Here in our small town, there has recently been some pretty heated debate over a couple of our public art projects.
Some of it is directed at the fact that the city treasury seems to be "out of money" when it comes to things like street repair and police staffing, yet has money on hand to hire expensive "consultants" to determine where to best place "public art" in the downtown area.
Art is in the eye of the beholder?
The rest of it is directed at opinions about whether what some refer to as "The Art Lumps" even constitute art, in the first place... and how they reflect on the public presentation of our city which — after all — is a tourist venue.
On a more personal level, what I find somewhat baffling about the whole this is the reality that our small city bills itself as "an Arts Community" and is home to hundreds of artists and creatives... and yet the city is buying and commissioning art from arts who live far away from here!
How on earth can it "represent" our city to feature public art that doesn't even feature our plentiful local talent?
The sea otters on the sidewalk near the Maritime Center is a personal favorite. AND it was created by a local artist.
Of course, there are those who are arguing that "it looks better" to have art by broadly renown artists. These are people, I might add, who may know about marketing but knew very little about art.
Which brings us around to the core question of who gets to decide, when it comes to public art? Who gets to decide what constitutes appropriate public are, and who gets to decide who that art should be created by?
Naturally, art is a lot like "beauty:" it is largely in "the eye of the beholder" whether or not it's "good" or appealing.
It's basically a Big Nut... isn't it?
Even though I consider myself an art lover, I also have to admit that it's a bit "suspect" that the police department is understaffed due to funding issues... but there's money to pay a consultant (not an artist) in connection with scouting for public art.
And I'm tired of our glorious potholes...
These kinds of debates seem to happen, no matter whether it's a large city, or a small town like ours. In the end, it'll be interesting to see what is decided...
Thanks for stopping by, and do please leave a comment if you feel inspired to do so!
20220506
H0044/0281
All images are our own, unless otherwise attributed
It would be interesting to know the thoughts behind the decisions on where the money is spent.
I have to agree with you that since your city represents itself as an Art Community, that lots of the public art is not by local artists.
I expect a fair bit of the thinking has to do with most of the city revenue being from tourism and visitors, so "we make it pretty for them, at the expense of local residents."
Of course, the city council is heavily represented by people who own business that caters to tourism, as well. It seems like it is always "about the money," in some way.