Public art ... valid or a waste of taxpayer's money?

Public art ... valid or a waste of taxpayer's money?

  • I like it, don't always understand it but agree it should be there.

    Votes: 88 75.2%

  • I think it's a waste of money that could be spent on more important infrastructures.

    Votes: 20 17.1%

  • I'm indifferent and have no opinion.

    Votes: 9 7.7%
  • Total voters
    117
in the US the amount spent on the arts is such a miniscule % of how much the government spends, that it should not even be debated.

every civilization that we consider worth remembering, studying, visiting, etc, had vast amounts of public art.
 
We have a ton in Cardiff both from the past and the recent development of the Bay. When I first started my photography courses I wanted to do a project on it but was told it was frowned upon photographing other peoples work . It's still something I might do on my own but so many ideas so little time. I found this link a couple of years ago and its been updated since I last checked it out.

http://www.cardiff.gov.uk/content.asp?nav=2868,2969,3021,3835&parent_directory_id=2865

One of the documents shows examples of what we have. I really enjoy coming across these things but often wonder where the money comes from. This use of public space is something I'd like to do a project on next year.
 
Yes, it all boils down to a key political question. Should the government take our money to distribute as the politicians see fit? Or, should they leave it to us to distribute as we see fit?

I did not realise the Sex Pistols had such an impact in the states, lets keep the politicians out of this one aye? those fools get enough exposure elsewhere
 
pakeha said:
Yes, it all boils down to a key political question. Should the government take our money to distribute as the politicians see fit? Or, should they leave it to us to distribute as we see fit?

I did not realise the Sex Pistols had such an impact in the states, lets keep the politicians out of this one aye? those fools get enough exposure elsewhere
Click to expand...

definitely ...
 
Personally I think we are lucky in the UK to have artists such as Maggie Hambling and Antony Gormley churning out their stuff for our delight.

Compared to yer opera they are great value.

I'm with Mr Hicks on the ROH, too expensive for the masses, and only appreciated by the few. Let it go the way of Music Hall.
 
Well, art and artists have needed patrons in the past. Princes are in short supply, why not the state in the role of patron as long as public access is guaranteed?

Yours
FPJ
 
Last edited:
antiquark said:
If non-profit art ceased to exist, then our galleries would be full of Thomas Kinkade paintings... which would be a sad state of affairs indeed:
http://www.thomaskinkade.com/
Click to expand...

That would be a part of my private version of hell, AntiQuark 🙂

I voted yes. Public art does more than just beautify public space, it often tells us a lot about a particular place. I spent some time in the Netherlands and was quite amazed with how much public art was out there. There are historic reasons why the Dutch support arts as much as they do, but even that tells you a lot about the way they see themselves.
 
I say valid & think taxpayer funded art is an important way in securing our remembrance as a culture in the years ahead. I'm thinking because of the recession we are in & so much has been cut by the Gov. that now much is up to us as individuals to fund our own projects & use the media thats available to us to do so now. Prices are quite reasonable, esp. for making a photo book. Just a few years ago it was almost an impossibility. In my community art districts are popping up rapidly and the potential for getting work out into the masses is great.
 
Bob Michaels said:
I am a financial supporter of several art organizations on a voluntary personal basis.

I wish the government organizations would stop taking our money on an involuntary basis (i.e. taxes) to distribute to those organizations and individuals that they see fit. That would leave more for us to contribute voluntarily to those we choose.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. My wife is a painter and I sell x-ray art through galleries and a publisher as well. We both make a good bit of money selling our work and do not expect the tax payers to support us. If the work is good enough the public will buy it and if it's not good then the artist needs to get a job and work on his hobby after work. My wife and I both have met artists that feel anyone selling their work in a gallery is a whore. Sorry but that's the way I think it should be. Anyway many corporations and foundations provide funding for art.
 
Last edited:
I have had a long involvement with public art, both as an artist who has been commissioned to produce pieces that have been viewed today by literally millions of people (one piece is in a very popular location) and as a consultant who has served on panels that have chosen artists to receive publicly funded commissions. I've also served on an advisory panel in NYC that made recommendations about how to deal with controversial public art pieces. (I had nothing to do with the Richard Serra fiasco, but a different piece in lower Manhattan was partially re-done by the artist based on the recommendations of the advisory group.)

So my sense after 20 years of work (on and off) in public art is that it can be a very powerful tool and it can make a big difference in empowering communities OR it can be an utter disaster. Much depends on the artist. Artists need to understand that public art and their own private art are fundamentally different. Artists need to collaborate with communities and build buy-in for their work. The more they invest in the community (the "end user") and do the legwork, the more they can get people to understand their vision. So an artist can produce some pretty wild and personal stuff, if they lay the groundwork for it properly. Not only that, but the community will embrace the work and take care of it. But if the artist is arrogant or simply is not willing to engage the community respectfully then the piece is likely to be rejected. To do public art you have to be a politician. You do NOT have to make lame, "pretty" art or play to the lowest common denominator, you DO have to be patient and strategic. Any artist that does not understand how to play her cards is going to fail.
 
x-ray said:
If the work is good enough the public will buy it and if it's not good then the artist needs to get a job and work on his hobby after work. My wife and I both have met artists that feel anyone selling their work in a gallery is a whore. Sorry but that's the way I think it should be. Anyway many corporations and foundations provide funding for art.
Click to expand...

Yes, this precisely. There's constant moaning on the behalf of the starving artist, but he's hungry for a reason.
 
To me it's not about liking art. To me it's not something that should be funded with money forcibly taken from one worker to give to another.

There will also be enough rich people to fund art. It just who gets to decide what art is, a government bureaucrat or some rich dude.
 
memphis said:
In college, my creative writing teacher always expressed a dislike for the NEA and other such groups - as then your writing is beholden to someone else's interests - and it compromises your work -
Click to expand...

My wife is a writer and college professor, teaching creative writing, literature, and composition. She loathes the NEA for much the same reason, considering it ideologically and artistically inbred.

I would be more supportive, as I consider public art to be a public good, if there were less political considerations involved. The current US administration getting caught in the act trying to use the NEA to further its agenda does not bode well for future public support.


And I LOVE opera. Took my wife on our first date to the opera. 😛
 
Last edited:
Once upon a time, actually until quite recently, government funding / monies for Public Art brought us things such as The Parthenon, most works by Michelangelo, Donatello (and the other Turtles), Versailles, The Vatican, St. Paul's Cathedral, various monuments in Washington DC. Now, they bring us a mould for the interior of Smidgen's (3:08) intestine (but neatly coiled up in Downtown San Jose).
 
memphis said:
here's my biggest problem with publicly funded art:
Years ago, my father owned a building downtown - his partner shafted him on the deal and had an inside track with the company that told them if they didn't sell to them, the building would be taken via eminent domain. Evidently, the partner was hip to the fact that this property was going to become part of our minor league baseball franchise stadium. The stadium was built, my dad lost a lot of money - the building has sat unused since 1987 (the parking lot has since become first base)

They hired some artist from chicago to paint one side of the building (surely, they could have hired a local to generate some local artistic support rather than some carpetbagger [ no offense]) - and Al Sharpton didn't like it, but has since come around

http://www.wreg.com/wreg-mural-story,0,5570046.story
Click to expand...

Huh? Anyone else understand this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom