The principle of public art

[Pappa]

I'm not really concerned with opinions about specific examples of public art here, but the concept and practice of publicly funded public art in general. Is it worth the expense? Does it improve and enrich our lives? Does it improve the quality of the spaces it exists in?

[amused]

I was the project manager for the city for several public works projects here in Austin. My observation was that it was wasted monies that could have been put to far more effective use. I sat in as a non-voting member of the art selection committee for the convention center addition that I managed. One of the 'artists' on the committee made the statement, not making this up, that the selected art should be so obscure that nobody understands it. Fuck off.

We specifically said that the art couldn't take up floor space in the convention center because it inevitably gets in the way of client uses. This dickhead voted for the art that took up floor space. We ended up with crap 'art'. One of the artworks was a series of printed murals on heavy fabric glued high up along a wall. The artist managed to fall off his own scaffold, broke an arm, and tried to sue us. There were jokes about one-armed paper hangers...

The fire department so despised the expenditure of their budget for each fire station on art, that they requested that it be pooled and spent elsewhere because the firemen resented the wasted money.

Austin has a requirement for a certain percentage of the budget for all new buildings to go toward art in public spaces. In theory it sounds like a good idea, but in practical application the people involved are just idiots, with predictable results.

[maiforpeace]

Nice to read your perspective, Amused.

Considering all the other pressing needs like infrastructure and public services that the city of Santa Cruz needs right now, I would put art as second when it comes to what I want my city spends money on. We're a nice sized city and our public pool was just reopened after three years due to lack of funds to maintain that. Not good for a city that resides on the coast. We are also surrounded by a lot of natural beauty and we've had to close a number of state parks for lack of money to maintain those.

But I'm all for it in times of more prosperity.

[macdoc]

The Niagara Parks commission trains many students in the art and science of public gardens and spaces.
The result of their work helps draw millions of visitors to the Canadian side of the falls enhancing their experience.

As with all human efforts - sound judgement is required of those involved and monitoring of the results.

I will add as a destination a town that has some special art projects that might interest me and in particular I enjoy art that is integrated to the cityscape and informative.

The Botanical Gardens in many top notch cities draw people and art is part of that and some become iconic.



They are resources for the people that live there and those visiting. Joie de vie - call it what you want.

I don't particularly draw the line between specific art pieces and things like gardens and spaces that are well designed and in some cases breath taking - these are subway stations.







this in Toronto



this is also a subway station

[Tyrannical]

The problem is that the statutes can not be made to easily recognize "art" from "crap". I enjoy art, but much of what is passed on as "art" is not.

[macdoc]

To a point but you are not the arbitrator of such nor am I and sometimes they do end up scrapped.

Henry Moore's are popular works - not specifically my taste but elegant.



this kind of stuff busts up severe spaces and I do like them



this does nothing for me



this does



many of these tho are also supported by public donations

[Bella Fortuna]

Nice to read your perspective, Amused.

Considering all the other pressing needs like infrastructure and public services that the city of Santa Cruz needs right now, I would put art as second when it comes to what I want my city spends money on. We're a nice sized city and our public pool was just reopened after three years due to lack of funds to maintain that. Not good for a city that resides on the coast. We are also surrounded by a lot of natural beauty and we've had to close a number of state parks for lack of money to maintain those.

But I'm all for it in times of more prosperity.

This is how I feel about it, as far as public art in relation to other services and infrastructure.

And of course like any art there are those that appeal to our aesthetic and those that look like shit.

One local example that is cumulatively impressive to me is the Sacramento Airport. Years ago when they built a new terminal they filled it with a number of art pieces, down to the carpet (showing an aerial view of the Sacramento River), hard floors, and window glass showing views from the river, as well as external sculptures.




This one, made of pieces of old lost luggage, is my fave:


Recently they built a large new terminal and did the same. Here's an article on that with pics of the art: http://www.squarecylinder.com/2011/10/s ... res-a-hit/ The tree chandelier thing is just gorgeous in person, probably my favourite of all the works.

[Tyrannical]

The suitcase stack is amusing. I'm guessing the airport had a pair of maintenance guys put it together in a day or two using abandoned luggage?

What if Public buildings for forbidden to spend money buying art, but could only accept donations instead