The giant rubber duck, situated close to the Macau Science Center, has made quite the splash in Macau since its arrival at the end of last month; but not everyone thinks that bringing the art project to the MSAR was worth the hefty price tag.
The brainchild of Dutch artist Florentijn Hofman, ‘The Duck,’ has been the center of attention in its public appearances worldwide. Today it is perhaps one of the most recognizable examples of modern art, with hundreds of thousands of people across the world flocking to take pictures with the lovable character; Macau has been no exception.
Today marks two weeks since the giant rubber duck’s arrival and it has been incredibly popular among locals and tourists alike, even earning a special mention in this year’s ‘Patuá Comedy Show’ by local group, ‘Dóci Papiaçám di Macau.’
However, the Rubber Duck Macau Tour has reportedly cost organizers more than MOP6 million, leaving some critics to ponder whether the amount was worth it and if the money could have been better spent.
On the other hand, the staggering figure of MOP6 million or more has been justified by organizers of the project, who say that their aim is “to bring happiness” to the city.
“It’s not our target to increase income for shops in the area, we just want to bring happiness to Macau,” a representative of C-Vision Culture Development Company, and co-organizer of the Rubber Duck Macau Tour told the Times.
The representative, who identified herself as July, was equally hesitant to concede that commercial interests were involved in the project, as representatives from other participating non-profit organizations and government bodies turned out to be.
“Part of the reason is to drive tourism,” another representative admitted to the Times: “The government wants more diversified tourism offerings, however, this was not our main interest.”
This is despite the government’s policy to both commercialize cultural and creative industries and to transform Macau into a “World Center for Tourism and Leisure,” which will necessarily be of benefit to retailers in the city.
Instead, July informed the Times that the project’s impact and success in Taiwan and Hong Kong was the major factor that resulted in their decision to welcome the project to Macau.
“Making money is not our priority […] most of the money goes to the artist,” she added.
But how much money? Susana Lee, director of the Macau Culture Creativity and Arts Association (MACA) who holds the title of “main organizer,” told the Times that the project’s costs were in the range of MOP6 million to MOP7 million.
Contrary to other reports that put the contribution of main sponsors Macau Government Tourism Office (MGTO) and the Macau Foundation at 50 percent, Lee informed the Times that their input was closer to one-third of the cost.
“There are many costs involved. The authorization costs [for the artist], the set-up fees and a lot of additional developments,” said Lee. “The authorization costs are by far the largest […] but I don’t think the agency would like [me] to expose [the amount].”
A representative of MGTO told the Times that they have “supported the promotion cost of the Rubber Duck Tour project, totaling 2 million patacas.”
They propose that the benefits have been felt in terms of an increase in visitors to the territory: “We have observed an increase of total visitor arrivals and Mainland tourist arrivals [… and an increase] of people and traffic in that district, which helps to further promote community tourism,” the representative wrote in a message to the Times.
The steep cost of bringing the project to cities worldwide has been criticized before. The giant yellow duck’s debut visit to the U.S. was ridiculed in 2013 when rumors circulated that authorities in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, had paid a hefty amount to the artist for the privilege of the artwork’s display there.
Figures for hosting the popular duck were not made public, but according to numerous sources, the Pittsburgh Cultural Trust is rumored to have paid a laughable USD20,000 (MOP160,000).
This pales in comparison with the more than MOP6 million paid by Macau organizers, but nevertheless drummed up quite a controversy in Pittsburgh with residents complaining that the money could have been used to improve public services.
The organizers have still not confirmed Hofman’s fee but stated at the time that it was required to pay for the logistics of the piece, including fabricating, launching and docking the artwork.
However, when quizzed about the HKD1 million figure that Hong Kong organizers reportedly paid last year for the honor of hosting the character, July from C-Vision Culture Development Company said: “I am not sure about Hong Kong because they have a company that negotiates with the artist and they arrange [their own] contract. As I said, most of the money goes to the artist.”
marreiros: ‘misused’ investment
Architect and artist Carlos Marreiros told Ponto Final that the investment made into the project has been “very misused,” adding that it could have been used to “support training or street cultural activities or in organizing a competition for local artists.” According to the Macanese architect, the rubber duck is “déjà vu.”
No Comments