The Mosaic & London Borough of Lewisham Public Art Strategy

[Tim Lund]

3.7.2 “It is partly the historical legacy and also one of patronage that can lead to commissioning artworks that are unsatisfactory or not welcomed. This may be because the impetus for the commission has come from a narrow set of interests, or even an individual with influence..” and

3.7.3 “Commissioners, or individuals promoting the commission, who specify what the artwork
should be like and what it should contain immediately limit artistic scope and define the type of artwork and indeed the kind of artist likely to undertake it.”

And yet the impetus for the Mosaic has originated from a very small group of people, which included the artist commissioned to do the work. The only option that has been proposed for the limited consultation that has taken place, is a mosaic. No other form of art has been proposed. The only artist that has been offered the commission, is the chosen mosaicist. No local artists were invited to tender for the commission.

It has been pointed out - by Chris Best I believe - that the Lewisham Public Art Strategy was agreed in October 2009; that is after the Sydenham Assembly agreed to provide funds for the Mosaic Project at the June 2009 meeting and therefore the Mosaic does not need to comply with current policy. However, there was pre-existing guidance for public art, nationally and locally - and this policy certainly should be applied to the subsequent £2,000 awarded.

Lewisham planning officers are currently working on their report on this application - let's hope they don't embarrass themselves and future Sydenham generations by allowing this to go ahead.

[Rachael]

Agreed. The spirit of the public art policy applies now, to works yet to be installed, whenever the application was made. Models for public art policy have been around since the early 1990s. Why was Lewisham so late in formally adopting one?

[Bryan]

Why was Lewisham so late in formally adopting a public art policy? Answer: they weren't late.

In their July 2004 Unitary Development Plan the Council outlined their policy - at URB29 - in respect of art in public places. URB29 referred to the Council's Supplementary Planning Advice Notice "Art in Public Places" which set out the full detail of the Council's guidelines in this area. The policy was written in the context of public art associated with development schemes but it seems reasonable to assume that it would have application also to privately sponsored public art such as the mosaic project As far a I'm aware that policy and those guidelines remained extant until superseded in October 2009 by the Council's revised policy document "Public Art Strategy". In short, it appears that at the point that the Sydenham Assembly first awarded funding to the mosaic project no account was taken by the Council of its own policies in public art.

Councillor Best, who has been supporting the mosaic project, either knows of these policies or ought to know. If I am wrong in my understanding of the Council's long-standing policy in respect of public art then perhaps Councillor Best will correct me.

Bryan Leslie

[ALIB]

Good efforts by Bryan and Tim. This seemingly undermines the whole process of how the scheme was devised and the artist waas selected.