The Runquist Murals, painted by Arthur and Albert Runquist, are great depictions of the 1930’s.  As public art, they currently hang in the Knight Library, and are available for anyone to see.  These murals show values and cultural ideas that may not be looked at with praise anymore, but that is also one of the best things about the paintings.  As Erica Doss says in the reading of this week, “in general public art controversy relates to the essentially controversial 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 art is, by definition, the product of public feedback” (6).  This is an important thing to remember when we look at public art, and the Runquist Murals.  As Doss says, it is the product of public feedback.  This feedback will change with the times, which makes it possibly even more controversial today than it may have been when it was created.

Overall though, the murals are great representations of the progression of each subject.  In “Development of the Arts,” the progress goes from cave paintings and clay pottery all the way up through the renaissance, and ends with modern arts like cinema and radio.  The entire thing has eight panels total, each representing a step of progress.  The panels are separated by a tree, which is artful in itself, and at the base there is a man looking up at the sky which symbolizes human aspiration.  This to me says that we are always working harder, going higher, and achieving bigger and greater things than before.  We always have our eyes to the sky, working towards the next big step in our progress.

In “Development of the Sciences” there is a similar theme.  Once again there are eight panels divided by a tree in the center.  The panels at the bottom show the stone and iron ages, the very beginnings of masonry and construction, using heat to meld metal and other more basic science applications.  At the top, it shows the modern day, with symbols of chemistry biology, engineering, electricity, and other machines.  At the bottom of this painting there is a man with his head bowed, kneeling on the ground.  Instead of simply looking up, this man represents humanity slowly standing up from the earth, and becoming a full conscious human being.  The symbolism of the men in the two paintings are done very well.

Doss writes that “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” (2).  The murals fit nicely into this definition of public art.  They are on publicly accessible property, and they depict cultural progression, which cannot be owned or controlled.  I think the paintings serve as both a depiction of the progress we’ve made in our culture for each subject, but also as an inspiration for what we can achieve in the future.

Doss says that traditional public art forms “include figurative sculptures displayed in public spaces,” and “public memorials,” among other things (2).  I think that as far as paintings go, they are required to be inside to preserve them from sun light.  So the library, which is a place that hundreds of people go every day, is a perfect place for them to be.  It also serves to make the library a more artistic area, alongside its unique design.

I think that the Runquist Murals and the Knight Library go hand in hand.  They are a wonderful match for each other, especially considering the history they are both a part of.  I think this is the way art was meant to be.  Public, for everyone to see and enjoy, and in places where people will be frequently.  I think that receiving money for the artwork that the artist creates is great, and almost necessary, but that art should not be kept hidden away.  It should be publicly available for everyone to enjoy, no matter their background.