“If there is such a thing as public art, what then is private art?”
“Undistinguished work warrants critical drubbing; strong work is a catalyst for dialogue.”
Work that is “normal”, that goes with the flow sparks no controversy among the public. Strong work, however, such as Richard Serra’s “Tilted Arc”, can draw dissenters. While protests and controversy may be inconvenient, such disputes are a result of a stimulated conversation, one with the different opinions that we, as Americans in a democracy, admire.
Public art can be used to teach and increase understanding. William Cole, a curator, had one of his pieces deemed offensive by a group who demanded that it be removed. When questioned whether the group would have found it less offensive if it was in a gallery or a museum, the spokesperson replied that he doesn’t frequent galleries or museums, so he would never have seen it. This brings up the important question: do artists have a responsibility to put there work in a place that maximizes viewership, and therefore maximizes conversation and understanding? Do we, as a society, have that responsibility?
“Please let me enjoy a park as a park and not a vehicle for promoting someone else’s version of ‘beauty’.”
Thomas Starr argues that private art should be kept private and public spaces should be kept public. There should be imposing of another person’s definition of beauty on the public. He also states that the public does not have to be “enlightened” by controversial art.
“Their value was immeasurable.”
Rachel Cooke argues that public art is an invaluable piece of living in a city or a town. She states that public art is so important because it is “just there”. There is no need to choose whether to see it; it simply becomes part of the landscape as much as a building or a statue is part of the locale.
“Undistinguished work warrants critical drubbing; strong work is a catalyst for dialogue.”
Work that is “normal”, that goes with the flow sparks no controversy among the public. Strong work, however, such as Richard Serra’s “Tilted Arc”, can draw dissenters. While protests and controversy may be inconvenient, such disputes are a result of a stimulated conversation, one with the different opinions that we, as Americans in a democracy, admire.
Public art can be used to teach and increase understanding. William Cole, a curator, had one of his pieces deemed offensive by a group who demanded that it be removed. When questioned whether the group would have found it less offensive if it was in a gallery or a museum, the spokesperson replied that he doesn’t frequent galleries or museums, so he would never have seen it. This brings up the important question: do artists have a responsibility to put there work in a place that maximizes viewership, and therefore maximizes conversation and understanding? Do we, as a society, have that responsibility?
“Please let me enjoy a park as a park and not a vehicle for promoting someone else’s version of ‘beauty’.”
Thomas Starr argues that private art should be kept private and public spaces should be kept public. There should be imposing of another person’s definition of beauty on the public. He also states that the public does not have to be “enlightened” by controversial art.
“Their value was immeasurable.”
Rachel Cooke argues that public art is an invaluable piece of living in a city or a town. She states that public art is so important because it is “just there”. There is no need to choose whether to see it; it simply becomes part of the landscape as much as a building or a statue is part of the locale.