The panel discussion after the showing of “The Search for the Captain” on Channel 54 Monday night did little to illuminate the matters of public interest directly presented or implied by the film. The panel members tiptoed around the political and selection-process issues related to the Fallon statue rather than confront them, and almost completely ignored the more important wider issues of public art in general. Everyone on the panel, as far as it went, was articulate and intelligent, but rationalizations for some attitudes taken seemed weak, based on faulty logic, or just plain wrongheaded.
In addition, general issues of public art could not be adequately addressed by the panel due to the fact that there was no public artist there to represent the other half of the equation. The panel attempted to discuss the matter of whether the selection process should be by committee, neighborhood groups or elected officials and how these “selectors” or “deciders” would communicate their specific requirements to an artist. But there was no thoughtful artist there to detail what public artists need in order to fulfill their responsibilities of producing an original, purposeful work of art. To me this was a fatal flaw in the discussion, and the opportunity to educate the public on how the whole process should work was wasted.
I am no expert on Fallon or the early history of our city but, to me, he was just a minor character in the ongoing drama based on a plot that pushes San Jose forward from one generation to the next. If we were going to be entirely politically correct and keep all representations of conquering peoples from commemorative art displays, we would only allow Native American art from the local tribes to grace our public spaces. If you are of European heritage, then your ancestors who came here in the early centuries of the New World would surely be considered racists by today’s standards. Most all of them vigorously pursued ethnic cleansing against the Indians of North and South America, and were practitioners or beneficiaries of slavery. That would include figures from Columbus and Cortez to Custer and beyond. The fact is none of us can do anything about any of that except learn from it. We can only confront issues of bigotry in the context of our own time as we continue our attempt to eradicate the scourges of racial prejudice and economic oppression from American society. Now there is a subject for public art.
Perhaps one day, we will be able to celebrate our diversity rather than decry it. When that happens, we will know we have reached maturity as an educated, confident, principled democracy that has nothing to fear from truth. Isn’t that what “E PLURIBUS UNUM” is all about?
The documentary under discussion was an interesting commentary on an extremely important historical event in the life of San Jose, and I don’t mean the ancient past.
The Fallon Statue controversary included (1) the re-shaping of the class structure of San Jose, (2) reducing the numbers & complexity of classes in San Jose, and (3) bringing new participants into the class structure of San Jose. It was a revolutionary event of a sort, and this aspect of it was not included in the documentary.
The Fallon Statue is often discussed as a failure of process or a problem with financing public art, but it really represents an end to the highly ritualized patterns of deference that defined city politics and social life in San Jose at that time.
If one lives inside an existing class structure, it is invisible (just like water to a fish), but if you live outside the class structure, it looks like racism and exclusion. (Much like light can be a particle or a wave at the same time.) This makes much of what happened during the Fallon Statue controversy invisible to many participants even at this date.
Yes, the Fallon Statue controversy was a definite and defining moment in the history of San Jose.
Jack, I was also disappointed in the panel discussion and felt the moderator didn’t do a very good job of steering things towards the answers you, I and others were hoping for.
I did think that Susan Shick’s assessment of the “parade of floats” was on target behind the polite facade of carefully chosen words.
Remarks were made regarding the perceived arrogance of T McE in pushing the Fallon piece through but as was stated, there was no public art process at that time. Tom got a skyline started and put downtown on the rebound and the statue was part of his plan and nobody questioned it—except the agitators who will apparently never lose the chips on their respective shoulders.
I don’t buy the argument that was made about corporations and many other people supporting the protestors. This noisy group may have done some good by pointing out the lack of any public art process, but they did this town no favors at all by facilitating the dropping of a giant turd on the town’s front lawn. This is the old cutting off of the nose to spite the face, and that noisy group owes every SJ citizen an apology for defacing of a public space. A giant turd is much more offensive than a guy on a horse. Ask anybody.
The panel discussion was basically pointless without the inclusion of a public artist.
Celebrate diversity? That’s a great idea!
Just be sure to get a permit from your local ACLU brownshirts beforehand.
I think that Ben Miyagi thinks that public art is better now that there is a “process” and art is run by the people. My question is “Where is all the new art then?” We will probably never see anything besides colorful floats and abstract art because no one can agree if you go to the public. Sad.
#5: the public art is everywhere… on the sides of buildings, in front of buildings, in the middle of streets, incorporated into new buildings (for example, the various libraries that are being built), and not just in downtown. Yeah, there are those funky oblisks (or whatever they are called) lining 5th St. to the new city hall, but the public garage on 4th St. with its lit sides are also public art. As for the public being involved, it is. For example, as the libraries are being built, the public is given the opportunity for input on the public art. They attend meetings, select a few to interview, and take a vote on which artist they would like to do the work. I’m not sure exactly what your point is, because there is a process and the community can get involved.
Regards,
Tracy
If there is a lesson to be learned from the Fallon controversy it is this: in a multicultural society nothing can be assumed.
Tom McEnery assumed that a statue of a flag-raising former mayor of San Jose would be a good fit for our city plaza. That assumption was based upon the belief that Thomas Fallon’s skin color would not be an issue and that the American flag was first in the hearts of the citizenry.
Then along came Javier “Hot Air” Salazar, a Mexico-first nationalist of the worst kind—the kind that lives here in the United States. Full of resentment, with an inferiority complex of absolutely stunning proportions, this hypocrite seems to have migrated from Mexico to San Jose for the express purpose of telling all of us non-Mexicans that we don’t belong here.
That is, unless his migration had to do with the fact that, in the hacienda of civilized nations, Mexico is an outhouse; one that treats the common citizen like a corncob.
Those viewers who looked for logic in Senor Salazar’s argument are likely still suffering from brain ache. Clearly, the man doesn’t really think, he only feels. How else to explain his justifying his attack the Fallon statue by pointing-out the historical disinterest our presidents have had in visiting Mexico? What in the hell has that to do with San Jose: past, present, or future?
When he wasn’t sounding like Mexico’s secretary of state, Salazar tried to conceal his Mexico-first agenda by claiming to represent “people of color” rather than the resentful, white America-hating Mexicans who make up his true constituency.
Too bad no one on the panel had the courage to shred his pitiful arguments. What they really needed for the discussion was a gong, so his afraid-to-offend fellow panelists could have got him out of there without risking having to say something courageous, patriotic, or logical. Instead, the panel did nothing, said less, and demonstrated once again that, when diversity is in the house, stupidity reigns.
Lastly, based upon the value of their unique input, a few questions for the panel:
For Dr. Underdog, of SJSU: Before suggesting the study of history as a method of bringing a community together, would it wise to first check and see if that history is one of bitter divisiveness?
For Ms. Marshmellow, of the editorial board: When creaming butter, do you prefer a fine grain or course sugar?
For Mr. Miyagi, art enthusiast: Please confirm your polishing instructions as, “wax on, wax off.”
For Hot Air Javier: Since you can’t get your head and your heart out of Mexico, have you ever considered getting you ass back there?
Jack-
I agree with your observations about the timid panel discussion, and would add one of my own.
Let’s hope this is not the type of “local” programming KTEH will be producing now that it is controlled by KQED.
At the time the KQED/KTEH merger was announced there was much fanfare of a strong effort for programs with a local focus. Although the airing of “The Search For The Captain” was commendable, it should be noted that KTEH had nothing to do with the documentary’s actual production. KTEH’s involvement in the airing of the documentary was simply to push the “play” button.
However, KTEH did have a responsibility to the community. Its job was to produce a follow-up panel discussion to address and add perspective to the significant local issues raised in the program. Given the passions the Fallon statue has raised in San Jose that shouldn’t have been too difficult.
So how did they do?
It seemed to me the discussion was fairly generic and missed numerous opportunities to focus on the unique San Jose issues raised in the documentary. As Jack points out the composition of the panel lacked the perspective of public artists and much of the local political component of the Fallon controversy was pretty well sidestepped. We’ve had much better Fallon/Public Art discussions here on SJI.
Maybe they had the wrong people on the panel. I would have rather seen the people from the documentary’s hilarious and illuminating, “street debate,” perhaps with someone who creates public art and the city’s Arts Commissioner in a follow-up discussion. Or perhaps the panel could have included some of the people from the documentary to see if their views have evolved, or to continue some of the points raised in the film. There seemed to be a disconnect between the panelists and the content of the documentary.
I don’t fault KTEH for trying, but I would hope that future efforts to fulfill commitment to locally focused programming can be more on target.
KTEH going out of business? Say it ain’t so!
Who will we turn to for our politically correct, regurgitated panel speak in the future?
Where will we go for our reruns of “Are You Being Served”?!
One less publicly funded channel of nausea to have to skip over is a good thing.
#2—While your comments are well thought out, I think you’re making too much out of what went on at the time. You’re right on one thing, it was a defining moment – a small group of bitter rebel rousers were able to intimidate the council and engage the media. The publicity they gained through the press and television coverage made them celebrities. At one point during that summer, I made an appointment with my former professor of Latin America at SCU. I actually was thinking I needed to understand where they were coming from, I must have been missing something. Well, he asked for some of their names and then reassured me that it was the same small group of people who had continual gripes.
#7—Do you think an American flag sans an individual would be an appropriate symbol of unity? At the time of 911 I couldn’t help but think how great it would have been to have the flag flying in Chavez Park. We were all attacked, no matter when you came, generations ago as one of my relatives did with the DeAnza Partyor just off the boat, or illegally crossing a border. What’s wrong with this picture? We are in America, Land of the Free, The United States of America, so why can’t we proudly display our universal symbol? It’s not the majority who object, most new immigrants are grateful to be here. As RR thinks we are too ethically minded, I think we are too politically correct.Without unity we are open to chaos and a racially segmented society.
I have pondered for years wondering what would be a universal symbol that could be placed in Chavez Park. Maybe we should just go back to the light tower, many of you may not get that, stick around, you soon will. Joking aside, I still vote for the red, white and blue stars and stripes.
Well, this is one of those times when I have dificulty commenting. Since I do not have a TV @ home, I have no idea what the KTEH show was all about.
However, I keep seeing this term “public artist” and continue to wonder what that might be. Is it an artist whose work is such that it doesn’t sell? Is it an “artist” who obtains his/her “inspiration” by going through a “process” to determine what the “art” will look like or convey? Isn’t that a craftsman? (Ooops, excuse me, a craftsPERSON) How is that an artist?
Mixing government and art is a huge waste of time, energy, and money. Good art sells and inspires. Public art just draws Bronx cheers, except from the sycophantic followers of the chosen public artist.
The “process” of deciding on what piece of public “art” goes into a location costs three times as much…minimum…than the piece would otherwise obtain at auction were it rendered privately. Bureaucrats doing the process thing cost a lot of dough. I am almost willing to bet the farm that of the money mandated for public art by the Municipal Code of San Ohaze, at least 50% is spent on bureaucrats and the process they administer, rather than the acquisition, placement, and maintenance of the public “art”. Would you give to a charity that spent 50% of it s funds that way?
I’d rather have a well-paved road for my tax dollars than some nonsense pieces of process-laden public “art” like The Turd, The Gold Nude in the Gold Building atrium, or the Rainbow Warrior in front of the SJMA.
Sorry, but government does not belong in the art business any more than it belongs in the religion business.
Does anyone have a nomination for a good piece of public art?
Something which exists and has been installed for a while. It helps to know what the goal is.
Wonder Woman at #7 says, “I have pondered for years wondering what would be a universal symbol that could be placed in Chavez Park.”
A great unifying symbol would be the Old Town Bell. Mayor Susan Hammer had the Redevelopment Agency take it in the middle of the night away from the south end of Plaza de Cesar Chavez and cut down the century old oak tree that sheltered it.
Although Mayor Gonzales promised in writing to restore the Old Town Bell to a place of dignity in the Plaza de Cesar Chavez, he broke that promise and installed the Old Town Bell on North Market Street near the on-ramp to the freeway and beside the fire station on the west side of the street.
It is now well over 115 years old, lacks any political or social taint whatsoever, and could easily be placed on a site of prominence at the Plaza with green grass, benches, and an American flag.
Jack—Thoughtful blog, as usual, but pardon me—“celebrating diversity” and e pluribus unum are in serious conflict. “From many, one” is one the Serbs and Croats, and a whole lot of others can’t seem to figure out. But even the Europeans are, unbelievably, heading in that direction, with a few exceptions (like the Brits and their stupid farthing). And religion makes the “unum” impossible, as the Muslims make us infidels daily aware, not to mention the pestering Fundies, daily waiting for Jesus (to tell them once again about their intolerance). ANYWAY,
celebrating diversity is just more pc jabber.
unum, unum, unum. What do us settlers and
us Indians have in common. How about the Statue of Liberty as public art—gives us all hope it may all work out. Do we see The Lady as a scumbag white oppressor? Idon’t think so. George Green
#14 – Dale- There must have been 2 bells, I’m confused, so will go bell checking, but the one that I previously referred to was also at the south end of the park, it was to honor firemen. That one is in front of the fire station on Market. So there were 2 bells located in the south end of the park?
Are you thinking the bell could be a symbol of liberty like the Liberty Bell? Glad you would include the flag.
By the way, next time when strolling through Plaza Park, check out the dedication of the north steps—to Veterans in Mexico, presently I cannot recall the exact wording, but that took place during Janet Grey Hayes term. I cannot think of one other ethnic group that is honored in that park and it seems to me to be our central park.
#12 Greg
You ask for an example of “good public art”
Art is very personal.
I like public art that
A- Makes me think, like the ‘68 Olympic statue of Tommy Smith and John Carlos at SJSU.
B- Honors a group of people and gives me some insight into their culture. The piece honoring the Ohlone of the eagle, hummingbird and coyote is one that does that for me.
C- Tells a story of an historic event. The Fallon statue is an example of this. The fact that it also stimulated discussion about history, process and art was an unexpected plus. Controversial art can be a good thing.
D-Touches me on a personal level. The mural
of the historic Basset Street train station reminds me of my grandfather who worked there for twenty seven years and never missed a day of work.
E- Makes me smile. Each time I pass the Mc Kinley statue it makes me think of my late Uncle. In the 30’s, he and two other friends put some blasting powder in the cannon to see what would happen. They ran like the wind, when they unexpectedly blew all the windows out of the county courthouse.
F- Makes San Jose a one of a kind place .
There is no other person in the world that would pick these same works, for the same reason I chose them. That is part of what makes puplic art so great. Just think of how many people get a chance to enjoy these works on a daily basis. I can’t put a dollar value on public art, but I’m sure it contributes to making people wanting to live, work and visit San Jose.
Once again, Finfan is spot-on with his assessment of the situation and in particular Mr. “Hot Air” Salazar’s disgusting Mexico-first motivations.
Finfan, I couldn’t agree with you more about Hot Air’s backside and the backsides of his minions and where they belong.
Nice job!