After viewing The Development of the Arts and The Development of the Sciences murals by the Runquist brothers this week I have decided that both murals beautifully display the history and evolution of the field of art and science. According the reading by Erika Doss I would argue that the creation of these murals is an example of well-done public art and “is a creative, participatory, critical and analytical process. We must tell our stories, and encourage others of all ages to tell their stories” (11). I am aware that the fact that these murals are displayed in a public area means that controversy over either the subject or the representation is unavoidable, but I would argue that the murals being viewable in a library of a college campus is an appropriate location for such historically accurate depictions of art and science. I would also argue that the location of these murals within the library is an appropriate location because it aids in the beautification process of a historically not appealing location.
I personally enjoy the Development of the Arts mural more than the Development of the Sciences mural because it is more relevant to my personal interests. I like how the painter included another form of art in each square of the mural as a fluid way of showing how art has changed over time. I agree with Doss’ statement 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” (2), I would argue that this mural provided representation of art in an environment where it was historically not present. There could be arguments that a mural focusing on art does not belong in a building that is focused on furthering education of a variety of students with different focuses and interests, but I would counter this argument by saying that the mural of the Development of the Sciences balances the perceived inequalities of the representation of different interests held by the student body.
Although I favor the mural about the arts over the sciences, I find the historical people, discoveries and inventions depicted in the mural of the Development of the Sciences very accurate and appealing. The fact that my major has required me to take a large amount of science courses makes the events and subjects in this mural easy for me to relate and identify. I specifically find the square two from the bottom on the right easy to relate to because it looks like it is depicting people being taught about the sciences in a classroom environment.
These murals being exhibited in the University of Oregon Knight Library allows for distinction between this library and the numerous libraries found on campuses around the country. It has been argued that “public art has been charged with generation ‘place-bound identity’ and lending a sense of distinction and authenticity to the nation’s ever more homogenous public spaces” (Doss 5), the murals being only viewable at this one location I believe makes the library authentic and diverse. I believe that the role of public art is to appeal to visitors of the location while having “to cater to multiple constituencies and, as any politician knows, you can’t please everyone” (Doss, 10). This difficulty to please everyone is the basis for any complications regarding public art’s appropriateness and placement, I personally believe that if a person does not like a piece of art that has been placed in a public location that they should avoid that location instead of possibly alienating another person by publicly appealing an artwork’s placement.
Doss, E. (2006, October). Public art controversy: Cultural expression and civic debate. Retrieved from http://www.americansforthearts.org/pdf/networks/pan/doss_controversy.pdf.