Public art is tricky.  The artist has to take a lot more into consideration before he actually creates and publishes the work.  The artist has to take into account where it will be, and what is socially acceptable in that area.  He has to make sure it isn’t offensive in any way, and that someone who happens upon it won’t become upset.  He also has to make sure that it will look good in the area it will be displayed.  He also has to consider whether it will be inside or outside.  These questions along with many more make public art a difficulty.

In this week’s reading, Doss says that “traditional forms of American public art include figurative sculptures displayed in public spaces – outdoors or in public buildings” (2).  The Runquist paintings are unique in that way.  The murals are not outside, but they are still public.  This allows for a lot more variation in the artwork, and in this case, since weather isn’t a factor, they can be paintings instead of sculptures or a mural on a building wall.  This also allows them to be preserved almost indefinitely.

The murals are also unique because of the period they were created in.  Today, they may have turned out drastically different.  When speaking about Danzas Indigenas, Doss says that it “speaks to the waves of immigrants and the layers of history that make up this California town” (8).  While the Runquist murals don’t necessarily speak to immigrants, they still hold layers of history that make them important.  They not only lay out our progressions, which is a small history lesson in itself, but they also show ideals held in the early 1900’s.  The way the people in the murals dress and act, the absence of any ethnicity except white, and the community-centered style all speak about the time the murals were created.  This is great, because it preserves the styles and ideals of the time, which is something that shouldn’t be forgotten.  The history of art is important, but the history in art is also important as well.

Public art is subject to a lot of criticism though.  Doss says that “conversations and debates about public art range from subject to site and involve competitions, commissions, hearings, juries, artists’ statements, awards, media accounts, and the art-making process itself” (6).  Even though this is true, I don’t think it’s bad.  Art needs to be talked about and discussed and questioned in order for it to be able to thrive.  If art went unnoticed then it would slowly fall away.  I think that Doss agrees with me, because later she says “public art discourse, like all conversations, can lead to a larger examination and questioning of assumptions, ideas, and concepts” (6).  It’s good that art is talked about.  It lets us dig deeper into the meaning and history of the art piece, and even why it was created in the first place.  Art is a powerful tool of communication, and we shouldn’t forget about it in that context.

The paintings themselves are still quite interesting to look at.  They both feature a tree which separates each panel, and a man at the base in different positions.  The panels show different stages of development, and start as early as the primitive period along with cave paintings and stone tools.  As the panels progress upwards, so does the progress that humans have made.  At the top, there is modern day technology and sophisticated people, or what would have been in the 1930’s.  The murals really show what was important back then, almost unintentionally, in the way that modern man is portrayed.  It’s interesting to see how we’ve broken away and stayed the same in the past 80 years.