Port Adopts Plan for Public Art, Rekindles Controversy

By LEAH OLLMAN

Nov. 19, 1992 12 AM PT

SPECIAL TO THE TIMES

SAN DIEGO — In an effort to overcome its troubled history with public art,the San Diego Unified Port District voted Tuesday to adopt its first public art master plan. But the plan has already ignited controversy between one of the art consultants who wrote it and the port commissioners, who altered the plan before approving it.

The Port District hired arts management consultants Carol and Thomas Hobson last year to develop a plan for spending the port’s rapidly growing budget, which now stands at roughly $3.5 million, for art. The Hobsons submitted a written plan at the end of the year, recommending that the port hire an independent consultant to guide the public art program gradually from staging temporary installations to commissioning permanent works of art.

After reviewing the plan for a year, a three-member art ad hoc committee of port commissioners recommended its approval, with two amendments. These change the arts position from that of an independent consultant to a full-time staff person and shift the emphasis from an evolving, phased program to one favoring early acquisition of works.

“We spent a year really scrutinizing this and mapping out strategy, and in a sense they’ve just set that aside and said, we’re going to do things like this. They could have done this two years ago,” said Carol Hobson, of the company Management for the Arts.

Delton Reopelle, chairman of the port’s art ad hoc committee, praised the plan and downplayed the differences between the Hobsons’ recommendations and the final approved version.

“I don’t think there’s any major change,” he said. “The plan is broad enough and flexible enough to work. I think we’re off and on our way, and I think we’ll see some aesthetic enhancement on the tidelands.”

Hobson is far less optimistic, based on her experience working with the port and the fact that the port has had no success in the past in bringing art to the bayfront properties it controls. The port initiated its art program in 1982, setting aside three-eights of 1% of its projected gross revenue annually for art. But efforts to spend that money have been thwarted repeatedly.

In the mid-’80s, the artist Ellsworth Kelly withdrew from a commission because port representatives demanded too many changes in his design. In 1988, port commissioners rejected proposals for public artworks by Vito Acconci and Roberto Salas, although a port-appointed art advisory committee strongly recommended the proposals.

Hobson is concerned that history may repeat itself because port commissioners have not committed themselves to a new process of approving artworks.

“I’m very much in support of using temporary projects to take it slow and let it evolve,” she said. “They jumped right over that and said it was administratively heavy. They really need to evolve a program and not just spend money.

“We did not recommend creating a staff position immediately, because we saw how limited the staff is in its movement within the port. The staff person could very much be spinning his wheels. Those amendments have been so far removed from the context of the master plan that how they use that plan will just be incidental. They’ve placed us back in the ‘wait and see’ mode.”

Port Commissioner Reopelle concedes that “the port doesn’t enjoy the best track record with public art,” but he expects the current plan to be productive.

“It has the common denominator of public input. It was put together after meetings with the public, and those voices were written into the plan.”

Port staff members will announce the opening of the art coordinator position immediately, he said. Hobson expressed reservations about the port’s commitment to work with the community and disappointment with the plan as adopted. Nevertheless, she said, her work as a consultant to the port was not in vain.

“We have bridged the gap between a very bad experience with public art and a new beginning. We needed to heal some wounds.”