Page 214 of 606
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
211
sculpture named 'The Red Ribbon' in a recreational venue of the Council was decided by the Recreation Select Committee.
Of course, for some cases, such as the Pillar of Shame mentioned just now, consideration is made on their individual merits to decide whether the display should be approved. Basically, it can be said that the policy exists, but given the large number of artists applying for the permission to display their works of art, we should seriously and appropriately formulate more policies in response to the needs of the day.
As I have just raised and supported all along, local artists should be given a chance to display their masterpieces. There are a lot of space in the venues managed by the Council, such as the parks, UC complexes and cultural facilities. There are a lot of space in these places which can be used for this purpose. I consider that formulation of a set of comprehensive policies on these venues is worth our support.
However, in laying down the policies, we must follow some established directions or principles. For example, the applications must be considered and studied by the relevant select committees (that is, with the Department drawing up a set of documents), rather than being handled with one simple step, because if an application for display in a park is submitted to the Administration Select Committee, the latter might not know the views of the related select committee, that is, the Recreation Select Committee.
The proper way therefore is for the Department to prepare the relevant papers while the various select committees should discuss and assess how the policies on the display of pieces of sculpture or works of art be drawn up. Although what is involved is only the display of a works of art, we must not take the issue lightly, because many factors are involved as well. The first one is the financial factor. It is more than just displaying the item. Preservation and restoration are often involved. Take the French works of art, 'The Flying Man', being displayed in the Cultural Centre for instance. Members may not be aware that frequent inspection and maintenance are required because certain damage is often done to items displayed in public areas and they must be restored by specialists. In fact, we have a group of people specialized in restoring the Council's works of art. Accordingly, our policy on the display of works of art in the many venues managed by the Council must be supported by an estimate of the manpower requirements. If too many items were displayed without a corresponding provision of the restoration services, the public would be visiting only a pile of broken items. This is hardly something that Members who are keen on promoting art wish to witness.
The ADPL therefore supports the principle and direction of the motion, which proposes that the Council should carefully study the formulation of policies related to individual venues.
Page 214 of 606
Page 214 of 606
Page 214 of 606
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
211
sculpture named 'The Red Ribbon' in a recreational venue of the Council was decided by the Recreation Select Committee.
Of course, for some cases, such as the Pillar of Shame mentioned just now. consideration is made on their individual merits to decide whether the display should be approved. Basically, it can be said that the policy exists, but given the large number of artists applying for the permission to display their works of art, we should seriously and appropriately formulate more polices in response to the needs of the day.
As I have just raised and supported all along, local artists should be given a chance to display their masterpieces. There are a lot of space in the venues managed by the Council, such as the parks, UC complexes and cultural facilities. There are a lot of space in these places which can be used for this purpose. I consider that formulation of a set of comprehensive policies on these venues is worth our support.
However, in laying down the policies, we must follow some established directions or principles. For example, the applications must be considered and studied by the relevant select committees (that is, with the Department drawing up a set of documents), rather than being handled with one simple step, because if an application for display in a park is submitted to the Administration Select Committee, the latter might not know the views of the related select committee, that is, the Recreation Select Committee.
The proper way therefore is for the Department to prepare the relevant papers while the various select committees should discuss and assess how the policies on the display of pieces of sculpture or works of art be drawn up. Although what is involved is only the display of a works of art, we must not take the issue lightly, because many factors are involved as well. The first one is the financial factor. It is more than just displaying the item. Preservation and restoration are often involved. Take the French works of art. 'The Flying Man', being displayed in the Cultural Centre for instance. Members may not be aware that frequent inspection and maintenance are required because certain damage is often done to items displayed in public areas and they must be restored by specialists. In fact we have a group of people specialized in restoring the Council's works of art. Accordingly, our policy on the display of works of art in the many venues managed by the Council must be supported by an estimate of the manpower requirements. If too many items were displayed without a corresponding provision of the restoration services, the public would be visiting only a pile of broken items. This is hardly something that Members who are keen on promoting art wish to witness.
The ADPL therefore supports the principle and direction of the motion, which proposes that the Council should carefully study the formulation of policies related to individual venues.
Page 214 of 606
Page 214 of 6
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.