Freo's View


Posted in architecture, art, city of fremantle, culture, development, local government, Uncategorized by freoview on August 20, 2018


art 5


The initiative by the City of Fremantle and other local councils to introduce a percentage for the arts scheme has been good for WA artists and the public, but it comes with the risk that the lifespan of some of the artworks will be relatively short if they are attached to buildings.

Take the great Rick Vermey art within the LIV apartment building at Queen Victoria Street. Nowadays buildings are considered to last for about 50 years before being replaced by more modern structures, e.g. the Queensgate and Myer buidings at Kings Square. If the LIV buildings get demolished in 50 years that would also be the end of the Vermey artwork and that would be a real shame and a loss for future generations.

The same applies to the Lorenna Grant artwork on top of the Quest Hotel in Pakenham Street and the round artwork on the building on the corner of Bannister and Pakenham streets by Tom Mueller.

The percentage for the arts scheme states that the requirement for a public art contribution can be waived by the City of Fremantle where the same value of artwork is incorporated in the development, clearly visible to the general public.

It worries me that many outstanding new artworks in Fremantle, created as percentage for the arts, will not be preserved because they are incorporated in a development and not free standing in the public realm. We have a duty to share our cultural riches with future generations!

Roel Loopers


4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Linda Fardoe said, on August 21, 2018 at 8:42 pm

    That was then. Perth hasn’t been as kind in regards to removing art work and reinstalling. It gets removed and often forgotten or moved to obscure places with no acknowledgment of the artist.


  2. Merrick Belyea said, on August 20, 2018 at 11:25 pm

    you make an excellent point Roel about the preservation of culture for future generations. The subject of ownership should not be bound by a contract (which is only written to ensure the completion of a project) but by engagement by the public in the space that they inhabit. As soon as you place an artwork in the public realm it becomes a matter of culture – not real estate.




  4. bigjulie said, on August 20, 2018 at 9:47 am

    Don’t fret Roel.
    If “they” can take-down and reassemble the frieze from the Parthenon or a mosaic floor 30 m below a Roman street, then in 50 years they will do it with a snap of their automated pneumatic tungsten PCB intelligent fingers.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: