Thanks to this week’s studying materials, I have a better understanding about the history of the Knight Library and learn the information about the murals, Development of the Sciences and Development of the Arts, painted by Arthur and Albert Runquist. In fact, I never noticed these two murals in the Knight Library before study this week’s materials. It was amazing that Arthur and Albert Runquist associated the development of arts and sciences in murals in the form of trees. I was impressed by this idea and designation. In this way, people could have a direct view about different panels in distinct period. Arthur and Albert Runquist put the figures and substance that could represent one period most into the murals to describe the development of arts and science. For instance, in the panel 7 of Development of the Sciences, Arthur and Albert Runquist expressed that students are working on new discoveries in physics, chemistry, biology, botany, engineering and geology based on the traditional knowledge. From the age of the figures, the tools for experiments, and the apple hold by one student, we could easily understand what the author is trying to see.
Refers to the topic of public arts in this art, I think the murals painted by Arthur and Albert Runquist are the best representation of public art. Erika said, “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” (Doss, 6) in the this week’s reading “Public Art Controversy: Cultural Expression and Civic Debate”. By observing the two murals, we could clearly conclude that these murals face to multiple audiences even though for all people on earth. These murals briefly summarize the history of arts and sciences in different period and different religions. In addition, Erika also mentioned the debates and controversies triggered by the public arts. She said, “It centers on dialogue—on the expressed interests and issues of particular groups—and that dialogue can be contentious. Conversations and debates about public art range from subject to site and involve competitions, commissions, hearings, juries, artists’ statements, awards, media accounts, and the art-making process itself. These conversations include artists, art administrators, civic leaders, funders, architects, engineers, and, of course, the public” (Doss, 6). However, after I observe these mural painted by Arthur and Albert Runquist, I think these two murals may be the ones that cause least controversy like other public art mentioned by the author of the reading.
Refers to the issues of diversity, these murals includes all the activities related to the development of arts and sciences in different religions in distinct periods. These murals show a concept of harmony of the human beings. People in different gender and ages, with different backgrounds, could find their effort on the development on the murals. These murals recall the history made by people and allow people to capture the history in an efficient way.
In this week’s reading, Erika mentioned one explanation about the controversy in the capital. “One explanation for public art controversy is the sense of entitlement that pervades today’s public sphere. Increasingly, diverse and often competing self-interest groups view public art as the direct extension of their particular causes” (Doss, 7). These two murals did not give people an opportunity to incur some controversies. Different groups with distinct cultures and religions could find their interests it these murals. For instance, in the mural Development of the Sciences, the Egyptian should find their interests in panel 3, where shows their effort on the development of the sciences.
In a word, after I study this week’s materials and observe the murals, I thought these murals are the best representations of public arts.
