Mayor should explain arts strategy
Mayor Ed Gainey summarily dismissed all five sitting members of the seven- member Pittsburgh Art Commission. Some turnover in the commission is expected and welcome, but the mayor’s seemingly slapdash dismissal of the previous board is troubling. At the very least, it was clumsy and unprofessional — certainly not what the volunteer members deserved.
Mr. Gainey has said the commission is “going in a new direction,” but what does that mean? With a new set of members, that’s obvious, but where is it going and why? This is not how the mayor of a city the size of Pittsburgh should operate.
No doubt, the mayor acted within his rights. Art Commission members serve at the pleasure of the mayor, and it’s not surprising that Mr. Gainey, who took office in January, would want some fresh blood.
First, there are no African Americans among the five current Art Commission members. There are two women and two people of color, but Black people in Pittsburgh need representation on the commission. Even so, there were already two vacant spots on the commission that the mayor could have used to expand its diversity. The mayor’s removal of the entire commission, reportedly without discussions with members, leaves it without essential experience.
Mr. Gainey owes the people of Pittsburgh, who pay his salary, an explanation. When secrecy prevails, so do rumors. There is already speculation, perhaps unwarranted, of behind-thescenes bitterness. The mayor needs to explain how the new members of the art commission, whom he should appoint quickly but carefully, will move the city forward.
Serving on the city’s Art Commission is a low-profile but important job. Commission members are caretakers of Pittsburgh’s public face, overseeing the aesthetic quality of its public spaces, including park statues and new street installations.
In general, the commission has operated
in a competent, thoughtful and prudent manner. This year, it wisely blocked the installation of a statue on one of the Mount Washington overlooks, arguing that it would obstruct the city’s skyline.
The commission’s highest-profile decision recently was to remove a statue of Christopher Columbus from Schenley Park in 2020, when it waded into a national conversation about public statues. In 2017, it recommended removing a demeaning statue of songwriter Stephen Foster with a slave sitting at his feet, playing a banjo.
Each member of the commission brings expertise in an arts or design field, including urban planning and architecture. Stability helps ensure new members appreciate and understand Pittsburgh’s aesthetic traditions, such as historic industrialism, contemporary city lighting and abundant street installations.
There may be good reasons for an overhaul. Maybe the commission should be younger, or more attuned to new street and avant-garde trends that would give Pittsburgh a more progressive look.
Either way, the mayor should explain. His lack of openness and transparency, as well as his shabby treatment of five public servants, is a troubling sign that threatens to take the city backward.