Artifact 9 – Public Art
Unit Objective:
- Explore the relationship of cultural values to civic dialogue, beautification and identity
The original blog post can be viewed here.
Unit 10 – Runquist Response
At a first glance, I saw nothing wrong with the murals. I thought they were really interesting and depicted the important keystone events throughout history regarding art and science. I think this is mainly because I am not part of a minority group. No doubt about it, it is easier growing up in America as a white citizen. Even though America has made extreme efforts and progress to make the playing field more even for every ethnicity there is still a long ways to go. And I think this is why there is controversy over the Runquist murals.
On Maruska’s website, A response to the runquist murals, she talks about how there is controversy over the lack of diversity in the people represented in the murals. It almost gives the idea that only white people took part in the great events and progressions of art and science throughout history and that is simply not true. While Doss’s article explains that, “Today’s public art diversity speaks to America’s diversity—and to the increasing number of Americans who want to see their cultural interests represented in the public sphere,” (Doss, 2) these murals were painted in a very different era in the 1930’s. When this mural was painted, racism was much more prevalent and America was less diverse. It is important to note the context and time period of an art piece and when it was placed in public. When talking about how an old African Burial Ground was paved over and forgotten for years until it was rediscovered and turned into a National Historic Landmark and Monument, the author stated that “It shows the shifting circumstances of American public culture and that original intentions regarding public art’s placement, permanence, and public interpretation are often subject to change and reconsideration” (Doss, 4). The original intentions of the placement of these murals were to purely show the history of the arts and sciences rather than to address the issue of diversity or lack thereof. That being said, the controversy of taking the mural down and replacing it with something else I think would be a mistake. It is a beautiful historical painting. These murals do a beautiful job of capturing the events in history, and many public art pieces do just that, depict history. What is interesting though, not all of our history is great and dandy, a lot of it was cruel and important to never forget and repeat. Never are the painful and cruel parts of history portrayed in public art.
As far as appropriateness and relevance, I think that these murals are extremely appropriate and relevant for the place and manner they are in. They depict the progression of the arts and sciences and so they are in a great learning place within the College of Arts and Sciences. You can’t get any more relevant than that. I do, however, think that there should be other new and contemporary paintings added to the Knight library that show more diversity. Doss simply states, “Today’s public art diversity speaks to America’s diversity—and to the increasing number of Americans who want to see their cultural interests represented in the public sphere” (Doss, 2). So we should put more of today’s public art in the Knight library. I think it is very understandable that Americans want to see their cultural interests represented in the public artwork because, hey, they’re Americans too. As Doss says, many people are “Angered by perceptions of powerlessness and invisibility, many Americans target public art. Indeed, controversies over public art tend to unmask deeper concerns Americans have regarding their voices and their interests in the public sphere” (Doss, 6). And this goes deeper than public art. It is still a cultural issue that America still has a lot of work ahead of ourselves.
In my own personal opinion, I think public art should be sensitive to diversity and other political issues. It should try its best to address all people in the community. Public art is meant for the public to see, and public means everyone not just certain groups of people.
Response:
Preparing this artifact really helped me explore all that goes into any public art piece. It helped me explore the relationship between cultural values to civic dialogue because there is a lot of that that goes on when preparing public art. There has to be civic dialogues in order for the artist to try and please many types of people and cultures from the community. And yet, it still needs to beautify the place it will occupy without being too busy. It has to be different enough because public art pieces are used to identify with a certain place and make it stand out from everywhere else. Maruska stated in the article that, “during the tumultuous 1960s, public art was viewed as a way to beautify America’s public spaces and simultaneously unify a public divided over issues of race, gender, and the Vietnam War” (Doss, 4). I think that artists creating public pieces still create them for the same reasons.
It is important to note that public art has almost helped our country because it does bring about civic dialogue and cultural values. The controversy over public art pieces not representing all people of the community isn’t an issue about the art really, it is an issue with our culture. As Maruska says that, “as an instrument of public conversation, public art can become a catalyst for civic and national revitalization” (Doss, 10). And if public art brings about peaceful and positive civic dialogue, then that makes our country a step closer to being accepting of all culture and types of people.
Future Intentions:
In the future I will definitely pay more attention to public artwork to see how it may or may not reflect the diverse people in the community its in. I’ll now think about how much time, work, and dialogue goes into each and every public art piece and I will appreciate them that much more like this public artwork on Eugene’s campus seen in the image below.
Leave a Reply