The two articles, “Art in Public” and “Public Art is Powerful”, both address the ideas of the significance and the necessity or unnecessary of public art.
I believe the stronger article was “Art in Public” in that it addressed many sides of the issue relating to the building of public art in public space and the effect, negative or positive, that it has upon a specific community. Some important ideas on the commissioning of monuments were brought up in this article and the fact that the decision making process is usually “opaque”. Because there are so many variations of art and so many preferences among citizens, public art must be agreed upon by the majority of a community before it is established. Because it is in the public view and art is meant to elicit an emotion from the audience, if an artwork that is hated by the majority opt the citizens are erected, I believe the citizens would associate the location with a negative emotion due to the artwork. One responder made a moot point essentially on the significance of temporary art, stating, “If you don’t like it, it will be gone soon enough.” This comment disregards the whole argument on the lasting impact that public art is supposed to have upon the community. And just because temporary public art will be taken down “soon enough”, it does not address the problems that public art has pertaining to noise pollution from its construction and the interference that it may have on daily commute. Some key ideas that I strongly agreed with from this article are listed below. “I would argue that public art should remain private when it interferes with the citizens’ rights to enjoy public spaces as they are…Why can’t parks simply rely on the natural art they already possess in the form of grass, trees, flowers, rocks, and assorted wildlife?” - Brian Camp “Your “beauty” may very well be my “disgusting,”…Please let me enjoy a park as a park and not a vehicle for promoting someone else’s version of beauty.” -Richard M. Frauenglass The Richard Cooke’s argument in the second article can be made useless from the responses in the first article and was not that good to start with. As an artist, I feel like I should agree with those who fight for public art. However, because this kind of art is specifically for the public, I believe it should be in line with at least the majority of the citizens’ wishes. Imposing my idea of beauty and art upon a community and disrupting their lives and allocating their money for my projects seems like a rather self-centered thing to do.
1 Comment
Coach
3/27/2017 10:47:21 am
I appreciate that you are forming your own opinions on this topic.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorMaggie L. Walker Governor's School Student in Art IV. Archives
May 2017
Categories |