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
Keith

Keith

The best camera is one that still works!
Local time
7:37 AM
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
19,244
Location
Australia
View My Gallery
Because I'm involved in this field, being a paid slave for a sculptor who makes his living from it, I invariably get comments from people regarding how they feel about it. From "yes I like it' to "it's a f***ing waste of public money!"

During one of the few private commisions that Adrian did a while ago we were installing his creation in a very expensively built house for this rather well to do couple who decided they wanted something unique beside their second level lap pool. We'd had to carry this stainless steel creation dismantled up two flights of stairs and reassemble it beside their pool ... the place was full of workmen putting the final touches to this stunning house and most were curious about the purpose of this 'thing' that we were placing in the shallow water beside the pool. The comments varied from "wow that's interesting' to "what a waste of money!"

One of my favourite pieces of public art is Atony Gormley's Iron Men which consists of one hundred cast iron life sized figures scatterd along a couple of kilometers of Merseyside foreshore in the UK ... I've only seen photographs and there was actually one in the gallery recently but I find it hauntingly beautiful and would love to see it in person some day. Another one that amazed me when I discovered it is the 'Singing Ringing Tree' also in the UK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B0hGyKV9qs

So the obvious question for this poll is 'Public Art' ... waste of money or not? I'm curious to know how a bunch of photographers feel about this subject!
 
Last edited:
Opera: waste of money. Anyone who can afford £100 for a ticket doesn't need my subsidy for an alien art form. Just check how much money goes on opera compared with anything else, especially in the UK. If they'll work for Equity min, no problem. Anything else is a complete waste of taxpayers' money.

Everything else: fair do's.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
I'm on the fence... there's a lot of public art and government funded art that's amazing...and a lot of utter trash as well. One thing that I'd like to see though is if public art in parks etc was commissioned and designed based on visual aesthetic rather than artistic merit. I'm a big fan of a lot of "ugly" art... but a park or public street should be made beautiful... especially in touristy areas... there's nothing like a gaudy chunk of ugly rusted metal to ruin a holiday snap. If I want to think and ponder about my art, I'll go to a gallery... if it's on the sidewalk I just want it to be pretty.
 
2305771932_44ea03951a_b.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2351/2305771932_44ea03951a_b.jpg

I like it, but I also pay tax to bomb other countries, if that's too liberal for anyone
 
Most of my tax money bails out rich bankers or build weapons. It helps me to sleep at night by encouraging me to drink a lot.

I'll help pay for any art that doesn't defend itself by stating a purpose or function - the idea of beautification of a space should be a ruse. I don't mind.
 
Keith said:
So the obvious question for this poll is 'Public Art' ... waste of money or not? I'm curious to know how a bunch of photographers feel about this subject!
Click to expand...

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.

Yes, Fred is right. This is a troll and I could not resist taking the bait.
 
Yep. If my tax dollars are going to Afghanistan and Iraq, I would rather see it spent on public art. The government throws endless amounts of many at other countries and wealthy wall street bankers, why not just mint a little more and invest it in public art?
 
"The comments varied from "wow that's interesting' to "what a waste of money!" "

that sort of sums up my feelings, but I'm glad that my city uses a bit of my taxes for art.

--michael
 
I like it, that some of my tax money is spent on art. I don't like it when my money is wasted on a large scale eg. on bridges no one ever used because the road to that bridge was not built. Or a public organisation built a building in a city and after the building was finished they decided that they don't need a branch office in that city. No one else want's to have this building so it's empty.
Compared to such a waste of money, invest in art is just a small fraction. And sometimes it's just beautiful.
 
well i would like to see more of it. Of course art of any form is going to be subjective, but i believe public art actually `lifts' a community, as does interesting architecture. Usually those that state `waste of money' etc. are people that cannot even identify their own culture. Where i come from many people believe `hard work' is a cultural identifier:bang: They in turn believe the tax money they pay through their `hard work' is actually their money?? no it is community money.
A lot of the public art here lately has had a cross cultural theme which gives me hope for a change in attitude for my childrens generation, go for it i say but no more huge fiberglass carrots/ sheep ` a la america' please🙁
 
I don't know how to vote. I'd rather live in a place that spends public funds on art than a place that doesn't. But, that's a long way from thinking that I like every piece of public art I've seen. My dislike of a piece of art is not a rational reason for opposing it's public funding.

I suspect that portion of the budget that most municipalities spend on public art is tiny, and among the first to be cut in tough times.
 
Bob Michaels 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?
Click to expand...


I didn't really see it that way sorry but I get your point!

If we can avoid the political issue here it would be good ... if not I'll delete the thread happily!
 
Bob Michaels 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?
Click to expand...

Ultimately, it's the same thing, Bob. The will of the people has to be determined by, filtered through, and implemented by individuals. Hence, politicians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom