Net address for this page- www.polycosmos.org/creacion/napt.htm
To: COA's PARD & NAPT
From: Santos-Perez Airport Sculpture Team
Phil Muncy's May 26 memo regarding our sculpture project was misleading.
This reply details for the record City caused delays-
1) NAPT staff contributed to a one month delay by strongly casting aspersions on the project before the AIPP panel, as we underwent final design review (a related issue (5, below) was documented AIPP misrepresentation of a waiver of maquette). As far as is known, no other airport art project faced staff resistance and resulting delay.
2) Despite repeated requests, the City refuses to explain the nature of several months delay in releasing our contract , compared with the other airport artists. Request for explanation of this delay is hereby repeated.
3) NAPT footdragging in honoring the contract clause calling for the City to prepare the site for installation. In contrast to the cooperation given to the other sculpture, where the entire planter slab was thickened at considerable expense, we were being told that the City would not help us in any way. Mr. Muncy made the dubious suggestion that we should place our sculpture on top of the soil. Placing a tall heavy mass on an artificially irrigated bed of topsoil was clearly ridiculous, and our team, in desperation, was forced to spend time exploring options for donated services and salvage material to deal with this curve ball.
After repeated efforts, including request for meeting tapes where the parties originally discussed site preparation, the case was finally made that it was the City's duty to provide the foundation, based on offers made to the artists at meetings, the contract, and the unfairness of requiring the art budget to cover structure needed to get out of the bottom of the planter box to the zero elevation level.
4) NAPT's withholding of soil data, failed communication between PARD and NAPT, and lack of City flexibility in honoring the intent of the contract has directly resulted in delay in payment, which meant we could not purchase stone, and crane and trucking services.
5) PARD misdirection as to the need for full maquette at AIPP Panel review contributed to delay. After stating to the contract manager that a full maquette would not be required at final presentation, the AIPP coordinator made the opposite claim at the presentation itself.
6) Not even counting general PARD slowness in conducting the overall public art process, cumulative COA delays are approaching a full year.
7) The city caused delay by contract flaws such as linking release of funds needed for the stones to the delivery of engineeriing drawings, then showed no flexibility when drawings were reasonably delayed. Drawings were not, in practical terms, needed until long after work long should have started on stones. In eagerness to start work, the artist team was unable to get a slow COA to revise contract flaws before signing.
The memo made no mention of such facts, choosing instead to make the same subjective attacks on our work as Mr. Muncy has since our first association with NAPT (1994) in protesting the flawed artisan inclusion process, and the "ban" on limestone the new airport. Our project is, in part, intended to show how artisan inclusion and limestone could have resulted in a much better facility, in terms of architecture and character of Austin. Mr. Muncy has repeatedly expressed that he would fight ongoing efforts to continue to make this case publicly known (so that COA errors might not be repeated).
Dealing with staff opposition has been costly in terms of our time and morale. As artists working substantially as donors of our time, we have a limited ability to resist, unpaid, the endless interference of a salaried staff. When Mr. Muncy opines that our project has been given "all possible latitude", he seems to be saying more about personal patience limitations, rather than what is required to produce world class public art.
It must be stressed that actual carving of stone and forging of iron is the key to project success, not staff political interference based on false issues. Its also worth repeating our artist's team has had the best track record in Austin for timely completion of public art projects, up until PARD began a pattern of improper resistance to our work beginning with the Neff Point gazebo.
The artists' response in recent years has been creative if difficult- increasing the scope of projects in response to each phase of official error. This process has been at work with the airport sculpture, as can be seen from the progression of design submissions The best way for officials to roll back this strategy is to stop opposing the artistic work and make reasonable reforms.
Please remember that this public art commission is a once in a lifetime opportunity which we take very seriously. There has been no lapse in diligence on our part to address the tangible artistic work. We deserve a chance to do our best to produce a masterpiece for the citizens of Austin, and given our resolve, staff should resist foolish temptation to obstruct our work.
The artists have long made considerable sacrifices in absorbing staff error while struggling to maintain quality, but cannot be expected to do so indefinitely.
To all parties, thank you for thoughtful consideration of both sides of this issue.