Who Approves the Art?

 Who Approves the Art?

Part 3 of the Vancouver Biennale Investigation

In Parts 1 and 2, we followed the money and started following the people.

Now we get to the question I've really been wanting to answer:

WHO ACTUALLY APPROVES THE ART?

Because here's something I have learned while digging through Vancouver's public records:

A sculpture doesn't simply appear in a Vancouver park because an artist and the Biennale like it.

There is a process.

There are agreements.

There are municipal officials.

There are technical reviews.

There are location decisions.

And, at least historically, there was a formal requirement for Park Board approval.

That matters.

The paper trail

A Vancouver Park Board report from 2009 describes the agreement between the Park Board and the Vancouver International Sculpture Biennale.

It says that all sculpture installations were subject to Park Board approval.

The same document describes several considerations in the approval process:

• technical and risk analysis of the artwork and site;
• public response;
• aesthetic and artistic merit, assessed by the Biennale's professional curatorial staff.

In other words:

Someone was supposed to look at more than whether the artwork was “good art.”

The location and risks mattered too.

That raises an obvious question:

What does that process look like today?

And what does “public response” actually mean?

Because those words sound reassuring.

But I want to know how they work in practice.

Let's look at one sculpture.

The Proud Youth

This is the enormous red sculpture that I found terrifying when it was installed beside the Vancouver Seawall.

And yes — the City eventually took it down after its temporary exhibition period.

But the fascinating part is that we can actually find the City's records about how it got there.

The City of Vancouver released a 30-page FOI file concerning the installation.

The proposal describes The Proud Youth by Chinese artist Chen Wenling as a temporary public-art installation at a small plaza beside the Seawall between 1288 and 1328 Marina Crescent.

The proposed exhibition period was two years.

And the document says the Vancouver Biennale would be responsible for the installation, with the artwork installed at no cost to the City or its residents.

That last sentence is interesting.

Because “no cost to residents” doesn't necessarily mean there is no public value being exchanged.

The public provides the space.

The public provides the audience.

The City provides the regulatory and administrative framework.

And the artwork occupies a piece of public realm.

So I want to understand exactly how these arrangements work.

The public was invited to comment.

The FOI document says:

“You can share your thoughts regarding this temporary public art proposal…”

And gives an email address for feedback to the Biennale.

That's good.

But now comes the question I really want answered:

What happened to that feedback?

How many people responded?

How many supported the sculpture?

How many opposed it?

What were their concerns?

Did the Biennale change anything because of the feedback?

Did City staff consider the responses?

Did the decision-makers see the comments?

Were objections summarized?

And ultimately:

Who had the authority to say YES?

This isn't just about The Proud Youth.

That's why I'm digging deeper.

Because if we find one approval process, we can compare it with another.

And another.

And another.

Then we can ask whether the process is consistent.

For example:

Why was one location chosen over another?

Who decides whether a sculpture is appropriate beside a cycling route?

Is emotional impact considered?

Is the experience of children considered?

Is accessibility considered?

Are nearby residents consulted?

Are cyclists and pedestrians consulted?

What happens when people complain after installation?

And perhaps most importantly:

Can the public say NO?

Here's where things get complicated.

Artistic merit is subjective.

One person sees a masterpiece.

Another sees a monstrosity.

One person sees humour.

Another sees cruelty.

One person sees a joyful expression.

Another sees something deeply disturbing.

That is normal.

We aren't going to settle that argument in this investigation.

Instead, I'm interested in the decision-making system around it.

Because when an artwork is inside a gallery, the gallery controls the audience.

When it's placed beside a public bike path, seawall or park:

the public becomes the audience.

And that audience includes people who never asked to participate.

There is another important piece of evidence.

The Park Board's historical documents show that when Biennale sculptures were proposed to remain or return to Vancouver parks, staff examined them through an established process.

In one 2009 report, staff specifically said they had examined proposed returning sculptures according to technical and artistic review before recommending them to the Board.

And in another case, a proposed donated sculpture at Kitsilano Beach went through public consultation, with staff reporting that feedback was very positive while also recording concerns about public space and whether the area should remain natural.

That tells us something important:

Public consultation isn't a new idea.

It has been part of the process before.

So let's find out how robust that process is now.

And this brings me back to my original question.

I've encountered Biennale art that I love.

I've encountered art that makes me laugh.

I've encountered art that makes me stop and stare.

And I've encountered art that makes me uncomfortable.

That's okay.

Public art doesn't have to please everyone.

But if public institutions are providing access to public spaces for temporary installations, I believe the public deserves transparency about how those decisions are made.

Not censorship.

Not a demand that every artwork be pretty.

Transparency.

Who proposed it?

Who selected it?

Who approved it?

Who paid for it?

Who reviewed the location?

Who considered the public response?

And who can remove it if the public experience becomes unacceptable?

So I'm asking the Vancouver Biennale and the City of Vancouver:

Show us the process.

Show us the agreements.

Show us the criteria.

Show us the consultation.

Show us the decision-making.

And show us what happens when the public says:

“This isn't working here.”

Because if public art is truly for the public, then the public shouldn't merely be the people who walk past it.

We should have a meaningful voice in the spaces we share.

And I'm going to keep digging.

Part 4: THE ART THAT DIVIDED US

That's where we'll stop talking about the system in the abstract and start examining the actual artworks — including The Proud Youth, A-maze-ing Laughter, Vancouver Novel, and the works people have embraced.

Because if we're going to ask whether there is a pattern, we need to look at the evidence.

No assumptions.

No conspiracy theories.

Just the art, the documents, the decisions — and the public reaction.