HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-17 Public Art Commission Agenda Packet
IS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54954.2(a) OR SECTION 54956
PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
Jim Migdal, Chair
Mila Zelkha, Member Ben Miyaji, Vice-Chair Amanda Ross, Member
Hsinya Shen, Member Nia Taylor, Member Loren Gordon, Member
City Council Liaison: Liz Kniss
Elise DeMarzo: Public Art Program Director Nadya Chuprina: Public Art Coordinator
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/publicart
Thursday, August 17, 2017
City Hall Community Meeting Room
250 Hamilton Ave
7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
ROLL CALL
AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
(Members of the public are invited to address the commission on any subject not on the agenda. A reasonable time
restriction may be imposed at the discretion of the Chair.)
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Public Art Commission after distribution of the agenda
packet are available for public inspection in the City Hall Council Chambers during normal business hour.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: PAC Regular Meeting - July 20, 2017 ATTACHMENT
STAFF COMMENTS
ACTION:
1. Highway 101 Bike/Pedestrian Bridge – Staff recommends the approval of artwork by Mary
Lucking for the project. ATTACHMENT
2. Acquisition of Creative Seating Elements – Staff recommends the allocation of up to $ 17,100 for
the purchase of the creative seating elements by Colin Selig and acceptance of artistic benches
into the city collection of public art. ATTACHMENT
3. De-Accession of Artworks – Staff recommends initiating deaccession evaluation process for
Digital DNA by Adrianna Varella and Nilton Maltz, currently sited at Lytton Plaza.
ATTACHMENT
4. De-Accession of Artworks – Staff recommends initiating the deaccession evaluation process for
Go Mama by Marta Thoma, currently sited on California Avenue. ATTACHMENT
5. King Plaza Temporary Public Artwork – Staff recommends the approval of three upcoming
temporary public artworks for King Plaza by Toby Fraley, Megan Geckler, and Konstantin
Dimopolus, and allocation of funds in the amount of $15,000 for the Toby Fraley installation.
NON-ACTION:
6. Staff presentation regarding the upcoming downtown parking garage and public art process for
the project.- ATTACHMENT
ANNOUNCEMENTS
FOR YOUR CALENDAR: Next PAC Regular Meeting – 7 PM, September 21, 2017
Retreat – 8:30 - 1:00 Friday, September 8, 2017
City of Palo Alto Staff Report to Public Art Commission
August 17, 2019
Agenda Item 4
Recommendation:
Staff Recommends that the Public Art Commission initiate deaccession proceedings as outlined in the
City’s Deaccession of Artwork Policy for Go Mama by Marta Thoma, located at the corner of California
Avenue and Ash street.
Summary:
Staff recommends that the Public Art Commission initiate deaccession process for Marta Thoma’s Go
Mama, located on California Avenue and Ash, based on the process and conditions outlined in the City’s
Deaccession of Artwork Policy 1-59/CSD (Attachment 1) adopted in December 2016.
Background:
In 1999 Marta Thoma was commissioned by the City to prepare, construct and install a sculpture titled
Go Mama for $15,000. This commission funding included generous donations from California Avenue
merchants. Among the contributors to the sculpture were Leaf & Petal, Country Sun, Language Pacifica,
Alhouse King Realty, Hotel California, Alhouse-Denton, and Keeble and Shuchat. The California Avenue
business group known as CAADA at the time participated in the artwork selection process and supported
the transformation of California Avenue into the “Avenue of the Arts”.
The artwork on California Avenue and Ash street was sited on a former planter that the Public Art
Program filled with concrete to make the foundation for the artwork. At the time that the artwork was
installed, there were low bushes and plants around the base that prevented visitors from accessing the
base of the sculpture and touching it. When the new California Avenue streetscape project was
completed in 2015 and the pedestrian sidewalk widened, the sidewalk area was shifted to surround the
artwork, removing the plantings and making the sculpture more accessible to the public.
Marta Thoma (now Marta Thoma Hall) has several other public artworks on long term display. Thoma’s
“Brain Works,” a 30-foot tall sculpture at Bestor Art Park in San Jose was installed in 2014. Thoma Hall’s
“Brain Works” is only one of her works that uses recycled materials. Other Thoma Hall installations
include: “Cosmos Clock” for Florida State University, “Water Source” for the Water Park in Goodyear,
Arizona, “Inside Out,” at Vertigo Gallery in London, “Stretch” at the Costa Rica Museum of Art, and
“Journey of a Bottle” in the Walnut Creek Main Library. The artist was in residence at Recology 1994 and
was part of the Cubberley Artist Studio Program. She has had two temporary installations in Palo Alto
and has one other permanently sited artwork, Rrrun, which was installed in 2005. Thoma Hall served on
the Public Art Commission in 2001-2002. Staff has requested an updated biography from the artist.
Maintenance History:
The artwork has received fairly regular waxing treatments over the years. However, the increased
physical interaction from the public touching and pushing the piece has deteriorated the surface quite a
bit and the artwork is in need of another cleaning and wax protective coating. The base has constant
food stains on it due to people eating on the base, especially during the farmer’s market. The small cast
leaves have detached from the base. Staff has received calls of concern from the public regarding the
stability of the piece once every six to nine months. Because the piece has only one attachment point
and has the bulk of the weight and massing up high, the piece has always wiggled. Staff has sent art
handlers out there to fill in the material around the base of the foot to help stabilize her, but it has not
done as much to stabilize the piece.
2000 – Installation of Footing (concrete base and rebar) for the sculpture: $1,050
2001 – Fabrication and installation of a plaque - $220
2011 – Hired Marta Thoma to treat and repaint the face $500
2013 – Wax and general cleaning by the art crew
2015- Wax and general cleaning by the art crew
Discussion:
ARG evaluated the artwork in 2015 and identified it as one of the high priority artworks for the Public
Art Program to address. Their report (Attachment 2) calls out a lot of staining and discoloration, with a
treatment estimate of $3,250 to stabilize the surface of the sculpture, but that will not address the
overall stability of the sculpture. During farmers markets in particular, there are groups of people
seated on the base, and frequently children are standing on the base and interacting with the sculpture.
The artwork is not stable enough in the current location to withstand so much physical contact. In
conversations with ARG, they asked if fencing the sculpture might be an option to keep the public away
from it.
Our Public Art Master Planning consultants had the following to write about “Go Mama”:
Go Mama: This artwork is a figure balanced on one foot. Artworks of this type should not be
displayed in an outdoor location because of their structural vulnerability. This specific artwork is
top-heavy and balanced on one point on a low pedestal. Its condition has been assessed by
ARG, which has proposed conservation and fencing surrounding the sculpture. Because fencing
the sculpture will compromise both the streetscape and the work; and because the artwork is
poorly fabricated, it should be considered for deaccession.
Of the considerations for deaccession outlined in the policy, staff recommends deaccession for the
following considerations:
The condition of the artwork cannot be reasonably guaranteed.
The artwork’s structural condition may pose a threat to public safety.
The artwork has faults in the design and repair may be impractical or unfeasible.
Significant changes to the design of the site have occurred which affect the integrity of the
artwork.
No suitable site is available for relocation or exhibition.
While we expect to gather a lot of public comment on the artwork, staff would like to highlight that Go
Mama is one of the most often discussed works of art in the collection, both with positive and negative
comments. Reasons for deaccession do not include aesthetic taste or public opinion. There are no
formal appraisals for the artwork and staff could not locate any auction records for the artist.
Attachments:
1- Deaccession policy
2- ARG report on Go Mama
3- Marta Thoma’s CV
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-59/CSD
February 2017
CITY OF
PALO ALTO
CITY OF PALO ALTO PUBLIC ART PROGRAM
DEACCESSION OF ARTWORK POLICY
PUBLIC ART PROGRAM VISION
Public art reflects Palo Alto's people, diverse neighborhoods, the innovative and global character of its
businesses and academic institutions, and the beauty of its natural environment.
INTRODUCTION
The Public Art Program (PAP) maintains the City of Palo Alto's (City) collection of Artwork for the benefit of Palo Alto
citizens, Removing an Artwork from the collection (deaccessioning) is a sensitive matter and should be managed
according to clear criteria. The policies outlined below are subject to periodic review by the PAP; from time to time, with
the input of the Public Art Commission (PAC), the PAP may update this policy to include additional guidelines or
procedures as it deems appropriate. Except in the case of a safety emergency, no Artwork in the collection will be
deaccessioned until the policies set forth below have been observed. This policy applies to permanent Artworks in the
City's collection; it is not intended to apply to "Temporary Artworks," which are the subject of a separate policy. This
policy shall govern removal, disposal and destruction of Artworks; the City's Surplus Property Disposal & Destruction
Policy (Policy and Procedure 1-49/ASD) shall not apply.
POLICY
1. Any proposal for removal or destruction of an Artwork shall be submitted to PAP staff and reviewed by the PAC
according to the policies and procedures contained herein; review shall be deliberate and independent of political
pressures, fluctuations in artistic taste, popularity, and public opinion.
2. Deaccession shall be a seldom -employed action that is taken only after issues such as Artists' rights, public benefit,
censorship, copyrights, and legal obligations have been carefully considered. The final decision with respect to
deaccession of Artworks owned by the City shall rest with the PAP Director upon approval by the PAC.
3. At regular intervals, the City's Artwork collection shall be evaluated by the PAP and reported to the PAC to
determine the condition of each Artwork and determine whether there is Artwork recommended for deaccession.
DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this Policy, the following definitions apply.
ARTIST: An individual generally recognized by critics and peers as a professional practitioner of the visual arts as judged
by the quality of the professional practitioner's body of work, educational background and experience, past public
commissions, sale of works, exhibition record, publications, and production of Artwork.
ARTWORK: Works in any style, expression, genre and media created by an Artist and owned by the City of Palo Alto in
the permanent collection, whether functional or non-functional. Artwork may be stand-alone and integrated into the
architecture, landscaping, or other site development if such are designed by an Artist as defined herein.
Page 1 of 5
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-59/CSD
February 2017
The following are not considered Artwork:
1. Reproductions, by mechanical or other means of original Artwork, except in cases of Film, video, photography,
printmaking, theater, or other media arts;
2. Art objects that are mass produced (excluding artist -created, signed limited -edition works), ordered from a catalog,
or of a standard design, such as playground sculpture or fountains; and
3. Directional or other functional elements such as signage, supergraphics, color coding, or maps unless specifically
designed as artworks.
DEACCESSION: The procedure for the removal of an Artwork owned by the City and the determination of its future
disposition.
DEACCESSION NOTIFICATION: A written letter to the artist or donor referencing the applicable condition(s) of the
Artwork and describing reasons why the deaccession review needs to be undertaken.
GUIDELINES
Any Artwork owned by the City shall be eligible for deaccession with the exception of an Artwork that is accompanied by
verified legal stipulations that the Artwork may not be deaccessioned. During the review process, the Artwork shall
remain accessible to the public in its existing location unless it poses a threat to public safety.
Artwork may be considered for review toward deaccession if one or more of the following conditions apply:
1. The condition or security of the Artwork cannot be reasonably guaranteed;
2. The Artwork requires excessive maintenance or has faults of design, materials or workmanship, and repair or
remedy is impractical or unfeasible;
3. The Artwork has been damaged or has deteriorated, and repair or remedy is impractical or unfeasible;
4. The Artwork's physical or structural condition poses a threat to public safety;
5. The Artwork is proved to be inauthentic or in violation of existing copyright laws;
6. The Artwork is not, or is only rarely, on display because the City lacks a location for its display;
7. The Artwork has exceeded its expected lifespan;
8. No suitable site is available for relocation or exhibition, or significant changes in the use, character, or design of the
site have occurred which affect the integrity of the Artwork;
9. Changes to the site have significantly limited or prevented the public's access to the Artwork;
10. The site where the work is located is undergoing privatization;
11. Deaccession is requested by the Artist;
12. If there are more than six works (excluding editions of prints) by the same artist in the portable collection, or more
than three permanently installed works on public display in the City or in Private Development, PAP staff may
recommend to PAC that the City retain only a representative selection of that artist's work.
13. If the Artwork has been lost, stolen, or is missing, the PAC may approve formally deaccessioning it from the
collection while retaining a record in the collection database showing that the work has been deaccessioned.
Artwork may be reviewed for deaccession at any time at the initiative of PAP staff or PAC members. Review also may be
initiated by the Artist regarding the Artwork she/he created, by that Artist's designated heir(s), or by legally recognized
representative(s).
Page 2 of 5
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-59/CSD
February 2017
PROCEDURES
Deaccession shall begin with a formal Deaccession Request which can be initiated by the PAC, by PAP staff, the Artist,
the Artist's designated heirs or legally -appointed representative. The Deaccession Request shall be submitted to PAP
staff and shall describe the applicable condition(s) outlined in the Guidelines above, and the reasons why the
deaccession review should be undertaken. A Deaccession Request must also contain information about the requestor's
relationship to the Artwork and stake in deaccessioning the Artwork.
Deaccession Requests shall be reviewed by PAP staff, who shall make every reasonable effort to contact the Artist who
created the Artwork named in the Deaccession Request, and any other known parties with a vested interest in the
artwork, and shall comply with any applicable state or federal notice requirements. When Artworks are proposed for
deaccession, staff shall place the matter on the PAC agenda for an initial review of the reasons deaccessioning is being
considered and to gather comments on the deaccession proposal. At a subsequent PAC meeting, staff shall then present
a deaccession recommendation to the PAC.
In presenting the Deaccession Request, PAP staff will provide all available relevant corresponding materials to the PAC,
including, but not limited to:
1. Artist's name, biographical information, samples of past artwork, and resume.
2. A written description and images of the Artwork.
3. Artist's statement about the Artwork named in the Deaccession Request.
4. A description of the selection/acquisition process and related costs that was implemented at the time the Artwork
was selected.
5. If available, a formal appraisal of the Artwork provided by a qualified art appraiser.
6. Information about the origin, derivation, history, and past ownership of the Artwork.
7. A warranty of originality of the Artwork.
8. Information about the condition of the Artwork and the estimated cost of its conservation provided by a qualified
visual arts conservator.
9. Information about and images of the Artwork's site.
10. For permanently -sited Artwork: information about how community feedback about the Artwork was collected and
the outcome of that feedback.
11. Feedback from the Director of the City department responsible for operating and maintaining the Artwork site.
12. A detailed budget for all aspects of conservation, maintenance, repair, installation, operation, insurance, storage,
and City staff support.
13. The Artist's contract with Donor or comparable legally binding document with Proof of Title.
14. Deed of gift restrictions, if any.
The PAC shall approve, with or without conditions, or reject the Deaccession Request based on the Deaccession Criteria
described in this policy.
DEACCESSION CRITERIA
In addition to the condition and security of the Artwork as stated above, the review criteria for Deaccession Requests
include, but are not limited to:
1. ARTISTIC EXCELLENCE: Qualifications and professional reputation of the Artist; craftsmanship, conceptual content,
style, form.
2. VALUE OF ARTWORK as determined by a professional appraiser, if available.
Page 3 of 5
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-59/CSD
February 2017
3. RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING COLLECTION OF ARTWORK: Style, form, scale, diversity, quantity, quality, longevity, and
compatibility with the existing collection of Artwork and goals of the Public Art Program.
4. AVAILABILITY OF CITY SUPPORT: The availability of necessary funding for conservation, maintenance, and/or repair;
exhibition and storage space; real property for siting Artwork; and staff support.
5. RELATIONSHIP TO SITE: Accessibility, public safety, and social, cultural, historical, ecological, physical, and functional
context of the Artwork in relation to the site, both existing and planned.
6. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: Issues related to liability, insurance, copyright, warranties, ownership, theft, vandalism,
loss, indemnification, and public safety. The City Attorney shall review the recommendation of the PAP staff and
PAC to determine whether there are any known legal restrictions that would prevent deaccessioning the object. The
City Attorney's approval must be obtained prior to deaccessioning an object.
7. TIMING: Safety or hazard emergencies, relevant construction schedules, and the allowance of sufficient time for a
normal review process.
8. ACQUISITION PROCESS: Method by which the Artwork was acquired and accessioned into the collection of artwork
(i.e. donation, loan, commission).
9. COMMUNITY FEEDBACK: Community feedback about the Artwork, its site, and its condition solicited via a publicly -
noticed meeting or placed on the agenda of the Public Art Commission.
10. RESTRICTIONS: Any recognized restrictions associated with the Artwork.
IMPLEMENTATION
The deaccessioned Artwork shall be removed from the collection of Artwork through methods administered by the PAP.
In all cases, the Artist or the Artist's designated heir(s), or legally recognized representative(s) shall be given, when
possible and within a reasonable time frame, the opportunity to purchase the Artwork for the fair market value (as
determined by a qualified art appraiser), or, if the Artwork is determined to be of negligible value, the Artist shall be
given the opportunity to claim the Artwork at the Artist's own cost.
When the Artist does not purchase or claim the deaccessioned Artwork, the City, at its discretion, may use any of the
following methods to remove the Artwork:
1. Sale. Proceeds from the sale shall be deposited into the Public Art CIP Budget. Written acknowledgement by Budget
to place revenues from the sale of deaccessioned Artwork into the Public Art CIP Budget, must be obtained. Public
notice regarding the sale shall be provided on the City website, at a publicly -noticed meeting and in any other
manner required by law.
a. The Artist/donor shall be given the right of first refusal to reacquire the work at fair market value, original price,
or nominal value, depending on the recommendation of the PAC. The cost of removal of the work may be
reflected in the amount set.
b. Sell the work through a dealer.
c. Sell the work through sealed bidding or public auction.
2. Trade or exchange of a deaccessioned Artwork for another by the same Artist.
3. Donation of deaccessioned Artwork to a non-profit organization, institution, or agency.
4. Destruction. This method is appropriate in the following instances:
a. The entire Artwork has been damaged or has deteriorated, and repair or remedy is impractical or unfeasible.
Page4of5
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-59/CSD
February 2017
b. Most of the Artwork has been damaged or has deteriorated, and repair or remedy is impractical or unfeasible,
and any remaining intact parts of the Artwork are deemed to have negligible value, and the Artist is not willing
to claim the remaining parts at the Artist's own cost.
c. Public safety considerations support destroying the Artwork.
d. Every effort to locate the Artist, kin, or donor has failed.
e. The City determines that no other method of implementation is feasible.
When possible, the method for removing the Artwork from the collection of Artwork shall be selected to ensure that the
highest reasonable price is received. Any profits received by the City through the sale, trade, or auction of a
deaccessioned Artwork shall be deposited into the Public Art CIP Budget administered by the PAP.
If a deaccessioned work is sold or exchanged, PAP staff will implement any legal requirements for compensating the
artist, including but not limited to the California Resale Royalties Act.
PAP staff shall remove acquisition numbers and labels from the Artwork and coordinate its physical removal from the
City's collection.
PAP staff shall report on the sale or exchange of Artwork at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the PAC, following
receipt of all funds or the completion of the sale, exchange, or donation.
PAP staff shall transmit a report informing City Council of the removal of the Artwork from the City's collection.
Staff shall maintain a Deaccession File that includes individual files on each deaccessioned Artwork. These files shall
include all documentation regarding the Artwork.
Artworks may not be sold, traded, or donated to current employees of the City of Palo Alto, their business partners, or
their immediate family members. Current elected officials, PAC members, their business partners, and their immediate
family members may not buy, receive or own any Artwork which has been deaccessioned from the collection of
Artwork.
Nothing in these guidelines shall limit the City's ability to take appropriate action to protect public health and safety in
the event of an emergency.
Recommended:
Approved:
2 - 3='7
Director Date
City Manager Date
Page 5 of 5
ARG Conservation Services Inc.
Project No. CS15021
Palo Alto Public Artwork Survey - August 2015
Description
Surrealistic fi gural sculpture of a child’s doll,
running in place, with the depiction of a child’s
face on the doll’s stomach. Th e sculpture is
cast bronze with some areas overpainted, such
as the doll’s face and feet. Th e sculpture is
anchored to a large round concrete base, most
likely with a concealed support within the
leg. Th e concrete base has exposed aggregate
sides, and a smooth fi nish top surface. Th e top
features bronze leaf ornaments and inscribed
bilingual lettering: “Go, Mama! / Andale, Mama!
/ Mylostoryourstoryherstory / Mi cuento esta
saliando en tu corazon.”
Existing Conditions
Sculpture
• Unstable structural condition when horizontal
force is applied.
• Concrete splatter at planted foot, outstretched
foot and leg, and back of skirt. Reportedly recent
damage from sidewalk construction.
• Fine scratches at back of skirt.
• Bronze surfaces soiled throughout; water stains/
drip marks at arms.
• Grease marks/ fi ngerprints at skirt and foot.
• Wax coating is blanched and deteriorated.
Possible color shift to patina (see artist’s photo on
following page.)
• Irregular color/ imperfections in patina at top of
proper left shoulder.
• Localized paint fl aking at back of head and
proper left eye.
Detail of doll’s back. Note
blanched wax coating.
Detail of concrete splatter at
doll’s proper left foot.
Title: Go Mama
Material: Bronze, paint, concrete
Dimensions: 42” x 72” x 54”, 84” dia. base
Location: California Avenue at Ash Street
Artist: Marta Th oma
Year : 1999
Accession No: S.2000.01
Base
• Built-up mortar around foot anchored to base; hairline
cracks, separations, and water stains.
• One of two leaf ornaments loose at base; removed and
given to Palo Alto Art Center for safekeeping until it can
be reinstalled.
• Concrete surfaces soiled throughout; stains at top
surface.
• Minor localized biological growth.
• Top surface relatively fl at, no slope for drainage.
Comments on Location
• Sited in an open area at a public sidewalk.
• No spotlights observed; street lighting.
ARG Conservation Services Inc.
Project No. CS15021
Palo Alto Public Artwork Survey - August 2015
Treatment Recommendations
Sculpture
• Consult the artist regarding original/intended paint
colors and patina fi nishes.
• Mechanical removal of concrete splatter.
• Test solubility of paint coatings.
• Clean surfaces with a pH neutral conservation-
grade detergent.
• Stabilize fl aking paint with appropriate adhesive
based on conservator testing.
• As needed, perform in-painting to visually
integrate losses.
• Apply protective hot wax coating at bronze
surfaces.
• Visually integrate irregularites in patina with
pigmented wax (reversible).
• Test eff ectiveness and apply cold wax coating at
painted surfaces.
Base
• Overall cleaning with low-pressure water spray.
• Localized cleaning to remove stains.
• Reinforce mortar mound at foot for increased
structural stability.
• Reset removed bronze leaf ornament in epoxy.
• Clean bronze ornament surfaces with a pH neutral
conservation-grade detergent.
• Apply protective hot wax coating at bronze
ornament surfaces.
Title: Go Mama
Artist: Marta Th oma
Treatment Priority:
HIGH
Treatment Cost Estimate
Labor (two conservators x
12 hours x rate of $125/hr): $3,000
Materials: $250
Total: $3,250
Maintenance Recommendations
Routine maintenance aft er initial treatment to include the
following:
• Perform overall cleaning with conservation-grade
detergent, and reapply wax coating on annual basis.
• Monitor for further paint loss or damage.
Photo courtesy artist’s website. Note overall
bright golden patina color at doll’s face and
dress. Also note diff erences in paint color at
doll’s face (duller/more subtle hues), and lack
of inscriptions or leaf ornament at base. Photo
taken in process of installation? Was the face
repainted?
Detail of doll’s skirt. Note
fi ngerprints and blanched wax.
Detail of irregular patina at
proper left shoulder.
Treatment History
No information provided.
References
• Artist’s website, www.mthoma.com/gomama3.html
Marta Thoma Hall
EDUCATION: University of California, Berkeley, B.A. M.A. Fine Arts
SOLO FINE ART EXHIBITIONS, AWARDS, and INSTALLATIONS
2010 City of Goodyear, Arizona, Public Art Commission Sculpture installed
City of Miami, FL, Public Art Installation for City Center
City of Blaine, WA, Public Art Commission Award Sculpture Installed
City of Santa Cruz, CA, National Finalist, Mural Wall 15’ x 75’
City of Walnut Creek, CA, Public Art Commission Award Sculpture Installed
2009 Kimberly Saari Gallery, Steamboat, Colorado, solo exhibition
City of Santa Cruz, CA, National Finalist, Traffic Roundabout
2008 Metropolitan Museum of Art Fresno, “Two Tears,”
Convention Center 3rd Street Plaza, Double Wave, San Francisco
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Gallery Solo Exhibition
William Havu Gallery, solo sculpture exhibition, Denver, Colorado
2007 Anita Seipp Gallery, solo sculpture exhibition, Palo Alto, CA
Brick Tear RFP Award to Team Thoma installed for SPUR,
San Francisco, CA
2006 City of Palo Alto and the Arts Commission: Installation: Rrrun, Palo Alto
California Regional Center for the Arts: "Childhood Revisited," Walnut Creek
2005 Vertigo Gallery: "Inside Out," London, United Kingdom
Lowe Gallery, "New Work by Marta Thoma," Los Angeles, CA
2004 Triton Museum of Art, Award Exhibition, Santa Clara, CA
Lowe Gallery, Stretch , Atlanta Georgia
2003 Oakland Museum of California, Stretch, Oakland City Center, Oakland, CA.
Peninsula Community Foundation Grant: "Portraits of Youth," Palo Alto
2000 A.I.R. Gallery, New York, NY
1999 National Museum of Costa Rica, Installations in San Jose, Costa Rica
1998 San Francisco Museum of Art Gallery, San Francisco, CA
1995 Earth Tear Installation, South San Francisco, CA
City of Palo Alto Staff Report to Public Art Commission
August 17, 2019
Agenda Item 3
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Public Art Commission initiate deaccession proceedings as outlined in the
City’s Deaccession of Artwork Policy for Digital DNA by Adrianna Varella and Nilton Maltz, located in
Lytton Plaza.
Summary:
Staff recommends that the Public Art Commission initiate deaccession process for Adriana Varella and
Nilton Maltz’ Digital DNA, located at Lytton Plaza, based on the process and conditions outlined in the
City’s Deaccession of Artwork Policy 1-59/CSD (Attachment 1) adopted in December 2016.
Background:
Digital DNA is a seven-foot-tall egg-shaped sculpture made of welded steel, polystyrene bead foam,
fiberglass, and salvaged computer silicon circuit boards that cover the surface of the sculpture. Sewn
and soldered onto into the surface of the boards are phrases relating to technology written in a variety
of languages. The artwork, sometimes referred to as the “egg” was meant to recognize Palo Alto as the
birthplace of Silicon Valley.
According to a 2005 press release, Adriana Varella (Attachment 2 for bio) and Nilton Maltz best describe
this site specific art project: as “Digital DNA sole intention is a momentary reflection about what we have
been building, researching and planning for our software and hardware thinkers. They are the ones who
determine what users will be extracting from their computers (except for the hackers maybe). We hope
the art piece could bring some reflection and consciousness elevation for people passing by the square”.
Varella’s primary medium is currently video based artwork which can be viewed at
http://www.adrianavarella.net/.
While the artwork has only been at Lytton Plaza since 2005, it has had a rather complicated history.
There is little information available regarding the selection process for the sculpture. However,
according to Public Art Commission records Digital DNA was commissioned in 2000 for $9,950, but the
specific site for installation was not yet determined. The commissioned amount did not include
installation or footings for the sculpture. Staff and the Public Art Commission explored sites on
California Avenue, King Plaza, and Lytton Plaza. Ultimately, Lytton Plaza was selected as the venue for
the sculpture. The purchase agreement did not address deaccession or Visual Artist Rights Act.
In 2001, Varella’s stored pieces for the sculpture were inadvertently mistaken for junk by a neighbor and
thrown away. Once Varella finished creating the artwork, there were delays in scheduling the
installation due to ongoing discussions regarding a potential redesign of Lytton Plaza. During those
delays, there was a warehouse fire in the San Bruno facility that Digital DNA was stored in, and the
sculpture was completely destroyed.
On August 19, 2004, the Commission voted to fund a second version of the artwork with the insurance
funds from the fire. Varella completed another version of the sculpture, and it was installed at Lytton
Plaza in June of 2005. Two weeks prior to the unveiling, Digital DNA was vandalized. Several circuit
boards were removed from the sculpture, but Varella was able to repair the damages before the event.
The Lytton Plaza redesign construction began in 2008, and Digital DNA was taken off-site and restored
by the artist and re-installed at the plaza in time for the ribbon cutting ceremony in December 2009.
Maintenance History:
The artwork has received multiple maintenance treatments that have included several new clear
coatings of the circuit boards, replacement of broken boards, and regular filling and replacement of
screws that have been popped out of the fiberglass shell. City of Palo Alto art crew maintenance is not
reflected below, but they inspected and replaced elements of the sculpture regularly.
Repairs/Maintenance by Varella:
Repair - 2005
$1,200.00
Repair - 2006
$2,200.00
Repair - 2009
$4,600.00
Total
$8,000.00
Paid to ShipArt for Installation
Original Installation - ShipArt - 2004
$7,805.00
Remove & Reinstall 2009 - ShipArt
$2,247.00
Total
$10,052.00
Repairs /Maintenance by Outside Consultants:
Repair – 2013 $2,700.00
Total for Repairs and moving the sculpture since 2005 $20,752.00
In 2011, the Adriana Varella and Alex Lage submitted a proposal to completely restore the sculpture for
$82,400, and believed that they may have found a Brazilian corporate sponsor to fund the restoration.
The Public Art Commission was wary of taking on such an expensive rehabilitation of an artwork that is
relatively new to the collection and cost eight times the original commission. It was also clear that if the
restoration was completed, the artwork may very well be in a similar state of deterioration in another
five years if it remained at the Lytton Plaza site. Instead they launched a subcommittee to search for
alternative sites for Digital DNA that may help protect it from the elements. Staff and Commissioners
reached out to the Palo Alto History Museum and explored sites at libraries, Community Centers, and
City Hall for spaces that might be better suited for the protection of the artwork. No suitable site was
located. Staff hired a conservator to apply a new UV protective coating to the circuit boards in 2013.
Discussion:
In 2015 staff hired ARG to evaluate the condition of the collection and make conservation
recommendations (Attachment 3). In that report, ARG notes the instability of the anchor system and the
losses to the surface treatment and details of the sculpture. During the Public Art Master Planning
process, consultants Barbara Goldstein and Gail Goldman also made recommendations regarding the
collection. About Digital DNA, they wrote:
Digital DNA: This artwork, constructed on a fiberglass base, is damaged and may be
structurally unstable. It is covered with small, flat computer components that w ere
screwed into the fiberglass shell. The coatings have peeled off and the existing boards are
faded and some are breaking. Some of these have been pried off or are in d anger of
being removed. ARG has assessed it and recommended suitable repairs. However, the
artwork is not suitable for outdoor display due to the nature of the materials and, if
relocated to an indoor venue, will require substantial repair. Deaccession is
recommended unless repairs are completed and a suitable indoor location can be found.
Digital DNA’s coatings have peeled away again, likely due to the constant exposure to the elements at
the Lytton Plaza location.
Of the considerations for deaccession outlined in the policy, staff recommends deaccession for the
following considerations:
The condition of the artwork cannot be reasonably guaranteed.
The artwork requires excessive maintenance and has faults in the materials and repair is
impractical or unfeasible.
The artwork has deteriorated, and repair or remedy is impractical or unfeasible.
No suitable site is available for relocation or exhibition.
Public Art staff has received several emails over the past two years from representatives of the Friends
of Lytton Plaza, who co-funded the redesign and reconstruction of Lytton Plaza that took place in 2009,
regarding the deteriorating condition of the sculpture. Staff has dispatched the in-house art handlers to
make minor repairs or to remove/replace broken panels. Staff has experimented with several different
coatings in cooperation with conservators, and has not found a durable UV coating that will withstand
the elements.
Staff waited until the new deaccession policy was in place to bring forward the deaccession request so
that the Public Art Commission has time to adequately weigh the pros and cons to deaccessioning the
artwork and has time to gather community input prior to taking a final action.
Timeline and Budget Considerations:
Should the Public Art Commission vote to proceed with the deaccession review process for Digital DNA,
staff will immediately notify the artists of the deaccession proceedings. The final deaccession decision
will be calendared for the November 16, 2017 Public Art Commission meeting. Should the Commission
decide to deaccession the artwork at that time, then staff will coordinate the removal of the artwork, in
accordance with our policy. There are no auction records available for the artists and no appraised
value. Should the artists choose to take the artwork back, the policy states that the artwork may be
returned to the artist at their expense. Otherwise, the Public Art Program may sell the artwork or need
to allocate funds for the removal of the artwork in accordance with the policy.
Attachments:
1- Deaccession Policy
2- Adrianna Varella Bio
3- ARG Conservation Report- Digital DNA
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-59/CSD
February 2017
CITY OF
PALO ALTO
CITY OF PALO ALTO PUBLIC ART PROGRAM
DEACCESSION OF ARTWORK POLICY
PUBLIC ART PROGRAM VISION
Public art reflects Palo Alto's people, diverse neighborhoods, the innovative and global character of its
businesses and academic institutions, and the beauty of its natural environment.
INTRODUCTION
The Public Art Program (PAP) maintains the City of Palo Alto's (City) collection of Artwork for the benefit of Palo Alto
citizens, Removing an Artwork from the collection (deaccessioning) is a sensitive matter and should be managed
according to clear criteria. The policies outlined below are subject to periodic review by the PAP; from time to time, with
the input of the Public Art Commission (PAC), the PAP may update this policy to include additional guidelines or
procedures as it deems appropriate. Except in the case of a safety emergency, no Artwork in the collection will be
deaccessioned until the policies set forth below have been observed. This policy applies to permanent Artworks in the
City's collection; it is not intended to apply to "Temporary Artworks," which are the subject of a separate policy. This
policy shall govern removal, disposal and destruction of Artworks; the City's Surplus Property Disposal & Destruction
Policy (Policy and Procedure 1-49/ASD) shall not apply.
POLICY
1. Any proposal for removal or destruction of an Artwork shall be submitted to PAP staff and reviewed by the PAC
according to the policies and procedures contained herein; review shall be deliberate and independent of political
pressures, fluctuations in artistic taste, popularity, and public opinion.
2. Deaccession shall be a seldom -employed action that is taken only after issues such as Artists' rights, public benefit,
censorship, copyrights, and legal obligations have been carefully considered. The final decision with respect to
deaccession of Artworks owned by the City shall rest with the PAP Director upon approval by the PAC.
3. At regular intervals, the City's Artwork collection shall be evaluated by the PAP and reported to the PAC to
determine the condition of each Artwork and determine whether there is Artwork recommended for deaccession.
DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this Policy, the following definitions apply.
ARTIST: An individual generally recognized by critics and peers as a professional practitioner of the visual arts as judged
by the quality of the professional practitioner's body of work, educational background and experience, past public
commissions, sale of works, exhibition record, publications, and production of Artwork.
ARTWORK: Works in any style, expression, genre and media created by an Artist and owned by the City of Palo Alto in
the permanent collection, whether functional or non-functional. Artwork may be stand-alone and integrated into the
architecture, landscaping, or other site development if such are designed by an Artist as defined herein.
Page 1 of 5
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-59/CSD
February 2017
The following are not considered Artwork:
1. Reproductions, by mechanical or other means of original Artwork, except in cases of Film, video, photography,
printmaking, theater, or other media arts;
2. Art objects that are mass produced (excluding artist -created, signed limited -edition works), ordered from a catalog,
or of a standard design, such as playground sculpture or fountains; and
3. Directional or other functional elements such as signage, supergraphics, color coding, or maps unless specifically
designed as artworks.
DEACCESSION: The procedure for the removal of an Artwork owned by the City and the determination of its future
disposition.
DEACCESSION NOTIFICATION: A written letter to the artist or donor referencing the applicable condition(s) of the
Artwork and describing reasons why the deaccession review needs to be undertaken.
GUIDELINES
Any Artwork owned by the City shall be eligible for deaccession with the exception of an Artwork that is accompanied by
verified legal stipulations that the Artwork may not be deaccessioned. During the review process, the Artwork shall
remain accessible to the public in its existing location unless it poses a threat to public safety.
Artwork may be considered for review toward deaccession if one or more of the following conditions apply:
1. The condition or security of the Artwork cannot be reasonably guaranteed;
2. The Artwork requires excessive maintenance or has faults of design, materials or workmanship, and repair or
remedy is impractical or unfeasible;
3. The Artwork has been damaged or has deteriorated, and repair or remedy is impractical or unfeasible;
4. The Artwork's physical or structural condition poses a threat to public safety;
5. The Artwork is proved to be inauthentic or in violation of existing copyright laws;
6. The Artwork is not, or is only rarely, on display because the City lacks a location for its display;
7. The Artwork has exceeded its expected lifespan;
8. No suitable site is available for relocation or exhibition, or significant changes in the use, character, or design of the
site have occurred which affect the integrity of the Artwork;
9. Changes to the site have significantly limited or prevented the public's access to the Artwork;
10. The site where the work is located is undergoing privatization;
11. Deaccession is requested by the Artist;
12. If there are more than six works (excluding editions of prints) by the same artist in the portable collection, or more
than three permanently installed works on public display in the City or in Private Development, PAP staff may
recommend to PAC that the City retain only a representative selection of that artist's work.
13. If the Artwork has been lost, stolen, or is missing, the PAC may approve formally deaccessioning it from the
collection while retaining a record in the collection database showing that the work has been deaccessioned.
Artwork may be reviewed for deaccession at any time at the initiative of PAP staff or PAC members. Review also may be
initiated by the Artist regarding the Artwork she/he created, by that Artist's designated heir(s), or by legally recognized
representative(s).
Page 2 of 5
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-59/CSD
February 2017
PROCEDURES
Deaccession shall begin with a formal Deaccession Request which can be initiated by the PAC, by PAP staff, the Artist,
the Artist's designated heirs or legally -appointed representative. The Deaccession Request shall be submitted to PAP
staff and shall describe the applicable condition(s) outlined in the Guidelines above, and the reasons why the
deaccession review should be undertaken. A Deaccession Request must also contain information about the requestor's
relationship to the Artwork and stake in deaccessioning the Artwork.
Deaccession Requests shall be reviewed by PAP staff, who shall make every reasonable effort to contact the Artist who
created the Artwork named in the Deaccession Request, and any other known parties with a vested interest in the
artwork, and shall comply with any applicable state or federal notice requirements. When Artworks are proposed for
deaccession, staff shall place the matter on the PAC agenda for an initial review of the reasons deaccessioning is being
considered and to gather comments on the deaccession proposal. At a subsequent PAC meeting, staff shall then present
a deaccession recommendation to the PAC.
In presenting the Deaccession Request, PAP staff will provide all available relevant corresponding materials to the PAC,
including, but not limited to:
1. Artist's name, biographical information, samples of past artwork, and resume.
2. A written description and images of the Artwork.
3. Artist's statement about the Artwork named in the Deaccession Request.
4. A description of the selection/acquisition process and related costs that was implemented at the time the Artwork
was selected.
5. If available, a formal appraisal of the Artwork provided by a qualified art appraiser.
6. Information about the origin, derivation, history, and past ownership of the Artwork.
7. A warranty of originality of the Artwork.
8. Information about the condition of the Artwork and the estimated cost of its conservation provided by a qualified
visual arts conservator.
9. Information about and images of the Artwork's site.
10. For permanently -sited Artwork: information about how community feedback about the Artwork was collected and
the outcome of that feedback.
11. Feedback from the Director of the City department responsible for operating and maintaining the Artwork site.
12. A detailed budget for all aspects of conservation, maintenance, repair, installation, operation, insurance, storage,
and City staff support.
13. The Artist's contract with Donor or comparable legally binding document with Proof of Title.
14. Deed of gift restrictions, if any.
The PAC shall approve, with or without conditions, or reject the Deaccession Request based on the Deaccession Criteria
described in this policy.
DEACCESSION CRITERIA
In addition to the condition and security of the Artwork as stated above, the review criteria for Deaccession Requests
include, but are not limited to:
1. ARTISTIC EXCELLENCE: Qualifications and professional reputation of the Artist; craftsmanship, conceptual content,
style, form.
2. VALUE OF ARTWORK as determined by a professional appraiser, if available.
Page 3 of 5
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-59/CSD
February 2017
3. RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING COLLECTION OF ARTWORK: Style, form, scale, diversity, quantity, quality, longevity, and
compatibility with the existing collection of Artwork and goals of the Public Art Program.
4. AVAILABILITY OF CITY SUPPORT: The availability of necessary funding for conservation, maintenance, and/or repair;
exhibition and storage space; real property for siting Artwork; and staff support.
5. RELATIONSHIP TO SITE: Accessibility, public safety, and social, cultural, historical, ecological, physical, and functional
context of the Artwork in relation to the site, both existing and planned.
6. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: Issues related to liability, insurance, copyright, warranties, ownership, theft, vandalism,
loss, indemnification, and public safety. The City Attorney shall review the recommendation of the PAP staff and
PAC to determine whether there are any known legal restrictions that would prevent deaccessioning the object. The
City Attorney's approval must be obtained prior to deaccessioning an object.
7. TIMING: Safety or hazard emergencies, relevant construction schedules, and the allowance of sufficient time for a
normal review process.
8. ACQUISITION PROCESS: Method by which the Artwork was acquired and accessioned into the collection of artwork
(i.e. donation, loan, commission).
9. COMMUNITY FEEDBACK: Community feedback about the Artwork, its site, and its condition solicited via a publicly -
noticed meeting or placed on the agenda of the Public Art Commission.
10. RESTRICTIONS: Any recognized restrictions associated with the Artwork.
IMPLEMENTATION
The deaccessioned Artwork shall be removed from the collection of Artwork through methods administered by the PAP.
In all cases, the Artist or the Artist's designated heir(s), or legally recognized representative(s) shall be given, when
possible and within a reasonable time frame, the opportunity to purchase the Artwork for the fair market value (as
determined by a qualified art appraiser), or, if the Artwork is determined to be of negligible value, the Artist shall be
given the opportunity to claim the Artwork at the Artist's own cost.
When the Artist does not purchase or claim the deaccessioned Artwork, the City, at its discretion, may use any of the
following methods to remove the Artwork:
1. Sale. Proceeds from the sale shall be deposited into the Public Art CIP Budget. Written acknowledgement by Budget
to place revenues from the sale of deaccessioned Artwork into the Public Art CIP Budget, must be obtained. Public
notice regarding the sale shall be provided on the City website, at a publicly -noticed meeting and in any other
manner required by law.
a. The Artist/donor shall be given the right of first refusal to reacquire the work at fair market value, original price,
or nominal value, depending on the recommendation of the PAC. The cost of removal of the work may be
reflected in the amount set.
b. Sell the work through a dealer.
c. Sell the work through sealed bidding or public auction.
2. Trade or exchange of a deaccessioned Artwork for another by the same Artist.
3. Donation of deaccessioned Artwork to a non-profit organization, institution, or agency.
4. Destruction. This method is appropriate in the following instances:
a. The entire Artwork has been damaged or has deteriorated, and repair or remedy is impractical or unfeasible.
Page4of5
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-59/CSD
February 2017
b. Most of the Artwork has been damaged or has deteriorated, and repair or remedy is impractical or unfeasible,
and any remaining intact parts of the Artwork are deemed to have negligible value, and the Artist is not willing
to claim the remaining parts at the Artist's own cost.
c. Public safety considerations support destroying the Artwork.
d. Every effort to locate the Artist, kin, or donor has failed.
e. The City determines that no other method of implementation is feasible.
When possible, the method for removing the Artwork from the collection of Artwork shall be selected to ensure that the
highest reasonable price is received. Any profits received by the City through the sale, trade, or auction of a
deaccessioned Artwork shall be deposited into the Public Art CIP Budget administered by the PAP.
If a deaccessioned work is sold or exchanged, PAP staff will implement any legal requirements for compensating the
artist, including but not limited to the California Resale Royalties Act.
PAP staff shall remove acquisition numbers and labels from the Artwork and coordinate its physical removal from the
City's collection.
PAP staff shall report on the sale or exchange of Artwork at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the PAC, following
receipt of all funds or the completion of the sale, exchange, or donation.
PAP staff shall transmit a report informing City Council of the removal of the Artwork from the City's collection.
Staff shall maintain a Deaccession File that includes individual files on each deaccessioned Artwork. These files shall
include all documentation regarding the Artwork.
Artworks may not be sold, traded, or donated to current employees of the City of Palo Alto, their business partners, or
their immediate family members. Current elected officials, PAC members, their business partners, and their immediate
family members may not buy, receive or own any Artwork which has been deaccessioned from the collection of
Artwork.
Nothing in these guidelines shall limit the City's ability to take appropriate action to protect public health and safety in
the event of an emergency.
Recommended:
Approved:
2 - 3='7
Director Date
City Manager Date
Page 5 of 5
Adriana Varella
Born in Rio/Brazil, lives and works in New York City.
Adriana Varella is a multi-disciplinary artist whose work draws upon anarchism/feminism/queer
(S/he) does audio-installations, photos, drawings, performance, video-art-experimental, computer installation, site
specific and public art.
Creates and organizes the Anarko Art Lab in NYC.
Education
1996/98 FAPERJ with Federal University of Rio de Janeiro / UNIARTE / Research in video art and video
installation - Rio/Brazil
1991/94 Parque Lage School of Visual Arts - Rio/Brazil
Permanent Public Art Project
2005
Digital DNA - (site specific) - Lytton Plaza, University Street with Emerson Ave - Palo Alto, California
Selected Solo Exhibitions
2010
Trans Project / Trans Pacific and Trans smalls sketches) - Oi Future Museum of Art and Technology - Rio /
Brazil
1994
Anthropophagous Banquet - 12 channels Video installation, Republic Museum, Rio / Brazil
Selected Group Exhibitions
2014
Aimlessly - Beyond Limits: Post Global Biennale/ San Diego Art Institute / CA
2013
Cracks in the civilized landscapes- Lesbian Herstory Archives, NYC
Resonance - Prism Breakup / Eyebeam -NYC
2012
Unlanguage - Mediations biennial - The Unknown - Poznan / Poland
Anarko Art Lab - Occupy Revolution here and now,Living Theater, NYC
Cracks - Performance and video –Dimanche Rouge, Paris, France
2011
Cracks/ 10 channels video installation / Mix Experimental Festival NYC
Spectacles in Flames ( Public Art Projects) /Flash: light Nuit Blanche/ New Museum, NYC
Chess- Anarko Art Festival – Deconstructing power; creating new routes – The Living Theater, NYC
Cracks drawings/Letters CATMChelsea Manhattan Art Gallery, NYC
NoTerritory - Lumen – Anarko Art Lab – Staten Island, NY
2010
Invented House - Endless Bridge (Manhattan Bridge), Leo Kuelbs Collections, Brooklyn and Berlin
2009
Meeting God - Mix Experimental Film Festival - Manhattan/NY
Transverse - The Map is not the territory - NYFA 2009 / Dumbo, Brooklyn, NY
Mirror Organism - Anarchist Art Lab / Living Theater, Manhattan, NY
Spur Brooklyn -The End. And...Latin Collector, Manhattan, NY
Transpiration - Other world resonances - Anarchist Art Lab / Living Theater, Manhattan, NY
Nuclei - Reproduction (Proposal) Anarchist Art Lab. / Living Theater , Manhattan, NY
Vein - Luminous Flux Video Art - Galapagos Art Space, Dumbo, NY
Meeting God - Future=Fertile - Leo Kuelbs Collection, Brooklyn, NY
Heliogabalus and Consciousness causes collapse-Anarchist Art Festival - Living Theater, Manhattan, NY
Transmutation Landscape - The Object is illuminated - Latin Collector Gallery, Manhattan, NY
2008
Invented House - Public Art Project - Streets of San Francisco- San Francisco, CA
Space within space - Leo Kuelbs Collection, Brooklyn, NY
Holy Holes: Absolute Stalls - "Consciousness causes collapse" - Dumbo Art Center, Brooklyn, NY
Manhattan FLOWER Bridge (Public Art Project Manhattan Bridge) DUMBO, NY
Staircase Public Art Project / Staircase Photo video Installation - Allied Kinetics - Leo Kuelbs Collection, Brooklyn,NY
2007
Action number 3 (Altar) / Exorcising the church - Public Art Project (entrance doors) - Judson Memorial Church -
Manhattan, NY
2006
Spur Brooklyn - Video Installation - D.U.M.B.O under the bridge project, Brooklyn, NY
2005
Adam/Soldier - Photo Video installation -Red Ink Studios, San Francisco, CA
Actions number 1,2,3 - Video Art - San Francisco County Fair Building on Golden Gate Park - San Francisco, CA
Video installations - and Video Art - Itau Cultural -Made in Brazil project -ZKM(Germany) WRO (Poland) Videoart
Center Tokyo (Japan),Triangle (France), SESC Sao Paulo and Videobrasil (Brazil)
2004
Possession - Photo Installation- Art Explosion, San Francisco, CA
2003
Identity - "Landing " - Southern Exposure, San Francisco, CAAriadne (project 3) - Video - Venus film festival - New
York City – NY
2002
DDNA1 - Anno Domini- Phantom Galleries - San Jose windows project - Temporary public art - San Jose, CA
Ariadne (project 1) - video installation and photos - Ballaco Gallery - San Francisco, CA
2001
Interference on Public TV broadcast - 24th International Biennial of Art, Ljubljana - Slovenia
Paradoxical Images - Video Installations - School of Visual Arts at Parque Lage - Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
Deviation of the feminine - Nomad extension (Constructed Identity) and Narcissus - video installation - CCCEF - Rio
de Janeiro - Brazil
Spur (Dialogs) - video installation "Rumos Visuais" Project / Itaú Cultural - Brazil / São Paulo / Recife / Minas Gerais -
Brazil
Seeing trough her eyes - video installation - FUNART National Foundation for the Arts - Rio de Janeiro- Brazil
1999
Random Field - Video Installation - Gallery for Contemporary Arts at the Telephone Museum - Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
Living in the randomness - Video Etchings - "Exposição Espaço gravado" Gallery for Contemporary Arts at the
Telephone Museum - Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
Ego Formula - Video Etchings - Bennett University - Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
1998
Circular Frequency - Video Installation - School of Visual Arts at Parque Lage - Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
Book -Video - Object " Borderline " - Video Installation, Paco das Artes - SP - Brazil
Zone 0 - Video Installation - Museum of Modern Art - Rio de Janeiro -Brazil
1997
Temporary Body- dance -video installation / Centro Cultural Itaú - SP- Brazil
In This is What is in This - video installation /DBKV Deutsch-Brasilianische Kulturelle in Berlin MAM Receiver of
screams- video installation -Exhibition
O Grito / National Museum of Fine Arts- RJ- Brazil
1996
Dodecaedro - Video Installation - Calouste Gulbekian Art Center- Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
Electronic Egg - Sculpture - Estácio de Sá University - Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
1995
Axis - Video Installation -Exhibition: Interdinamiótico - Fluminense Federal University- Rio de Janeiro
I.T.E.M. - Video Installation - Exhibition: A cor do Rio / CCC- RJCollect Machine - Video Installation- Exhibition:
Códigos Sincrônicos / CCC- Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
1994
Monad - video installation - Exhibition: Neural network / Parque Lage School of Visual Arts / RJ - Brazil
Khrónos - video installation - Parque Lage School of Visual Arts / Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
1991
Memory of the Hell - Dance video installation - Exhibition: "The Divine Comedy"/MAM Museum of Modern Art - Rio
de Janeiro - Brazil
Awards & Grants
2009
NYFA New York Foundation for the Arts - The Mentoring Program
1998
Prize - Zone 0 (No - Territory) - video installation, XVI Brazilian National Exhibit of Contemporary Art / Museum of
Modern Arts - RJ - Brazil
1997
Great Prize - Anthropophagous Banquet - video installation - ABRA Project Paço of Arts - SP - Brazil
1995
Prize - Filter / Fold and Point - video installation - XV Brazilian National Exhibit of Contemporary Art/National
Museum of Arts - RJ- Brazil
1994
Great Prize - Monad - video installation - II Exhibition MAM Bahia/Museum of Modern Art - BA- Brazil
Collection
Museum of Modern Art - Bahia - Brazil
FUNARTE National Museum of Fine Arts - Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
Gerald Brett - USA
Susan Diridon - USA
The City of Palo Alto - USA
Publications
TRANS - 300 pages book about Adriana Varella works by Oi Future Museum / Rio de Janeiro- Brazil
Made in Brazil - Three Decades of Brazilian Video by Arlindo Machado pages - 21,36,146,154,155,167
ARG Conservation Services Inc.
Project No. CS15021
Palo Alto Public Artwork Survey - August 2015
Description
Egg-shaped sculpture clad in recycled circuit
boards. Superstructure is fabricated from layers
of polystyrene foam, coated in fi berglas, with a
central threaded support rod for anchoring to
the plaza. Circuit boards are anchored to the
superstructure with galvanized fasteners. Several
boards are further treated with gilding, various
coatings, wiring, inscriptions and writing in
several languages.
Existing Conditions
Sculpture
•Not stable structural condition; one point of
attachment, can be pushed or rotated slightly.
• Translucent coating has been applied (2013
maintenance coating) Coating is peeling
throughout, with losses in some areas.
• Photochemical degradation of circuit boards and
exposed fi berglas.
• Mild corrosion noted at fasteners.
• Embrittlement and peeling of localized applied
coatings by artist.
• Loose wires and threads at localized areas of
circuit boards.
• Minor areas of graffi ti and scratches.
• Remnants of paper bills and adhesive at one side.
• Few voids or holes noted throughout into
superstructure.
Comments on Location
• Located in an open area with no vegetation
around. At a plaza with heavy traffi c.
Detail of coating failure at
circuit board.
Detail of circuit boards. Note
exposed fi berglas, coating
failure and mild corrosion at
fasteners.
Title: Digital DNA
Material: Fiberglas, circuit boards, misc.
materials
Dimensions: 7 ft . dia. x 5 ft h
Location: Lytton Plaza, 202 University Street
at Emerson Street
Artist: Adriana Varella and Nilton Malz
Year : 2005
Accession No: S.2005.01
Detail of remnants of applied
paper bills and adhesive.
Detail of possible dislodged/
rotated circuit board.
Detail of gilding loss at circuit
board.
Detail of circuit boards. Note
heavy color shift / fade.
ARG Conservation Services Inc.
Project No. CS15021
Palo Alto Public Artwork Survey - August 2015
Treatment Recommendations
Sculpture
• Consult with the artists regarding fabrication and
treatments, including applied coatings.
• Test solubility of existing coatings and treatments.
• Perform overall dry cleaning with conservation
sponges, and based on conservator testing
perform localized wet cleaning with a pH neutral
conservation-grade detergent and/or solvents.
• Stabilize loose wires/ threads, gilding, and artist-
applied coatings.
• Consider partial or complete removal of failed
maintenance coating.
• Test eff ectiveness and apply a new clear protective
water repellent with UV stabilizers.
Location
• Overall cleaning of plaza with low-pressure water
spray.
Title: Digital DNA
Artist: Adriana Varella and Nilton Malz
Treatment Priority:
HIGH
Photo comparison of circuit
board. Above photo from art-
ist’s website, below is current
condition.
Treatment Cost Estimate
Labor (two conservators x
8 hours x rate of $125/hr): $2,000
Materials: $250
Total: $2,250
Maintenance Recommendations
Routine maintenance aft er initial treatment to include the
following:
• Based on conservator recommendations, perform
overall cleaning on annual basis.
• Monitor for further UV degradation/damage and
coating failure. Reapply water repellent coating as
Sculpture in process. Note
signifi cant color diff erence.
Photo courtesy artist’s web-
site.
Treatment History
• First sculpture destroyed in fi re in 2004; current is
second version re-created from scratch.
• Vandalized just aft er installation, repaired by artist.
• Artist proposal for restoration included removal
to off -site studio, complete replacement of skin with
new circuit boards, etc., repairs to internal structure,
and coating in protective resin.
• 2013 Treatment by Fisher included soft brush/
vacuum to remove soiling and peeling coating,
additional mechanical removal of peeling coating,
and re-sealing with C-500 gloss water-based
polyurethane.
References
• Artist’s website, www.adrianavarella.net
• Restoration proposal from Adriana Varella and
Alex Lage, dated 12/5/11.
• Treatment summary, Jonathan S. Fisher, MFA,
dated 11/5/2013.
• Images: (1) at night, dated 11/16/2013, and (2)
condition photos from 2015.
City of Palo Alto Staff Report to Public Art Commission
August 17, 2017
RE: Item 2 – Acquisition of Creative Seating Elements by Colin Selig
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission allocate funds in the amount of up to
$17,100 for the purchase of the Colin Selig sculptures and accept the five creative seating elements in
the City collection.
BACKGROUND: The temporary exhibition of the Colin Selig artworks came about after several
discussions between the City’s Public Works Department, Public Art, and Palo Alto Downtown regarding
the desire to bring more creative seating to University Avenue at a time when all of the standard
benches needed replacing. The Public Art Commission approved the temporary installation in April
2016, with a budget of $6,665 for the delivery, installation, loan, and removal of the artworks. The City
of Palo Alto entered into an agreement with artist Colin Selig for the loan of five creative seating
elements to be on display on University Avenue from May 2016 through May 2017, with the option to
extend the contract for six months. We are currently in the extension period. The artist agreed to give
the City a discount on the acquisition of any artworks at the end of the loan period, and apply the costs
associated with his removal of the artworks ($2,500) in the contract to the purchase.
DISCUSSION: All of the standard benches along University Avenue have been replaced with updated
standard benches except for the 5 places currently occupied by Colin Selig’s works at the corners of
Emerson, Bryant, and Waverley at University Avenue in downtown Palo Alto. Benches for those
locations are currently in storage with Public Works and ready to install downtown upon the removal of
the Selig pieces.
The Public Art Program has received overwhelmingly positive feedback regarding the benches from
downtown stakeholders and the public through online comments, emails and phone calls. There have
been a few inquiries regarding private sponsorship to keep the benches, and a group of Leadership Palo
Alto Fellows launched a Gofundme page for the benches that raised $1,200 in funds that can be applied
to the purchase. For full disclosure, it should be noted that there have been very few complaints about
the pieces largely based on the inability for someone to sleep on them and difficulty balancing a coffee
cup on the seats.
The upcoming utilities water and gas main replacement projects on University Avenue may cause an
extended impact to the ease and convenience of pedestrian circulation in the downtown area, including
requiring pedestrians as well as vehicles to use alternate routes in and around downtown. These
impacts will extend throughout calendar year 2018 into 2019. Given this, the City is asking the Council
to approve a one-time contribution from the replacement projects for the Art in Public Places Fund with
the intention that the funds will be used for the purchase of the public art benches. They will provide a
tangible and substantive enhancement to pedestrians’ experiences and the urban environment and help
mitigate the impact to stakeholders along University Avenue. The art benches would otherwise be
removed according to the existing agreement with the artist. The immediate availability of the art
benches provides a unique and timely action the City can take to address project impacts.
Should Council approve the additional allocation of funds for the benches, staff would like to ensure that
the Public Art Commission agrees to take these objects into the collection.
BUDGET and TIMELINE: Should Council approve the one-time contribution for art allocation, the
additional funds in the amount of $17,100 would be transferred into the Art in Public Places CIP fund for
the purchase of the Selig artworks. The Public Art staff has determined with the artist that the benches
would likely need to be re-powdercoated every ten years at an average cost of $500 per object. An
estimated $2,500 - $3,000 would need to be budgeted every ten years from the Public Art Program’s
maintenance budget for this purpose.
About the Artist
Committed to a sustainable lifestyle, Colin Selig resides and works within an intentional community in
the San Francisco Bay Area. While studying metal sculpting at The School of the Museum of Fine Arts in
Boston he earned a degree in Philosophy from Tufts University in 1987. His education included
apprenticeships with a machinist, race car fabricator, and public art sculptor. In the next couple of
decades, he continued to master his craft, restoring a variety of antique vehicles before focusing on
sculpting. Colin has been granted a series of patents for his designs, which have won national and
international awards for their aesthetic, technical, and innovative qualities, including in 2012
the Exhibitor’s Choice Gold Award at the Smithsonian Craft Show and the Most Interesting Products
Award at the American Society of Landscape Architects national expo.
Artist’s Resume
Public Art
2018 Interstate 244 pedestrian overlook, Tulsa, OK (upcoming)
2017 Los Alamos Community Center courtyard, NM (upcoming)
2017 Napa Art Walk, Napa, CA
2017 Le Bonheur Children's Hospital entrance patios, Memphis, TN
2016 Palo Alto University Avenue streetscape locations, CA
2016 Marathon Courthouse courtyard, Monroe County, FL
2016 State Hwy. 62 streetscape locations, Ridgway, CO
2016 Public Library entrance patio, Moraga, CA
2015 Theatre Square streetscape & Community Center plaza, Orinda, CA
2015 Lindsay Wildlife Museum, Walnut Creek, CA
2015 Urban Pop Up Park, Morgan Hill, CA
2014 Neiman Marcus Stores: Beverly Hills, St. Louis, Washington, Northbrook,
White Plains, San Diego, Short Hills, Paramus, Troy & Scottsdale
2014 Lafayette Circle streetscape, Lafayette, CA
2013 Lesher Center for the Arts, Walnut Creek, CA
2013 Neiman Marcus Stores: Chicago, Dallas, Walnut Creek
2013 Medway Propane, Medway, MA
2012 Cornerstone Sonoma, Sonoma, CA
2011 City Hall of Walnut Creek, CA
Awards
2012 American Society of Landscape Architects, Most Interesting Products Award - People's Choice
2012 Smithsonian Craft Show, Exhibitors’ Choice Gold Award
2011 Core77 Design Awards (international), Runner Up, DIY category
2012 Spark Design Awards (international), Spark:Concept Finalist
2013 Eco Arts Awards (international), Second Place, Repurposed Materials in Art & Design
Patents
2013 US D 683,146 Design patent: Propane tank bench
2013 US D 683,147 Design patent: Propane tank chaise bench
2013 US D 683,148 Design patent: Propane tank lips bench
2014 US D 716,572 Design patent: Propane tank asymmetric backless bench
2015 US D 721,237 Design patent: Propane tank club chair
2015 Pending Utility patent: Methods for making seating from pressure vessels
Education
1987 B.A., Philosophy, Tufts University, Medford, MA
1986 Apprenticeship, Motor Sport Service, Jamestown, NY
1989 Apprenticeship, Michio Ihara, Concord, MA
Images of seating elements installed in Palo Alto
Colin Selig’s creative benches at 278 University Ave, Palo Alto, CA
Colin Selig’s creative bench at 185 University Ave Palo Alto, CA
Colin Selig’s creative benches at 403 University Ave Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto Staff Report to Public Art Commission
August 17, 2019
RE: Agenda Item 1
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Public Art Commission approve the artwork design concept by artist
Mary Lucking for the highway 101 Bike/Pedestrian Bridge with an estimated art budget of
$90,000 - $100,000.
Discussion:
The Highway 101 Pedestrian Overpass Project at Adobe Creek will replace an existing underpass
that is available only half the year (on average) due to seasonal flooding. It would also
complement an existing, although Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) deficient, overpass that
is 1.25 miles north. The new overcrossing will also include a 0.13 mile Class I trail connection
along an existing Santa Clara Valley Water District maintenance road.
In the heart of Silicon Valley, Palo Alto (along with its neighbor to the south, Mountain View) is
home to hundreds of technology and research-based companies, including a number of major
employers such as Google, Intuit, and Space Systems Loral that have clustered in close
proximity to Highway 101 and the Bay Trail. To better link these growing job centers with
regional trails and bicycle facilities, and improve access to superb recreation opportunities like
the Baylands, Palo Alto has prioritized the funding and construction of a new, year -round
bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing over Highway 101 at Adobe Creek near the City’s southern
border.
Bridge Project Status
The Bridge design submissions received during the design competition were not selected due to
budget constraints. The City sought design teams through a Request for Proposal process
resulting in a design team selection by Council in May 2016. The design team, Biggs Cardosa
and Associates (BCA) developed a 15% design for Council consideration in early November
2016. Council accepted a bird-friendly Bowstring Bridge Concept design presented by BCA for a
12-foot wide bridge to meet the $14 million project budget.
The Art Selection Process:
Staff pulled artists from the prequalified pool who have experience in transportation projects
for consideration for this commission. Of the 61 artists with transportation experience, a pre-
panel of staff brought the number down to 23 to be considered by a selection panel.
The selection panel was made up of:
Claudia Guadagne – FMG Architects
Judith Wasserman –Served on original Bike Bridge Panel, former ARB and PAC member
Mila Zelkha – Public Art Commissioner
Mel Day – Artist, Cubberley Artist Studio Program
Selene Foster – Palo Alto Art Center Curator
Jerry Hearn –Environmental Advocate
Lee Lippert – Cyclist, former ARB member
The selection panel chose five artists to give presentations about their previous work and their
design development process. One of those finalists dropped out of the project, and the
remaining four made presentations to the panel January 25, 2017. Panelists were asked to
score the artists in three categories: 1- artistic excellence and strength of their previous body of
work 2-Suitability to the bridge project based on previous work 3- Artist’s approach to the
concept development and process. After the interviews, the panelists scored the artists, and
Mary Lucking was the highest ranked artist.
Mary Lucking was approved by the Public Art Commission as the project artist in February 2017.
Lucking’s contract was approved by City Council March 27 th, 2017. The artist traveled to Palo
Alto in April to meet with the design team, tour the area in which the bridge will be sited, and
gathered as much information about the project as possible. She has been working on design
concepts over the past few months.
Due to the scale of the project and the limited art budget, the opportunities for public art
integration are somewhat limited. While Mary was here, we explored numerous opportunities
for art integration into the bridge, including the trail split at the western approach to the
bridge, the railing at various places on the bridge, the scenic overlook, and the roundabout at
the eastern approach to the bridge. While the design team really wanted to have the artwork
integrated throughout the structure, the limited budget, strong industrial truss design, and
stringent safety regulations associated with the project made the smaller elements get lost in
the larger project and the team felt they would not be as impactful. The artist proposed
concentrating her artwork at the scenic overlook, creating an environment for reflecti on on the
beautiful Baylands that can be viewed from that space. This is the only space along the bridge
where visitors can step away from bike and pedestrian traffic.
Inspired by the wetlands and the many creatures that live below, Lucking proposes creating
sculptures for the overlook that can double as creative seating. More traditional benches ,
interpretive signage, and bike racks will be available nearby. The cast aluminum pieces will
have a brushed finish and sculpted texture that will make them visua lly engaging and
interesting to touch. The pieces currently planned will range in scale from 32” x 32” x 36” to 32”
x 24” x 18”, but may have to scale slightly up or down as the bridge design is finalized and we
must leave enough clearance for ADA regulations. The three pieces can be cast and installed
and still leave some funding available to put toward an artist designed railing at the overlook
area, but not enough to fully fund the railing. Public Art staff is currently collaborating with
Public Works and the design team to determine if the artist designed railing is feasible. If it is
determined that the railing is not feasible, then we may cast additional sculptural elements that
could be placed near the approaches to the bridge.
Timeline:
The bridge project is currently under review by various review bodies and staff hopes that
project construction will begin early 2019 and is scheduled to be completed in 2020 pending
permitting and available funding.
Attachment A: Adobe Creek Bicycle Bridge Public Art Concept by Many Lucking
Adobe Creek Bicycle Bridge Public Art Concept
Mary Lucking 2017
MARYLUCKINGSTUDIO
My goal of this project is to create a small, magical place, tucked into the approach ramp overlook, to stop, sit, and look out at the baylands.
With a giant bridge and a modest budget,I believe the best strategy for creating a special, memorableart experience on the Adobe Creek Bridge is to focus on one site,making something that is filled with rich detailthat can be enjoyed and explored by people using the bridge visit after visit.
Inspiration from natureGrasses, stones, sand, water textures
Inspiration from craftBasketry and chased silver tableware
Art Rail
Cast seating elements
The project consists of two elements: sculptural seating and a cut patterned railing.
Art Element Locations
Each piece has a different soft, biomorphic form, and is textured to echo the variety of natural textures found in the baylands:native grasses, sand, water ripples, pebbles.
Cast aluminum sculptural seating
*Renderings are conceptual and may change as the project proposal evolves
Cast Aluminum texture and finish
The pieces will be made of cast aluminum, giving them a soft, rich texture that rewards close looking and touching.
Samples by Donald Drumm
Scale models of cast forms
Grass lounge32” x 32” x 36”Waves low wide round32” x 32” x 15”Sand and stones egg 32” x 24” x 18”
The sculptures have a massive presence, but the textures are subtle and delicate.
Scale mock-up of rail and cast elements
The art railing surrounding the seating area will set it apart, reinforcing the feeling of being in nature, scaled down, among the grasses and stones.
* Renderings are conceptual and may change as the project proposal evolves
Rail pattern1/2” thick water-jet cut aluminum panels54” high as shown
The rail design will have a regular repeating pattern at the bottom, and evolves into a more chaotic, natural rhythm at the top.
*Renderings are conceptual and may change as the project proposal evolves
Artist fee & oversight 20,000
Fabrication of 3 cast aluminum sculptures by Bollinger Atelier 34,000
Transport and installation (may include fabrication of base plate)5,000
Travel 4,000
Engineering 1,000
Funds for larger castings or additional elements 26,000
Art rail (cost absorbed into bridge budget?)0
Total 90,000
Contingency 10,000
Budget sketch