[UPDATE: Looks like it’s necessary to note that the beginning of this post is not be taken at face value. It’s a sardonic comment on the strategy of the No campaign.]
.
It’s “Poetry in Transit.” Here’s an example on the No. 19:
.
Click to enlarge
,
It doesn’t matter how much it costs, whether it’s a TransLink program or whether the agency has just made space available, it simply doesn’t matter. Poetry is an unnecessary frill appealing to the elites, taking up space that could otherwise be used for advertising. It’s a literary poodle on a pole. It’s a symbol.
And when your agenda is to undermine confidence in collective services funded by taxes, you have to get those who benefit directly or indirectly to vote against their self-interest and the common good. For that you need symbols, even if they’re financially irrelevant in the big scheme of things. But that’s the thing: to attack the big scheme, you need the small and graspable items you can hold in contempt. Forget the billion-dollar boondoggles; it’s the $30,000 expense for art that people understand, especially if they don’t understand the art.
But though you can attack a public-art program funded by transit, don’t expect that charge of waste to be applied to this, where the elites actually are:
.
.
As a former municipal development planner facilitating public art and walkable urban design, utilitarianism in the public realm is deadly in terms of community vibrancy, economic feasibility and safety.A well articulated pedestrian streetscape,public art -and I would include poetry, is part and parcel of some of the tools to creating a “sense of place” and identity. We are no longer surviving hand to mouth.
While poetry on public transit is a small, unique gesture, it can be viewed as a bigger piece of the enhancement of the public realm. I do read the poetry as I am usually bored out of my mind on the bus.
The bigger problem at Translink appears to be who is actually in charge of the policy decision making. In other similar regional transportation body governance precedents- it is the locally elected politicians.
It is unhelpful to public discourse on important issues to cite a poem on the bus as an ‘example of waste.’ We’re not even clear who paid for it. Besides, thoughtful art is a necessary part of a meaningful life in all demographics and socio-economic groups.
Let’s stop focussing on the over-stated problem of TransLink waste, and keep our eye on the bigger topic, which for now is the need to pass the transit referendum and take a quantum leap in transportation planning and sustainable development for the region.
I support the placement of the poetry. As one who considers much public outdoor advertising an eyesore, and in particular the mindset that plastering public transport buses, inside and out, with advertising is a good idea, I would rather see no advertising, in the vein that prohibits billboards along public highways. In running a business not all sources of revenue must be pursued.
Here’s another OUTRAGEOUS example of government bloat:
http://www.nsnews.com/news/murals-adorn-new-low-level-road-1.1687738
Oh, wait, this is for a road. Never mind. Totally worth it. Every penny. Not that the cost of this mural is in any way relevant. Because it’s a road and no expense should be spared or questioned. Boy, that Ministry and their wasteful frivolity. But I bet it cost a lot more than $30K.