When I viewed the murals, nothing happened for me.  I wasn’t in awe of them, I didn’t feel any type of emotion, and they didn’t jump out to me.  However, I was looking at them from an artistic point of view and not a historic, cultural one.  These murals show a direct reflection of a time when diversity was not supported.  The main gender and race in the murals are white males.  There’s no diversity in cultures, or even female figures.  The murals do, however, show the important time periods in the development of the arts and sciences.  They show the roots in which these subjects were brought up on and some of the historical figures that influenced each subject.  These murals represent our history as a country and even though they do not represent equality or diversity, they are important in showing how far we’ve come as a nation.

I can understand why there is some controversy over public art, specifically these murals.  They do not reflect the current state of this nations morals, like equality and diversity, but they do represent a point in time that was very important to this university and nation.  Doss states, “we are living in extraordinary contentious times, marked by especially fierce talk about issues of political representation, war, reproductive rights, and immigration” (Doss, 6).  Public art, like the Runquist murals, are not intended to spark debate and start controversy.  However, because they were created in a time where all these issues were not being addressed, now, they are not seen as “appropriate” for display.  I look at them as a historical marker and I believe others should see it that way too.

Public art is very important in communities and serves as “time landmarks” to represent different beliefs, cultures, ethnicities, and anything else that defines who we are.  Public art represents who communities are and who lives in them.  However, “it’s difficult to imagine any kind of contemporary public art that might adequately address the multi-faced interests of today’s diverse America” (Doss, 5).  It is true that it is near impossible to completely define a community through one piece of public art.  There are so many different cultures and backgrounds within a community and nation, it would be impossible to please everyone.  I think this is where a lot of controversy strikes because not everyone can be represented and “pleased” through one art piece.  Therefore, public art should be allowed in all communities so more people are able to be reached and represented.

Public art can also teach people about backgrounds and cultures they may not be familiar with.  The Runquist murals are a perfect example of public art for education.  They show a timeline of historical figures and time periods where art and science were explored.  It showed me who was important in the subjects and what happened during certain time periods.

The University of Oregon is known for having a beautiful campus.  I believe this is a direct reflection of the type of public art we have all over campus; ranging from architecture to sculptures across campus.  Public art can be thought of having the “concept as a unifying form of civic beautification” (Doss, 5).  The architecture of some buildings like the Jaqua, Matt Knight Arena, Deady, and Chapman could without a doubt be considered public art.  It is necessary to see how every little thing in a community could be considered art and have an open mind.  Architecture is one of the most common forms of public art there is.  There can be so much history within a building and knowing when it was built, or what cultural background it has behind it.  Taking the universities buildings, for example, Deady is one of the oldest buildings there is, and the Jaqua is one of the newer buildings.  Just from looking at their features and design it is clear to see from what time period each building was built.

Doss, E. (2006, October). Public art controversy: Cultural expression and civic debate. Retrieved from http://www.americansforthearts.org/pdf/networks/pan/doss_controversy.pdf