Full disclosure: Back in 1999,
The Asylum Street Spankers (all nine of 'em) crashed for three days at my tiny home in Portland. Turned away at the Canadian border for an unscheduled line up change, they found themselves without a trio of gigs and running low on funds. Since I personally knew singer/songwriter/washboard player extraordinaire Wammo I told the band, "Mi casa es su casa."
In thanks singer Christina Marrs walked my dog, the musicians held impromptu jams in my living room and backyard, and Wammo footed the bill for a late night screening of
The Phantom Menace (we all hated it).
Despite this indelible experience (one they probably have little to no memory of), I can say, that even if The Asylum Street Spankers hadn't slept on every horizontal surface in my home, I'd still be recommending that you catch their act tonight at
The Ark.
If
Old Crow Medicine Show is this week's tastefully irreverent old-timey concert, then The Spankers are their equally talented crazy-ass uncles who'd get chased off NPR for swearing on stage and breaking out a bong in the green room. Eschewing electricity and decorum, they are a rambunctious octet of virtuoso musicians and merry pranksters reveling in cold beer, hot licks, and potty-mouthed humor.
While this week's
FilterD offers up plenty of quality entertainment (the
Found Footage Festival deserves special consideration), you'll get the biggest bang for your concert-going buck with The Spankers.
The debateAn article in this week's
AnnArbor.com got me thinking about how we address the idea of public art. Mind you, this column isn't really about public art itself, but rather the debate that writer Ryan J. Stanton put forth (as well as several local bloggers and politicos).
"
Ann Arbor's dilemma: Spend money on public art or help the needy?" read the article. And right from the title I knew I would have trouble with with whatever conclusion Stanton's piece arrived at.
Why? Because he had set up a false argument. The title itself suggests that there are only two options, each guaranteed to produce oppositional forces. It is a tactic regularly used by cable news networks and political pundits to drum up outrage, heated arguments, and the loud voices of people who have an agenda. Sure, it's great sport, destined to provoke angry comments and vociferous conflict. But it's poor journalism in my opinion. And it's certainly not in search of solutions.
Why make it about funding public art or helping the needy? Why not tennis courts or paddleboats? Why not ask readers to decide whether helping the homeless or maintaining a public golf course (when there are
16 golf courses within 10 miles of the city) is the more moral thing to do? After all, couldn't we sell all that land and build a state-of-the-art shelter? How about the leaf service the city provides or the canoe liveries it maintains or the planters that spruce up our downtown? Are they more important than helping our neediest citizens?
If Stanton, the city, or AnnArbor.com wants to have a candid discussion and investigation of how we allocate resources to those in our community who need assistance then why isn't everything --from sidewalk repairs to softball fields to the greenbelt to, yes, public art --on the table? It's always easy to demand that your neighbor give up something you yourself don't value. The discussion becomes a lot more difficult when we're all asked to sacrifice equally.
Public art is often the whipping boy for political arguments demanding fiscal responsibility. Art is seen, by many, as frivolous and unnecessary, a handout to those who can't turn a profit in the wider marketplace. And yet sport recreation fields in local parks, which yield no greater profit, are often regarded as sacrosanct, a necessary component of a successful community. Personally, I see great value in both. And while I think it is very healthy (and necessary) to have serious discussions about how we earmark our ever-limited local resources, setting up strawmen for bigger, more complex issues is ethically suspect.
The needs of the homeless are no less poignant today than they were last year, or five years ago, or ever. While the numbers at risk may change, the issue of how we provide for their care remains, in both the best and worst of times, an indicator of our values. In my opinion, however, anyone who invokes their plight as a reason to kill a specific program they personally dislike is trading in political opportunism, and probably isn't interested in addressing the actual issue.
There is certainly a conversation to be had about how public art is managed in Ann Arbor. But to specifically contrast it, above all other resource expenditures, to concerns for the needy is the kind of reductive, polarizing debate I hope our community will reject.
-Jeff Meyers
Editor
Want your event in FilterD? We only pick six each week!
Press releases for upcoming events in the Ann Arbor area should be sent by the Sunday before to
jeff@concentratemedia.com. Please include high res jpg images that are at least 500 pixels wide.
Enjoy this story?
Sign up for free solutions-based reporting in your inbox each week.