Public art has long been a source of contention in the United States. Public art is usually funded using public money and so members of the ‘general’ public believe that it should represent their own interests. However, the public can become quite disruptive when they are left out of public art because that renders them invisible to the public spectrum. The problem with this lies in the fact that as Doss says, there is no real general public. Our country is split up into countless factions and groups based on a wide array of determining factors from race, ethnicity, religion, gender, beliefs, diet, lifestyle, etcetera. The list is endless. Some of these groups are much bigger then others, so the question comes up as to who gets represented in public art? And that is where the controversy lies. As Doss says, “public space is marked by ‘conflictual and uneven social relations.’ Heated conversations over public art subjects, styles, and costs relate particularly to perceptions of public representation, or the lack thereof, in America’s ‘uneven’ public spaces” (Doss 6). There is no overarching piece of artwork that can please everybody unless it was so bland it couldn’t offend anyone and that wouldn’t be art because art needs to cause a reaction good or bad. Doss believes that: “Public art’s multifaceted dimensions segue with the multifaceted forms and multiple publics of America itself” (Doss 2). That is to say that our public art appeals to the diversity of our country because it changes and shifts to represent the vast range of people that live here. The problem with this is that the public is very self-centered and wants every piece of art to represent them in some way. Take the FDR example Doss refers to in the article. The FDR memorial had to have a sculpture of him in a wheelchair added for people with disabilities, his smoking habits were ignored to please anti-smoking lobbyists, and a statue of Eleanor Roosevelt ended up without a fox stole because of animal rights groups. FDR wasn’t represented in the way he would’ve wanted it but rather in a way that made the different publics happy. The FDR Memorial is an example of how public art can cause a vanillaizing effect. That is to say it tends to make things plainer to reduce the chance of causing controversy. For the American public does care a lot about its public works. As Doss says, “the American public, often typecast as apathetic and uninformed, is keenly interested in cultural conversations about creative expression and civic and national identity. The dynamics surrounding public art reveal an ongoing American commitment to meaningful conversations, which are the cornerstones of an active democratic culture” (Doss 1).
The Runquist Murals, “Development of the Arts” and “Development of the Sciences” are both beautiful works. I found that they did a good job of representing the arts and sciences respectively as they grew and advanced in our society. However, I think they would have gotten some negative feedback if these two works had been commissioned present day. They tend to show a lack of diversity in that there is a heavy predominance in white men as the “developers” for arts and sciences. Now as accurate or inaccurate as there may be I think there would have been a backlash from minorities who had members contribute to these fields. I think that these two murals should be admired for their craftsmanship and accepted for what they are. The public should appreciate these works; it is not a function of these paintings to purposefully exclude anybody. It was simply the artistic decision of the painters to make them how they are.
” The Runquist Murals, “Development of the Arts” and “Development of the Sciences” are both beautiful works.”
Yes, both these books are very good and at the same time, your article is also nicely written.
And we have very comfortable furniture to make your reading experience enjoyable.
https://emfurn.com/