Im going to be talking about my personal opinion about the role of public art. Public art is artwork in the public realm, regardless of whether it is situated on public or private property, or whether it is acquired through public or private funding. Public art can be a sculpture, mural, manhole cover, paving pattern, lighting, seating, building facade, kiosk, gate, fountain, play equipment, engraving, carving, fresco, mobile, collage, mosaic, bas-relief, tapestry, photograph, drawing, or earthwork. I believe public art is good should be widely used everywhere, It’s is nice to see what people make that is open to the public for free. Even though it can be expensive at times, it is well worth it. “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”(4). I agree with this statement from the reading. Art can unify people into gazing upon something of beauty. Why is public art so controversial? Answers vary, but in general public art controversy relates to the essentially conversational nature of the art itself. Usually located in visible public spaces, organized by public committees, frequently funded by public dollars, and intended for multiple audiences. Public culture can be contentious, especially in a country that values individualism, freedom of expression, and First Amendment rights, and yet also prizes communal experiences and relationships. A quote from the reading, “Conflicts over public art at the local level often persuade community leaders, elected officials, funding agencies, and artists themselves that public art is simply “too hot to handle.” But these heated debates also suggest that 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”(1). Public art often has to cater to multiple constituencies and, as any politician knows, you can’t please everyone. Bowing to the interests and demands of one public may alienate another. But public art like politics is a collaborative exercise and depends on tolerance, compromise, and respect. Ideally, public art controversy animates creative civic dialogue. The key is to keep our public conversations meaningful and productive and to reclaim public culture as a forum for debate rather than an arena of hate.Grounded in conversation, dialogue, and often debate, public art can serve as a symbol of civic examination, prompting further debates about community needs, hopes, and histories. As an instrument of public conversation, public art can become a catalyst for civic and national revitalization. Often because it is controversial, public art can play a central role in shaping and directing community identity. A quote from the reading, “Public art is an antidote for the hatred and disconnectedness in society. It is a creative, participatory, critical, and analytical process. We must tell our stories, and encourage others of all ages to tell their stories in any language they speak. We must teach ourselves and others to listen and to hear our stories because it is in the very specificity of the human experience that we learn compassion”(11).
Public Art
Reply
