Before I begin my analysis of the Runquist murals, I believe it important to point out one thing about public art. This one thing being that “whether permanent or temporary, figurative or abstract, man-made or mass produced, public art is as diverse as the people who view”, which I believe speaks volumes (Doss 2). Unlike art found in a museum or an exhibit, public art is not confined or defined by any one element. Placement of public art is going to change the way that people perceive it. Art that is in a public library, such as the Runquist murals, is going to create different views and opinions than say if that art was in a public park. I believe the locale of public art to be very important to how it is perceived by the public. That being said, no matter the locale of a piece of art, it is always “embodies the ideas, initiatives, and inspirations of America’s many publics” and diversities (Doss 2). The Runquist murals represent a dualism that has existed for as long as I can remember. Growing up, and in the education system in general, teachers, parents and most people always talked about whether you had an art or a science brain, if one thought with the left or right side. It seemed as though there was never the option to be both good at science and interested in the arts. To me, the Runquist murals, “The Development of the Arts” and “The Development of the Sciences” provide a great insight as to how this mindset has existed for quite some time, since their creation in the 1930s. Despite the varying ideals and perceptions of the public community on what is right or wrong, public art ignites conversation and creates a platform to voice one’s beliefs and opinions. Due to this platform “public art can play a central role in shaping and directing community identity” in ways that would not otherwise be possible.
When it comes to this aspect of public art, the Runquist murals do not exactly have the same affect. As far as I know, people do not often start debates over which mural is better or which is more important, nor do they shape the identity of our campus. To be honest, before this assignment I had never knowingly seen these murals in person, nor given them much thought. After going to see them, I think that the reason no one really knows or speaks about them is due to their locale. I understand the reason they are in the library is due to their content, the development of art and science, but a library on a college campus is not going to be a place where people go to admire the art. Perhaps if they were somewhere else on campus more publicly available more people would be interested and involved in “The Runquist Project: A Response to Two Murals”. Although some of the content and views represented in these murals may not be one’s we find acceptable today, it is part of our past and it should not be ignored or hidden due to our shame of that time. It would become a very slippery slope if public art was only acceptable if it contained modern ideals and morals. Public art has “the unique potential to encourage multiple American publics to tell their stories” and their stories should not be limited to modern concepts (Doss 11). Obviously there is a line between what is acceptable and what is overtly offensive but there should definitely be a slight grey area to allow from some authentic expression in the sphere of public art.
Doss, E. (2006 October). Public art controversy: cultural expression and civic debate. Retrieved from http://www.americansforthearts.org/pdf/networks/pan/doss_controversy.pdf