The murals in the Knight library seemed hard to find at first. But once I found one (the Development of the Sciences at first) I was filled with awe. It still looked great when I first saw on my laptop screen, but I was surprised how grand it actually looked. Especially because I went to look for the murals for awhile on the second floor (until I realized it was located on the “different part” of the second floor), when I found them I felt like I found a National Treasure. I could tell why the two Runquist brothers’ work was so treasured in Oregon. The painting looked grand, strikingly beautiful, yet it gave a crude feeling because of its material.
The mostly yellow, brown, and very little of blue and red color usage was phenomenal to show the evolution and the growth of the science and the art. In the lower panels are the primitive period, showing Egyptians pyramids (Arts) and Roman’s astronomical discoveries (Sciences). Closer to the root of the tree is the modern art and science, including Einstein and Madame Curie (Sciences) and cinema and radio (Arts).
After I read the reading assignment, ‘Public art controversy: Cultural Expression and Civic Debate’ by Doss, I could relate the Runquist murals to a lot of sub topics pointed in the reading. The murals not only present the history and evolution of art and sciences in the world, but also they showed beautification of public art in public space. However, having the Klan inside the mural was extremely irritating as a viewer. Doss stated in his article, “it’s difficult to imagine any kind of contemporary public art that might adequately address the multifacted interests of today’s diverse America”(5). Although it is impossible for public art form to please everyone, having Klan inside the mural and keeping the mural inside a library of university seemed obviously morally wrong. Public art is a great means to recapture the history and to remind us the forgotten, such as the African Burial Ground Monument, but if the piece offends enough of viewers is it worthy it to display in public space? Would it have stayed in the library or anywhere else if it was a scene of sand creek massacre for example, instead of the Klan?
Therefore I agree with the author’s statement that public art is “open to artists of all stripes, without predetermined ruled or a mutually agreed upon critical language”, but I do not believe that is necessarily how it should be (2). I believe in public art’s power and its influence as during the 1960s, public art’s civic beautification unified the public divided over issues over, race, gender, and the Vietnam war. “Public art controversy can be used as a tool that enhances community awareness and civic life”, but I do not believe it should provoke affront to majority of public viewers.
Due to GSA initiatives and NEA funding, many sites have been able to have public arts such as many abstract sculptures, and Runquist brothers were funded by WPA (Work Progress Administration). Funding for public arts should continue in order to improve and continually growing public culture.
Citation:
Doss, E. (2006, October). Public art controversy: Cultural expression and civic debate. Retrieved from http://www.americansforthearts.org/pdf/networks/pan/doss_controversy.pdf
