for the space, the relative scarcity of literature on this recent project, and the Park’s international reputation as a “successful” public art initiative.

There are limitations to case studies which are important to emphasize here. Most notably, findings within a case study are not generalizable on a grand scale. My research may provide new understandings of the specific case at hand, but these case-dependent patterns can not necessarily be applied in other contexts, nor could they be used to make predictions about other similar projects. In a case study, sweeping generalizations are substituted by what Stake calls petite generalizations (Stake, 1995). Petite generalizations are those patterns and consistencies that one finds within a specific case study that are revealing and educational, but not necessarily applicable to other situations (Stake, 1995).

As a result, “The real business of case study is particularization, not generalization”

(Stake, 1995, p. 8). While perhaps only petite generalizations are possible, case study findings can nonetheless be thought-provoking. For example, through my case study of

Millennium Park, I reveal information about the attitudes, concerns, and tastes of 48 Chicago’s public, about the effects of the City’s rich history on current public art endeavors, and about the City’s political and social weaknesses threatening public appreciation for and public participation in public art.

3.2 Survey Research

The main method for data collection that I use in my case study of Millennium

Park is surveys. Surveys are “a system for collecting information to describe, compare, or explain knowledge, attitudes, and practices or behavior” (Fink, 1995, p. 1). The surveys in this thesis were intended to produce data that is both quantitative and qualitative in nature. Generally, my survey concentrates on the insights, opinions and perceptions of individuals; a focus consistent with phenomenological epistemology. I conducted these surveys on-site at Millennium Park over a period of three weeks in the autumn of 2007.

The surveys involved both residents and non-residents of the city and asked a total of eleven questions followed by a short section on demographic data. I chose each participant for the survey by walking throughout Millennium Park and approaching individuals to request their assistance. I tried to choose a demographic variety of participants based on my observations so that my research represented Chicagoans and non-Chicagoans, men and women, various ethnicities, and citizens of all ages.

The majority of questions in my survey were closed questions with a multiple choice format. However, I also included two questions that were open-ended, allowing participants the opportunity to express themselves in their own words. Open-ended questions are valuable because they generate answers that describe “the world as the respondent really sees it rather than how the researcher does” (Fink, 1995, p. 32). While

49 the answers to these types of questions may be difficult for a researcher to use in the more quantitative research requiring the establishment of patterns or generalizations, they can help capture the character and emotional responses of participants; data especially important in qualitative studies. In general, survey questions asked participants about their relationship to Millennium Park and public art in general, their involvement in the creation of Millennium Park and their interest in future participation.

Prior to creating my survey, I completed the mandatory Collaborative Institutional

Training Initiative (CITI) from The Protection of Human Research Subjects.

Additionally, my survey has been approved as research exempt from full Institutional

Review Board (IRB) screening at Ohio State University (project #2007E0567). A copy of my CITI certificate can be found in Appendix A. A copy of my IRB research approval letter can be found in Appendix B.

While the CITI training and IRB approval affirms that my research with human subjects conforms to ethical standards, these considerations do not eliminate possible research design weaknesses. Arlene Fink identifies several factors, unrelated to one’s particular research topic that can affect survey outcomes. Some of these factors include the structure of the questions, the intentions of the researcher - who asks the questions, how the questions are asked, and where the survey is conducted (Fink, 1995). Another limitation is that my survey data will not be generalizable to other public art scenarios and the applicability of the data collected must be carefully considered by other researchers.

50

3.3 Discourse and Textual Analysis

In an effort to systematically examine the qualitative elements of my surveys, particularly the open-ended questions and my interactions with respondents, I conducted discourse and textual analyses. Foucault and others explain that ‘discourses’ (verbal and written) are “systems of thought that construct subjects and their worlds” (Schwandt,

2007, p. 73). In other words, communication is not simply a way of reflecting the world around us, but it is also a tool utilized in the construction of our reality. Speech patterns may be seen as instruments in the formation of social hierarchies, administration of controls, solidification of stereotypes, and identification of social structures.

Additionally, I felt it necessary to expose a variety of possible influences on the public’s expressive opinions towards public art. As the philosopher, Backhtin (1986) observed, one’s utterances are reactions to the topic at hand, but also results of “other viewpoints, world views, trends, theories, and so forth” (p. 94). Therefore, I supplement the public’s voice in this paper with historical, social, and political information about the

City; information which may influence public reactions to public art and participation. In general, I use discourse and textual analysis to explore possible meanings, intentions, and consequences beneath that which is (not) expressed by survey participants. I consider how the spoken word may be (in)consistent with internal feelings, contain slippages that are revealing, and reflect patterned ways of speaking adopted by the public. I believe that discourse and textual analysis will help deepen understandings of the public’s role in public art and the correlations between these relationships and the political and social environment through which they function.

51 3.4 Ethnographic Fieldwork

An integral part of my data collection was manually recording ethnographic observations while conducting fieldwork at Millennium Park. Fieldwork includes “all of those activities which one engages in while in the field including watching, listening, conversing, recording, interpreting…and so on” (Schwandt, 2007, p. 118). Fieldwork is a form of phenomenological inquiry in which the researcher makes important observations about the ways in which subjects interact with one another and make sense of their environments. Throughout this research process, I maintained a working journal in which observations were recorded while at Millennium Park and during the conduction of surveys. Overall, the collection of data from my research is a constructed knowledge, built from the writings of historians, philosophers, Chicago citizens, and my own reflections.

52

CHAPTER 4

MILLENNIUM PARK

In this chapter, I describe Millennium Park, recount its rich history, and examine some of its outstanding features. Much of the literature from Chapter Two will be reexamined here, in the context of Millennium Park, providing background information necessary to thoroughly understand the relationship between Millennium Park and

Chicagoans. In referencing academic literature, interviews, and media coverage about

Millennium Park, I establish the social, political, and historical contexts that may possibly have shaped data presented in Chapter Five, and that in part, inform my analysis of this data in Chapter Six.

4.1 A Brief History of Public Art in Chicago

A good starting point for the history of public art in Chicago is 1871, when the

City’s landscape was wiped clean by the Great Chicago Fire. Before the fires, Chicago was considered by many critics to be an aesthetically desperate and culturally famished city (Gilfoyle, 2006). Built up quickly, the City was built functionally and was quite devoid of architectural or artistic refinement. Following the fires, Chicagoans did not want to simply rebuild the city as it was; they were instead determined to redefine

53 themselves as an industrially strong, culturally rich, urban center. Chicago administrators yearned to strengthen the residential core and increase the City’s national and international reputation through various beautification efforts. One of the greatest examples of these efforts was the World’s Columbian Exposition, hosted by Chicago in

1893. This event, which ran for six months, drew over 27 million visitors from the most remote areas of the globe (Rose, 1996). It was “a reflection and celebration of American culture and society--for fun, edification, and profit--and a blueprint for life in modern and postmodern America” (Rose, 1996, Welcome). The Columbian Exposition symbolizes

Chicago’s birth as an international center for culture and the arts.

The artistic reputation of Chicago was defined early on by private philanthropists of the City. In 1881, Chicagoan Eli Bates left $35,000 to the City for the creation of the

Bates Fountain and the Standing Lincoln in Chicago’s Lincoln Park (Garvey, 1988).

When these works were realized in the late 19 th century, they were highly praised by the

Chicago public. Following Bates lead, Benjamin Franklin Ferguson, upon his death in

1905, dedicated a $1 million dollar trust fund for Chicago to use exclusively for public

sculptures (Garvey, 1988). Inspired by European traditions, the Ferguson Fund instigated

a movement in Chicago which popularized public art as a tool for the City Beautification

Movement. The first sculpture commissioned from these funds, Lorado Taft’s Spirit of

the Great Lakes , was placed on the south side of the Chicago Institute, and like the public sculptures before it, instantly became revered as an icon for the City. Garvey writes that

“Like no other public sculpture in the city - and few others elsewhere in the country - this fountain captured the attention and imagination of a public for whom it represented the qualities and ideals believed important in such works” (Garvey, 1988, p. 3).

54 In 1899, Charles L. Hutchinson, a wealthy banker of Chicago and the President of the Art Institute formed the Municipal Art League of Chicago, an organization which was intended to help support artistic endeavors and the continuing improvement and beautification of all parts of the city (Garvey, 1988). Public art continued to grow in popularity due to the efforts of philanthropists like Hutchinson and artists like Lorado

Taft, whose efforts and teachings nurtured the Chicago public’s relationship with public art. In 1909, when the famous Plan of Chicago was introduced by Daniel Burnham, its

promotion of public art strengthened this endearment for public art that had already

begun to flourish throughout the City. His plan, based on the design and accoutrements of

the European city, advocated for widened boulevards adorned with lush greenery and

refined sculptures. The plan paralleled the intentions of the Ferguson Fund, was

advocated intensely by Hutchinson, and became the ideal manifestation of the City’s

civic goals. Throughout the years, this plan has been tweaked and transformed, but its

essence has remained in tact. Inherently, when plans for Millennium Park were made, the

Plan of Chicago significantly influenced the Park’s design.

In 1967, Mayor Richard J. Daley introduced “The Picasso” to the Chicago public.

The 50-foot tall steel sculpture, located in what is now known as the Daley Civic Center

Plaza, was donated to the City by Pablo Picasso, and was the first work of public sculpture in Chicago that was not commemorative in nature

(http://egov.cityofchicago.org/publicart ). Though initially despised by many, The Picasso

became an icon for the City and inspired Chicagoans to fill their streets with works of

expressive public art. In 1978, Chicago became one of the first cities to establish a

Percent-for-Art program, a program which dedicated a certain percentage of money from

55 public construction for public art endeavors. By the 1990s, Chicago had commissioned over 100 public artworks through this and other similar programs (Gilfoyle, 2006).

Today, Chicago’s Percent-for-Art program and the Chicago Public Art Program within the City’s Department of Cultural Affairs are both effective in continuing Chicago’s strong public art traditions. Figure 4.1 below, displays some of the significant milestones for public art in Chicago.

1974 – Public art 1893 – by Calder 1993 – World’s erected Public art Columbian by Exposition Public art Richard 2004 – Hunt is by Chagall Millennium 18 80 s – erected Park is Chicago’s erected complete first 1967 – The 1989 – skyscrapers infamous Richard are built Picasso Daley is 1997 – Navy sculpture is elected as Pier opens to unveiled new mayor public

1900 1925 1950 1975

1871 – 1991 – Chicago 1933 - 1978 – Daley is Fires Century of Chicago’s reelected Progress percent-for-art 1913 – International program is 1995 – Creation of Exposition established Daley is Furguson reelected Fund for 1981 – Public public art art by Miro 1998 – in Chicago erected Millennium Park Inc. is Public art by created Ellsworth Kelly erected

Figure 4.1 Historical events of Chicago leading to Millennium Park Information derived from a variety of bibliographical sources

56

4.2 A Tour of Millennium Park

One of the most extensive examples of public art in Chicago is Millennium Park.

Millennium Park is a 24.5-acre park occupying the northwest corner of Grant Park, a

319-acre open space between Michigan Avenue and Lake Shore Drive in the heart of downtown Chicago (Figure 4.2). Millennium Park is “a hybrid of the beaux-arts and the modern, with the major pieces plugged into its roomlike outdoor spaces” (Kamin,

08/29/04, p. 1). The Park’s unique combination of structures, interrupt distinctions between public art, architecture, and landscape design; functional buildings look like massive sculptures, large sculptures serve as interactive spaces for play, and the Park’s green space is treated more like an artist’s canvas than landscape. All of these accoutrements, created by world-renowned artists and architects, sit at various levels of elevation as the Park swells upward from Michigan Avenue towards Lake Michigan.

Approaching the Park from the northwest, one is first struck by an odd and surreal sight,

Frank Gehry’s design of the Jay Pritzker Pavilion peaking out above the young trees below. As one gets closer, the silvery structure becomes more visible, but the path to its base is interrupted by Wrigley Square and the Millennium Monument . Wrigley Square sits

about six feet above the street on the second level of Millennium Park. In contrast to the

stainless steel of the Pritzker Pavilion, the Millennium Monument is a classical, stone

peristyle with eleven sets of Doric columns that stand on a high base in a semi-circle

around a simple fountain (Figures 4.3 & 4.4). The peristyle was built as a replica of a

similar structure demolished in 1953 to construct the Grant Park Garages built below the

Park’s surface. The names of “The Millennium Founders” are inscribed on the peristyle,

57 commemorating those whose financial donations made the Park possible. Wrigley

Square , a grassy lawn flanked by wide pathways and adorned with benches, crawls southward away from the peristyle.

Figure 4.2 Map of Millennium Park Retrieved from http://www.millenniumpark.org/images/MPMAP.jpg

58

Figure 4.4 Millennium Monument Corrinn Conard

Figure 4.3

Millennium Monument

Corrinn Conard

At the south end of Wrigley Square is the SBC Plaza which houses artist Anish

Kapoor’s Cloud Gate . Cloud Gate , popularly called “the bean” by most residents given

its kidney bean shape, weighs 110-tons, stands 33-feet high and is 66-feet long (Figure

4.5). The sculpture is made of stainless steel, polished to a mirror finish. Its smooth,

gleaming surface distortedly reflects the cityscape to the west, SBC Plaza to the east and

every person and object moving close to it. The arch of “the bean” is 12-feet high and is

open for visitors to explore. At the apex of the arch is a small mirrored disc in which all

activity under the arch can be observed; a bird’s eye view. At any place on “the bean”,

visitors can watch their reflections bend and contort with the sloping surface. From a

distance, one can watch the surface design of “the bean” constantly change as the world

around goes by.

59

Figure 4.5 Cloud Gate from the lawn of The Pritzker Pavilion (looking west) Corrinn Conard

South of Cloud Gate is another grand spectacle of the Park, Crown Fountain by artist Jaume Plensa (Figure 4.6). Crown Fountain consists of a simple reflecting pool;

232-feet long, 48-feet wide, and about 2.5-feet deep. The pool is made of African black granite and sits flush with the surrounding ground, permitting spectators to walk into the water without barrier. The black granite of the fountain’s ground creates the illusion of depth and makes it appear as though people are walking on the surface of the water as they wade. On both the north and south sides of the pool, a 50-foot high tower soars.

These impressive towers are constructed entirely of glass blocks and are in actuality immense video screens upon which the faces of Chicagoans are displayed. These faces are presented as extreme close-ups in which only the mouths, the noses, and the eyes can be seen. Due to these perspectives and the size of the towers, every crease, wrinkle, whisker, and dimple shows. The faces watch each other contently across the pool; blinking, smiling, and occasionally squinting. At regular intervals, the faces simultaneously purse their gigantic lips and water sprays out into the pool, seemingly

60 making reference to classical gargoyles of past architectural ornament. After a few moments, the spouting water ceases, the faces fade, nature scenes appear, and water rushes down all sides of the towers, like urban versions of Niagara Falls. These waterfalls subside after a few minutes and two new faces reappear on the screens to repeat the cycle. As with Cloud Gate , Crown Fountain invites visitors to become a part of the art.

Children and adults walk through the pool, stand in the streams of the “gargoyles,” and

lean on the glass towers as water rushes over their heads.

Figure 4.6 Crown Fountain (looking north) Corrinn Conard

East of Crown Fountain , sits The Lurie Garden, designed by Kathryn Gustafson,

Piet Oudolf, and Robert Israel (Figure 4.7). The 2.5-acre garden is enclosed by 15-feet high hedge walls which are still young and sparse. In contrast to the dramatic and glitzy

Crown Fountain and Cloud Gate , The Lurie Garden is quiet, peaceful, and subdued –

61 qualities that allow an escape from the surrounding excitement. The design starkly contrasts with the typical European garden, in which plots of foliage are distinctly separated, heavily manicured, covered with bright flowers, symmetrical in layout, and refined in style. The Lurie Garden is instead thick with wildflowers and thistles. The

colors are deep, natural , and subdued. Through the middle of the garden, runs a small

stream, called “the seam.” This stream is meant to represent the original shoreline of

Lake Michigan which at one time existed where The Lurie Garden now sits. On one side

of the stream grows darker foliage, while lighter colored plants thrive on the other side.

Throughout the garden, simple and heavy wooden platforms serve as benches. Overall,

the garden feels hidden and secretive; an unknown treasure found within an enormous

city.

Figure 4.7 The Lurie Garden (looking southwest) Corrinn Conard

Just north of The Lurie Garden is The Jay Pritzker Pavilion , designed by architect

Frank Gehry. This structure is considered by many to be the highlight of the Park

(Figures 4.8 & 4.9). The Pavilion’s stainless steel headdress billows upward a total of 120

62 feet, higher than any other structure ever permitted in Grant Park. The headdress is composed of thin, curving sheets that appear light and wispy, and curl outward to reveal the performance stage within. In front of the stage are 4,000 chairs, behind which is an open lawn that can accommodate an additional 7,000 people. Soaring above the seats and the lawn are regularly spaced, crisscrossing steel ribs which slope gently down to encase the seating area and close off the structure. From these ribs are suspended unobtrusive speakers providing optimal acoustics, and between the ribs, audiences can peer up at the sky from the grass and chairs below.

Figure 4.8 The Jay Pritzker Pavilion Corrinn Conard

63

Figure 4.9 The Jay Pritzker Pavilion Corrinn Conard East of The Jay Pritzker Pavilion is the BP Bridge which crosses over Columbus

Drive and connects Millennium Park to Daley Bicentennial Plaza. The bridge, also a

work by Frank Gehry, is the only bridge designed by the artist that has been completed

(Gilfoyle, 2006). It resembles Gehry’s pavilion in both material and form (Figures 4.10 &

4.11), with its 925-foot long body curving like a snake from one end to the other. The

sides of the bridge are covered with stainless steel plates that slope gradually to the

ground, and its deck is topped with Brazilian hardwood, resistant to weathering. From the

bridge, one can observe Millennium Park and the City’s skyline to the west and catch a

glimpse at Lake Michigan to the east.

64

Figure 4.10 BP Bridge (looking east) Corrinn Conard

Figure 4.11

BP Bridge (looking west) Corrinn Conard

In contrast to the BP Bridge and The Jay Pritzker Pavilion is the Joan W. and

Irving B. Harris Theater for Music and Dance which sits to the north and was designed

by Chicago architect Thomas Beeby. This structure stands at a modest height and is

reserved in its minimalist design (Figure 4.12). The building, in the shape of a thin

rectangle, is made of unadorned, white concrete. Only its north face, composed of

65 rectangular glass panels, breaks up the austerity of the structure’s façade. The 1,525-seat theatre is actually located underground and is shared by a number of mid-sized theater companies in Chicago. The structure is superbly austere, elegant, and attractive.

Figure 4.12 The Glass front of The Harris Theatre Corrinn Conard

The Harris Theatre is flanked by the Randolph Street Exelon Pavilions , also designed by Beeby - small, minimalist cubes which house the Millennium Park Welcome

Center and a parking garage entrance (Figure 4.13). These structures are adorned with solar panels which are used to create energy utilized by the City (Gilfoyle, 2006). Two other solar energy producing pavilions are located on the south end of Millennium Park.

These were designed by architect Renzo Piano and provide access to the parking garages below the Park.

To the east of Beeby’s pavilions, sits the McDonald’s Cycle Center which

provides Chicagoans with 300 rental spaces for bikes, locker rooms, bike repair support,

and other amenities (Figure 4.14). Aesthetically, The Cycle Center is similar to The

66 Harris Theatre in its austerity and refinement. The Cycle Center, like the Park’s solar

converting pavilions, reflect the City’s concern for environmental and health issues.

Figure 4.14

McDonald Cycle Center

Corrinn Conard

Figure 4.13

Exelon Pavilion

Corrinn Conard

In addition to its permanent structures, Millennium Park also features temporary works of public art in its outdoor Boeing Gallery. This gallery consists of wide, concrete

walkways running from the north end to the south end of the Park. In 2004, when the

gallery was first opened, the City hosted an exhibit of photographs by artist Terry Evans

which attracted 1.5 million visitors (Gilfoyle, 2006). Currently, four large sculptures by

artist Mark di Suvero are being exhibited in the galleries (Figure 4.15).

67

Figure 4.15 Mark di Suvero in Boeing Gallery looking north Corrinn Conard

4.3 Roots of the Park

Though Millennium Park was first announced by Mayor Daley in 1998, the Park is actually a result of decades of planning. In 1844, when the land upon which Grant Park sits was given to the City, it became “Lake Park,” and was a popular leisure space for

Chicagoans (Gilfoyle, 2006). The public park, cherished by Chicagoans, safely guarded the lakefront from commercial development, and was an attraction for Chicago residents.

However, the rough waters of Lake Michigan became a threat to the wealthy new homeowners along Michigan Avenue, and a solution was desired by these homeowners.

In 1852, the Illinois Central Railroad proposed such a solution in exchange for a portion of the land, and the City accepted the offer, allowing the Railroad to build a lagoon between the original lake shore and a new strip of land upon which they built a series of 68 railroad tracks. Following this exchange however, the value of Lake Park began to quickly decline as the railroad aggressively built upon its strip of land adjacent to the

Park.

In 1871, following The Great Chicago Fire, the lagoon was used as a landfill by the City, a practice that continued for the next 20 years. As new land formed in place of the lagoon, the quality of the Park continued to decline, as did the number of wealthy residents who once flocked to live on Michigan Avenue. In 1892, this new landfill was designated by the City as a space “in trust for public use” (Gilfoyle, 2006, p. 16). With this assertion, the City hoped to revitalize the land into a park for the people of Chicago.

In 1894, a design was finally proposed for the “greatest park in America” along the eastern edge of Michigan Avenue where Lake Park once flourished (Gilfoyle, 2006, p. 21). Planners and architects like Peter Wight believed that this new space should be

“another sort of park” where “art should predominate over nature (Gilfoyle, 2006, p. 22).

The pinnacle of these ideas was the famous Plan of Chicago created by Burnham and

Bennett in 1901 which included plans for a new park along Lake Michigan. The French-

trained architects envisioned a park filled with European-style boulevards, fine art, lush

foliage, and places for resting. It was at this time that the park became Grant Park, named

after Ulysses S. Grant. In the Park, the legendary Buckingham Fountain was built, an

attraction still popular today (Gilfoyle, 2006). Though the northern part of Grant Park

(upon which Millennium Park sits) would remain occupied by the Illinois Central

Railroad until 1997, The Plan of Chicago had already introduced that possibility, calling for beautifying this space with more public parklands.

69 Burnham and Bennett’s initial plans for Grant Park were repeatedly transformed and only completed in 2004 when Millennium Park with the opening of Millennium Park.

Throughout the years, the Park’s original plans morphed in response to changes in the surrounding environment (Gilfoyle, 2006). For example, in 1939, Lake Shore Drive was built on the east side of Grant Park to accommodate the growing number of vehicles being used by City citizens. This popular roadway transformed the landscape of the Park as well as the lake’s shoreline. Later, in 1952, parking garages were built beneath Grant

Park to accommodate the growing number of vehicles (Gilfoyle, 2006). As technology evolved and the need for freight trains decreased, The Illinois Central Yard bordering

Grant Park turned into an unsightly storage space for deteriorating train cars and a large parking lot for downtown workers.

After the completion of Daley Bicentennial Plaza in 1977, a park that sits just east

of Millennium Park, discussions about transforming the train yard into parkland once

again surfaced. These discussions culminated in a new plan for a “Lakefront Gardens for

the Performing Arts” by Robert Hutchinson. The “Lakefront Gardens for the Performing

Arts” was designed to be a 20-acre park built over the railroad yard. The park would

house a theatre, a skating rink, a restaurant, and a band shell (Gilfoyle, 2006). Lakefront

Gardens, Inc. was formed to oversee this project, and some private funds were raised,

including a $12 million donation from the Pritzker family (who later donated to

Millennium Park). However, costs for Lakefront Gardens continued to rise, and slowly

the project’s momentum declined until Lakefront Gardens, Inc. was finally disbanded in

1994.

70 4.4 A Chicago Tradition of Private Support

The influence of the private sector in Millennium Park is part of a long Chicago tradition. As early as the 19 th century, large donations from Chicagoans like Eli Bates and

Benjamin Franklin Ferguson were made for the specific purpose of creating public

sculpture throughout the City. In 1893, when the City hosted the World’s Columbian

Exposition, it was made possible by the contributions of private philanthropists like the

president of the American Loan & Trust Company, the president of the Hale Elevator

Company, the president of the Chicago Times, and the president of the Illinois Steel

Company (Rose, 1996). In fact, almost two-thirds of private donations made to the city of

Chicago during the early 20 th century were for cultural activities (Garvey, 1988).

During the mid-20 th century, Chicagoans began to feel as though the “Chicago

Park District was administered more like a political patronage army than as a public

service….and charged that park district officials were simply unresponsive to a wide

array of public needs and complaints” (Gilfoyle, 2006, p. 63). In response to these

sentiments and in conjunction with the newly established National Endowment for the

Arts, new publicly funded art programs developed that presented challenging works

about social and political issues pertinent to the public at large. However, the 1980’s

brought the conservative tax policies of President Reagan which dramatically cut funding

for the arts. In response, Mayor Daley increased efforts to privatize much of Chicago’s

public programs. His efforts were successful. By 1994, forty city services had been

privatized by Mayor Daley (Gilfoyle, 2006). The strong presence of the private sector in

Chicago’s art scene was, at this juncture, renewed.

71 Millennium Park serves as a new example of the strong private sector presence in

Chicago cultural undertakings. Overall, approximately 115 Chicagoans contributed almost $200 million private dollars to the creation of the Park (Gilfoyle, 2006). This was

$170 million more than Daley had originally requested from the private sector and $50 million more than Daley’s total Park budget of $150 million. In part, the private sector’s participation was necessary and desired, as architect, Thomas Beeby explains,

…you might be able to generate enough public funds, but it’s not clear the public would want to spend their money like this. I think the public now would ask to have some say as to how funds are distributed. So it’s not clear that that’s necessarily good for architecture…by having the private funds come in on the top of it, that allows you to push it up to the standard of what Chicago had historically always expected of buildings (Beeby interview with Gilfoyle, 06/12/03, p. 27)

As Beeby’s testimony suggests, it is probable that the Daley administration and

Millennium Park Inc. encouraged the private sector’s involvement in Millennium Park for economical, political, and aesthetic reasons.

4.5 Why a Millennium Park?

There appear to be several reasons for building a Millennium Park. First, the Park was intended to attract more Chicagoans and tourists to the area and increase the surrounding property value. As the Tribune reported in 2002, “The only things visible now are a few trees, an ice-skating rink and construction equipment, but Millennium Park is already luring buyers to the Loop condominium market” (Martin, 07/17/02, p. 13). In

2005, Chicago’s Department of Planning and Development hired the Goodman Williams

Group and URS Corporation to study the potential economic impact of Millennium Park on Chicago’s real estate, tourism industries, and other related sectors of the City in the coming decade. Based on changes already occurring because of Millennium Park, the

72 study showed that the Park will have a great economic impact on the City as a whole. The

Park is predicted to generate $1.4 billion in the private real estate sector and to increase the value of retail businesses surrounding the Park in the next eight years (Goodwin et. al., 2005). The report also predicts that Millennium Park will have immense positive impacts on the amount of visitors flooding into Chicago and the amount of money redistributed to the citizens of Chicago through tourism.

In conjunction with the economic impacts of Millennium Park, the Park was also meant to compete with other large cities throughout the world vying for international attention at the millennium. Many prosperous cities flexed their muscles by developing similarly expensive and elaborate architectural projects at the beginning of the 21 st

century. It was common for these projects to be big and to bear the names of famous

architects. Some examples include London’s Millennium Dome, which cost over $1

billion, the London Eye Ferris wheel (or the “Millennium Wheel”) costing $40 million,

the Millennium Bridge in London costing $28 million, the Jubilee Millennium Church in

Rome, and the Wales Millennium Centre opera house which totaled $189 million

(Kamin, 07/15/04). Millennium Park was Chicago’s way of participating in this global

trend. Chicago administrators touted, “Remember 25 million people came to the World’s

Fair. We’ll get 25 million to come to Chicago to see this in a whole different era, in a

whole different way” (Bryan in an interview with Gilfoyle, 2001, p. 21). The Park was

intended to redefine the City and tout its accomplishments to the rest of the world. While

doing so, administrators also believed that the Park would become a source of pride for

Chicagoans. Millennium Park fundraiser, John Bryan explains, “I don’t think of anything

73 that sort of lifts that spirit of a city more than to be proud of how it looks…And the

Mayor has made a focus out of that” (Bryan in an interview with Gilfoyle, 2001, p. 22).

Daley also spoke of environmental reasons for building Millennium Park.

Environmentalism has been an important issue to Chicagoans since the City’s inception in 1831, when “Urbs in horto,” meaning “City in a Garden” became the City motto.

Daley has continued this Chicago tradition. Known as “the green mayor” by his supporters (Gilfoyle, 2006), he has planted numerous trees throughout the City, added planters to a number of streets, revitalized over 55 parks, assisted in establishing the

Chicago Center for Green Technology, and created a roof garden on top of City Hall

(Gilfoyle, 2006). Millennium Park was intended to be another one of Daley’s green projects aimed at balancing the urbanization of Chicago. In addition to green space, there are four pavilions in the Park that convert solar power into energy used for the parking garages below. The Park also houses a bike station, built to accommodate Chicagoans who avoid using other, more environmentally harmful forms of transportation.

Though not a stated intention of Daley’s, building Millennium Park could also have been considered a means for strengthening the Mayor’s image of political prowess and accomplishment. George Ranney, an activist for the Park since the mid-20 th century

explained that “Plans are only as good as their implementation. We were never able to get

[the Park] to the point where there was a mayor powerful enough to support it” (Storch,

07/15/2004, p. 6). Now, after all those decades of planning the northwest corner of Grant

Park, Mayor Daley would be the one to finally realize these goals and his name will

forever be associated with its success. The perceived importance of this accomplishment

74 is evident in a statement made by Daley upon the opening of Millennium Park, “Now, this is the rebirth of the city, just this alone” (Daley in Ford, 07/11/2004, p. 1).

Many of the intentions behind Daley’s construction of Millennium Park have seemed to be realized. In total, nine residential developments with over 2,000 apartments and condos were created around the Millennium Park site (Kogan, 05/26/02, p. 11). In addition, tourists from around the world can be found at Millennium Park on a daily basis. These tourists shop in Chicago stores, eat at Chicago restaurants, use Chicago transportation, and stay in Chicago hotels. One Tribune article has Gail Lissner from

Appraisal Research Counselors explaining that "Millennium Park has become a status symbol, a focal point, a magnet for the surrounding neighborhood, making properties around the park extremely desirable" (Handley, 11/04/05, from http://chicago1000.blogspot.com/2007/04/millennium-park-effect-contd.html ).

Some complain that the attraction to Millennium Park’s mirrors that of a “theme

park” and they find that it is “not primarily a place for art and culture, but rather a space

organized around spectatorship, supervision, and spectacle” (Gilfoyle, 2006, p. 345). In

reaction, Daley has stated, “I want to emphasize that we are doing all these things for the

people of Chicago, and not just to attract tourists or conventioneers or suburbanites or

new businesses” (Office of the Mayor 2002, from Satler, p. 156). Millennium Park

administrator Ed Uhlir supported the Mayor’s comments by adding, “The park is meant

to draw tourists, but is also very much the people’s park” (Uhlir, 2002, from Satler, p.

157). Whether desired or not, the tourist activity of Millennium Park has proven to be

financially healthy for the City. One downtown business owner told the Tribune that

since Millennium Park, "There's been a big increase in the amount of foot traffic. Sales

75 are up 50% from where they were last year" (Ryan Bockenfield, in Chandler, 10/17/2004, p. 1).

4.6 The Creation of Millennium Park

It was not until 1997 that conversation about “Lakefront Gardens for the

Performing Arts” reemerged. As the story goes, the Mayor was looking out of his dentist’s office window on Michigan Avenue, scanning the lakeshore below, when his eyes became distracted by the abandoned railroad yards scarring the lake’s coast on the north end of Grant Park. It was then that Daley decided to finally transform this neglected and downtrodden part of downtown into a space of beauty and enjoyment. As a first step, the City filed a lawsuit against the Illinois Central Railroad seeking to gain possession of the land between McCormick Place and Randolph Street just east of Michigan Avenue.

The City won this lawsuit in December 1997, and plans to cover the railroad tracks with a new park for the City began (Gilfoyle, 2006). On March 30, 1998, Daley announced new plans for a park that would celebrate the approaching millennium. He told Chicagoans that “The Lakefront Millennium Project will be free – a place for families and another destination for visitors that will generate convention and tourism jobs for people who live in Chicago’s neighborhoods – all at no cost to taxpayers” (Daley, 1998 as cited from

Gilfoyle, 2006, p. 90). In attempting to make the impending deadline, the Park was deemed a “fast-track project,” and construction began in September of that same year, long before all plans or funds were solidified.

Daley formed Millennium Park Inc. and named Ed Uhlir and John Bryan the

Park’s primary administrators. John Bryan, the former CEO of the Sara Lee Corporation,

76 was asked by Daley to raise $30 million in private funds necessary for the “free” park.

Bryan was referred to as “A one-man fundraising machine” and a “donor clearinghouse for Chicago arts and culture;” he readily accepted Daley’s challenge (Jones, 07/15/04, p.

12). Bryan’s ability to raise money in this particular situation was supplemented by his dedication and admiration for the arts. He told a Tribune reporter, “…I think I was born with a natural attraction to the arts. I've always made aesthetic judgments. And I've developed a fascination with art, architecture and design" (Jones, 07/15/04, p. 12). Bryan formed the Millennium Park Board of Directors to help with the fundraising efforts. The board included Marshall Field V, Edgar Jannotta of William Blair & Company, James

O’Connor of Commonwealth Edison, Richard Thomas of the First National Bank of

Chicago, and Deborah Dehaas of Arthur Andersen, and Donna LaPietra of Kurtis

Productions (Gilfoyle, 2006). He also organized several committees including one responsible for the artwork, one for the garden, and one for the architecture of the pavilion. Most of these individuals were acquaintances or former business partners of

Bryan.

4.6.1 Fundraising for the Park

Bryan leveraged his personal connections in seeking supporters. In fact, out of the

115 total donors of Millennium Park, Bryan personally knew more than half of them

(Gilfoyle, 2006). Bryan relied on people’s generosity, sense of civic pride, and egos to

obtain necessary funds. He would tell potential donors, “You are going to be responsible

for creating the most beautiful space, ornament or building that is going to define

Chicago for the next century. It will have your name on it, and it will be a gift to the

77 people of Chicago for the next century” (Gilfoyle, 2006, p. 104). In exchange for their donations, John Bryan and the City of Chicago relinquished much of their control over the Park’s design and enhancements. In fact, the intentions of high donors could even trump the Mayor, if a threat of retracted funds loomed overhead.

As a case in point, philanthropist Cindy Pritzker insisted that Frank Gehry be the sole creator of the Park’s band shell, despite Daley’s having already had an architect working on the project. Gehry, who was revered by the Pritzker family for years, had even won the Pritzker Prize for Architecture in 1989. Daley, however, was concerned with the intensity of Gehry’s design and feared that it would overwhelm the other elements in the Park (Bryan, from an interview with Gilfoyle, 2001). However, the financial power of the Pritzkers, along with maneuvering by Bryan, overpowered the

Mayor, and Gehry’s design was eventually accepted. Similarly, artist Jaume Plensa’s fountain was chosen by Susan Crown, whose family donated $10 million to commission the work. Artist Anish Kapoor was introduced by another Millennium Park board member. The Lurie Garden was, in fact, the only work that involved the formal

competition process that is customary in public art endeavors (Gilfoyle, 2006).

Gilfoyle reports that in all “Bryan successfully attracted more than two-thirds (15

of 21) of the Illinoisans identified from 1998 to 2003 on the Forbes Magazine list of the

400 richest Americans, the so-called Forbes 400” (Gilfoyle, 2006, p. 147). Bryan’s team

secured five million dollar donations from a number of Chicago philanthropists and

foundations, including The Robert R. McCormick Tribune Foundation, The Wrigley

Foundation, BP Oil Company, Bank One, and the Boeing Company. In addition, $3

million was donated by Ameritech, $10 million by the Crown family, $10 million by Ann

78 Lurie, $15 million by the Pritzker family, and $15 million by the Harris family. The

Harris family also loaned Park administrators an extra $24 million to help with the cause.

All of these donors were highly involved in decisions being made about the Park through suggestions, selections, or approvals of the artists and artworks. The proof of their power lies in the names on the Park’s public works; The Lurie Garden , Crown Fountain , BP

Bridge , etc. In addition, those who gave less than $5 million, but at least $1 million are commemorated in the peristyle of the Millennium Monument, occupying the northwest

corner of the Park. Some critics consider these name tags to be “tasteless examples of

corporate branding… (Not a) civic center divorced from private wealth (Gilfoyle, 2006,

p. 345). Bryan, however, argued that “These people and businesses are modern Medicis,

and even if their donations smack to some extent of self-promotion, they have

nonetheless devoted their wealth to a vastly improved public realm” (Kamin, 07/18/04, p.

1).

4.6.2 Dipping into Public Funds

While generous, the donations of the private sector philanthropists were not sufficient to cover the total costs of the Park. By 2004, the construction budget had quadrupled to $475 million, and Daley was forced to turn to Chicago’s public funds to cover the outstanding bill. Ultimately, the remaining money came from The Chicago Park

District, City bonds, parking garage fees, special events and gala earnings, and tax dollars from the Central Loop Property Tax Fund. The Tribune described Daley’s use of taxpayers’ money for Millennium Park as “raiding a public fund designated for other purposes” (The Emperor has no…, 08/08/01, p. 16). Concurrent with his use of these

79 funds, Daley eliminated over 2,000 City jobs between 2001 and 2002 due to a suffering

City budget. Many Chicagoans were upset that the Park appeared to take priority over several of the City’s more urgent needs, causes for which they believed their tax dollars were intended. In Figure 4.16 below, the various income sources of Millennium Park are charted.

Total Park Expenditures = $475 Million

Central Loop TIF, Garage revenue 2001- $66,380,000 2002, $5,770,000 (Public $) (Private $) Millennium Park Gala 2002, $2,000,000 (Private $)

Millennium Park Founders, $95,500,000 (Private $)

City bonds, $195,750,000 (Public $)

Large Private Donors, $78,000,000 The City of Chicago, (Private $) $6,600,000 (Public $)

Figure 4.16 Revenue Sources for Millennium Park Approximated Information derived from a variety of sources, chart created by Corrinn Conard

4.6.3 Public Involvement in the Park’s Creation

Chicago’s public has been an active part of the space now known as Millennium

Park since the early 19 th century. When the City’s first lots were being allocated,

Chicagoans persistently protected the land on which the Park sits today. With the help of 80 community activists like Aaron Montgomery Ward, the land was legally designated as a public space that was to remain “Forever Open, Clear, and Free of any Buildings” (from

Friends of the Park website, http://www.fotp.org ). Though some of the land was relinquished to the Illinois Central Railroad in 1869, their growth was continuously stifled by the public protectors of the park. Likewise, over the years, numerous construction proposals in the park, including one that would have placed the Field

Museum further north, were thwarted by Chicagoans in an effort to keep the park land a public, open space. In 1963, 1972, and 1977, proposals for new band shells were also proposed and thwarted by civic groups like “Friends of the Parks,” a nonprofit advocacy group who work “to preserve, protect, improve and promote the use of Chicago parks, forest preserves and recreational areas for the benefit of all neighborhoods and citizens”

(from Friends of the Park website, http://www.fotp.org ). Their advocacy efforts have

been at the forefront of Grant Park’s survival, and its growth. With their assistance, the

Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront Protection Ordinance were established, ensuring

that “the formal character and open water vista of Grant Park” is maintained. Through

this ordinance, along with the A. Montgomery Ward Court Decisions, the “Friends of the

Parks” and other Chicago civic groups have maintained a great presence in Grant Park

and Millennium Park.

This presence continued, in part, during the creation of Millennium Park, specifically with regards to The Harris Theatre for Dance and Music . Though the theatre is not really considered to be a work of public art, it still serves as an example of how the public can be involved in similar public art projects. The Harris Theatre was administered mostly by the Music and Dance Theatre of Chicago (MDTC) and architect

81 Thomas Beeby. In contrast to the other structures in Millennium Park, the theatre was not included in the original plan for the Park. In fact, the theatre’s design was done in the

1970s when MDTC was first formed, and the group was considering building a new facility. For almost 20 years, MDTC and architect Thomas Beeby had tried to find an appropriate location for their theatre, but nothing had sufficed until they were approached by Millennium Park Inc. and John Bryan (who had previously donated $1 million to the theatre through the Sara Lee Corporation). The organization was ecstatic about this opportunity, Beeby confirmed that the theatre would fit in the space, and steps towards the theatre’s construction began immediately (Gilfoyle, 2006).

The main roadblocks for the theater were the building regulations set forth by A.

Montgomery Ward so many years ago, and civic groups like “Friends of the Park,” who worked to protect these regulations. Beeby and his crew ended up changing their design several times to satisfy various civic groups. Respecting these public regulations, the majority of the theatre was built underground, thus avoiding obstruction of the Lake

Michigan view. In the following statement, Beeby explains the public process in which

MDTC participated:

We went through public meetings where we had to present…to the Friends of the Park, Friends of Downtown, and all – many, many friends. Chicago has many friends out there…It was all very okay. It was sort of, civic-minded people saying what they thought. I mean, I think it was all good public discourse, and that’s what cities are about, ….I mean, obviously the lakefront is a commonly held land in Chicago, and the public has a voice in it…And there are rules you have to play by…I didn’t think there was anything wrong with that. I mean, Chicago should protect its lakefront, right? (Beeby interview with Gilfoyle, 06/12/03).

Beyond the process of its creation, The Harris Theatre was designed for the public at large. Beeby explains, “…It was all about true democracy. About anybody can

82 go in here and listen. And the groups would be diverse, and the audience would be diverse” (Beeby interview with Gilfoyle, 06/12/07, p. 24). The architect explains how the design of the theatre reflects this democratic ideal, he says “there’s no gradations within the audience…that you can sense any kind of social stratification” (Beeby interview with

Gilfoyle, 06/12/07, p. 24). Beeby and the designers did not want the public to walk into the space and “get the sense of rich, white people” (Gilfoyle, 2006). Additionally,

Thomas Beeby remarked, “That’s the whole idea of philanthropic giving, right…providing a place for everyone to go? This (The Music and Dance Theatre) could never be sort of an institute kind of place where special people go and are given special privileges and all that. This is all about everybody” (Beeby interview with Gilfoyle,

06/02/03, p. 26).

4.6.4 Excluding the Public in the Park’s Creation

In contrast to the public’s involvement in design of The Harris Theatre, The Jay

Pritzker Pavilion designed by Frank Gehry was administered mostly by John Bryan and the Pritzker family. Instead of inviting open dialogue and public feedback with regard to

The Jay Pritzker Pavilion , Millennium Park Inc. circumvented City regulations and civic groups by insisting that the pavilion is a “sculpture,” not a “building.” Since the A.

Montgomery Ward Court Decisions and the Lakefront Protection Ordinance do not mention sculptures specifically, the height and design of The Pritzker Pavilion could not be prohibited by the public. As a result, to the dismay of civic groups who had protected the park’s land for so many years, the pavilion was built to a height exceeding A.

Montgomery Ward decrees, and it now hinders the view of Lake Michigan.

83 In several ways, the design of the pavilion itself, could also be considered somewhat of an undemocratic structure and one that excludes the public at large. One

Tribune article reported that the architects of the Pritzker Pavilion, “…have drawn a beautiful design that for upwards of $200 million takes care of almost everything…What it doesn’t serve is all the people who use Grant Park” (Dold, 02/05/1999, p. 23). This report refers to the pavilion’s maximum capacity of 11,000, a capacity that the Tribune reported would be good for small and “refined crowds,” but not for those shows that attract larger and more diverse audiences. In addition, there were complaints that attendees in the lawn could not see anything that was happening on stage and that only those in the seats could enjoy the shows. One Chicago citizen wrote to the Tribune,

“Without a sloping lawn for the concert area, most people will not have a view of the stage. Does the city seriously think that people will listen to a performance if they can't see what's happening on the stage?” (Cerceo, 08/09/2001, p. 20) Another citizen wrote,

“When I read that Frank Gehry thinks it's unimportant whether people can see the stage if they sit in the back of his band-shell area, it makes me want to cry” (Lersch, 07/12/2003, p. 23). The Tribune concluded that “a huge and expensive public improvement such as this shouldn’t leave behind thousands of people who enjoy the park” (Kamin,

01/22/1999, p. 8A).

Another example of the administration’s disregard for public participation in

Millennium Park can be found in the process used for naming the Park. At one point John

Bryan hired a consultant collect public opinion on possible park names. Citizens were presented with a list of choices including Lakeside Gardens, Garden of the Arts, and

Millennium Park. Their preferences were recorded, and a concluding report to Bryan

84 showed that “Garden of the Arts” was favored by the public. Bryan however, rejected these findings, saying “I don’t care what the research says. We’re going the other way”

(Bryan interview with Gilfoyle, 01/31/01, p. 6). Mayor Daley condoned Bryan’s decision and allowed the administrator’s personal opinion to overpower that of Chicago’s public.

Park manager Ed Uhlir claimed that he had developed other ways for involving the public, but his plan would have taken four years and there was just not time (Gilfoyle,

2006). As it was, Uhlir admitted that “the people who are engaged in commenting on these things (about Millennium Park) are not the general public” (Uhlir from Gilfoyle, p.

350). It would appear that by Uhlir’s own admission, more time was needed to involve the public in the creation of the Park, but as a fast-track project, this was not going to occur.

4.6.5 Bumps in the Road

Though deemed an international success at its completion, the creation of

Millennium Park was not without its difficulties, pitfalls, and controversy. There were cost overruns, extended delays, accusations of racism, disregard for mandatory procedures, conflict with public artists, and much more that threatened to permanently taint the public image of the Park and the Daley administration as a whole. A lawsuit kick-started the project in 1997 when the City sued The Illinois Central Railroad. This lawsuit would become only one of four associated with the creation of Millennium Park over the next six years. The largest, and most public of these lawsuits was filed by the construction company, Harston/Schwendener in 2000. The company demanded a total of

$47 million for unpaid work they claimed they did for Millennium Park. Prior to the

85 lawsuit, the company was fired by the City for allegedly causing costly delays.

Harston/Schwendener was replaced by McDonough Associates, an engineering company already working with the City on Millennium Park. The president of G.M. Harston

Construction declared, “We refuse to be scapegoats for the city’s self-inflicted problems throughout the course of the project” (Washburn & Martin, 08/08/2001, p. 1). He explained that from the beginning, the project was both poorly planned and poorly managed (Cohen & Ford, 07/18/2004).

Many of the Park’s problems did, indeed, seem to stem from poor management and shoddy planning. Much of this was caused by the Mayor’s designation of the Park as a “fast-track project,” meaning that construction began before the planning was complete.

Even Ed Bedore, an advisor to Mayor Daley, admitted that “there was a momentum to roll with this thing. Sure, to do this probably the proper way would have been to sit back, work it, design it the best we could” (Bedore in an interview with Gilfoyle, 2002, p. 9).

Instead, the City rushed the process in the hope of having the Park complete by the year

2000, a goal which would eventually cost the City time and money. An example lies in the garage underneath Millennium Park. Restructuring the garage was one of the first steps in the Park project, and it was complete before plans above ground were solidified.

As the enhancements of the Park grew larger and more elaborate, the garage had to be completely reconstructed to bear the weight from above (Martin & Cohen, 2001). These kinds of backtrackings caused the Park’s price tag to inflate and its completion to be significantly delayed.

Not wanting to admit weakness, the Daley administration often blamed the Park’s mishaps on its partners like Harston/Schwendener. At one point, Daley even blamed the

86 architect Frank Gehry. The Mayor told Chicagoans, “We are still waiting for Frank

Gehry’s design…We know the kind of design, but he has to get going and be committed on that…The longer he delays, his contract keeps going up, and that has been the problem” (Daley in Washburn & Martin, 08/08/2001, p. 1). Gehry was offended and fiercely denied this claim. He told reporters that his team submitted the designs almost a year prior to this statement. Though there was never an official apology by Daley, he did retract his comments soon after they were made.

Additionally, rushing the creation of Millennium Park caused the City to disregard important requirements, including the receipt of building permits prior to construction, a process that is “the responsibility of the property owner, who can be fined or forced to remove the work if it proceeds without a permit” (Martin & Washburn,

08/07/01, p. 1). One alderman protested, “The permitting process is designed to protect public welfare and public safety…every contractor in the city of Chicago has to go through the excruciatingly long and expensive process of permitting, it is more than a little unfair that the city doesn’t play by its own rules” (Martin & Washburn, 08/07/01, p.

1).

Artist Chapman Kelley was personally affected by the rushed construction of the

Park. When clearing space for the BP Bridge , 60% of Kelley’s 1.5 acre landscape work

titled “Chicago Wildflower Work I” located on the western edge of Daley Plaza, was

destroyed. The piece was created in 1984, drew national attention, and won the mayor’s

award for natural landscapes in 1988. Kelley claims to have spent thousands of dollars

and man hours to maintain the garden, his own gift for the citizens of Chicago (Dardick,

87 12/01/2004, p. 3). Despite his pleas prior to the work’s destruction, the City continued with the bridge, and Kelley’s work was destroyed. There was no time for negotiations.

The City was also accused of ignoring formal bidding processes which ensure informed, fair and economical decisions. The hiring of McDonough Associates to replace

Harston/Schwendener in 2000 was one example of where the bidding process was ignored. The hiring of McDonough was also considered to be a conflict of interest because of the company’s involvement in other parts of the Park. In one article, the

Tribune announced that most of the companies chosen for Millennium Park are the same

“Daley-connected contractors who in the past got special sweetheart deals worth millions” (The Emperor has no Park, 08/08/2001, p. 16).

Many of the accusations made about the Park were forcefully denied by

Millennium Park administrators. The Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs defended

the cost of the Park, claiming that it was in fact “completed on budget” and “did not

detract from [the] city’s commitment to invest in neighborhood parks across Chicago.

And, despite its unique construction challenges and unanticipated problems once the full

scope of the park was finalized, it was completed within a couple of months of its target

completion date” (Singing the praises…, 07/12/04, p. 18). Often, when the topic of

money or delays arose, Millennium Park administrators would instead attempt to change

the focus to the excitement of the artwork and the generosity of the private sector instead.

At one point, Bryan argued that the media misrepresented the cost details. He explained

that “…the resources became available practically all from the private sector to let us do

something that is of such an extraordinary quality and high level of design and taste and

so forth that we are able to do it” (Bryan interview with Gilfoyle, 2001, p. 4).

88 Accusations made about the Park, though denied or avoided, remained hot topics in the

Chicago media and have become permanent influences on the public’s image of

Millennium Park.

4.6.6 The Role of the Media in Millennium Park

The controversies of the Park were popular with Chicago’s media, particularly the

Chicago Tribune, the City’s most popular paper. The media both exposed the controversies of Millennium Park and heightened them; playing a vital role in building the relationship between the public and Millennium Park. Gilfoyle writes that “charges of nepotism and municipal malfeasance (by the media) more than dogged the Daley administration over the next three years; they shaped much of the public’s perception of the (Millennium Park) project prior to completion in 2004” (Gilfoyle, 2006, p. 159).

From about 2001 until the completion of Millennium Park, articles in the Tribune about the Park adopted an overall attitude of bitter doubtfulness and cynicism. Articles about the Park flooded the papers and were titled, “Identity Crisis,” “Future Problems,”

“Wasted Money,” “The Emperor Has No Park,” and “Millennium Park Flounders.” It was described by one reporter as “a financial sinkhole, a boondoggle for mayoral cronies and a mess of design corner-cutting and legal side-stepping” (The Emperor has no…,

08/08/2001, p. 16). Another article talked about “Daley’s imperial reign” over the city of

Chicago and all “his loyal subjects.” The Tribune called Millennium Park a “fiasco” and a “debacle” (The Emperor has no…, 08/08/2001, p. 16). One article suggested a list of derogatory alternative names for the project including “Pork Place”, “In-the-Red Square”,

“Daley Pla$a”, “Scapegoat Acres”, “Patronage Park”, “Need More Grants Park”, and

89 “Esplanade of Expenditures” (Identity Crisis…, 08/10/2001, p. 1). In defense of the City,

Ed Bedore argued that the Chicago Tribune is “really trying to get at the Mayor” (Bedore interview with Gilfoyle, 02/11/2002, p. 16). He believes that articles about the Park were biased and that “The agenda (of Tribune reporters) is to make those projects look bad”

(Bedore, interview with Gilfoyle, 02/11/2002, p. 14).

One of the most influential reports was an investigation of Millennium Park written by the Chicago Tribune and printed on August 5, 2001. The first sentence of the report announced that “the project has turned into an expensive public-works debacle that can be traced to haphazard planning, design snafus and cronyism” (Martin & Cohen,

08/05/2001, p. 1). The report highlighted all of Millennium Park’s weaknesses including its ever-increasing budget, completion delays, use of the TIF funds, lack of compliance with the building permit process, unethical hiring of McDonough engineering, and the

“fast-track” induced costs and delays of the project.

In 2004, after most of Park was complete and after a grand opening of the Park with live music, performances, fireworks and the like, the attitude of the media seemed to change from critical to admirable. One Tribune reporter wrote, “The Park is found ground – a no place that is suddenly a someplace…from gritty city that works to glamorous city that plays” (Kamin, 07/18/2004, p. 1). Another report, in contrast to earlier berating articles, defended the delays of the Park. The reporter wrote, “This is a work of art, not a work of commerce. And it’s supposed to last 1,000 years. What’s another three months or so of waiting when measured against 1,000 years” (The Beauty of…, 05/29/2005, p. 10)? Public perception reported in the media, not surprisingly, also changed to a more positive position. Most of the media coverage today with regard to

90 Millennium Park is focused on the plethora of events held in the Park including tours, concerts, yoga classes, festivals, and more.

4.7 Chapter Conclusion

The creation of Millennium Park involved countless people, continual negotiation, and many contradictory actions, decisions, trials, and rewards. This chapter has just skimmed the surface of the Park’s complexity, offering a glimpse of the workings of Millennium Park administrators and the people involved with the grand public art project’s production. What seems to become lost, in the glamorous and dramatic story of Millennium Park’s creation, however, is the public’s role and voice. In what ways was the public involved in conversations about Millennium Park? What roles did they play? How do they perceive these roles? In the next chapter, these voices, as found through the media, surveys, and my own observations and interactions, will be explored.

91

CHAPTER 5

FINDING THE PUBLIC IN PUBLIC ART

In this chapter, I will present my findings on the public’s perception of

Millennium Park, and describe who was surveyed, their responses to close-ended questions, and their qualitative responses to questions concerning their relationship with

Chicago public art in general. The following sections will explore (5.1) the demographics of survey respondents; (5.2) their opinions of the art in Millennium Park; (5.3) how the park is used by Chicagoans and tourists; (5.4) how the public participated in the Park’s creation; and (5.5) how the public perceives their involvement in all Chicago public art endeavors.

Through surveying 165 Millennium Park visitors and taking note of their oral testimonies, I have attempted to provide a glimpse of public perceptions and values concerning Millennium Park and public art in general. All surveys were conducted on- site at Millennium Park, over the course of several weeks in September and October of

2007. I collected survey responses at the Park during various times and days of the week

(Monday through Sunday). The opinions of survey respondents were also gathered through conversations exchanged with survey participants. The fixed response section of the survey was intentionally designed to be simple and brief (about 2 minutes in length),

92 data that were complimented in recording respondents’ qualitative narratives which, on average, lasted between five to ten minutes. I found many participants eager to talk about the Park, express their concerns, and voice their praises. A copy of the survey instrument that I used for my research can be found in Appendix C.

The shortest survey conducted took about one minute; the longest took approximately two hours. In total, I surveyed 165 participants, all over the age of eighteen. I have assigned each survey participant a number (ranging from #4 to #169) in order to retain participant anonymity. These numbers will be used as identifiers throughout this thesis, enabling readers to cross-reference data across survey topics. All demographic data of survey participants can be found in Appendix D and all commentary by participants can be found in Appendix E.

In addition to surveys, I also collected public opinions about Millennium Park

found in Chicago’s most popular media source, The Chicago Tribune. The Tribune is a

powerful element of Chicago’s culture, serving as a tool for public expression as well as

an influence on public opinion (see section 2.4.3). The Tribune offered the public two

forums for voicing opinions about Millennium Park; their printed column called, “The

Voice of the Public,” and an online blog about the Park. I found a plethora of public

commentary about Millennium Park in these two Tribune publications and have used

them as tools for better understanding public opinion of Millennium Park. These

commentaries will be selectively referenced as additional data sources that triangulate my

survey findings. All commentary found on Millennium Park in the Tribune’s online blog

and the “Voice of the People” can be found in Appendices F and G respectively.

93 Through textual and discourse analysis of public voices collected in surveys and from the Tribune, I have found numerous patterns in public speech and expression. These patterns reveal collective opinions, values, desires, and fears of Chicago citizens with regards to Millennium Park and public art. In this chapter, I use those patterns as an outline for relaying the public’s voice and bringing them into current “civic dialogues” about public participation in public art. Throughout my research, I was also careful to perform ethnographic fieldwork, recording my observations while in the field through writing and photography. Recording my observations assisted in recollection accuracy, and through personal reflection, helped me come to realizations.

5.1 Demographics of Survey Participants

Though my research does not focus specifically on the demographics of the public found in Millennium Park, I included demographic questions in the survey in order to cross-analyze public needs, desires, and perceptions across races, sexes, ages, economic classes, and education levels. This data responds to literature in the field (see section

2.4.1), that seeks to explain public art controversies as produced by “identity obsessions”

(Gitlin in Tepper, 2001) and “a community’s political culture, demographic profile and public opinion climate” (Tepper, 2001, p. 35) rather than about the artwork itself. For these reasons, it is important to consider the demographics of survey participants when looking at the collected opinions of Millennium Park. These relationships will be further explored in the data analysis (chapter six). The following is a summary of how I went about collecting survey participants’ demographics. The demographic data details for each survey participant are displayed in Appendix D.

94 In the demographic section of the survey, I first asked participants if they were residents of Chicago or not. Responses to this question help qualify the proportionate numbers of tourists that visit the Park as an attraction - a primary goal of the Daley administration since the Park’s inception. I also wanted to separate the opinions of visitors vacationing in Chicago from those who pay Chicago taxes, vote in Chicago elections, and encounter Millennium Park on a regular basis. Though the majority of participants surveyed (53%) were Chicago residents, a large percentage (32%) were visitors from other states and countries. Additionally, some participants (13%) were visiting the Park from the suburbs of Chicago.

I also asked participants to identify their sex, race, age, employment status, and income levels. The majority of participants were white, working males under the age of

55 and with an average household income of $20,000 to $70,000. Out of the 165 survey participants; 41% were between the ages of 18 and 30, 40% were between the ages of 31 and 55, and 16% were over the age of 55. Males constituted 55% of all respondents while

45% were females.

5.2 Visitation to the Park

At 37%, the largest category of participants claimed to have visited the Park fewer than ten times in the past year. This percentage does not include the 20% of participants who were visiting the Park for their first time (see Figure 5.1). Many of those at the Park for their first or second times were tourists of Chicago. Those who were not tourists claimed that their number one reason for visiting the Park was to relax alone (see Figure

5.2). Participants commented, “I like the atmosphere of the Park. It is a place where the

95 sun shines and I can relax” (#141), “I love the peace and quiet. Just sitting here and looking at the city" (#18), and "It is very relaxing. I like to eat lunch here sometimes"

(#77).

On average, how many times did you visit MP in the last year?

37%

20% 20%

13% 11%

First Time Less than 10 times Monthly Weekly Daily

Figure 5.1 Visiting Trends of Millennium Park

96 How do you use MP?

26%

19%

16% 16%

10%

7% 6%

Family On way to Meet with Special Enjoy art & As a tourist Relax by self destination work friends events Gardens

Figure 5.2 Common Uses of Millennium Park

5.3 Opinions of the Art in the Park

The survey responses to the question, “Do you like the art in Millennium Park,” revealed a great deal about public preferences with regard to public art and public space.

Quantitatively speaking, 51% of participants said that they “Absolutely” liked the art and

38% answered, “Yes, it’s pretty good” (see Figure 5.3). One respondent exclaimed, “It is just fantastic” (#139) and another, “I was amazed at how beautiful it turned out” (#148)!

Comparably, many of those who wrote to the Tribune also praised the Park. They wrote,

“Beautiful! Stunning!! The Lakefront is now better than ever” (The Chicago Tribune online blog, 2004)! Another individual exclaimed, “The Millennium Park is the best idea in Chicago…THANK YOU (The Chicago Tribune online blog, 2004)! 97 Do you like the art in MP?

51%

38%

8%

1% 2%

Absolutely Yes, it's pretty Its just okay Not really You call this art? good

Figure 5.3 Participants Opinion of the Art in the Park

Though a minority, several participants expressed dissatisfaction with the art in the Park. One claimed that “The Park feels like a random combination of things. Little harmony. I’m disappointed” (BM, 12:32 PM, 7/15/04). Other citizens would have liked the art to have been created in a more traditional style. One survey participant explained,

“I dislike modern sculpture in general. I would make the art more classical so it is more accessible to the general public, like the Peristyle or Buckingham Fountain” (#118).

Another participant said, “I like the fountain and the pavilion, but they are not very inviting. There needs to be less metal and more romantic, classical sculpture. It shouldn't be so cold. It should be warm and round and soft to invite people” (#101).

98 Because many of those whom I surveyed were tourists, I have separated the opinions of Chicagoans from visitors in Figure 5.4 below. In doing so, I found that overall, tourists thought more highly of the artwork in Millennium Park than did residents of Chicago. The importance of distinguishing the opinions of tourists from Chicago residents had not occurred to me until I stepped outside of Millennium Park one day and spoke with individuals in other parts of Grant Park, including Daley Bicentennial Park and Buckingham Fountain. Through multiple conversations in these more remote areas of

Grant Park, I became aware that there were many Chicagoans deliberately avoiding

Millennium Park. They found the Park to be noisy, touristy, and crowded, and they considered its accoutrements to be spectacles, not works of art. Based on these conversations, when I returned to Millennium Park, my outlook on the Park had changed.

At that moment, I realized that the Park may be received differently by an awestruck tourist than it would by a native Chicagoan. Figure 5.4 shows the difference in opinions between residents and non-residents who participated in my surveys.

99 Do you like the art in Millennium Park?

70% 65% 60% 44% 50% 43%

40%

30% 31% Visitors

Residents 20% 11% 10% 1% 1% 0% 2% Absolutely 0% 2% Yes, it's Its just okay pretty good Not really You call this art?

Figure 5.4 Residents and Non-Residents Opinion of Art in Millennium Park

5.4 What Participants Want from Public Art

The results from my surveys show that at least 76% of Chicago’s public believes

that public art is important. Survey participants commented that “Public art should be a

part of the culture of any country” (#23). They voiced the opinion that “Public art is

something that is not supported by our government enough” (#55). They affirmed their

belief that “art is something that the human being needs” (#134), and that “public art

helps develop a shared culture, a common culture” (#148). Many of my respondents also

recommended that there be even more public artwork erected in Millennium Park (#26,

#73, #77, #98, #158, #161, #47, and #7).

100 How important is public art to you?

52%

24%

18%

6%

Very Important Important Somewhat Important Not Important

Figure 5.5 The Importance of Public Art to Chicago’s Public

Because of the great number of tourists who participated in the survey, I have once again separated the opinions of Chicago residents from those of nonresidents in order to accurately reveal the Chicago public’s opinion of public art (see Figure 5.6).

According to this comparison, it is the residents of Chicago who most strongly believe that public art is “very important.”

101 60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Very Important Important Somewhat Important Not Important

Residents Nonresidents Suburbanites

Figure 5.6 Importance of Public Art according to Residents and Nonresidents

Knowing that Chicagoans value public art is significant, but understanding what it is they (dis)like about public art, may be of even more importance. Understanding what a public expects, wants, and honors in a public artwork can be beneficial in future public art planning and commissioning decisions. The remainder of this section will be dedicated to those public art characteristics that I found most valued by Chicagoans and visitors alike. I have divided the section into public opinions on public art that emerged consistently throughout the survey process.

102 5.4.1 Art that is Physically and Cognitively Accessible

Survey responses suggest that Chicagoans want public art that is both cognitively accessible and physically accessible. Cognitively accessible art refers to works which the public finds easy to comprehend and which bear minimal social or political commentary.

Survey participants praised Millennium Park as, “…universal and easily accessible, you don't have to explain to people what the artwork is about” (#63). Another individual commented, “I like that the art is not very controversial and it seems as though the public likes to come here and enjoy it” (#8). Chicagoans also said that they like Millennium

Park because it “…Is not real fancy” (#66) and “…is not just a park for the rich” (#64).

According to Park manager, Ed Uhlir, this egalitarian accessibility was one of the intentions of Millennium Park Inc. from the beginning. Uhlir remarked that he “tried to make all the things in it (Millennium Park) fun, (because) it still has to be interesting to the average guy” (sic) (Artner, 07/15/2004, p. 12).

While many commented on the cognitive accessibility of the Park, I also encountered several survey participants who asked me to identify the public art in the

Park. I began to realize that while the public easily recognizes works like Buckingham

Fountain and Chicago’s Picasso sculpture in the Civic Center Plaza as public artworks, they did not immediately consider the pieces at Millennium Park to be public art, perhaps because of their levels of accessibility and interaction. This confusion supported the ideas discussed in section 2.3.2 about the blurring of lines between high art and popular art, between art and non-art, between public art and architecture, and between participation and non-participation. From participant reactions, it would appear that many appreciate

103 this familiar, more accessible, and interactive face of public art, regardless of their

(dis)comfort in naming it art.

In addition to the public’s interest in art that is cognitively accessible, they also appeared concerned about its physical accessibility. Administrators insisted the Park physically complied with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and was designed with wheelchair accessible ramps at every pavilion, work of art, restroom or restaurant. In recognition of Millennium Park’s access to accommodations, Park manager, Ed Uhlir received the 2005 Barrier Free America Award from the Paralyzed Veterans of America

(Dardick, 05/22/2005).

Respondents suggested that the Park’s accessibility could be increased even further by making the Park’s rotating exhibits more prominent and less peripheral (#107,

#78, #108), and by adding maps to the Park that help visitors find their way around (#38).

Others made accessibility recommendations based on their particular needs. For example, one elderly couple wants the Park to have golf cart tours for those who can’t walk for long periods of time (#79). Others recommended more benches for sitting (#17, #19, #79,

#122, #72), more water fountains (#129, #131), and more affordable places to eat in the

Park (#64, #138, #21, #50, #153).

5.4.2 Art that is Interactive

In addition to cognitive accessibility, Chicagoans also appear to like public art that is interactive. Unlike most art in museums or classical public works like Buckingham

Fountain which are guarded from the public, the works in Millennium Park were specifically commissioned to encourage physical interaction and participation. Crown

104 Fountain invites visitors to walk into her reflecting pool and stand under walls of rushing water (see Figure 5.8). Cloud Gate welcomes participants to touch its shiny stainless

steel, watch their own reflections distort on its surfaces, or stand beneath its arch (see

Figure 5.7). The Lurie Garden is open so the public can walk through its paths and stand

in “the seam” where a small stream flows. As the Tribune reported, “Instead of a

collection of restored, but frequently dark old theaters and renovated but long-familiar

museums, Chicago now has new, user-friendly fountains, sculptures and skating rinks

that drip with arty caché. Yet kids and tourists also can frolic there, day and night, for

free” (Chicago Tribune, 01/02/05).

Figure 5.7 The Public interacts with Cloud Gate Corrinn Conard

105

Figure 5.8 The Public interacts with Crown Fountain Corrinn Conard

Interactivity is a somewhat new trend in public art that helps blur the line between

“high” and “popular” arts. The artist of Crown Fountain , Jaume Plensa explains that,

“Public space is not the right place for objects…that was a tradition from the 19 th

Century. There are plenty of wonderful examples. Today I think we have to change. It’s not possible to continue adding objects. Decorating a public space is not necessary”

(Plensa in Artner, 07/15/2004, p. 12). Plensa’s Crown Fountain reflects the artist’s belief that public art today should engage visitors in interacting with a piece rather than it just being an object to observe. Millennium Park Inc. chose Plensa as an artist, along with others who have similar philosophies, to create a public space that truly encourages visitors to become a part of the art.

It is evident from both survey findings and commentary in Chicago media that from the public’s perspective, interaction is an important attribute of public art. In

106 praising the Park, one of my participant’s remarked, “It's accessible. It is not just art to look at, but you can touch it, go into it, get wet by it” (#96), Others commented, “I like the audience participation in 'The Bean' and The Fountain” (#55), and “I love that some of the artwork is functional. It is not delicate, you can touch it” (#15). In the Tribune, one

Chicagoan wrote, “This park encourages people to participate in their world, from stepping into the water between video gargoyles, to picnicking at the Pritzker Pavilion while watching music and dance performances, to strolling under ‘The Bean”’ (Rebecca

Hoffman, 2004). Several survey participants also expressed their desire to have the art be even more interactive than it already is, asking that Park administrators build more interactive pieces (#105, #146, #168).

5.4.3 Art that Attracts Attention and Embodies Civic Pride

My research findings suggest that Chicago’s public is interested in works of

public art that draw attention to the city’s civic pride and sense of community.

Participants praised the art in Millennium Park for being “unique” (#100, #111, #164),

“different” (#134, #140, #147), “creative” (#113, #136, #139, #162) and “innovative”

(#49, #58, #81). One respondent commented, “There is no other city that has this, this is

our stuff and we are proud of it” (#121). Another one stated, “I am really blown away. It's

kind of awesome actually. It's grand and unique; I feel kind of proud that it's in Chicago”

(#97). One Chicagoan wrote to the Tribune, “Wow. This is what first class cities do when

they have the opportunity. That is to say, put forth a first class effort. The money is

irrelevant” (Worth the Wait? 2004). Another wrote, “Chicago is a world-class city, and

this is a world-class attraction that will be a joy for citizens and bring tourists here. I met

107 many visitors who say that Chicago is the most beautiful city in the country...places like this are why I say it is well worth the price tag!!!” (Worth the Wait? 2004)

Survey participants communicated the sense of community that exists in

Millennium Park. One stated that they enjoyed “…the fact that people actually come here; it is a gathering place” (#86), while others asserted that “The Park brings the community together” (#61), and that visiting “the Park is a way to socialize” (91). To many, it is the people surrounding the works of art that draw them to the Park rather than the works of art themselves. One respondent said, “It is the community that helps makes the art” (#9). Another one commented, “I like watching other people with the pieces. I come to people watch more than anything else” (#99).

5.4.4 Art as a Placemaking Tactic for Chicagoans

Creating a world-renown tourist destination, increasing Chicago’s reputation as an international cultural center, and bringing new money into the City were all goals achieved by Millennium Park Inc. through the Park. As displayed in Chapter five, 32% of the individuals I surveyed were tourists. I suspect, however, that the percentage of tourists at Millennium Park could actually be much higher than this. This suspicion is in part based on my recognition that many tourists may have declined participation in the survey due to language barriers or their unfamiliarity with the Park.

While Chicagoans appear appreciative of Millennium Park’s international

reputation, several suggest that rather than providing something for all Chicagoans to

enjoy, City administrators have seized the north end of Grant Park and turned it into a

capitalist venture that only benefits a powerful minority. Several respondents commented

108 that “Millennium Park is more for tourists than for representing Chicagoans” (#115), and

“There are excellent pieces, but some of the more tourist driven pieces overshadow the other beautiful things” (#109). Many Chicagoans feel that their public art should be, first and foremost, for the people of the City.

In many ways, Millennium Park does reflect Chicago’s history, culture, needs, and tastes. Evidence of these considerations can be found in Millennium Park. The most obvious example is the peristyle of the Millennium Monument , which is actually a replica

of a peristyle that once existed in Grant Park, but was torn down during the construction

of the City’s first underground parking garages. Its presence in Millennium Park revives

Grant Park’s rich history, and Chicago’s long tradition of supporting public monuments

and works of art.

Additionally, the Park’s Lurie Garden reflects the topographically shape-shifting

history of Chicago through its “Seam.” “The Seam,” is a small, controlled stream of

water that falls down a series of steps from the North end of the garden to the South.

“The Seam” itself is strategically placed, recording the original Lake Michigan shoreline

prior to the Illinois Central Railroad’s development, and landfill operations that followed

the Great Chicago Fire. Even Gehry’s contemporary pavilion and bridge appears to echo

historic events – highlighting Chicago’s earlier steel production and welding industries.

By including temporally displaced but distinguishable elements like these in the design of

Millennium Park, Chicago’s public and its past are reunited and repeatedly reflected

throughout the Park. As one respondent commented, “The art pays homage to the city”

(#125).

109 5.4.5 Art that Offers an Escape

It appears that Chicagoans look to their public art and public spaces to provide a tranquil escape from the city’s bustling pace, noisy streets, and seemingly endless concrete. With regard to Millennium Park, survey respondents commented,

• “I like the Fountain and the greens because they take you away from the city noises. It is a getaway in an urban area” (#104)

• “The environment makes me feel relaxed. I can get away from everything” (#11)

• "A beautiful, breathing space for the middle of the city" (#23)

• "This is a good place to get fresh air" (#124)

• "I like how green it is. It is such a break from the concrete of the city" (#33)

For some, the Park should provide even more of an escape than it currently does.

Several believe that Park should incorporate more green space, natural materials, shade, and wildlife instead of the great amounts of cold steel, glass, and concrete currently present in the Park (#13, #33, #22, #74, #9, #163). Others find Millennium Park to resemble an amusement park more than a public art space, and characterize the environment as being chaotic, noisy, and tainted with anxious energy. As one Chicagoan wrote to the Tribune, “I…regret that what had been a relaxing green space is now a circus-like mob scene” (The Chicago Tribune online blog, 2004).

5.4.6 Art that Educates

Throughout the research, it was evident that several Chicagoans considered education to be an important element of public art. A few survey respondents made positive references to the educational opportunities offered at Millennium Park. They 110 remarked, “The Park makes you think and appreciate art” (#115), that “It is somewhere to go to appreciate art (#6), and it “is a wonderful experience for students of the arts”

(#135). However, an even greater number of respondents were disturbed by the lack of educational outreach of Park administrators. Informants commented on the minimal use of plaques to help describe the works of art, architecture, and foliage (#112, #114, #152,

#61, and #82) and noted that park administrators should remedy this weakness.

5.5 Public Participation in Millennium Park and Chicago Public Art Endeavors

The final subset of survey questions was intended to uncover the public’s

perception of their (non) participation in the creation of Millennium Park and gauge

respondents’ opinions of citizen engagement in all Chicago public art endeavors. Most

participants said that they were not involved in the creation of the Park, nor did they think

that this was an option. One citizen commented, “I heard about Millennium Park, but I

had no idea it involved the public” (#169). In fact, 41% of participants said that they did

not even know about Millennium Park until it was complete (see Figure 5.9). It is

important to note here that many of those respondents who did not previously know about

the Park were not residents of Chicago. On the other hand, 41% claimed that they

passively participated by reading about the Park’s development through Chicago’s media.

A total of 15% of participants believed their tax dollars helped pay for the Park’s

construction, though many were not sure. Finally, there was a very small percentage (1%)

of citizens who made personal contributions, wrote to newspapers, modeled for Crown

Fountain and/or had participated in public opinion polls.

111 When the art was being chosen for MP, in what ways did you participate?

41% 41%

15%

1% 1% 1% 1%

Made personal Wrote to Model for the Participated in Contributed Kept up with Didn't know contributions Newspapers Fountain public polls through tax progress about MP until dollars through the after it was built media

Figure 5.9 How the Public Participated in Millennium Park

When asked, 57% of survey respondents said that, if given the choice, they would have liked to have participated more in choosing the artwork for Millennium Park. The other 43% said that they would have had no interest in such activities. Those interested in participating claimed that answering public polls would be their most desirable means for participation. Other popular modes of participation identified within the surveys were (1) attending public meetings and (2) writing to online blogs or newspapers (see Figure

5.10).

112

How would you have participated in MP if you could have participated more?

26%

16% 15% 13% 10% 9% 9%

Public polls Public meetings Online blogs or Contributions Personal Decision-making Would not like newspapers through tax donations for panels to participate dollars works

Figure 5.10 How the Public would have participated in Millennium Park

When survey participants were asked what purpose Chicago’s public art serves, the majority of respondents said that Chicago’s public art “creates attractive public spaces” and “increases tourism” (see Figure 5.11).

113

What is the purpose of Chicago's public art?

27%

20%

16% 16% 15%

6%

0%

Nothing Legacy for Public Education Reflect & Increases Attractive Really Daley collaboration Represent tourism public spaces Community

Figure 5.11 The Purpose of Chicago’s Public Art

Finally, those survey participants who were residents of Chicago as well as those who live in the suburbs, were asked whether or not they felt they had any power or influence over Chicago public art endeavors. The majority of Chicago citizens from the survey stated that they have “no” say in Chicago’s public art decisions, while only a very small portion said “yes,” they do have a say in the city’s art projects (see Figure 5.12).

114

Do you have a say in Chicago's public art decisions?

38%

31%

17%

9%

5%

Yes Somewhat Not really No Not a resident

Figure 5.12 The Public’s say in Chicago’s Public Art

In this chapter, I have graphically displayed and described my demographic and public opinion data collected from 165 visitors to Chicago’s Millennium Park. In the last two chapters, I will analyze and interpret these findings and consider how they relate to current issues regarding participation in public art. I will also reference the collected data in readdressing my thesis question, “Where is the public in public art?”

115

CHAPTER 6

ANALYZING THE DATA

While the last chapter presented the opinions of Millennium Park’s public, this chapter explores their potential implications. Based on the patterns and themes unearthed through my findings, I intend to discover where Chicago’s public is in Millennium Park.

To do this requires I elaborate on those common themes revealed in my subjects’ testimonies, cross analyze these public perceptions, and readdress them in light of issues discussed in earlier chapters.

6.1 (Not) Representing Chicago’s Demographics

Chicago is a city rich with people of various national and ethnic backgrounds, economic classes, sexualities, professions, and experiences. When Chicago’s Mayor

Daley announced that Millennium Park would be built downtown, because “Downtown comprises of everyone” (Daley from Gilfoyle, 2006, p. 83), he seemed to suggest that all

Chicagoans would benefit from the Park’s creation. Indeed the Park’s location is physically accessible to a variety of Chicago’s economic and social classes as can be observed in the demographic maps of Figure 6.1 below. Map A charts the median

116 household income of the City while Map B displays the distribution of African

Americans throughout the City; Millennium Park is indicated in both maps by a white circle. As can be seen from Figure 6.1, the Park sits central to the Chicago’s higher and lower economic classes and to the City’s black and non-black populations. The Park is also strategically located in an area with high tourist traffic, directly on Michigan

Avenue, just off the Loop, and adjacent to the Art Institute of Chicago.

Map A Map B

Figure 6.1 Demographic Maps of Chicago’s African American Population and the City’s Median Household Income Levels From the City of Chicago website at http://egov.cityofchicago.org

In a series of graphs below, I have used the demographic information collected in

my surveys to make comparisons between the public that I found present in Millennium

Park and the public living in the city at large. Making these comparisons can help reveal

which Chicagoans are using the Park, and determine whether or not the visitors of

117 Millennium Park are representative of Chicago’s public as a whole. To accurately present

Chicago’s public; I have not included tourists in the following statistics.

55% 49% 51%

45%

Chicago

Millennium Park Male Female

Figure 6.2 Sex of Survey Participants as Compared to Chicago Demographics Data from surveys and U.S. Census Bureau, 2006

Figure 6.2 above indicates that despite the majority of Chicagoans being women

(51%), a larger proportion of men (55%) appear to utilize Millennium Park. Likewise,

Figure 6.3 below indicates that there may be an uneven representation of races

frequenting the Park. The Park appeared to have a significantly larger population of

Caucasian visitors (63%) than African Americans (28%), despite the comparable

proportions of African Americans (35%) and Caucasians (37%) living in the City.

118 63%

37% 35%

28% 22%

5%

3% 6% Chicago

White Millennium Park Black or African Asian Other American

Figure 6.3 Race of Chicago Resident Survey Participants as Compared to Chicago Demographics Data from surveys and U.S. Census Bureau, 2006

As could be expected from Millennium Park’s proximity to Chicago’s business district, the majority of those surveyed (71%) claimed to be employed (see Figure 6.4).

However, as can be observed in Figure 6.5, the presence of lower and middle economic class citizens making $0 to $70,000 annually was comparably higher (84%) than the percentage of Chicagoans in these two income brackets (73%). Furthermore, it appears that Chicago’s higher income classes, those individuals earning $70,000 to $200,000 plus annually, may be slightly underrepresented in the Park (16%) when compared to

Chicago’s total population of such higher income individuals (27%).

119 71%

10% 8% 5% Employed 2% Retired Millennium Park Unemployed Student Homemaker

Figure 6.4 Employment Statuses of Survey Participants Data from surveys

120 42% 42% 42%

31%

20%

9% 3% 4% 5% Chicago $0-$20,000 2% $20,000- Millennium Park $70,000 $70,000- $120,000 $120,000- $200,000 Over $200,000

Figure 6.5 Income of Survey Participants as compared to Chicago Demographics Data from surveys and the U.S. Census Bureau, 2006

The graphs above may indicate that while Millennium Park is located in an area physically accessible to a variety of Chicagoans, not all of the City’s public may choose, or be able to utilize the Park. These disparities may be caused by a number of possibilities including the demographics of service employees surrounding the Park, the working schedules of such employees, the times of day that the Park is open, or the activities offered by the Park. For example, the Park offers yoga classes, music by the symphony, and a five star restaurant; activities stereotypically geared towards more privileged classes (i.e. white males). It is also important to keep in mind that these statistics are based solely on my surveys of 165 participants; a number much too small to

121 accurately represent all who visit Millennium Park. Additionally, my choice of survey participants was not technically random since I chose who to approach with surveys based on convenience and accessibility, not to mention subconscious preferences.

6.2 (Not) Just About Public Art

As discussed in section 2.4.1, public opinions of public art are not always about

the aesthetic qualities of art, but can actually be the result of other social and political

characteristics within a community. Through the surveys conducted at Millennium Park,

the public’s sentiment towards Chicago’s social programs, Mayor Daley, and the City’s

powerful private sector, were revealed to be influences on public opinion of public art

and Millennium Park. Many of the comments made by survey participants and those

whose wrote to the Chicago Tribune also suggest that while much of the public likes

Millennium Park, many believe other social issues should have taken precedent over the

Park’s creation. As Jackie Leavy, Executive Director of the Neighborhood Capital

Budget group, explained to the Tribune, “If you look at our park system, [and] at our

neighborhoods, there certainly are more pressing priorities for public investment and

infrastructure” (Chicago Tribune, 08/30/02). Similar arguments have been made for years

in Chicago. As early as 1907, members of the public were criticizing public art

expenditures, declaring that private benefactors “see charms in plans for street statuary,

artistic bridges, and extensive boulevards, but overlook the necessity for clean and

comfortable homes and tenements, clean and well paved streets, clean backyards and

alleys, where the poorer classes live” (Richard T. Crane from Garvey, 1988, p. 34).

122 Almost identical arguments were made about Millennium Park. The following quotes are examples from the Tribune that display such sentiments.

• “Where are our priorities? Senior citizens are losing their homes because of high assessments and can't afford prescription drugs. There is a shortage of jobs. People are homeless and can't afford food. But we have a $475 million park” (Frank Coconate, 2004).

• “Let me get this straight: Millennium Park cost $475 million for 24.5 acres of park with a giant, shiny bean in the middle…Do you think the city could have spent that money a little better--maybe for the crumbling schools or the crumbling streets?” (Norm Fossmeyer, 2004)

• “Though our new Millennium Park may be beautiful, we've been defining "progress" as more and bigger buildings, fancy fountains and expensive sculptures, and events that draw thousands. True progress is ours when we have no homeless people, no hungry children, no illiteracy and no poverty. It seems we need to get our priorities in order” (Francine Salerno, 2004).

• “Wouldn't it have been a better idea to have raised money, from all of the donors of the Millennium Park, to help make our existing recreational areas better and safer places to play?” (Raymond Bollacker, 2004)

These comments indicate that social and political issues are complexly intertwined with opinions of Millennium Park. As discussed in section 2.4.1, it is often the conflict of personal values that cause public art controversies. For example, controversy over the work Gay Liberation by George Segal was not about the artwork itself, but about the homophobic attitudes existing in New York City at the time of its creation. Similarly, the piece, Monument to Joe Louis by Robert Graham caused public

uproar because of its implications about African Americans rather than about art-specific

issues. In similar ways, Chicagoans (as the quotes above suggest) expressed deeper social

and political concerns about healthcare, poverty, public safety, and education in the

context of Millennium Park and perhaps other public art endeavors.

123 6.2.1 Public Sentiment toward the Daley Administration

Many of the comments made by survey participants and by citizens who wrote to the Chicago Tribune concerning Millennium Park appeared to be less about public art and more about author/informant’s frustration or admiration for the Daley

Administration. In the surveys conducted, a few respondents praised Daley and his accomplishments; one exclaiming, “Mayor Daley…he is fantastic! He is really trying to develop the city. It's a good thing” (#116). Another participant affirmed the value of the administration, remarking “It's hard to find someone with enough control to get it done like Mayor Daley did. He has done an amazing thing” (#148). In the Tribune, another citizen wrote that Millennium Park is “Absolutely terrific! An homage to Chicago's great history and bright future. Mayor Daley - keep working on these spectacular projects”

(moshe dayan from http://www.chicagotribune.com , retrieved on 10/10/07).

Despite these praises, a greater number of participants expressed their frustration

and distrust for the Daley administration. These critiques included the following,

• “Yes. This city is run like a fascist regime” (#108)

• “The suggestion that this Park serves as a legacy for Daley just appalls me though it often feels like this is the case” (#109)

• “Chicago's public art increases the payoffs for Daley's connections” (#40)

• “Yeah, they are making their legacies, but Mayor Daley is a mere shadow of his father” (#114)

• “This is not a public park; it is Mayor Daley's sister's park” (#60)

• “The final taxpayer insult will come when it's renamed Daley Park” (The Chicago Tribune online blog, 2004).

124 There appears to be a direct correlation between public opinion of Mayor Daley

and opinions of the artwork in Millennium Park. As shown in Figure 5.3, the majority of

Chicago citizens (89%) believe that the artwork in Millennium Park is at least “Pretty

Good,” while only 11% responded that it was “just okay.” The two citizens who praised

Daley above (#116 and #148) both say that they “Absolutely” like the artwork in

Millennium Park. However, three out of the five survey respondents’ discontented with

Daley see the artwork as being “Just Okay.” While there are too little data to reliably

predict public opinions of public art in Chicago based on political affiliation, an

individual response may often have less to do with the artwork than with that person’s

opinion of City administrators.

6.2.2 Private Donors as a Threat to Public Space

When plans for Millennium Park were announced in 1998, Mayor Daley was quite aware of how protective Chicago’s public was of the Grant Park land (see section

4.6.3). The Mayor was careful to verbally recognize the public’s ownership of the new park. He told citizens that the waterfront land was “the people’s country club” and was being tainted by the unsightly railroad tracks. He insisted on building the park downtown because he believed that “It’s not a millennium gift to the people if it’s in one section of the city. Downtown comprises everyone so it was perfect” (Daley from Gilfoyle, 2006, p.

83). Repeatedly, the new park was referred to by Daley and Millennium Park Inc. as “The

People’s Park.”

By creating a physically accessible space, incorporating historical and cultural elements into the Park’s art, and involving civic groups in the creation of The Harris

125 Theatre , the Daley administration honored the public to which it spoke, and considered

them when making at least some decisions about the new park. However, there were also

actions taken that contradicted administrators’ rhetoric, primarily in relation to the heavy

hand of private philanthropists. It would thus appear that the public grew nervous when

control was wrested from the Mayor’s office and public hands were seemingly reclaimed

as private interests and subject to contributor influence. By some, the Park even came to

be seen as a “private usurpation of public space” (Gilfoyle, 2006, p. 345). Gilfoyle (2006)

writes that “In certain respects, Millennium Park’s donor group illustrates how Chicago’s

non-profit, philanthropic world is organized like a series of interlocking dictatorships” (p.

155). For example, the original architect hired for the Park’s band shell Adrian Smith,

“lost complete control of the design. It became this kind of design by committee…Bryan

more or less gave them (private donors) free reign to do whatever they wanted” (Thomas

Beeby from an interview with Gilfoyle, 06/12/03, p. 18).

In addition to the selection of Park amenities, the private sector has also helped

establish regulations for the Park that, in many ways, resemble those of a private space.

For example, the Park has security guards, closing hours, security cameras, and restricted

activities including skateboarding and bicycling. Several surveyed participants expressed

their dislike for the strong and seemingly privately-managed Park.

• “As a photographer, I get upset at the way the guards are over zealous about photography” (#109).

• “I am frustrated that performance artists have to jump through so many hoops in order to perform in the Park or on the Chicago streets. The city needs to make sure that they get their cut” (#135).

• “I do not like the name advertisements on all the art” (#64).

126

• “I hate how the security is ever-present…The layout feels very controlled. It doesn't feel like a public park, like Central Park” (#68).

The private threat to the public space seemed to come to a peak on September 8,

2005, when Toyota paid $300,000 and donated an additional $500,000 to rent

Millennium Park for an all day convention. This event caused a great uproar in the media and brought the intentions of park administrators and the private sectors under a spotlight.

One Park visitor who was asked to leave the grounds commented, “I think it's completely inappropriate because it's a public park" (Brown, Chicago Tribune, 2005). Another disappointed citizen claimed, "I was sort of taken aback. I can't imagine Central Park being closed for a Toyota convention" (Weingart, Chicago Tribune, 2005). I believe that the following letter to the Chicago Tribune encapsulates the public’s fear of private takeover that found itself manifested in debate over Millennium Park.

Everywhere you turn our public life is being hocked to the highest bidder. Our athletic stadiums, our city contracts, our public celebrations, even our high schools are dominated by advertising and corporate greed…And now even our public gardens can be hijacked by a multibillion- dollar corporation for the day... Millennium Park is our park--a place where the people of Chicago can gather to create and build community. At least we can gather if the corporations who run our lives let us (Kurt W Peterson, 2005).

From comments like these, it appears that the Chicago public persists in its long tradition of protecting public spaces, and that these attitudes may have significant effects on residents’ overall opinions of Millennium Park and Chicago public art endeavors.

6.2.3 Contradictions to the Literature

The examples above support literature that emphasizes the affects of unrelated social and political issues on public opinions of public art. However, two findings from

127 my surveys appear to contradict such hypotheses. In the graphs below (Figures 6.6 &

6.7), I have separated the opinions of survey participants by race and income levels, respectively. Here, I make the assumption that race and income affect an individual’s outlook on social and political priorities, and could thus show that such unrelated factors result in differing opinions on public art. Based on literature discussed in chapter section

2.4.1, I predicted that minorities, still underrepresented in American society, would find public art to be a secondary priority to other social issues related to say, equality in opportunity. Likewise, I predicted that those with lower incomes would consider public art a luxury, rather than a priority for public money. However, as can be seen from the figures below, my data results contradict such predictions. Indeed, the black survey participants overall had a lower opinion of public art, but the difference was insignificantly slight (Figure 6.6). Additionally, those participants with the lowest incomes had similar opinions of public art as those participants with the highest incomes

(Figure 6.7).

128 70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Very Important Important Somewhat Important Not Important

White Black

Figure 6.6 A Comparison of the Importance of Public Art according to Residents who are Black/African American or White

129 Very Important Important Somewhat Important Not Important

0% 9% 8% 23% 6% 18%

24% 18% 31%

62% 58% 46%

high mid low

Figure 6.7 A Comparison of the Importance of Public Art according to Income Levels

With a sample size as small as 165, there could certainly be a number of factors influencing data results and making the statistics above anomalies, rather than representations of the norm. Nonetheless, the contradiction of this data to literature presented in Chapter Two raises interesting tensions that beg for further consideration.

130 6.3 The Public as Receivers, Not Creators

As demonstrated by the survey results of chapter five, the majority of Chicago’s public was not involved in the creation of Millennium Park. Largely, those involved participated passively, by reading about the Park in the newspaper. Despite the lack of public participation in the Park’s creation, 57% of survey respondents said that if given the choice, they would have liked to have participated more in choosing the artwork for

Millennium Park. This subsequent section explores the possible reasons behind the

public’s lack of participation in the creation of the Park, and seeks to better understand

Chicagoans (dis)interest in public art participation.

6.3.1 Self-Disqualification (inadequacies of art education)

Many of the respondents who expressed disinterest in public art participation

believed that they were not aesthetically qualified to help make such decisions and that

these matters would be better left to more knowledgeable individuals. One participant

said, “There are more people who are more intelligent about what art to choose. I am a

neophyte so I don't know anything” (#157). Another declared, “I want the qualified

individuals to make decisions about public art” (#148). These citizens believe that if the

general public participates in public art projects, public art will suffer. They claim that

“Including the public leads to the dummying down of art” (sic) (#148) and that

“Decisions by committee causes artwork that is just bland” (#107). These comments are

reminiscent of discussions from section 2.3.1 and the ideas presented by Filicko (1997),

who notes that in today’s political environment, many citizens “more often than not, are

willing to leave policy to the experts” (p. 22).

131 6.3.2 (Un)Intentional Public Exclusion

It is evident from the survey results, that not all Chicagoans believe that they

should be excluded from participation in public art decision making. Some Chicagoans

believe that they were deliberately denied participation opportunities by civic leaders and

administrators. One survey respondent said that “Public art should be collaboration

between the experts, city developers, and the public” (#13). Another remarked that

administrators “should try and involve more people” (#151). Though the Daley

administration and Millennium Park Inc. spoke frequently of the Park as the “public’s

park,” their actions did not always coincide with such rhetoric. A primary example, as

discussed in section 4.5.5, is when Bryan, Millennium Park Inc., and the Daley

administration labeled the Pritzker Pavilion a “sculpture” instead of a building in order to intentionally avoid conversations and collaboration with civic groups like “Friends of the

Park.”

A lack of public participation in Millennium Park’s creation became an especially

hot topic in the Chicago Tribune. One Tribune report referred to the general public as

“the nobodies” of Millennium Park and explained “how little they count in this decision

about how to use public space and public money” (Chicago Tribune, 07/13/01). One

resident wrote, “$270 MILLION OVER BUDGET!! Where was our vote in that

process” (The Chicago Tribune online blog, 2004)? In another Tribune report, a citizen

was quoted as remarking, “The most interesting aspect of the Millennium Park debacle is

that all of this money has been spent and wasted without any City Council oversight and

without a single alderman raising questions on behalf of their constituents” (Geiderman,

132 2001). Other citizens resorted to sarcasm, one writing, “To Ralph: This is Chicago. Da

Mare doesn't let the people have a voice” (Worth the Wait? 2004).

Through the documented disregard of the public by Millennium Park administrators as well as public comments about participation, it appears that a great percentage of Chicago citizens were unwillingly excluded from decisions being made about Millennium Park. While administrators continuously described Millennium Park as

“public,” the inference of this term does not seem to have been fully honored. .

6.3.3 Participation if Necessary

Several respondents claimed that they did not participate in Millennium Park or

other public art endeavors because they do not find it to be necessary. Ultimately, they

trust the current administration’s decisions and don’t feel the need to interfere. However,

they believe that if necessary, they could step in and make a difference. One respondent

stated, “I trust the Mayor and his decisions. I would rather just sit back and enjoy it”

(#50). Another said, “It does not really bother me that I do not have a say in Chicago's

public art decisions, I don't feel that I have any talent in that area and I trust the Mayor's

choices” (#18). These respondents also said, “I could be involved” (#125), “If I thought

the city was not doing a good job, I would work to change something” (#17), and “I

would participate in public art decisions if necessary, but it is currently not necessary”

(#50). The question that remains in my mind is whether these respondents are truly

satisfied with Chicago’s public art endeavors, or if their lack of participation is the result

of apathy towards such undertakings? Would the majority of these respondents really act

133 if they grew unsatisfied? How unsatisfied does one have to be before choosing to participate?

134

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION

In this chapter, I will be taking a step back from my research in Millennium Park to reexamine what I have learned from this case study, and how my findings have helped to answer my thesis question; “Where is the public in public art?” I will reconsider the participation teeter totter first presented in chapter two, and will humbly offer recommendations for addressing the imbalance that frequently exists in the public art selection and commissioning processes.

7.1 Readdressing the Participation Teeter Totter

When I first began this research process, I believed that including the voices of general public citizens in conversations about public art could serve as a solution for the imbalanced participation teeter totter model presented in Chapter Two (see Figures 2.3 &

2.5). I thought that public art administrators and artists should relinquish some of their authoritative power to the public, and that by doing so, public art would better reflect the needs and desires of the public for whom they are supposedly created. These actions, I believed, would help to decrease the controversies occasionally occurring through public art which can be costly and time-consuming. I therefore envisioned the participation

135 teeter totter balancing itself out, as it would do naturally if all individuals on the bench were given an equal amount of influence (see Figure 7.1 below).

Administrators Creators / Initiators The Public SLIGHT SLIGHT

Public meeting Audience Patrons attendees Tax Payers Advocates Artists Managers Alderman

Influence •Influence Voice Voters Committees Local Arts Boards Volunteers Agencies GREAT

PASSIVE ACTIVE PASSIVE

Figure 7.1 A Balanced Participation Teeter Totter Model

What I have come to realize through my research however, is that giving every

individual an equal amount of influence in public art endeavors is likely not possible,

desirable, or beneficial. When I first began this research process, I believed I would find a

public voice that was cohesive, that felt excluded from conversations about public art,

and that unanimously desired greater influence in Chicago’s public art decisions. I

thought that through the surveys, this voice would emerge, and I would be able to define

136 how the public’s voice could be heard as an equal partner in the “civic dialogues” of public art. However, the weaknesses of my hypothesis quickly became clear as my research progressed. What I have found instead, is that there is not just one public voice per municipality, but countless voices, all with different needs, desires, tastes, and histories (see section 6.2). I found that many members of the public have no desire to participate in public art decisions (see section 6.5.1) and that many others prefer to participate only if necessary (i.e. responding through public art controversies) (see section 6.5.3). Finally, I began to understand how the public’s perception of public art constitutes a complex culmination of historical events, social constructs, and political sentiments, not just artistic tastes (see section 6.2).

Through my research, I have also become concerned that attempts at including entire publics in public art placement and selection decisions could result in commissioned art that is mundane and sterile. I have therefore, grown more reserved in my promotion of equalized public participation in public art. Perhaps, as was discussed in section 2.4.1, controversy in public art is one of the most engaging ways to solicit public opinion. I now consider that perhaps this just might be the best way for the public to participate in public art – responding to its presence instead of threatening its potential, or hindering the creation of great works. As discussed earlier in this thesis, public artworks that are not initially accepted (i.e. Chicago’s Picasso), may eventually become a part of a place’s identity; loved and revered by the public and by subsequent generations. In this light, balancing the teeter totter may not be a solution that one could impose. The balance instead may be realized only unexpectedly, as combinations of political, economic and

137 social dynamics ebb and flow in relation to particular works of art, created within particular communities.

While letting go of my initial theories of public participation processes, I can not

accept propositions to resist all public participation until after a work of public art has

been created and installed. There are many benefits to involving the public early-on in

any public art placement process. Firstly, there are members of the public who want to

participate in the early stages of public art planning (see section 6.5.2). These individuals

seek to practice their rights as agents of democracy, and their engagement should be

respected and celebrated. Secondly, public participation can be a powerful form of art

education and can help to increase sentiments of civic pride and sense of political

empowerment (see section 2.2). Thirdly, public participation can help ensure the

particular values and tastes of a community’s multiple populations are acknowledged (see

section 4.4). Finally, participation in public art debates can provide opportunities for

extensive dialogue, not just about aesthetic merit, but also about complex and veiled

social problems or unresolved community concerns.

7.2 Searching for a Solution

While the research findings from this thesis appear to be closing in on the

question, “Where is the public in public art,” the data has simultaneously conjured a new,

more difficult, and perhaps more pertinent question, “Where should the public be in public art?” In Figure 7.2 below, I propose a possible participation teeter totter model based on my research findings. In this model, the bench of the teeter totter is equalized as in Figure 7.1. I propose that a balance of the teeter totter occur from a natural movement

138 of interested individuals from the realms of the passive public towards the ends of the participation bench, or towards “active participation” (see Figure 7.2). As citizens’ move towards more active forms of participation, their influence will become greater. In this model, the relationship between public art participants changes, so that those with the most influence on public art endeavors (administrators and creators / initiators), and vocal members of the public at large can be intermixed, and not be set in opposition to each other. Additionally, I have changed the positioning of the “Influence / Voice” scale, as well as the participation level scale so that one’s influence on public art endeavors correlates directly with the amount of active participation they exhibit. As indicated by the faint dotted arrows, this model allows the public to move freely down the ranks of participation, becoming as active and influential as they please to be. Overall, the current separations between “The Public,” “Creators / Initiators,” and “Administrators” would diminish, and an atmosphere ripe for inclusive “civic dialogues” on public art would exist

(see section 2.4.1).

139 The Public PASSIVE Tax Payers Voters Public meeting attendees Administrators Volunteers Committees Creators / Initiators Audience Managers Patrons Local Arts Agencies Boards Advocates Alderman Artists

ACTIVE

GREAT GREAT SLIGHT Influence / Voice

Figure 7.2 Recommended Participation Teeter Totter Model

A shift like this one could occur through a combination of actions taken by all three groups of participants. First and foremost, this shift would require significant efforts by “Administrators” and “Creators / Initiators.” These groups of participants would need to rethink their relationship with the public; to view public hearings as an educational opportunity, a means for addressing accessibility issues, and a vehicle for promoting increased public participation. In her discussion on ways of increasing public participation in public issues, author Dolores Foley (1998) suggests that public administrators stop considering the public to be “customers” and “consumers” of public

140 goods and start promoting new models which emphasize collaboration and partnership instead. Similarly, authors Box and Sagen (1998) assert that public participation and satisfaction with decisions will increase when public administrators and governments (1) provide the public with the information and skills needed to handle public-policy issues and (2) provide the public with open discussion forums that are inviting and accessible to all.

I agree with these authors’ assessment, that administrators use their power to make current modes of participation more inviting, accessible, and celebrated. It is my belief that participation in public art should be accessible to all citizens, and be free of overwhelming bureaucratic entanglements, misinformation, and process ambiguity.

Opportunities for public participation needs to be scheduled at times that citizens find convenient (i.e. evenings or weekends) and in easily accessible locations (i.e. places that are easy to reach via car or public transportation, places that have free parking, etc.).

Perhaps, if the public were kept aware of participation opportunities through common modes of advertisement like radio and television commercials, mailings, flyers, and websites, their involvement would increase. These opportunities for increased public participation could be of great educational value – especially if supplemented by material on the topics at hand, made available on websites that any person could access. This does not need to be an overwhelming or extraordinarily expensive task, but one that could be budgeted into each public art project’s expenses. In Figure 7.2, such opportunity for public participation is signified by the faint dotted lines barely distinguishing the three groups of participants from each other.

141 Public participation in public art is an activity worthy of celebration - something that is to be admired in our society. Through their website, through published material, or through Park signage, Millennium Park Inc. could publicly celebrate the generosity and civic pride of private donors whose names are attached to various accoutrements in the

Park. They could also publicly acknowledge the involvement of civic groups like

“Friends of the Park” who played such a crucial role in the creation of The Harris

Theatre ; resulting in an amazing example of how the general public and public

administrators can work together in ways that are productive, enlightening, and

successful (see section 4.6.4). Advertising the success of such public/private

collaborations might encourage greater public engagement, partnerships, and patronage.

Celebrating successful collaborations like The Harris Theatre , capitalizing on potential educational opportunities presented by public art planning, commissioning, and placement, and increasing public participation in the process could allow for the participants on the bench of the participation teeter totter to move more freely (as signified by the dashed line in Figure 7.2). Once citizens’ see that public insights and opinions are valued, it is reasonable to anticipate that more would become active participants in such endeavors in the future.

7.3 (Not) Answering the Thesis Question

By using a case study to approach my thesis question, “Where is the public in

public art?” my research has been manageable, intimate, and profound. I have been able

to look at this broad question in the context of one of Chicago’s most recent public

endeavors and through the opinions and perspectives of the Chicago public. By closely

142 examining, and deeply considering, the City’s cultural, historical, social, and political characteristics, as well listening to the voices of Millennium Park visitors, I have gained valuable knowledge about the public’s perception of public art.

Patterns of public perceptions, insights into political processes, power dynamics and patronage emerged from the data I described in Chapter 5 and analyzed in Chapter 6.

Based on these data and patterns, I conclude that Chicagoans want public art that is accessible, interactive, and reflective of the City, serves as an escape from the city’s pace, and has educational merit. Against the assumptions I had entering the study, I recognize that the majority of Chicago’s public may participate in public art endeavors passively, and may have little desire to get actively involved unless necessary. I now see that public opinions about public art in Chicago may be less concerned with the artworks, than they are on public spending, sentiments towards Mayor Daley, suffering social programs, and/or management of public lands.

While tempted to use findings from this research to justify broader claims about public perceptions of public art throughout the United States, my case study does not license such generalizations. The patterned perceptions identified in this case study have revealed characteristics of a specific event in a specific time (as shown in chapter six), but such data can not be reasonably applied to situations outside of this Chicago setting. I cannot generally answer the broader question, “Where is the public in public art?” for all settings, but I have explored this question within the Chicago setting and have been able to present multiple voices of Chicago’s publics in regards to the specific public art project known as Millennium Park.

143 7.4 Considerations for Future Research

Though I have designed this thesis to be a glimpse of public participation in public art through the particulars of a case study, additional research could be conducted to further explore the broader question, “Where is the public in public art.” First and foremost, more surveys could be performed in Millennium Park. Though the 165 surveys completed were instrumental in understanding a part of Chicago’s public opinion, these alone could not provide enough data for expanded generalizations about the U.S. public as a whole. Surveys could also be conducted outside of Millennium Park in order to gather the opinions of those Chicagoans who deliberately choose not to visit the Park for one reason or another. Additionally, the kind of survey that I conducted in Millennium

Park could be conducted in a number of cities across the United States. This kind of data, collected from national research, could be cross-referenced as a means for understanding how the characteristics of various publics effect citizen involvement in, and public opinion of public art.

7.5 Final Thought

I have undertaken this research with the hope that my findings might be of value

to public art administrators, policy makers, public artists, and concerned citizens. I hope

that my research has shed light on the variables at play within the public art process, and

that in some way, has helped to organize the complex issues surrounding the engagement

of the public in public art.

144

APPENDIX A

CITI CERTIFICATION

C IT I Course in The Protection of Human Research Subjects

Human Research Curriculum Completion Report Printed on Sunday, June 17, 2007

Learner: Corrinn Conard (username: conard.10) Institution: Ohio State University Contact Inform ation: G roup 2.: Social and Behavioral Research Investigators and Sta ff.

Stage 1. Basic Course Passed on 06/15/07 (Ref # 1002073) D ate Required Modules completed Score Introduction 04/28/07 100 History and Ethical Principles - S B R 04/28/07 100 Defining Research with Human Subjects - SBR 05/05/07 8 0 The Regulations and The Social and Behavioral Scien ces - SBR 06/06/07 8 3 Assessing Risk in Social and Behavioral Sciences - SBR 06/06/07 8 0 Informed Consent - S B R 06/06/07 100 Privacy and Confidentiality - S B R 06/06/07 8 0 R ecords -Based Research 06/06/07 100 Research with Prisoners - S B R 06/06/07 100 Research with Children - S B R 06/06/07 6 0 Research in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools - SBR 06/06/07 100 International Research - S B R 06/06/07 100 Internet Research - S B R 06/07/07 100 HIPAA and Human Subjects Research 06/07/07 5 0 Conflicts of Interest in Research Involving Human S ubjects 06/15/07 5 0 Ohio State University 06/15/07 1 0 0

For this Completion Report to be valid, the learner listed above must be affiliated w ith a CITI participating institution. Falsified informa tion and unauthorized use of the CITI course site is unethical, and may be considere d scientific misconduct by your institution.

Paul Braunschweiger Ph.D. Professor, University of M iami Director Office of Research Education CITI Course Coordinator

145 APPENDIX B

IRB APPROVAL LETTER

Dear Investigators,

The above project has been determined to be exempt. The project number is 2007E0567. You may begin your data collection. The signature page of the application will be sent to the Principal Investigator to serve as an approval letter.

• This project “WHERE IS THE PUBLIC IN PUBLIC ART?” has been determined to be exempt in category 2. -Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior, unless :

a. information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human subjects can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects; AND ,

b. any disclosure of the human subjects' responses outside the research could reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation.

(NOTE: The exemption under Category 2 DOES NOT APPLY to research involving survey or interview procedures or observation of public behavior when individuals under the age of 18 are subjects of the activity except for research involving observations of public behavior when the investigator(s) do not participate in the activities being observed.)

Please note that only OSU employees and students who have completed CITI training and are named on the signature page of this application are approved as OSU investigators in conducting this study.

• You are reminded that you must promptly report any problems to the Office of Responsible Research Practices.

No procedural changes may be made in exempt research.

Janet

Janet Schulte, CIP Administrator, Office of Responsible Research Practices

146

APPENDIX C

SAMPLE SURVEY (FRONT)

The Ohio State University Department of Cultural Policy and Arts Administratio n Graduate Thesis Research Survey

W here is the Public in Public Art?

Corrinn Conard Conard.10@ osu.edu

1) In the last year, What’s Millennium M o n th ly how often did you P ark ? W eekly

visit M illennium This is my first time D aily P a rk ? Less than 10 times 2) How do you use As a tourist To attend special Millennium Park? I pass it on my way to events like: w o rk Please check all that To meet with friends C o n certs apply and circle your To relax by myself Festivals first choice. To enjoy the art and garden s Other______As a family _ destination 3) Do you like the Absolutely Not really art in M illennium Yes, it is pretty good You call this art? P ar k? It is just okay 4) In one or two sentences, please explain what you like and/or dislike about the art.

5) How important is Very important Somewhat public art to you ? Im p o rtan t im p o rtan t Not important 6) What purposes do Reflects and represents the community you think Creates attractive public spaces Chicago’s public Encourages public collaboration and participation art serve? Educates the public on the newest in art As a legacy for Mayor Daley

Please check all that Increases tourism and brings money into the city apply and circle your Nothing really first choice. Other______

7) Do you feel that you have a Y es Not really say in Chicago’s public art S o m ew N o decisions? h at I am not a resident

147

APPENDIX D

SURVEY SAMPLE (BACK)

8) Finish the I didn’t know about Millennium Park until it was following com pleted sentence with any I kept up with the building of the Park through answers that news media apply. I participated in public polls about the art I wrote to local newspapers or online blogs about When the art was the art being chosen for I attended public meetings about the art

Millennium Park… I wrote to legislators or Park committees about my opinions I was a member of a Park panel My tax dollars helped fund the art I made specific donations for the art Other ______

9) Would you have liked to participate more in Y es N o the art selection of Millennium Park? 10) Given the option to I would NOT like to participate participate in Participate in public polls public art decisions Write to online blogs or newspapers for Chicago, what Attend public meetings

would you do? Be on a decision-making panel Make contributions through tax dollars Please check all that Make specific donations for the art apply. 11) If you could change one thing about the art in Millennium Park, what would it be?

Do you live in Chicago? Y es No Other

______Your sex? M ale F em ale Your age? 18 – 31 – 55 O ver 55

30 Your race? W hite Black or African American Indian A sian A m erican Other______

H ispa Alaska Native nic Which best Single / Divorced / Widowed Single Parent describes your Married / Partnered Coupled with household? C hildren Employment Currently employed R etired Status? Currently unemployed H om em aker Full-time student

148

APPENDIX E

DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS

149

150

151

152

153

154

APPENDIX F

COMMENTARY OF SURVEY PARTICIPANTS

Part. # COMMENT THEMES 4 I like the diversity. I also like the fact that the Park is free. Accessible 5 The artwork is modern. It's different. Modernity / Unique 6 It is somewhere to go to appreciate art. Education

7 I like that the Park is so open. It's green and I like the view of the skyline. Escape 7 I like the changing art exhibits. Temporary exhibits Public participation / 7 I am happy as a receiver of art Indifferent 7 They should install more works in the promenades. More art 7 I like the mixture of people. Accessible I like that the art is not very controversial and it seems as though the public 8 likes to come here and enjoy it. Park The Lurie gardens look more like a nursery. They are quite informal 8 compared to the rest of the Park. Gardens There needs to be more shade. There is a lot of hot concrete in the 9 summertime More greens I like how the Crown Fountain has so many kids and families around it. It is a 9 nice safe place to come and sit. Community Community / Sense of 9 It is the community that helps make the art ownership 10 This is a way to get away from the city. Escape 10 The swinging sculpture looks unsafe. Sculpture 11 The environment makes me feel relaxed. I can get away from everything. Escape 12 The artwork is really interesting. Unique 12 I would like more classical art like the peristyle. Modernity of Art It's unique, especially 'The Bean'. The Fountain is interesting, but it doesn't Aesthetics / Bean / 13 really suit the environment. Fountain 13 I am not really a fan of modern art Modernity of art Public art should be a collaboration between the experts, city developers, and 13 the public Public participation 13 I never really tried to participate in public art decisions Public participation I wish there was more green spaces and that sculptures were made out of 13 more natural materials. More greens

The artwork is too futuristic feeling. I mean, it's okay, but it's not something 14 that I am going to sit and enjoy. It's not something memorable. Modernity of art 14 I didn't try to be involved in decisions for Millennium Park Public participation 14 The metal benches are too hot in the summertime. Benches 15 I like the fact that people actually come here. It is a gathering place. Community 15 I don't like the trees in cages. Greens

155 Part. # COMMENT THEMES

16 I really think that the art fits well with the landscaping. Aesthetics I never really thought about it as art. But, I do love the architectural pieces 17 like The Fountain and the Pavilion. Fountain/band shell 17 I am not crazy about the sculptures in the Boeing Gallery. Sculpture I probably could have participated if I wanted to. If I thought the city was not 17 doing a good job, I would work to change something Public participation 17 I never really noticed the art too much. Indifferent 17 More benches would be nice More benches There were times when the Park was being built that I thought, 'What is going 18 on here', but now that it is done, I love it! Pure praise 18 I love the peace and quiet. Just sitting here and looking at the city. Escape It does not really bother me that I do not have a say in Chicago's public art decisions. I don't feel that I have any talent in that area and I trust the Mayor's 18 choices. Daley is a Hero 19 I am not a good judge of artwork, but I like it. Pure praise 19 They could have more artwork and more benches. More benches The artwork is very original and very people friendly. I like that it is easy to 21 interact with. Accessible 21 There needs to be some cheaper food options. More food 22 Millennium Park doesn't really grab me. Don't like 22 There is not nearly enough shade. More greens 23 A beautiful, breathing space for the middle of the city. Escape 23 Public art should be a part of the culture of any country. Insight It is very futuristic, very modern. It takes a bit of getting used to, but it 23 eventually takes on its own beauty. Modernity of Art Riding bikes through the park would be nice. They want your money for the 24 bike parking lot, but you can't rider your bike here. Bike 25 They should allow bike riders in it. It's a park isn't it? Bike I like the perspective that 'The Bean' gives. It makes me feel like a fish in a 26 fishbowl. Bean 26 I wish there were more installations More art 27 The Park is clean, spacious and new. Pure praise 28 I haven't paid much attention to the art. Indifferent 29 It's very original, inspiring and fresh. Unique 30 I love Cloud Gate! Bean 32 I love that the art changes - the temporary exhibits. Temporary exhibits

32 The art in the Park is more interactive than I think the artists even intended. Accessibility 32 They should have more concerts at the Pavilion. More events 33 I like how green it is. It is such a break from the concrete of the city. Escape / Greens 33 The Park could be blocked more from downtown. Escape I used to live here in Chicago and I am so pleased with the changes that have been made to Grant Park. I particularly think that the Pritzker Pavilion is 34 spectacular. Band shell

156 Part. # COMMENT THEMES

It's just a matter of personal taste. I like 'The Bean', the bridge, and the music 36 pavilion. Bridge/Band shell 36 I enjoy what decisions have been made. Public participation 36 I am not too fond of the temporary exhibits. Temporary exhibits 37 I like the Park because I have never seen anything like it before. Unique 38 The Park is unusual. It is like nothing I have seen any place else. Unique 38 They should make it easier to find everything. Accessibility I like everything except the cast iron swing. I feel like some kid is going to get 39 hurt on that thing. Sculpture 39 There should be year-round concerts. More events

I could have done without Millennium Park. I don't like the faces on the 40 fountain and the planters in the middle of Randolph Street are just in the way. Don't like 40 Chicago's public art increases the payoffs for Daley's connections Corruption 41 The diversity of the Park is nice. It is unique and very interesting. Unique / Accessible 42 The Park is such a nice place to go. Pure praise The Park is unique. I really like The Fountain. 'The Bean' is fun and the Lurie 43 Garden is relaxing. Unique / Escape 44 I like that the sculptures are different, unique, and big! Unique / Size There should be more community projects. I would like to see the community Community / Sense of 44 have some sense of ownership. ownership The artwork? I don't really recognize or pay much attention to it. Maybe I 45 take it for granted. Indifferent 46 The landscaping is so beautiful. Greens 46 There is plenty of seating with beautiful views. Benches 47 I really like 'The Bean', but some of the rusty, metal pieces I do not like. Sculpture I would like to see some figures of historical individuals and people who were 47 important to the city. Recommendation 48 I like the environment as a whole. It's enjoyable and peaceful. Escape

49 It is a really innovative park. It has a nature feel, but with lots of cold steel. Unique

49 They should have more contemporary music, not just the classical symphony. Recommendation

50 It's strong and very prominent. Millennium Park gives the city a focal point. Park 50 The Park is very diverse. Accessibility I would participate in public art decisions if necessary, but it is currently not 50 necessary. Public participation 50 Millennium Park gives the city a center, a focal point. Civic Pride 50 The prices for food is too high. There is nothing for kids to eat. More food 50 I trust the Mayor and his decisions. I would rather just sit back and enjoy it. Public participation 51 I like the music - it's outstanding. The sound quality is exceptional. Band shell 51 Great horticulture. Greens 52 Some of the art just looks like old, rusty construction remains. Sculpture 52 The Park is uncluttered and open. It is pleasant. Escape

157 Part. # COMMENT THEMES

You just come across each of the artworks without expecting it. Each one is 53 different and well spaced out. Diversity 55 I like the audience participation in 'The Bean' and The Fountain. Accessibility Public art encourages art - it is something that is not supported by our 55 government. Public Art 55 Public art is a way for the elite to contribute to the community. Private Sector 56 I like the size of the artwork - everything is so big. Size 57 I like the Park's aesthetics. Aesthetics I would have something different than 'The Bean'. I don't understand why we 57 spent all that money on just a bean. It just sits there. Bean 58 It's innovative. Unique It is a very interesting place. Most people I know have had a positive reaction. They are pleased with it. As far as public spaces go, I think they did a pretty 59 good job. Unique I don't like every piece of public art, but in a democracy, it should be that way. Public participation / 59 I know it is not feasible to get everyone's opinion. Insight It is a very small portion of the people who are making the decisions about 59 public art. Private Sector I like it because my daughter likes it. She likes the Crown Fountain the best. The artwork helps the children - it encourages them. It also unites different Diversity / Community / 60 people into a common ground. Sense of ownership They should let street performers perform on the streets here. They made the street performers move away from the Park. This is no longer a city park. If you pay your tax dollars, you should be able to do your thing. This is not a 60 public park, it is M Accessible / Corruption 60 I am happy with what has been chosen. Public participation It is very accessible and it has a great attraction for people. The artwork 61 promotes play and interaction. Accessible Community / Sense of 61 The Park brings the community together ownership 61 I would have signs on the plants in the garden More education 62 People can interact with the art. It serves as a common ground for all. Accessible It is universal and easily accessible. You don't have to explain to people what 63 the artwork is about. Accessible I would have more friendly guards. They are not looking to help, they are 63 looking for trouble. Recommendation

When I first saw it, I didn't think much, but now I love it. Like The Fountain, it 64 is not particularly attractive, but it's fun. It is not just a park for the rich. Changed mind 64 I would have a say if I was proactive Public participation 64 The prices for food and parking are too high More food 64 I do not like the name advertisements on all the art Private Sector 64 It never crossed my mind to ask about who picked the art. Indifferent 65 It is something that I haven't seen before. It fascinates me. Unique The artwork fits the Park. It is not real fancy and it's easy to look at. I like that 66 people can interact with it. It's attractive. Interactive

158 Part. # COMMENT THEMES

I like artwork and architecture. I enjoy unusual art and sculpture. The work in 67 the Park is very pretty. Unique 67 I trust Mayor Daley's decisions. Daley is a Hero Reputation & 68 I like 'The Bean' and 'The Fountain'. I like that they have become so popular. Destination &

68 I don't like the neoclassical style of the memorial with the Gehry amphitheatre. Modernity of art 68 I hate how the security is ever-present. Public or private The layout feels very controlled. It doesn't feel like a public park, like Central 68 Park. Public or private 68 I know that you can go to public meetings if you want to participate. Public participation I don't like Millennium Park. It is not natural like Central Park in New York. It looks plastic. And the sculpture with the water running down with all the kids playing in it - it is just not pleasant. Not to mention all the money that was 69 spent. I Aesthetics 70 I like the rotating exhibits. Park/exhibits I understand why I didn't participate more in the art selection for the Park. 70 You can't cater to everyone. Public participation 70 If we could keep children from peeing in the fountain, that would be good. Fountain 71 I like the interactiveness of the pieces and how the public gets involved. Interactive My favorite are the designs by Gehry, especially the bridge. Also, I like the 72 feel of nature in the Park. Bridge/Band shell 72 There needs to be more benches, more seating areas, and more grassy areas Benches 73 It is unique and pretty. It is enjoyable for people of all ages. Park 73 Perhaps there could be more art More art I love watching the kids interact with the art. I like The Bean and many others. 74 I think it's very cool. Interactive 74 There needs to be more shade More greens I am not really into art, but I find it interesting. I like The Bean and the set up 75 of the band shell. Also, I like the memorial. Unique I don't really care for the Peristyle. It doesn't fit. And Cloud Gate is sort of 76 silly. Peristyle 76 I like the temporary exhibits more than the permanent ones Temporary exhibits 77 It is very relaxing. I like to eat lunch here sometimes. Escape 77 Should be more artwork More art 78 Cloud Gate and The Fountain are more like a children's playground. Bean / Fountain The location of some of the artwork is very peripheral. I think they could 78 attract more attention. Aesthetics 79 It's too modern. Modernity of art They just have walking tours. They should have something more for older 79 people. Accessibility There needs to be more seating, more park benches. I would like to sit in the 79 grass, but there are no benches there. More benches 80 Very expressive. Larger than life. Size

159 Part. # COMMENT THEMES

81 It is very beautiful and innovative. Unique / Aesthetic Reputation & 82 It is wonderful and a new experience for me since I am a visitor from Iowa. Destination & 82 It is a very relaxing place to come Escape 82 The flowers and plants should be labeled More education 83 The Park is avant-garde. It pushes the envelope. Modernity of art 84 I like the variety of the Park. Diversity 85 The Cloud Gate is fun to look at and show people. Bean I like the way the art gathers so many people to come enjoy the park, esp. the 86 bean and The Fountain. Community 90 I like the gardens and the water in the gardens. The Fountain is fun too. Gardens The Park is very structural. It is more like a continuation of the city rather than 90 getting away from the city. Escape Community / Sense of 91 The Park is a way to socialize ownership 91 I enjoy watching the pieces. Pure praise 91 There needs to be more concerts here More events 92 I like how the sculptures catch the eye. They are big and they stand out. Size Millennium Park is a magical place. It is a mixture of different cultures. It Accessibility / 93 brings all worlds together in one location. Community / Diversity 93 The Park gives everyone an opportunity. Accessibility The business people here are so generous and give so much back to the 93 community. This is a very generous city. Private Sector If I had the time, I would have participated in Millennium Park more, but I think 93 that they did a wonderful job. Public participation I love it all. It is just a wonderful destination in every respect. One of my Reputation & favorites is The Fountain and Cloud Gate because they are not static. Destination & Everything is always changing and people can interact. I also love that it Competition / 94 attracts children. Accessible 94 I have a say because by coming here, the park continues. Public participation 95 My favorite is 'the bean' Bean It's accessible. It is not just art to look at, but you can touch it, go into it, get 96 wet by it. Accessibility 96 It invites the viewer to pause and rest. It engages you and makes you pause. Education 96 I feel I could have more of a say if I wanted to. Public participation 96 I would like more art. It should still have the open space, but more art also Escape I am really blown away. It's kind of awesome actually. It's grand and unique. 97 I feel kind of proud that it's in Chicago. Unique 97 It's kind of nice to be surprised. Public participation 98 I like that it's modern art. They are huge and impressive. Modernity of art 98 They should exhibit more art More art 99 The metal sculptures don't do much, but I really like the fountain and 'the Sculpture I like watching other people with the pieces. I come to people watch more 99 than anything else. Accessibility 100 This art is very unique and that's what makes it interesting Unique

160 Part. # COMMENT THEMES

I like the fountain and the pavilion, but they are not very inviting. There needs to be less metal and more romantic, classical sculpture. It shouldn't be so 101 cold. It should be warm and round and soft to invite people. Modernity of Art In Europe, we feel the government will do everything for us, but this is an act Community / Sense of 102 of community and civility ownership I like the atmosphere here, especially in 'the bean'. It is a nice park with a 103 nice view. Aesthetics I like the Fountain and the greens because they take you away from the city 104 noises. It is a getaway in an urban area Escape I don't like the iron sculptures, but I really enjoyed the photos that they had 104 last year - they were not so abstract. Sculpture 105 I like the abstract nature of the work, it goes well with the Park Modernity of Art Community / Sense of 105 Chicago's public art has a civic quality ownership 106 I like the pavilion and 'the doughnut'. Bean / Band shell 106 It's quiet here. It's nicely designed with flowers and greens. Escape I like all the opening mingling spaces. There are a lot of separate spaces in 107 the Park put together nicely. Escape 107 I love the Fountain! fountain Community / Sense of 107 The Park brings both tourists and Chicagoans together. ownership 107 Decisions by committee causes artwork that is just bland. Public participation I wish that the rotating exhibits were more accessible and more attention was 107 brought to them. There are no real walkways leading you there. More accessibility The sculpture is not prominently displayed. It should be more like a sculpture 108 park. More accessibility It seems more about increasing tourism than for the public. The Daley 108 administration has always been about bringing in money for the city. Tourism 108 Yes. This city is run like a fascist regime. Corruption There are excellent pieces, but some of the more tourist driven pieces Reputation & 109 overshadow the other beautiful things. Destination & It hasn't felt that the tourist money from Millennium Park has been distributed 109 to other parts of the city. Tourism 109 It feels like they're trying to make 'central park light' or 'diet central park'. Civic Pride As a photographer, I get upset at the way the guards are over zealous about 109 photography. Atmosphere 109 I am not a fan of the Gehry and Pritzker design. It is just a façade. Band shell 109 I appreciate the bike garage, but it needs more publicity. Bike 109 It's very easy to not realize that you are right next to the art institute. Insight The suggestion that this Park serves as a legacy for Daley just appalls me 109 though it often feels like this is the case. Corruption

161 Part. # COMMENT THEMES

It is a magnet for people in a good mood so it creates a really nice sense of Community / Sense of 110 community ownership 111 It is very unique and different. You don't see it everywhere. Unique The art is interesting. I like that they are contemporary, metal and incorporate 112 a lot of shapes. Unique 112 There should be more plaques that have educational information about the More education 113 It's beautiful. It's very unusual and creative. It's just wonderful really. Unique Community / Sense of 114 This is Chicago's garden. I don't have a garden anymore so this is it. ownership 114 The public art in Chicago reflects that we are art conscious. Civic Pride 114 For the exhibits, we need to have more educational material More education 114 The pavilion is beautiful and the sound is wonderful Band shell Yeah, they are making their legacies, but Mayor Daley is a mere shadow of 114 his father Corruption 115 The Park makes you think and appreciate art. Education 115 It relaxes you Escape Reputation & 115 Millennium Park serves more for tourists than for representing Chicagoans Destination & The exhibit with the photographs from around the world was a wonderful 115 exhibit. I would have liked to keep that here. Temporary exhibits I like the Promenade with the Peristyle. It's beautiful. It feels like a Roman 116 garden. Peristyle 116 I really love the Pavilion. The sound is great! Band shell In the restaurant area, they play top 40 hits which really does not fit with the 116 rest of the Park Restaurant Mayor Daley…he is fantastic! He is really trying to develop the city. It's a 116 good thing. Daley is a Hero The free standing sculpture looks kind of out of place. People just seem to 117 pass them by. Sculpture I dislike modern sculpture in general. I would make the art more classical so it is more accessible to the general public, like the Peristyle or Buckingham 118 Fountain. Modernity of Art 118 I like that the shows do not exclude people Accessible I would say that Chicagoans don't care about Millennium Park and feel that the art is more like a spectacle. It is more about the elite who paid for it, the 118 sculpture does not really speak to the general public. Private Sector The art is a useless waste of valuable resources. There should be more 119 things to do here, not art. Money The Park shows diversity in a congested city, where you can look and see 120 something pure. Accessible / Escape 120 I would get rid of the bums Accessibility

162 Part. # COMMENT THEMES

Modernity of Art / I like the art because its abstract and its colorful. There is no other city that Reputation, Destination, 121 has this - this is our stuff and we are proud of it. Competition We don't have a say, not as black people. We don't have a voice in the 121 downtown area and black artists are not represented. Accessibility We're from Florida and there is not much art like this there. Everything here is 122 about art, even the buildings are artistic. Unique 122 I would change the benches Benches 124 This is a good place to get fresh air Escape I like that the art is clean-lined and somewhat ageless. The art pays homage 125 to the city and respects the surrounding architecture. Aesthetics Would like for their to be more smaller, private spaces along with the open 125 space Escape 125 I could be involved public participation 126 I like everything except the cover of the pavilion. Band shell 127 It's modern, but it's not stupid. It brings a new feeling into the city Modernity of Art 127 There should be more events More events 128 I like the creativity of the structures. It's tranquil. Escape / Unique Art is to be shared by all. I like the way every culture comes to Millennium 129 Park to see the arts. Community 129 Would like more cold water fountains in the summer More water fountains 131 Everything is different, but it all blends together Aesthetics 131 I would like more water fountains More water fountains 132 The sculptures and fountains are unlike anything I have ever seen Unique 133 Needs more monumental sculptures like the bean More art 134 It is different from my country. Its another kind of art. Unique 134 Art is something that the human being needs. Pure praise I don't believe I have seen anything all too profound, however it is all quite 135 aesthetically pleasing Aesthetics 135 I would have more live events, I guess More events I am frustrated that performance artists have to jump through so many hoops in order to perform in the Park or on the Chicago streets. The city needs to 135 make sure that they get their cut. Accessibility 135 Millennium Park is a wonderful experience for students of the arts Education Some of the pieces seem to have no real significance. Then again, do they 137 have to have one? Don't like 137 24 HOURS Accessibility 138 It's pretty big - it's a nice place to walk around Size / Escape 138 I would add more places to eat More food

163 Part. # COMMENT THEMES

It is very creative - this is not everyday stuff that you see. The area near Buckingham Fountain is designed like a European city, but there are not a lot 139 of people there. Unique 139 In America, we like public art, but we never have time to enjoy it Insight 139 It is just fantastic! Pure praise Since we've been here at Millennium Park, public art is growing on us. It is 139 becoming more important to us. Public Art It's just something new in Chicago. I am not used to seeing things like this. I 140 like it because it is something different Unique I like the atmosphere of the Park. It is a place where the sun shines and I can 141 relax Escape 141 I haven't pursued public art participation Public participation 142 I like the Peristyle and the Fountain Peristyle / Fountain 143 I'm not big on art so nothing offends me. I guess it ain't too bad, right? Indifferent 144 It's relaxing. I enjoy the variety Escape 144 Get rid of Gehry Pavilion. It's attractive, but it's just overwhelming Band shell It's modern - it's with the times. It is displayed well and doesn't get lost in the 145 Park. Modernity / Abstract 146 They should make it more interactive. More Accessibility 146 It is novel and unique. Unique 146 The sculptures are creative Unique 147 It is different and engaging. Unique 148 The control booth in the amphitheatre is right in the way. band shell 148 I was amazed at how beautiful it turned out. I think it's fantastic. Pure praise 148 I want the qualified individuals to make decisions about public art public participation I have lived here for 20 years and the city has really changed for the better 148 during those years. Community I think the Park is incredibly successful which is amazing considering the politics and everything. It's hard to find someone with enough control to get it 148 done like Mayor Daley did. He has done an amazing thing. Daley is a Hero 148 I think public art is very important…when it is good. Insight Public art helps develop a shared culture - a common culture. In America, we 148 don't value this enough because the dollar takes over. Insight I don't think I should be a part of Chicago's public art decisions. Including the 148 public leads to the dummying down of art. Public participation 149 I like the Futurist undertones - the similarities to the Futuristic movement. Modernity of art 150 I like the view of the city that you get from the Park. Aesthetics 151 I like the landscaping - all the grass and the trees. Greens 151 They should try and involve more people that live around here. Accessibility 152 There should be more educational material on the art and sculpture. More Education I grew up coming here and it's nice to see people congregating here. It is very Community / 152 interactive. Accessibility

164 Part. # COMMENT THEMES

It is instantly appealing. It surrounds you on all sides and the people respond 152 to it. Aesthetics 153 It would be nice to have one or two cafes to eat at. More to eat 153 I like the concept - to have it open for the public for free concerts and such. Accessibility 154 I would only participate in selecting public artwork if I was getting paid. Public participation It's good art. I know good art when I see it. I'm an artist myself and it caught 154 my eye. Pure praise 154 I participate in public art if someone asks me my opinion, like you are doing. public participation 155 I would like more birds around here. More greens 155 I don't really pay attention. Indifferent I like that there are different parts of the Park. Its design is segregated so that 156 you can be here or there. Aesthetics There are more people who are more intelligent about what are to choose. I 157 am a neophyte so I don't know anything. Public participation The whole park is uphill. It is hard for the elderly and for people with strollers 157 to get around. Accessibility 157 I like the fountain and 'the bean', but not the temporary exhibits. fountain 157 The pavilion is beautiful and it sounds great. band shell The arts are for a different class. There has to be some level of intelligencia to even know if it is important or not. Those struggling to put meals on the Private Sector / Public 157 table do not care about public art. Participation If I had about $300,000 more in the bank then I would be able to participate in 157 Chicago's public art decisions. It's not bad, it's just the way it is. public participation 158 There could be more artwork and it could reflect the history of Chicago more. More art 158 It's okay. It's there. I haven't spent that much time looking at it. Indifferent 159 The pavilion is just too much. band shell 159 It is a nice place to go in a big city. It is different and very good. Escape / Unique 160 It is very different from the rest of the city, but still fits very well. I just like it. Aesthetics I would like to see more small scale sculptures blended in with the landscape. I would like more local artists work and more attention to detail. Some places 161 just look bare and some of the details are chinsy looking. More art I like that it brings an international presence to the city and to America in 161 general. Diversity 161 It is a good blend of culture and nature. It reflects the city itself. Park 161 It adds to the current architecture. Aesthetics The people who have a say in Chicago's public art are those who have the 161 deepest pockets. This is not a bad thing, it is just what it is. Private Sector It is creative. It relates to the human spirit especially the faces on the 162 Fountain. It is all just very relaxing. Unique / Escape 163 I would make it bigger with a little more grass. There is too much concrete. More greens The Park is immaculate. The art is accessible to everybody and everyone is 163 interacting with it. Accessibility 164 It is unique. I travel a lot, but every time I come here, I feel very excited. Unique I like that it is really ambiguous. There is no one-liner to it. It is open to 165 interpretation. Education

165 Part. # COMMENT THEMES

166 I just like the scenery. Aesthetics 167 Would have rotating exhibits in certain sections. More art 167 Huge art in the middle of the city is exactly what it should be. Size 168 Would like more interactive public gatherings. More Accessibility 168 I like the variety and the modern aesthetics. Modernity of art I really like the revolving exhibitions. They are always gutsy and interesting (esp. the pictures from all over the world). Also, the permanent art is unlike 169 anywhere else. They are very cool. Unique 169 I heard about Millennium Park, but I had no idea it involved the public. public participation I think there should be a robot that says welcome to Millennium Park in 20 169 different languages. Recommendation

166

APPENDIX G

THE TRIBUNE’S ONLINE BLOG, CATEGORIZED BY TOPIC

I LOVE THIS PARK…WORDS OF PRAISE SOURCE PRAISE

Submitted by: Brian Great graphics here...Saw the west side of the park last fall, and this 4:01 PM CDT, Jul 15, 2004 looks great. Looking forward to seeing it when I visit in Sept.

Submitted by: Bryon 1:17 PM CDT, Jul 15, 2004 Beautiful! Stunning!! The lakefront is now better than ever!

Submitted by: Cryus 6:09 PM CDT, Jul 15, 2004 FABULOUS PARK Submitted by: dare 11:42 PM CDT, Jul 15, 2004 The Millennium Park is the best idea in Chicago.....THANK YOU Submitted by: DAVE 10:23 AM CDT, Jul 15, 2004 OUTSTANDING! Thank you

Submitted by: Jim 9:23 AM CDT, Jul 15, 2004 I work just the street and watched this being built - it is awesome!!!

Submitted by: Jon It's really great to see Chicago building monumental public facilities. 2:05 PM CDT, Jul 15, 2004 We will all be richer for this beautiful and innovative park.

I witnessed the construction from my office. At first I was concerned about the design. However, after walking through the park and Submitted by: Karin 10:35 PM CDT, Jul 15, seeing the design from different angles, I have concluded that it is 2004 beautiful and we should be proud of it. I have been won over. Just last month we had a tour with a Chicago Greeter who previewed the "Mill"" and we were awestruck at it's beauty and breadth within green space. We will definitely see this new landmark Submitted by: Maureen on our next trip to Chicago. Good for you, Frank Gehry! You did 2:16 PM CDT, Jul 15, 2004 yourself proud! -Bethlehem PA

167 A SOURCE OF CIVIC PRIDE SOURCE COMMENT

Submitted by: D Having moved from Chicago recently, seeing pictures makes me 8:22 AM CDT, Jul 15, 2004 miss my "hometown" even more.... My friends and I have been watching this development for the past four years. We've been looking forward to opening day more than we did for Christmas past. Chicagoans are fortunate to have a

Submitted by: Tod S. park that's as big and beautiful and forward-thinking as it's 5:47 PM CDT, Jul 15, 2004 marvelous past. Realizing this park is a great thing for the city. Along with lakefront, south shore drive, museum campus, and other improvements, this

Submitted by: Will S. park will make people enjoy living and working in Chicago even 1:21 PM CDT, Jul 15, 2004 more. I LOVE IT! As the girlfriend as an aspiring architect, I have come to love architecture, especially modern architecture and this definitely takes the cake! I think Millennium Park will be so good for the city!

Submitted by: Katie I think this park sets us apart from so many other cities and gives 9:50 AM CDT, Jul 15, 2004 us such style! I visited the M-Park with my family yesterday and was so awed and impressed that once again, Chicago has opted for beauty and pleasure for its citizens and visitors that will last for decades. It is a 6:58 AM CDT, Jul 16, 2004 proud continuation of a proud tradition.

Submitted by: Balta I believe is going to be a park that will reflect the big dreams of 8:47 AM CDT, Jul 15, 2004 Chicagoans as well as show case the city of Chicago.

168 A SOURCE OF CIVIC PRIDE SOURCE COMMENT

Submitted by: Herman / 1:42 It's like a mini-Central Park and I can't wait to visit the park in PM CDT, Jul 16, 2004 person. I visited the M-Park with my family yesterday and was so awed and impressed that once again, Chicago has opted for beauty and pleasure for its citizens and visitors that will last for decades. It is a 6:58 AM CDT, Jul 16, 2004 proud continuation of a proud tradition.

Submitted by: Balta I believe is going to be a park that will reflect the big dreams of 8:47 AM CDT, Jul 15, 2004 Chicagoans as well as show case the city of Chicago.

Submitted by: Herman / 1:42 It's like a mini-Central Park and I can't wait to visit the park in PM CDT, Jul 16, 2004 person. I visited the M-Park with my family yesterday and was so awed and impressed that once again, Chicago has opted for beauty and pleasure for its citizens and visitors that will last for decades. It is a 6:58 AM CDT, Jul 16, 2004 proud continuation of a proud tradition.

Submitted by: Balta I believe is going to be a park that will reflect the big dreams of 8:47 AM CDT, Jul 15, 2004 Chicagoans as well as show case the city of Chicago.

Submitted by: Herman / 1:42 It's like a mini-Central Park and I can't wait to visit the park in PM CDT, Jul 16, 2004 person. I love it. I have stayed away from the downtown scene for a few Submitted by: Ron 11:31 AM CDT, Jul 15, years after being down there every day for college a few years 2004 ago. This might get me back down there. Be proud Chicago you have a jewel that other world-class cities

Submitted by: Skip will envy. I look forward to visiting the park, when I’m in town from 3:06 PM CDT, Jul 15, 2004 Atlanta.

ACCESSIBILITY SOURCE CRITICISM SOURCE PRAISE Submitted by: asspyrate 1:14 PM CDT, Jul 16, 2004 The bums are going to love it!!!!

169 AESTHETICS SOURCE CRITICISM SOURCE PRAISE The band shell is ugly and horribly out of proportion - it does not complement

Submitted by: the buildings outside the park. The Fantastic overall. Disappointed that BM park feels like a random combination Submitted by: you can see the structure behind the 12:32 PM Brian Bates CDT, Jul 15, of things. Little harmony. I'm 9:43 AM CDT, Gehry band shell--looks unfinished, 2004 disappointed. Jul 15, 2004 unlike his Disney Hall in LA.

Submitted by: Koren Yea, we need great/prominent Submitted by: In a city with fantastic architecture, I 11:55 AM Sheri CDT, Jul 15, architecture back in the city, but did 8:45 AM CDT, think this is a beautiful addition. I 2004 we have to jam it all in one little spot? Jul 15, 2004 look forward to enjoying the park.

On site it's hideous. It detracts from that which is already here: it obscures our view of the lake AND the skyline. Rather than simply plow it under, we should disassemble it and move it to Submitted by: the west loop, where it would be an Paul P. 5:18 PM CDT, improvement, rather than the eyesore Jul 15, 2004 it is today. the bean is too close to the gehry Submitted by: thing, it should have been elsewhere pedro 9:29 AM CDT, in grant park - too much stuff, too little Jul 15, 2004 space. Remember how harsh the critics (e.g. the Trib) were about how the new Solider Field looks from Lake Shore Drive? I wonder how anyone can justify the awful way the Gehry

Submitted by: bandshell looks from Randolph- Wondering Washington Streets. Will Gehry get a 12:15 PM CDT, Jul 15, pass on these eyesore views 2004 because of his fame?

170 A PLACE TO ESCAPE SOURCE CRITICISM SOURCE PRAISE

Submitted by: Pat 12:06 PM CDT, Beautiful. The best and safest park in the Jul 15, 2004 USA. A great place to relax after shopping.

ACCOMMODATIONS SOURCE CRITICISM SOURCE PRAISE It's pretty. Pretty expensive, pretty Submitted by: cluttered and pretty selfish. What kind Robert S. 11:10 AM CDT, Jul of a park doesn't have benches to sit 15, 2004 on?

171 ADMINISTRATION SOURCE CRITICISM SOURCE PRAISE We needed this, It's beautiful, especially the Frank Gehry project. Grant park needed revitalization, as did Submitted by: Submitted by: Beth the loop. A world-class city has to Brendan Nichols 12:40 PM CDT, Jul 12:19 PM CDT, Jul compete on a world-class scale. Mayor 15, 2004 The mayor is out of control. 15, 2004 Daley was right to get this done. From the very beginning if have felt this to be one of the biggest boondoggles ever foisted on the public by this or any other administration. The Mayor has done many Absolutely terrific! an homage to

worthwhile things during his Submitted by: Chicago's great history and bright Submitted by: Carl time in office. but I really think moshe dayan future mayor Daley - keep working on Doering` 2:15 PM CDT, Jul 2:03 PM CDT, Jul he has lost it when it comes to 15, 2004 these spectacular projects awaiting the 15, 2004 this park. meigs field project Yes the park is nice.. Yes the park was a PORK BOONDOGGLE from day one.. Yes the cost overruns Absolutely worth the wait. The bits of were probably pay-offs to who the Pavilion, Bridge, the bean all are knows who.. but you know enticing. I can hardly wait for the thrill of what? It's done and the park is being closer, in and around these. up and we may as well enjoy it. Submitted by: Thank you Frank Gehry, Mayor Daley Submitted by: Dave Nancy 11:25 AM CDT, Jul since we all paid for it.... 8:59 AM CDT, Jul and all the people who donated so 16, 2004 dearly. 15, 2004 much money. Chicago is fantastic.

172 ADMINISTRATION SOURCE CRITICISM SOURCE PRAISE Once again Dick Daley puts himself before others. Rebuild our infrastructure, our Thank you, Mayor for the beautiful neighborhoods and our park! Thank you donors, for sharing schools, but instead he caters Submitted by: your wealth with this magnificent city. Submitted by: Nick Katherine 9:40 AM CDT, Jul to the few who will go to the 1:06 PM CDT, Jul Thank you architects and builders for 15, 2004 park. 16, 2004 completing the artistic vision. To Ralph: This is Chicago. Da Submitted by: Paulie 12:48 PM CDT, Jul Mare doesn't let the people 15, 2004 have a voice.

Submitted by: R. Over budget? The final Mitchell 12:26 PM CDT, Jul taxpayer insult will come when 15, 2004 it's renamed Daley Park.

Daley, where are your priorities? What about the neighborhood parks that used to be nicely maintained? How about the crumbling public school system? Bring back Submitted by: Meigs Field. Yet another Sandra 10:49 AM CDT, Jul downtown park for the 16, 2004 homeless and the criminals.

173 MONEY SOURCE CRITICISM SOURCE PRAISE

Stop complaining about the money, it costs a million to fire a cruise missile into Iraqi homes, a billion for a single space shuttle launch, and the entire Submitted by: Submitted Apollo program to go to the moon - Adam P. by: Carl 9:53 AM 11:44 AM $100 BILLION (adjusted for inflation) - CDT, Jul 16, How many kids would CDT, Jul 15, complain about that and why free 2004 $475,000,000 feed? 2004 money isn't given to the homeless.

It looks great, but I can not get People will always complain about Submitted by: Submitted over the price that was paid for all misallocation of funds, but this park Aurora by: Chris / 9:56 AM of this. Chicago is already know 7:42 AM is a great project that is for everyone CDT, Jul 16, for our beautiful skyline and CDT, Jul 16, and adds to our culture, indeed, our 2004 buildings. Money well spent???? 2004 civilization.

I need to go back to this again. We have no money to keep a commuter airport open. People starve in this city every day. But a Half the money came from doners half a billion dollars for a park in and the other half came from taxes of Submitted by: Submitted an area that's decent already? downtown citizens. The only ones Brendan / by: David 9:39 AM You're joking! We could build 3 11:20 AM who should complain about the CDT, Jul 16, more Sears Towers for that CDT, Jul 15, money being spent are those two 2004 amount of money! 2004 groups of people Seeing as London spent over $1 billion on a dome, Chicago got a bargain, citizens will enjoy the Submitted amenities year round. The sound by: system is incredible, all the admin@mille naysayers need to experience it Submitted by: nniumpark.ne themselves before making a final Brendan t 7:20 AM 11:25 PM judgment. Clearly this is moving CDT, Jul 15, ...just... why? What an incredible CDT, Jul 15, Chicago forward into the 21st 2004 misallocation of resources. 2004 Century.

The money was well spent! It adds to Submitted by: Submitted too bad we had to spend so much the city's architectural splendors! Carrie by: Fabian / 10:54 AM on it, but it is beautiful. I saw the 1:47 PM Those who are complaining about it CDT, Jul 15, reflection you see in it from a cab CDT, Jul 16, need to realize the city will get it's 2004 this morning, its was beautiful. 2004 return through tourism!

174 MONEY SOURCE CRITICISM SOURCE PRAISE An Amazing urban achievement no matter which way you slice it. All those complaints about too much money should just be shut down, the Lets keep raising the seniors government wastes a lot more on Submitted by: Submitted taxes maybe we can build another other things... this park is for Dale by: Jason S 11:36 AM park? How about dealing with the 1:29 PM everyone and will be a symbol of CDT, Jul 15, homeless and panhandlers who CDT, Jul 15, pride for the city for the next 2004 will now occupy the "park" 2004 millennium - congrats This beautiful park will be a wonderful place for people -- local What we should have for all that and out-of-towners -- to visit and wasted money is an indoor ice Submitted enjoy for generations to come. Will Submitted by: by: Kevin in rink or swimming pool. Give us a anybody be complaining about the Dee LB. 4:56 PM roller coaster. What a waste. 3:51 PM money in 20 years? I doubt it, when CDT, Jul 15, Should have used it to save some CDT, Jul 15, countless millions will come in from 2004 lives. 2004 tourists.

All these people who complain about How many times are we going to the cost..... was the Field Museum reinvent downtown as if the rest of free? The Eiffel Tower? the city doesn't exist. The money Michelangelo's 'David'? Our Submitted wasted here is a prime example of generation has been able to enjoy all Submitted by: by: Kurt Eric / 3:49 how Chicago has become a few 2:22 PM of these at no cost. It's only right that AM CDT, Jul blocks of over priced sculptures CDT, Jul 15, we contribute something awesome 16, 2004 and more junk we don't need. 2004 and whimsical to the world. It is sort of cool looking (well maybe) but 2 things bother me about this...1) we will forever be known as a joke of a city who spent this on a BEAN! 2) we need money in this city for schools and Remember, it was railroad tracks Submitted by: Submitted the homeless. It is a shame to before, and the city only paid for half Gina by: Thanks! 1:43 PM have spent as much on a "pretty" 1:04 AM of it! (And half of the city's CDT, Jul 15, thing and not what's really CDT, Jul 16, contribution comes from the new 2004 important! 2004 parking underneath)

175 MONEY SOURCE CRITICISM SOURCE PRAISE Will surely evoke civic pride for years It took long enough, but it looks to come, and promote additional great. The big question is "was it residential development in the East Submitted by: Submitted worth all the money." I have mixed and South Loop. As for those worried Joe Jackson by: Brad B. 5:50 PM feeling about the cost, but will 4:21 PM about cost, this is a much better CDT, Jul 15, take advantage of it every CDT, Jul 15, investment than the new $500 million 2004 opportunity I get. Go Cubs. 2004 Soldier Field!! We are lucky to have a park that promotes expanding one's mind through music, art & architecture, & for keeping our culture strong. For those complaining about the cost, Submitted by: Submitted just enjoy the park & get the most for josh by: Becki 8:30 AM looks pretty and nice but many 5:06 PM your tax dollars. Oh, and thanks to CDT, Jul 15, Chicago neighborhoods are in sad CDT, Jul 15, the private donors who helped made 2004 condition. 2004 this possible. Submitted by: Ken R. CT 01/02/05, 11:46 AM p. 3, Arts & "Chicago is the flagship city for CDT, Jul 15, What a huge waste of money. Entertainmen realizing the link between the arts 2004 Can we have the airport back? t and economic development."

Submitted by: Submitted First we take away from all city Nobody took money from any school Pat D by: Boris 7:07 AM employees, we don't have enough 10:12 AM to build this park. But this park will CDT, Jul 16, money to pay salaries-then CDT, Jul 16, generate enough money over the 2004 this??? 2004 years to help the city and its schools.

176 MONEY SOURCE CRITICISM SOURCE PRAISE

All this money spent on this park should've been used on the Chicago Public Schools. If the city wanted a pretty park so bad, why wasn't it build Submitted by: Submitted in the West or South neighborhoods? Beautiful. It will be even better in 5-10 years Real City Girl by: David 2:16 PM Chicago is NOT just about the Loop, 10:51 AM when the trees and flowers mature. For those CDT, Jul 16, put a beautiful park in the "Real CDT, Jul 15, concerned about money the park will pay for 2004 Neighborhoods". 2004 itself in the next few years Its appears to be beautiful and it will Submitted another attraction for visitors to see. by: Submitted by: scatteredsha Will just have to see if it was worth the It IS costly, but I think the city will benefit Sebastian dows 12:15 PM cost and the wait. Why can 't we get 8:12 PM enormously from it for generations to come. As CDT, Jul 15, some of those donations to improve CDT, Jul 15, an avid biker, the bike station will be 2004 the transportation, school ,etc … 2004 AWESOME! Submitted by: Sho Nuff After this construction, City Council can 1:58 PM never say WE CAN'T "find" funds for CDT, Jul 15, this/that. Submitted by: Saw it being built - there was already a Sooz 3:01 PM park there. It is nice, but there was CDT, Jul 15, already a park there! AND the money 2004 should have been used for the 'hoods! Submitted by: Steve McGahey 1:08 PM Given the option I would take the CDT, Jul 15, money 100 times over the scrap yard. What about this school system...... all of the schools that are being closed and all of the jobs being eliminated??? The money should have been donated to the SCHOOL SYSTEM or the homeless or the abused or the Submitted by: Tamica / 6:31 frightened battered women or etc. etc. PM CDT, Jul etc...... We need to face the REAL 15, 2004 WORLD. Submitted by: ouiser Nothing against beauty. but my first 1:40 PM reaction was 'what real purpose does it CDT, Jul 15, serve?

177 TOURISM & IMAGE SOURCE CRITICISM SOURCE PRAISE

The park is beautifully stunning and will only increase Chicago's Submitted by: reputation as a world class travel Mike Submitted by: 11:36 AM Joe N. destination. The cost will eventually CDT, Jul 15, New York has much 1:19 PM CDT, be made up by the tourists that 2004 better stuff than this. Jul 15, 2004 come to spend money here.

Chicago is a world-class city, and this is a world-class attraction that will be a joy for citizens and bring tourists here. I meet many visitors who say that Chicago is the most Submitted by: Tom C beautiful city in the country...places 1:31 PM CDT, like this are why. I say it is well Jul 15, 2004 worth the price tag!!!

Wow. This is what first class cities Submitted by: Tom S do when they have the opportunity. 12:20 PM CDT, That is to say, put forth a first class Jul 15, 2004 effort. The money is irrelevant. Oh, money is only money. This Submitted by: Rebecca park will put us on the map for 9:45 AM CDT, decades--if not centuries-- to come. Jul 15, 2004 We should be proud!

178 IS THIS A PUBLIC PARK? SOURCE CRITICISM SOURCE PRAISE

If all it takes is the promise to a The park - like all great art - is few rich folks that their names uplifting, ennobling, inspiring. And it will be on things - let's get on is public, a true wonder in our with the SBC circle line, the Aon increasingly privatized society. It mid-city subway, the BP urban might even inspire greater civic and Submitted by: renewal project, the Bank One community involvement that could mo Submitted by: 11:31 AM better schools initiative, and the Matt / 11:53 AM uplift all people in all parts of the CDT, Jul 15, Boeing high speed express CDT, Jul 16, city. Downtown belongs to 2004 trains to both airports. 2004 everyone.

PARTICIPATION SOURCE PROMOTE Submitted by: ralph 10:44 AM CDT, Jul 15, $270 MILLION OVER BUDGET!! Where was 2004 our vote in that process??? For all those concerned about the schools Submitted by: David 2:33 PM CDT, Jul 16, instead of telling us about it why don't you go 2004 down to city hall and tell them.

179

APPENDIX H

THE “VOICE OF THE PEOPLE” (1998-2006)

2001

The most interesting aspect of the Millennium Park debacle is that all of this money has been spent and wasted without any City Council oversight and without a single alderman raising questions on behalf of their constituents. The new U.S. state's attorney will have a field day in Chicago! Howard Geiderman, 2001

***********************************************************************

Although I applaud the mayor and his administration for turning derelict land on Chicago's well-respected front yard into an architecturally striking park that will fulfill architect Daniel Burnham's vision for our great city, it is a shame that better thinking did not go into Millennium Park's planning and construction ("Millennium Park flounders as deadlines, budget blown," Page 1, Aug. 5). Now cost-cutting features that may save a few million dollars will also, I believe, negatively impact the overall pleasure of the park.

Without a sloping lawn for the concert area, most people will not have a view of the stage. Does the city seriously think that people will listen to a performance if they can't see what's happening on the stage?

Although it is important to keep costs under control, the city has already failed at that. This current cost-cutting feature is a misguided attempt that will provide people with an unmemorable experience. Anthony Cerceo, 2001

***********************************************************************

I hope the over budget Millennium Park project dissuades City Hall from attempting the underground garage plan slated to coincide with the Soldier Field renovation. Tom Krebs, 2001 180 ***********************************************************************

Segregation as a result of building – opposite effect of suburbanization… Millennium Park is the reason the city is encouraging condo development so there will be more property taxpayers who can pay for the mayor's construction ideas. The city looks good, but it's too expensive to live here. L. Wright, 2001

***********************************************************************

Millennium Park is certain to be enjoyed by visitors and local citizens, but when making choices of how to spend money, I vote for cleaning up the pipes that discharge sewage into our lake.

It would take a lot, I'm sure, to separate the rain water and sewage, but other cities have done this. Think of the people who could not cool off in the lake that extremely hot week.

Perhaps a bus could bring those from closed beaches to the open ones.

I'm looking forward to the days when everyone can enjoy our wonderful lake. Marjorie Ettlinger, 2001

***********************************************************************

2002

I read your story about the problems with Millennium Park ("Millennium Park fund plan fails," News, Jan. 13). Perhaps one of the reasons the parking garage isn't doing as well as expected is the rates it charges. Earlier this month, I parked there while visiting the Art Institute. When I retrieved my car about two hours later, I was shocked to get a $16.00 tab. As a member of the Art Institute, I was eligible for a 20 percent discount. However, no cashiers were there so I was forced to use an automatic payment machine with a credit card. No discount.

Didn't city-run garages usually charge less than private garages to get people to use them? I won't be using them anymore. Ken Bryza, 2002

***********************************************************************

2003

181 When I read that Frank Gehry thinks it's unimportant whether people can see the stage if they sit in the back of his band-shell area, it makes me want to cry ("Steel appeal; Frank Gehry talks about his new band shell that's taking shape and turning heads in Millennium Park." Arts & Entertainment, July 6).

I could see and hear everywhere at Petrillo, and it was beautiful besides--the quintessential Chicago summer evening under the stars. Why did we need this new building and its incongruence with the rest of the park? What does it add to the public enjoyment of music in the summer?

And exactly who thought it was a good idea to build this (and the other structures) in the maybe-by-next-Millennium Park but couldn't find the money for music and art programs for every child in the Chicago Public Schools? Inquiring minds want to know. Susan Lersch, 2003

***********************************************************************

2004

In John McCarron's June 4 column on the Commentary Page, the headline declares that "Millennium Park is a Chicago jewel." Others have similarly opined; we must praise this venture as a "jewel." It's an expensive one to be sure, $270 million of public funds plus $205 million of corporate and philanthropic funds, and a permanent endowment is being raised.

It just goes to show where our values are. City leaders permitted the desecration of the memorial to World War I to satisfy the demands of a football team that will use the Soldier Field stadium only 10 times a year.

I recently had the opportunity to see Soldier Field from the steps of the Field Museum. It is a horrible-looking structure. The memorial is completely dominated and overshadowed by the football stadium.

It is time to rectify this mistake. Remove the memorial columns from the structure and create a new memorial on the Museum Campus. If hundreds of millions can be spent on a park with all its frills, then certainly a few million can be spent to properly honor our war veterans. Charles Bloom, 2004

***********************************************************************

I love being able to have kids and adults enjoy different aspects of the same environment. Jane Levy, 2004 (from News)

***********************************************************************

182 If the point of a public park is to bring people out and together, all different cultures and people, then this park is a great success. Ben Fine, 2004

***********************************************************************

John McCarron's column rightly concludes that Millennium Park is "a Chicago jewel." But when he writes that "We don't bend a lot of metal here anymore," I must point out that at the Pritzker Music Pavilion, Chicago Metal Rolled Products curved 570 tons of steel pipe to form the trellis, a work of art that supports the speaker system above the audience in Millennium Park.

According to the Chicago Manufacturing Center, the largest sector of manufacturing in the six-county, metropolitan region is fabricated metal products, representing more than 2,000 firms.

Web designers and graphics folks don't have an exclusive on creativity. Many metal fabricators make their living by devising creative solutions to customers' problems, not to mention the challenges of bending metal to the specifications of Frank O. Gehry, the architect of the pavilion. Nor are they strangers to lattes, fine art and the Shakespeare Theater. George F. Wendt, 2004

***********************************************************************

Hooray for the City of Chicago and the Chicago Park District for standing up to the self- serving dog owner militia.

The policy of no dogs at Millennium Park is a welcome change from the current kowtowing to dog owners who seem to feel that they have a right to let their animals run free and foul/soil public places.

I hope the ban extends for more than just the opening year and the city and park district stay firm in their resolve in this matter that not only has aesthetic but also public health issues. Tim Thomas, 2004

***********************************************************************

Before the experts and critics weigh in on Millennium Park, allow me to provide a novice's view from my experience at the sound check last week.

My first thoughts were of King Ludwig of Bavaria, the boy-king who in the 1800s built magnificent castles featuring state rooms designed exclusively for classical music concerts.

183 If Ludwig were alive today, he'd be in Chicago, stretched out on the lush lawns of Millennium Park, absorbing the pristine sounds of classical music emanating from this astounding sound system.

Chicago as a world-class destination just upped the ante with the introduction of Millennium Park.

Congratulations to Mayor Richard Daley, his staff and all who have contributed mightily to this inspiration. Bill Figel, 2004

***********************************************************************

Let me get this straight: Millennium Park cost $475 million for 24.5 acres of park with a giant, shiny bean in the middle ("How a budget tripled in six years; Design changes, construction problems result in $475 million cost," Millennium Park special section, July 15). Do you think the city could have spent that money a little better--maybe for the crumbling schools or the crumbling streets?

What a waste of money. I'm glad I'm not a city taxpayer. Norm Fossmeyer, 2004

***********************************************************************

While watching a segment on the $475-million Millennium Park on WTTW-Ch. 11, it brought back memories of a recent incident when I was picking up broken glass, beer bottle caps and other potential hazards at a few of the local neighborhood parks here in the city of Chicago, where my children, as well as many other children, play and could have gotten seriously hurt. It's amazing that the city and the Chicago Park District have a hard time finding funds to keep the existing neighborhood parks better groomed and maintained so that our children and others who take advantage of the parks can kick a soccer ball around, play baseball, fly a kite or even lie on the grass to read a book, rather than dodging broken glass every few steps.

Wouldn't it have been a better idea to have raised money, from all of the donors of the Millennium Park, to help make our existing recreational areas better and safer places to play? I bet it could have been done for a lot less than half of the combined cost of Soldier Field and Millennium Park, and it would include the upkeep for a long time to come.

By the way, where is the money going to come from to maintain the new park and how much more are our existing parks going to suffer because of it? Raymond Bollacker, 2004

***********************************************************************

184 Let me get this straight: $475 million for a park that maybe, just maybe, every Chicagoan will visit once.

With the grand opening of Millennium Park, Mayor Richard Daley said, "We took an eyesore. We turned it into a showplace of architecture, arts and a grand public space that will be the envy of any other city in the world" ("A midsummer's dream; With fanfare and flourishes, city opens its 'people's park,'" Page 1, July 17).

For $475 million, $270 million indirectly from us the taxpayers, you could have made purgatory a showplace.

This administration has claimed to be in a budget shortfall for months. It has laid off city workers and raised certain fees and taxes. Assessments all over Chicago are sky high. But we have a $475 million park that was four years late and over budget.

Where are our priorities? Senior citizens are losing their homes because of high assessments and can't afford prescription drugs. There is a shortage of jobs. People are homeless and can't afford food. But we have a $475 million park. Frank Coconate, 2004

***********************************************************************

The city I live in embraces my soul and last weekend my soul was further enriched by the splendor of our new Millennium Park. From the Lower West Side, I rode my bike through the flowers and sculpture of Roosevelt Road in my dedicated bike lanes, then north on Michigan Avenue and up Randolph Street, where I was thrilled by a new bike garage. Further surprises awaited me.

First I was lulled into the lush secrecy of the Lurie Garden, awed by the stupendous Gehry and humored by Jaume Plensa's Crown Fountain. On another day I know I will join the happy children being pummeled by water from the faces above.

A park for me, for culture, for meditation, for awe. None of the machismo of sport, instead the beauty of a symphony playing Strauss under and among our historic Michigan Avenue street wall, the promenading of our citizenry, a little bit of wine on the plaza and the contemplation of Anish Kapoor and all his "Cloud Gate" says to us, one and all.

To say I was delighted by our new park built over the blight of dust and debris that was is an understatement. For all of this and more, I love our visionary, inclusionary mayor. Kenneth Corrigan, 2004

***********************************************************************

185 I applaud the fine work of Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin in covering the opening of Millennium Park and in analyzing the new features (Arts & Entertainment, July 18). The photography by Tribune photographer David Klobucar and others was also terrific.

I enjoyed the park and see that it is a great addition to our city.

Two faults, which I can live with:

London artist Anish Kapoor's jelly-bean-shaped "Cloud Gate" sculpture is too close to the Gehry band shell, and the view from Michigan Avenue especially seems crowded by the proximity of the two works.

I could not see (without standing up) the orchestra or conductor from the lawn area at the mid-point. Gerald Talsky, 2004

***********************************************************************

On Sunday night at the magnificent Pritzker Pavilion in Millennium Park, timid applause arose between movements of the Grant Park Orchestra's free performance of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 5. While clapping between movements is hardly symphony protocol, I hope Carlos Kalmar and his orchestra would have it no other way, as proof that their music touches the hearts not only of a cultured elite but of an entire city--all ages, colors, careers and classes.

What a gift to live in a place where that happens.

The city and the orchestra deserve our sincere thanks. Leah Fabel, 2004

***********************************************************************

I am surprised at the acceptance of the new Millennium Park by the citizens of Chicago. For a city that has a school system that is constantly running out of money, an infrastructure that needs a lot of repair and a public transit system that is constantly short of money, people seem to be quite agreeable to spending $475 million for a monument to Mayor Richard Daley.

I hope this is fresh in everyone's minds when the next property tax increase is put in place. Gary Fisher, 2004

***********************************************************************

186 On Sunday I visited Millennium Park and was delighted to see such a novel space developed for the city and generations to come. This park encourages people to participate in their world, from stepping into the water between video gargoyles, to picnicking at the Pritzker Pavilion while watching music and dance performances, to strolling under "The Bean."

I am grateful to Mayor Richard Daley and the Department of Cultural Affairs, who pressed for the development of this world- class achievement. In this time of economic uncertainty, I am also pleased to see so many major donors supporting this site, which is quickly winning the heart of the city and capturing the world's attention.

Delays and cost estimates aside, kudos on a spectacular work of civic achievement. Rebecca Hoffman, 2004

***********************************************************************

Though our new Millennium Park may be beautiful, we've been defining "progress" as more and bigger buildings, fancy fountains and expensive sculptures, and events that draw thousands.

True progress is ours when we have no homeless people, no hungry children, no illiteracy and no poverty.

It seems we need to get our priorities in order. Francine Salerno, 2004

***********************************************************************

Can someone help me out? I'm having a hard time understanding the policies behind Millennium Park. The way I understand it, I'm not allowed to walk my trained, well- behaved dog through Millennium Park because the city wants to keep it clean for all visitors. But it is perfectly acceptable to pack up the family in bathing suits for an afternoon rolling around in the new reflection pool.

I've seen some beautiful reflection pools around the world and was excited for this new enhancement to our Michigan Avenue park front.

But I am appalled at what I have seen so far. What should have been a delight to roll up your pant legs and wade through, has instantly become more of a public pool, or public shower. It is filthy. It is unclean. And it is an eyesore on an otherwise fantastic downtown enhancement.

If this type of behavior is considered acceptable, what more harm can I cause by taking my dog for a walk in the park? Dean Miller, 2004

187 ***********************************************************************

I'm a bike enthusiast, a member of the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation and other bike clubs.

During a recent trip to Europe, where bikes are an everyday form of transportation, I again was reminded that we need to promote alternatives to automobiles here at home.

Your story "City racks up points with bicycle riders" (Page 1, July 20), by Tribune staff reporter Courtney K. Wade, however, about the new bike facility in Millennium Park, makes me shake in disgust.

The cost breaks down to 300 bike-parking spaces at more than $10,000 a pop!

But it's the federal taxpayers' money, so who cares, right? (Obviously not the mayor of Chicago.)

Some want us to believe tax cuts and Iraq are the only reasons for the deficit.

What do Tribune readers think? Jim Hart, 2004

***********************************************************************

I've been reading with interest the letters regarding Millennium Park. Most of the writers think it's beautiful, but a good number decry the "wasted" money.

The poor will always be with us, and we will always have to spend money to help them. Children need schools, and we will always have to spend money for that. The needs of society for practical things are never-ending.

But we also need beauty; it's what makes life worth living. So let's just enjoy this wonderful new asset to our city (which, by the way, also has provided employment for hundreds of people), and consider the money well spent. Barbara Lipkin, 2004

***********************************************************************

As soon as we got out of the car, they were like, 'Ow wow! This is great! Ben Fine, 2004

It's just gorgeous. Catherine Gross, 2004 (from News)

***********************************************************************

188 I'm totally negative. I think that they spent way too much money on it, money that could be spent on the homeless and to help people find jobs…I don't even look over there. I'm disgusted with all the money they spent on it. Juan Figueroa,2004 (from News)

***********************************************************************

Let me describe a recent Saturday in Chicago. I live near Division and State. I started my day strolling down Division to the new public library near Cabrini-Green. After requesting an interlibrary loan through the reference librarian, I checked out a mystery I've been wanting to read. Total cost out of pocket: $0.

Returning from the library through the two-block farmers market, I chatted with neighbors, sampled new products and bought fresh flowers and produce. Total cost out of pocket: $15 for locally grown, fresh fruit, vegetables and flowers.

Later that day, my husband and I packed a picnic, a blanket and fold-up chairs and took a bus to Millennium Park, where we enjoyed a performance by the Grant Park Orchestra and spectacular fireworks. It was such a nice night, we walked home rather than take the bus. Total cost out of pocket: $3.50 for two bus fares to the park.

It has become popular lately to fume about taxes. But even if my taxes were reduced to zero and every penny of the savings were in my pocket, I couldn't have provided for myself the goods and service I enjoyed on this typical summer Saturday. And I'm not even talking about waste disposal, foster care, education, police and fire protection and all the essential services a metropolis requires. I am talking about the additional enterprises that make communal life worthwhile. For less than $20, I received the priceless benefits of a system that is not afraid to tax and spend.

Yes there is waste and, yes, our present tax structure is regressive. Of course we should fix that. But next time you hear someone vow to "starve the beast" of government, remember that the beast is us. Hallie Metzger, 2004

***********************************************************************

I've never seen anything like this. It's exciting. It's like a spirit. Zachaeus Kirangu, 2004 (from News)

***********************************************************************

It's striking. I don't know that I understand it, if there is something to understand about it. It's futuristic. It's fabulous. It's going to draw people to Chicago. Howard Weiss, 2004 (from News)

189 ***********************************************************************

2005

$475 million: cost of building Millennium Park.

$14.5 million: cost of building Millennium Park's BP Bridge.

Not being able to use a $14.5 million bridge because it snowed: Priceless. Kevin J. Hacker, 2005

***********************************************************************

This is regarding the closing of the Millennium Park foot bridge. It's nice that there's one place that won't get touched by the zealous use of salt in the winter. So why not allow people to walk on the bridge in the snow? Peggy Sanders, 2005

***********************************************************************

I skated quite a bit when I was young. I think my mom had me out on the ice when I was about 2. As soon as I found out they had this here, I started coming. Dave Hibben, 2005 (from Tempo)

***********************************************************************

It's freedom. It clears my mind of the day. There's no time and no space. Nothing matters to me. Just having fun, enjoying the fresh air of downtown. Lanxter Burrell, 2005 (from Tempo)

***********************************************************************

How did Millennium Park make it onto this list? It's only a couple of years old, it was 5 years late, and about $20 million over budget. Mostly for a stupid bean. What a waste of space. The Crown Fountain is pretty cool though. This is regarding "Park spares the salt and closes the bridge" (Metro, Jan. 7). There are all kinds of experts. Chicago Tribune, 2005 (from Tempo)

***********************************************************************

To quote from the story about the pedestrian bridge at Millennium Park, "Getting you to the other side of a street or river is not always the main goal when a bridge is designed, experts said."

190 My question is: Why would you want to hire these experts? Peter J. Nussbaum, 2005

***********************************************************************

I appreciate letter writer Claudia Petersen's perspective ("Pritzker money," Voice of the people, Jan. 6). The news of the tsunami suffering appearing on the same page as the story of the Pritzker family settlement was jarring. But to use the word "selfish" when talking about the family I think was unfair.

I have never met a member of the Pritzker family, yet I benefit from their wealth on a regular basis. Through their contributions we have the Pritzker Pavilion at Millennium Park. The children's zoo at Lincoln Park Zoo is currently being redeveloped thanks in large part to the Pritzkers.

As a training consultant who has worked with some of the area's non-profit organizations, I again see the sharing and caring demonstrated by this family. Their contributions provide major funding for local non-profit organizations that serve many people in the area.

Yes they have had a feud over money. What family hasn't had some disagreement about money?

Squabbling, yes; selfish, no. Christine M. Johnson, 2005

***********************************************************************

I learned in the May 6 Tribune that Toyota has rented Millennium Park for Sept. 8, closing it to public access. I was assured online, however, that "The online park tour [is] always open."

Everywhere you turn our public life is being hocked to the highest bidder. Our athletic stadiums, our city contracts, our public celebrations, even our high schools are dominated by advertising and corporate greed.

And now even our public gardens can be hijacked by a multibillion- dollar corporation for the day.

But we are told not to be troubled because we can access the park online. I can go to Hawaii online, Beijing online, the Rocky Mountains online. But I live in Chicago. Experiencing a park online is like enjoying a swim by reading a pool catalogue. Millennium Park is our park--a place where the people of Chicago can gather to create and build community. At least we can gather if the corporations who run our lives let us.

191 Corporations structure so much of our daily lives, I wonder when we will realize that our common life is fading and our public soul withering.

I have an idea for the city--maybe it could project advertising images that reflect off "the bean." It could use the money Kurt W Peterson, 2005

***********************************************************************

City residents who crave classical while sitting under the summer stars no longer need to trek to Ravinia. They now have the luxury to head to the Pritzker Pavilion in our new urban treasure, Millennium Park, and listen to free music right in their own back yard.

Or can they? Well they can listen. They just might not be able to hear. The Grant Park Orchestra is not playing as background music to our social get-togethers. When they play, it's quiet time.

But if listening isn't your bag, it's not a problem in Millennium Park. Less than 50 feet away from the pavilion's lawn--in almost every direction--there is wide open space to walk, sit, eat and talk. There is an outdoor bar area just steps away where happy chatter is welcomed, and where music is, in fact, a backdrop. Concerts last only 80 minutes. That means that we all have ample time to catch up and socialize before the music starts--and long after it ends.

Millennium Park should quickly emulate what Ravinia Music Festival has done to quell the chatter--arm roaming park staff with signs that remind concert-goers that silence is golden.

And for those who would prefer to talk, take a walk and we'll see you in an hour. Jennifer Solomon, 2005

***********************************************************************

I would like to respond to "Can Ravinia compete with Millennium Park?"

I am not sure how John von Rhein came up with his comparison, but I think he gave Ravinia a bad review for no reason. I believe the attendance at Millennium Park can be attributed to the fact that it is just that--a public park, not a concert venue. When you are sitting on the lawn at Millennium Park you cannot see the artists performing either. There are good sides and bad sides to both of these venues. I saw Tony Bennett last week at Ravinia and the WTTW celebration at Millennium Park the next day. I would say my experience was much better at Ravinia. There were places on the lawn to sit and people were not on top of each other and that was at a sold-out show for the lawn. People were not walking around the outside perimeter of the lawn making a lot of noise, making it

192 difficult to hear the show like there was at Millennium Park. Polly Mulhearn, 2005

***********************************************************************

This is in response to Polly Mulhearn, who wrote the letter to the editor "Competing venues" published Aug. 27.

In her retort to John von Rhein's on-the-ball critique of Ravinia and comparison of it to Millennium Park (Arts & Entertainment, Aug. 21), Mulhearn makes two highly unusual and downright inaccurate claims that "sitting on the lawn at Millennium Park you cannot see the artists performing" and that there "were places on the lawn to sit" at the Aug. 19 Tony Bennett concert at Ravinia.

Millennium Park, by its design, provides a view of the entire stage from anywhere on the lawn, so if Mulhearn couldn't see the artists on stage, perhaps she had her back to them. I attended the Tony Bennett concert at Ravinia, and having arrived 90 minutes prior to the show, had nowhere to sit on the lawn. I ended up wedged up against a tree by the bathrooms.

That would have been all right, but the snobbish, rude boors all around me wouldn't allow me to hear the concert because of their incessant gabbing.

We did have fun, though, watching untold hundreds of lawn ticket buyers who arrived after us trudge along looking for a non-existent place to sit on the lawn.

Mulhearn has the right to be a cheerleader for Ravinia, but she should at least get her your facts straight. Jon Ross, 2005

***********************************************************************

Toyota made a large gift to the people of Chicago by renting out Millennium Park for its private corporate event. If people are going to criticize supporters of the park for getting some private time for their contributions, then who's going to keep writing the checks?

A few million dollars a year in rental fees will go a long way toward keeping Chicago attractive.

But if corporations are going to be thrown to the wolves for doing it, they'll take their money elsewhere.

And then who'll be stuck paying the bills? Joshua Goldman, 2005

193 ***********************************************************************

My brothers and sisters from Michigan, Minnesota and South Dakota and I were among those turned away from Millennium Park because of it having been reserved for Toyota and its associates. We had planned a lunchtime picnic and, after paying substantial parking fees and hefty gas prices, came loaded with heavy coolers and food baskets and chairs and tables, braving the load in spite of elderly strained knees and shoulders and hips among us, because I was so thrilled to be able to share with my family the wonders of the city's new public space.

What a blow to be turned away (in spite of owning a Toyota ourselves! Ouch!) and told to "come back tomorrow" (by which time my siblings would all be hundreds of miles away).

I understand and appreciate Toyota’s wanting to treat its people well, but it could have reserved another space and still allowed its guests to enjoy Millennium Park free of charge along with the rest of us. Thelma Hoogland, 2005

***********************************************************************

I must respond to letter writer Robert Holleb, who complained about Millennium Park being rented out to Toyota ("Park policy," Voice of the people, Sept. 16). He asked, "Can you imagine going to Paris and being told that Toyota had rented the Louvre Museum for the day, or to London and told that the Tower of London was rented?"

Yes, I can. Our son Nolan was in Paris in June and went to visit Versailles only to discover that the extensive grounds and gardens were closed in preparation for a huge rock concert. Our son Evan was in Paris last week and went to Versailles and the Hall of Mirrors was closed for restoration.

They were both disappointed, but I'd warned them that when traveling in Europe, you must assume you'll be confronted with scaffolding and restoration. These glorious public spaces are hugely expensive and time-consuming to maintain, and if we are to be allowed to continue to enjoy them, maybe they have to be rented out once in a while. Plan a return trip. Terese Hunt, 2005

***********************************************************************

2006

A friend and I recently were retrieving our car in the Millennium Park garage where there, in the dark, concrete bowels under the park, we were hit by the heady smell of lilacs. We had parked by the pedestrian entrance near the Lurie Garden at Columbus

194 Drive and Monroe Street, and although we hadn't noticed them while in the park, I later checked on the park's Web site and saw that lilac hedges do in fact border the Lurie Garden along these streets. A most unlikely spot for an aesthetic experience, and the surprising nature of it made it that much more enjoyable. Whether this was incredible foresight on the part of the designer or a fortunate stroke of luck, it is certainly one more tribute to the success of the park. Paul Gobster, 2006

***********************************************************************

I'm displeased with your disclosure that there were cameras on top of the Millennium Park "photo wall" ("Now the giant faces really are watching; Critics say Millennium Park cameras are a blight," Metro, Dec. 19). Sometimes I think people who report the news go beyond reporting the news. Is this news? In my mind the answer is no. It's not the same situation as, say, the wire-tapping issue. It's a public place that's being recorded, like a security camera at an ATM.

So you've told the world about the security measures so people can bypass them. I cannot think of a positive outcome of publishing a story like this. I ask the editors of the Tribune to please think before the next wave of security installations comes across their desks. Richard Derrick, 2006

195

LIST OF REFERENCES

Americans for the Arts (2007). Retrieved on 12/18/07 from http://www.artsusa.org/information_resources/research_information/impact_areas/a rts_environments/001.asp

Anonymous (2005, May 29). The beauty of the bean. The Chicago Tribune , p. 10.

Anonymous (2001, Aug. 8). The emperor has no park. The Chicago Tribune , p. 16.

Anonymous (2004, Jul. 12). Singing the praises of Millennium Park. The Chicago Tribune, p. 18.

Anonymous (2001, Aug. 10). Identity crisis. The Chicago Tribune, p. 1.

Artner, A. (2004, Jul 15). A transformation and regeneration; crown fountain inspired by lake and Buckingham. The Chicago Tribune, p. 12.

Bakhtin, Mikhail (1986). “Response to a Question from the Novy Mir Editorial Staff.” Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (V.W. McGee Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published in 1979). 1-7.

Balfe, J. H., & Peters, M. (2000). Public involvement in the arts. In J. M. Cherbo, & M. J. Wyszomirski (Eds.), The public life of the arts in America (First ed., pp. 81-107). Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers, State University.

Balfe, J. H., & Wyszomirski, M. J. (1986). Public art and public policy. The Journal of Arts Management and Law, 15 (4), 5-29.

Bloom, C. (2004, Jul. 18). Other parks. The Chicago Tribune , p. 8.

Bogart, M. H. (1992). The rise and demise of civic virtue. In H. F. Senie, & S. Webster (Eds.), Critical issues in public art: Content, context, and controversy (First ed., pp. 175-188). New York, N.Y.: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

Bollacker, R. (2004, Jul 20). Neglected parks. The Chicago Tribune, p. 18.

196 Brinkerhoff, P.C. (2004). Nonprofit stewardship: A better way to lead your mission- based organization. Saint Paul, MN: Wilder Publishing Center.

Bryza, K. (2002, Jan 26). Costly parking. The Chicago Tribune, p. 21.

Burrell, L. (2005). The Voice of the People. The Chicago Tribune .

Cerceo, A. (2001, Aug 9). Park plans. The Chicago Tribune, p. 20.

Chandler, S. (2004, Oct 17). Park central to avenue's growth spurt; hotels, restaurants, galleries boost occupancy, traffic on 'cultural mile'. The Chicago Tribune, p. 1.

Coconate, F. (2004, Jul 24). Wrong priorities. The Chicago Tribune, p. 25.

Cognitive Science Library. (2006). WordNet: A lexical database for the English language. Retrieved on 09/20/07 from http://wordnet.princeton.edu .

Cohen, L., & Ford, L. (2004, Jul 18). $16 million in lawsuits ensnare pavilion at Millennium Park. The Chicago Tribune, p. 1.

Cornwell, T. L. (1990). Democracy and the arts: The role of participation . One Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10010: Praeger Publishers.

Corrigan, K. (2004, Jul 24). Park's delights. The Chicago Tribune, p. 25.

Dardick, H. (2004, Dec. 1). Garden too wild for new park landscape; wildflower artist sees part of work now destroyed. The Chicago Tribune, p. 3.

Dardick, H. (2005, May 22). Architect Uhlir on a roll; paralyzed vets honor barrier-free design of Millennium fountain. The Chicago Tribune , p. 2.

Derrick, R. (2006, Dec. 23). Divulging security. The Chicago Tribune , p. 21.

Deutsche, R. (1992). “Art and public space: Questions of democracy”. Social Text (33), pp. 34-53.

Disponzio, J. (1992). George Segal's sculpture on a theme of gay liberation and the sexual-political equivocation of public consciousness . In H. F. Senie, & S. Webster (Eds.), Critical issues in public art: Content, context, and controversy (First ed., pp. 199-214). New York, N.Y.: HarperCollins, Inc.

Dold, R. B. (1999, Feb 5). On a sour note architects designing new site for concerts in the park ignore the fact that there could be an audience. The Chicago Tribune, p. 23.

197 Dubin, S.C. (1992). Arresting images: Impolotic art and uncivil actions, New York, NY: Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Inc.

Esser, G. (2005). Columbus public art summit, lectures and panel discussions . The King Arts Complex in Columbus, Ohio.

Ettlinger, M. (2001, Aug 16). Cleaning up sewage. The Chicago Tribune, p. 24.

Fabel, L. (2004, Jul 24). Park applause. The Chicago Tribune, p. 25.

Fagan, B. (1999). The creation of a Colorado cultural trust fund. Independence Institute , 02/24/1999 from http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=541

Filicko, T. (1992). What do we need to know about culture? Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved 10/04/2007, from http://arted.osu.edu/publications/pdf_files/paper5.pdf

Figel, B. (2004, Jul. 18). Astounding sounds. The Chicago Tribune , p. 8

Fink, A. (1985). How to conduct surveys: a step-by-step guide. Beverly Hills : Sage Publications.

Finkelpearl, T. (2000). Dialogues in public art (First ed.). United States: MIT Press.

Fisher, G. (2004, Jul 24). Park acceptance. The Chicago Tribune, p. 25.

Foley, Dolores (1994). “We want your input: Dilemmas of citizen participation.” In C.S. King & C. Stivers, (1998), Government is us .

Ford, L. (2004, Jul 11). City to finally open its new front yard; Millennium Park's price tag tripled. The Chicago Tribune, p. 1.

Fossmeyer, N. (2004, Jul. 20). Waste of money. The Chicago Tribune , p. 18.

Garvey, T. J. (1988). Public sculptor: Lorado Taft and the beautification of Chicago (first ed.). Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Geiderman, H. (2001, Aug 9). Wasted money. The Chicago Tribune, p. 20.

Gilfoyle, T. J. in association with the Chicago History Museum. (2006). Millennium park: Creating a Chicago landmark . Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.

Gilfoyle, T. (2001, Jan. 31). Millennium Park oral history interview with John Bryan.

Gilfoyle, T. (2002). Millennium Park oral history interview with Ed Bedore.

198 Gilfoyle, T. (2003). Millennium Park oral history interview with Thomas Beeby.

Gobster, P. (2006, June 1). Smell of success. The Chicago Tribune, p. 18.

Goldman, J. (2005, Sep. 16). Park for rent. The Chicago Tribune , p. 24.

Goodman Williams Group & URS Corporation. (2005). Millennium Park economic impact study . Chicago: City of Chicago Department of Planning and Development.

Graves, D. (1992). Representing the race: Detroit's monument to Joe Louis . In H. F. Senie, & S. Webster (Eds.), Critical issues in public art: Content, context, and controversy (First ed., pp. 215-227). New York, N.Y.: HarperCollins, Inc.

Hacker, K. (2005, Jan. 13). Winter closure. The Chicago Tribune , p. 24.

Handley, J. (Nov. 04, 2005). The Millennium Park effect (cont’d). Retrieved on 10/01/07 from http://chicago1000.blogspot.com/2007/04/millennium-park-effect-contd.html .

Hart, J. (2004, Jul. 28). Biking costs. The Chicago Tribune , p. 24.

Hein, H. (1996). What is public art: Time, place, and meaning. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 54 (1), 1-7.

Hoffman, R. (2004, Jul 24). Novel space. The Chicago Tribune, p. 25.

Hoogland, T. (2005, Sep. 16). Denied access. The Chicago Tribune , p. 24.

Hunt, T. (2005, Sep. 21). Public spaces. The Chicago Tribune , p. 26.

Johnson, C. (2005, Jan 15). Generous Pritzkers. The Chicago Tribune , p. 23.

Jones, C. (2004, Jul 15). Project's go-to guy, Edward Uhlir knows god is in the details. The Chicago Tribune, p. 12.

Kamin, B. (2004, Jul 18). A no place transformed into a grand space; what was once a gritty, blighted site is now home to a glistening, cultural spectacle that delivers joy to its visitors. The Chicago Tribune, p. 1.

Kamin, B. (1999, Jan 22). Grant Park theatre plan revised to appease critics. The Chicago Tribune, p. 8.A.

Kamin, B. (2004, Jul. 15). More Millenniums; Other projects around the world beset with delays and budget overruns. The Chicago Tribune , p. 16.

199 Kamin, B. (2003, Jul 6). Steel appeal; Frank Gehry talks about his new band shell that's taking shape and turning heads in Millennium Park. The Chicago Tribune, p. 5.

Kamin, B. (2004, Aug 29). A people's park for the future. The Chicago Tribune, p. 1.

King, C. S., & Stivers, C. (1998). Government is us: Public administration in an anti- government era (First ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Kogan, R. (2002, May 26). Which Millennium are we talking about?; Plagued by delays and rising costs, the new park will be finished in 2 years, officials say, and worth the wait. The Chicago Tribune, p. 11.

Krebs, T. (2001, Aug 9). Future problems. The Chicago Tribune, p. 20.

Larkin, S. (1992). From scapegoats to mascots: The New York Public Library lions. In H. F. Senie, & S. Webster (Eds.), Critical issues in public art: Content, context, and controversy (First ed., pp. 189-198). New York, N.Y.: HarperCollins, Inc.

Lersch, S. (2003, Jul 12). Music's eyesore. The Chicago Tribune, p. 23.

Lipkin, B. (2004, Aug 7). Park's expense. The Chicago Tribune, p. 21.

Lipson, C. (2001, Jul 13). The public's looming eyesore. The Chicago Tribune, p. 19.

Martin, A., & Cohen, L. (2001, Aug 5). Millennium park flounders as deadlines, budget blown; poor plans, constant changes, slow progress, drive up price-- and city taxpayers may have to help make up difference. The Chicago Tribune, p. 1.

Martin, A., & Washburn, G. (2001, Aug 7). Bailout plan for park city decides to dip into loop funds for Millennium. The Chicago Tribune, p. 1.

Martin, M. (2002, Jul 17). Millennium Park has pull; delays don't deter buyers, developers. The Chicago Tribune, p. 13.

Mason, J. (2005). Qualitative researching (Second ed.). London; Thousand Oaks; New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

Metzger, H. (2004, Aug 15). Reasons to celebrate paying taxes. The Chicago Tribune, p. 8.

Miller, D. (2004, Jul 28). Park policy. The Chicago Tribune, p. 24.

Mitchell, W. J. T. (1992). "The violence of public art," in art and the public sphere. In W. J. T. Mitchell (Ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.

200 Mulhearn, P. (2005, Aug. 27). Competing venues. The Chicago Tribune , p. 21.

Nussbaum, P. (2005, Jan 13). Bridge’s purpose. The Chicago Tribune , p. 24.

Ohio Arts Council. (2001). OHIO: A state FOR the arts . Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Arts Council.

Park, C. (2001). Gay liberation monument. Retrieved 06/27/01, from http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_your_park/historical_signs/hs_historical_sign.php ?id=10767

Peterson, K. (2005, May 14). Public Park. The Chicago Tribune , p. 22.

Robinson, J.P. & Filicko, T. (2000), “American public opinion about the arts and culture: The unceasing war with philistia.” In The public life of the arts in America (108- 138).

Rosand, D. (2004), The invention of painting in America . New York Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press.

Rose, J. K. (1996). The world's Columbian exposition: Idea, experience, aftermath. Retrieved 08/01/07, from http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MA96/WCE/title.html

Salerno, F. (2004, Jul 24). Defining 'progress'. The Chicago Tribune, p. 25.

Sanders, P. (2005, Jan. 13). Skip the salt. The Chicago Tribune , p. 24.

Schwandt, T. A. (2007). The sage dictionary of qualitative research (Third ed.). California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Schwartz, T. (1983). Media: The second God . Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books.

Senie, H. F., & Webster, S. (Eds.). (1992). Critical issues in public art: Content, context, and controversy (First ed.). New York, N.Y.: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

Solomon, J. (2005, Jul. 3). Time to listen. The Chicago Tribune , p. 8.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research (First ed.). California: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Stalker, D., & Glymour, Clark et al. (1982). "The malignant object: Thoughts on public sculpture". The Public Interest, (66), 3-36.

Storch, C. Jul 15, 2004). Vision for park grew over decades; lakefront gardens called for more green space. The Chicago Tribune, p. 6. 201 Tepper, S. J. (2001). Culture, conflict and community: Struggles over art, education and history in American cities. Doctor of Philosophy, Princeton University.

Talsky, G. (2004, Jul. 24). Park faults. The Chicago Tribune , p. 25.

The National Endowment for the Arts, Research Division. (2003). 2002 survey of public participation in the arts . Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts. Retrieved 10/04/07, from http://www.nea.gov/research/Notes/81.pdf

Thomas, T. (2004, Jul. 18). Dog ban. The Chicago Tribune , p. 8.

Timney, M. (1998). “Overcoming administrative barriers to citizen participation: Citizens as partners, not adversaries.” In Government is Us (1998).

Tocqueville, A. (2004). Democracy in America (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). New York: Library of America. (Original work published in 1835).

United State Census Bureau (2004). Retrieved on 10/20/07 from http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting.html

United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division (2007). Retrieved on 12/18/07 from http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro_a.htm

Washburn, G., & Martin, A. (2001, Aug 8). Daley sidesteps flak on project mayor finds fault with ousted firm, band shell creator. The Chicago Tribune, p. 1.

Webber & Elsasser, G. (Jan 7, 1996). Monumental legacy of the WPA government help changed the face of art. The Chicago Tribune, p. 6.

Wendt, G. (2004, Jun. 16). Metal designers. The Chicago Tribune , p. 28.

Worth the wait? (2004). The Chicago Tribune online blog about Millennium Park. Retrieved on 09/20/07 from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/millennium/chi-millennium- bulletinboard,0,2001211.graffitiboard?slice=1&limit=10

Wright, L. (2001, Aug 11). Taxpayers needed. The Chicago Tribune, p. 23.

202