Attendees: Evan Burnett, Elizabeth Cramblet, Josh DeWeese, Olivia Hayes, Keely Holmes, Cori Huttinga, Kris Johnson, Kathryn Pearson, Melissa Ragain, Richard Rudnicki, Royce Smith

Art Selection Process

  1. Richard Rudnicki presented the final draft of the Art Selection Process
    1. This document is intended to outline the art selection process for new buildings
    2. This process was developed based on the State Art Selection Process
  2. Kris Johnson sought clarification about the process for selecting art for new buildings. Kris asked if the process for selecting art for new buildings on campus is the 1% allotted for art.  She also questioned why the process for selecting art for campus did not include the Committee.
    1. Richard noted that the university does not have a formal 1% for art policy. He explained that on the State Committee the university architect represented MSU.
    2. Kris proposed that the various scenarios be covered in the document:
      1. New building through state process
      2. Someone wants to donate, we want to commission
      3. State projects will be addressed using the State Process
  3. Richard explained that this document identifies that the state-specific process is described in the second bulletin under ‘Projects or actions exempt from PAAC review. He further explained that donated art is addressed by the normal PAAC review.
  4. Melissa Ragain inquired if there was opportunity for public comment.
    1. Staff explained that as the Committee identifies locations for art, there will be opportunity for public input because PAAC is a public meeting.
  5. Melissa also questioned if the document outlined a procedure for the donation of arts and artifacts, as well as if there is policy surrounding the matter of accessing expertise
    1. If there is a donation of a specific art or artifact, normal processes will be followed.
    2. For accessing expertise, the standard PAAC policy will be followed. For instance, the campus planner will consult the appropriate parties, which is summarized in the packet.
      1. It was noted that the expert will not have influence over the item being donated. However, this part of the process can be altered on a case-by-case basis.
  6. Royce Smith reminded the Committee that any art or artifact, placed in campus reflects the school’s values and activities. He expressed concern that conversations about the public displays will be building- or constituent-specific. Royce recommended that there should be a conversation that involves the College of Arts & Architecture (CAA) and that a portion of the document should be allocated to address this matter.
    1. Questions were raised about Royce’s proposed addition to the document. Such as, would the CAA be representing that interest in the Selection Committee? To which Royce confirmed that they would.
    2. It was suggested that the prospective addition can be listed under ‘Considerations for Acceptance of Art’ which would speak to the item’s relevance and appropriateness with regard to the CAA.
    3. Melissa advocated for a member of CAA to be included in the subcommittee
      1. Richard mentioned that the PAAC decides the subcommittee’s members, therefore the PAAC can consciously decide who joins or it can be noted in their considerations.
  7. Evan Burnett motioned to accept the Art Selection Process policy contingent on the modification discussed. Royce Smith seconded the motion, and the Art Selection Process passed unanimously.