This marking period, we read two pieces on public art, one titled “Public art is powerful, glorious, and uplifting - it deserves to be saved” and another titled “Art in Public Spaces.” The latter piece presented a dialogue of writings and responses between the authors and readers, and focused on the discussion and categories of worth in public art. Some perceive public art as the epitome of a healthy democracy - meant for all to see, and permitting the freedom of speech of the artist. However, others view public art as a misuse of government funding; even more feel like public art inordinately contributes to the success of already established artists rather than helping local artists get their start.
The first article discussed the inherent value, although often initially unrealized, of public art. The author described experiences throughout her life of encountering public art and feeling better - public art as a unifying factor for communities. She disputed the argument that art belonged in galleries: public art, such as landmarks, monuments, etc., serve to improve regions that otherwise may not have access to galleries, or people that simply would not normally actively seek artwork. Rachel Cooke also explained that public art corresponds with a people, a time-period, and a place in its purpose of making a statement about a community.
Personally, I strongly believe in public art, even public art in the non-government funded concept. Murals, monuments, statues: all can make a place more attractive, more like a home. However, it does seem true that in some major cities artists are only chosen for public art when they’re “name brand,” or do not even necessarily have ties to the place or message. I couldn’t help but wonder how public art connects to social practice art, especially temporary public art. It struck me that both seemed to have a similar goal, but can manifest in very different ways.
The first article discussed the inherent value, although often initially unrealized, of public art. The author described experiences throughout her life of encountering public art and feeling better - public art as a unifying factor for communities. She disputed the argument that art belonged in galleries: public art, such as landmarks, monuments, etc., serve to improve regions that otherwise may not have access to galleries, or people that simply would not normally actively seek artwork. Rachel Cooke also explained that public art corresponds with a people, a time-period, and a place in its purpose of making a statement about a community.
Personally, I strongly believe in public art, even public art in the non-government funded concept. Murals, monuments, statues: all can make a place more attractive, more like a home. However, it does seem true that in some major cities artists are only chosen for public art when they’re “name brand,” or do not even necessarily have ties to the place or message. I couldn’t help but wonder how public art connects to social practice art, especially temporary public art. It struck me that both seemed to have a similar goal, but can manifest in very different ways.