Counsel to council

Advice is cheap, it’s said, and we acknowledge that we’re not the ones making tough decisions in front of vocal crowds. But the Sonoma City Council is pondering a new measure on which we’d like to offer a little advice.
It is the proposal to spend taxpayer money on buying, displaying, and storing “public art.” Let’s see, the purpose of this would be … To dress up the Plaza to make it more attractive? To give the city’s citizens something to look at that’s more lovely, more inspirational, than this beautiful valley in which we live?
Those are, of course, improbable tasks. So what, then, is the purpose? 
Modern art is supposed “to speak to people,” “to challenge our assumptions,” “to make viewers think,” to quote from just a few of the innumerable opinions on the matter. Okay. But that begs the question again: Why is our government spending our money on that purpose?
Is there a dearth of modern art in the valley? And it is modern art that’s being proposed, since the city would commission new works of art. Perhaps it is a matter of urgent need, that we simply don’t recognize. Didn’t the entry arch to the Springs area fill that need, if it existed? Or the portraits of local people blown up and posted on various buildings along Highway 12? Those are relevant examples of commissioned public art.
In fact, the Sonoma Valley Museum of Art does a spectacular job of bringing quality art to Sonoma, thanks in large part to the leadership exhibited by past executive director Lia Transue. The museum features talks by artists, and admission to the exhibits is even free once a week. Plus, you don’t have to go if you don’t like it.
We have to admit that much of modern art is not, per se, beautiful. Yes, we know that “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” and really, that’s our point. Recall the outspoken, divergent opinions over the “stretcher” art displayed not long ago in front of the Sonoma Community Center. Then ponder if that were your money being spent.
Of course, anything the city buys would have to be “content neutral,” perhaps rendering it ineffective, to begin with, depending on the purpose. Is a Madonna suitable content? Heavens, no, that has religious content. Well, would that apply to anything depicting a mother and child? Human suffering, struggle, hope and triumph are themes in much of art, and in much of religion. We, certainly, did not vote for our city council members to be arbiters of our artistic taste.
Actually, the city council last year approved funding the community center at $50,000 year, so the city council members can be comforted by the fact that some city money is already going toward publicly displayed art. The question is, should they spend $25,000 more? We suggest that there are some competing uses for that money, if it has to be spent, that might have more impact. Perhaps more lighted crosswalks.  Additional policing along the bike path. Installation of charging stations for electric vehicles.
Gosh, $25,000 would cover a quarter of the cost to operate a new community swimming pool. But for $100,000 a year in operating funds, which neither the school district nor the city has been willing to cover, we could have a new pool. Perhaps $25,000 a year from the city might be just the commitment needed to bring a few other partners into the project.
Government officials decide a lot of things for people under their jurisdiction. We encourage the council not to add to the list without good cause. There are plenty of important issues needing government’s involvement. In our view, selecting and displaying art is not one of them.