How does Saskatoon’s public art advisory committee choose new art?

This summer, three public art pieces – large rock-shaped sculptures created from discarded plastic, placed around the Saskatoon and dubbed Modern Erratics – have sparked debate about public art spending.

On Wednesday, however, Saskatoon’s governance and priorities committee decided to keep the program that funded the $300,000 sculptures, though the committee remained open to making amendments to the capitol projects public art funding stream in the future.

Read more:

• Saskatoon councillor calls for change to public art policy after $300,000 installation
• Councillor’s motion to end Saskatoon’s capital projects public art funding stream defeated
• Former Saskatoon arena CEO calls for democratic voices in Downtown Event and Entertainment District plans

James Hawn, the chair of Saskatoon’s public art advisory committee, joined The Evan Bray Show on Thursday to discuss the committee’s process around deciding on new art for the city.

Listen to the full interview, or read the transcript below:

The following questions and answers have been edited for length and clarity.

EVAN BRAY: Would you have ever thought a decision around art would generate as much conversation as these three rocks have?

JAMES HAWN: No, but I think it’s a really good thing that, obviously, art is supposed to create conversations, and some people like it, some people don’t like it. But that’s the importance of it, and talking about it is a good thing.

How long have you been on the committee, James?

HAWN: This will be the end of my sixth year. I’m off in December. You’re only allowed to be on for six years and you have to apply after every two years.

Can I assume you were on the committee when Modern Erratics were commissioned?

HAWN: I was, and I can’t remember whether I was chair at that point or not… It’s a few years ago, and then COVID sort of hindered everything and delayed everything, so actually, the Modern Erratics was the last adjudication that the committee did… four or five years ago.

Talk to us about the process, because the city bakes the budget into policy. It’s allocated as a result of capital spending. So then you find out what your budget is. How do you determine locations, for example, or types of art? How is all of that determined? 

HAWN: Locations are always determined by the city, and then the city puts out a call depending on if there’s these plinths or these circular cement things that they place art on. If there’s one that’s empty, then they need something to replace it. And so they put out a call for submissions for people who are interested in applying, and then they have to fill out an application form. That fills in a number of required bits of information, and then a rubric is sort of made based on the requested information, which is then given to the members of the committee, who then go through all the applications and sort of judge them according to this this rubric, and then we all come together as the committee at one of our regular meetings and, with much discussion, we go through it and come to a decision, which is then passed on to the city.

What I gleaned from that is, the city picks the locations. The city determines the budget. The city puts out the request for proposals. That’s not your committee. So when the request goes out, like in the case of these rocks, would it have been a specific request? Would you know what they were looking for there, or would they tell the artist “Here’s where they’re going”? What are the parameters? 

HAWN: We knew the locations, the three locations, and so that was part of the discussion – what would be appropriate where. But as for what kind, no, it was just it was open-ended, and so that’s part of what we have to talk about now. As a committee, we just would like to have some input into that rubric because we went through there and found that sometimes – because you’re supposed to apply marks to it – the mark given for something was really not that relevant to the overall project or piece of art that we were looking at, and so then, that discussion – and it’s by consensus we agree on which work we’re going to suggest goes forwards and from then on, it is handed back to the city – now we can get updates on it and and things. And the other thing, the public is is allowed to attend our meetings if they wish to.

So they can come and listen to what’s going on.

HAWN: They can’t be part of the actual adjudication, but they can be part of the meetings and the discussions.

In your time on the committee, which is almost six years, has the city ever said no to a decision you’ve made when you’ve said, “Yes, here’s what we’re choosing”? The city basically goes with it?

HAWN: Right. Certainly not that I can recall.

You and the other people on this committee are a bunch of citizens of Saskatoon who have an interest in the city, in art in the city, and after the city does the legwork on the budget, locations and request for for submissions, you then essentially just decide which one you’re picking, right? Do you have the ability to not spend all of the budget? Because that’s one of the things, I think, that has people worked up. Right now, Saskatoon’s taxes are high. They’re going up all the time. Is this the best best way to spend $300,000?

HAWN: Well, we haven’t done anything for three years, so where did that money go?

So you have a yearly budget?

HAWN: The city has a yearly budget that applies one per cent of whatever towards public art. Now, the committee itself gets a budget that it can use as it sees fit to further the cause of public art. Last year and this year, we have developed a mentorship program which will educate up-and-coming artists about public art and educate them about the administrative and artistic requirements that go into an application. Young, aspiring artists are paired with mentors who help them go through this process, and then together they develop a mock project that could be something submitted, and then at the end there’s a public meeting where they go through these things.

That’s an interesting point, James, because I know there were a few people saying “Why wouldn’t we pick a Saskatchewan artist or a local-to-Saskatoon artist for art in Saskatoon?” You mentioned the rubric. Is that in there at all? Do you give preference to local artists?

HAWN: No, because we have to give preference to whichever bit of art most suits. So it’s more on the art. But this mentorship program is definitely encouraging local artists to learn more about the program and to apply. So in that way, we’re helping.

I assume that the city would have control, if they were putting out the RFP. They could say “We will give preference to a local artist” on a certain project if they wanted?

HAWN: Yes, I suppose that would be part of what we would have to abide by when we’re adjudicating.

Have you talked with committee members since all of this has come out? There’s a lot of people saying this is an absolute waste of money. Some people saying art is not a waste of money, but this is a lot to spend, and some people are saying these are beautiful. These are doing exactly what they should. It’s created a lot of conversation. What do you and the committee take from that?

HAWN: Actually, we really haven’t had a meeting since all of this hit the airwaves, and we don’t meet in the summer, although we did have an emergency meeting last this month because we wanted to get this mentorship program up and running. They went on this tour to see them. I was away, so I couldn’t be on that. So there was probably discussion then, because they went to the three different locations where these rocks were.

You mentioned, James, that you haven’t met for about three years?

HAWN: We’ve met, but we haven’t adjudicated. We still meet regularly.

So the last art selection you made was about three years ago. But there’s capital projects happening all the time, and if they’re over that threshold of $5 million, there should be that one per cent allocation. So, is that money sitting somewhere, waiting for you?

HAWN: I don’t know. That’s a good question.