Public art often attracts controversy. A recent example in Queensland is this story in the Sunday Mail.
Timothy Morrell argues:
‘It is not considered polite for strangers to invite themselves into our private living space and make themselves at home. Nor is it polite for strange-looking art to move into our public living space uninvited and become part of the furniture there. Elaborate processes of community consultation are now part of the accepted protocols of public art commissions. It would be unusual for an artist to go to the same lengths to find out what the audience wants before beginning a work if it was being made for his or her next exhibition, rather than for a prominent street corner. The strength of a work of art can often be measured by how confronting it is to the viewer, but not if it is a work of public art.’ (Morrell 2001)
Conversely, it can be argued that public art should provoke a strong reaction, and create discussion and dissension. Public art should in fact be about provoking a public conversation - which presumes disagreement and agonism - rather than making people relaxed and comfortable as they might be in their private home. Or at least I think so. Its very existence should trouble governments and authorities and pundits of all stripes or none.
I was strolling through the LA Mall the other day, and was chatting to a friend who let me know about this excellent site detailing the background of public art in LA, prompted by a strong disagreement over the merits of this piece. You can read about its reception here.
Over the fold, I’ve posted a striking picture I recently saw in Hyde Park in Sydney, on a brief visit. [More info on the exhibition here]. I’d be very interested in people’s views on public art, and their likes and dislikes.
Of course, in the States, some of the WPA murals from the 30s were very politically controversial.
I have just unsuccessfully googled for a picture of the giant hands at 175 Eagle St in Brisbane. Opinion is certainly divided, but they get people talking/reflecting.
Nice post, Kim - Carol and I noticed lots of public art in Perth. Liked the Kangaroos on St George’s Terrace!
I’m in favour of the Eagle Street hands.
And of the picture of Deb in Hyde Park - what a hottie! I hope she’s a lesbian, and I’m sure she’s not a lipsniger!
Dead right, Mark, about the WPA murals. I will have to do some googling - can’t recall if the famous one by a Latino artist was in LA or SanFran - the latter, I think - very controversial indeed.
It would be nice to see more working class art on the streets - rather than just “high art”. Now that might start a controversy or two. Would Howard ban union artworks from public sites/sight?
I hafta to say that once again contemporary art just keeps falling behind the curve of what real crazed folks are really up to.
A friend of mine along time ago had a gig as the (then) TLC’s Arts Officer. Sadly, the brown shirted cardigan boys of the 80s couldn’t be persuaded that the experiment should be continued.
Kim - I’m assuming that you had a quick stopover in the Emerald City on the way to LA. Had your stay been longer, I’m sure that you are the one person who could have tracked down Deb the public art model, and convinced her you’d make a very appropriate assymetric couple/coupling…
God blind me, here’s the link, all proper and complete like.
http://cnbhorror.com/mocktoad/galleries.php
Link broken, Nabs.
Crossed comments at ten paces!
smoking reduces blood flow to the extremities resulting in various rots that start at the ends and eat their way toward the heart
gothdeathjoy
The cigarette in the woman’s hand is an interesting touch.
A pseudo-controversy is pseudo-raging in the UK over a Marc Quinn sculpture which has been put on an empty plinth in Trafalgar Square. It is a colossal marble statue of the artist Alison Lapper, naked and pregnant. Lapper was born with phocomelia. The statue was trivially discussed on Vulture last week, but The Guardian has covered the story very well:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1568650,00.html?gusrc=rss
Quinn has made a number of statues of people with shortened or truncated limbs. The photo you’ve reproduced here seems very likely influenced by Quinn’s work. I saw a gallery full of his statues in New York last year. They were extremely beautiful.
One very interesting thing about his art is that it revisits the ideal of beauty embodied in a conspicously limbless (almost wrote “armless”) statue like the Venus de Milo.
On public art (which anyone who reads my blog will be sick of hearing about probably), if the aim is to please everyone then hopeless mediocrity and infantilised blandness is the only possible result. I suppose everyone knows about the Komar and Melamid “Most Wanted Art” project? (It’s hysterical.) On the other hand, art that aims only to cause a scandal is just as silly and worthless. Public art needs to be challenging, and so the people who pay for it need to be brave and thick-skinned and capable of thinking past the next election.
All that said, Australian capital cities are amazingly fortunate in the variety and quality of public art we have, given especially how young the cities are.
Looks ‘armless enough to me.
hey my gravatar works now!!
The complete collection of photos (of which Deb is one of about twenty) in the avenue of Hyde Park, um, totally rock (to use the industry term). I think the photos are a better idea because they are transitory and you could therefore rotate exhibits throughout the city both physically and temporally.
That said, Adelaide has a lot going for it in the way of sculpture: dozens set back from the footpath on the way to Rundle Mall from the Uni.
More public art, I say. More grist for the brain mill.
For strong reaction, little can top the controversy that swirled around Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc. It was fought over for eight years until it was finally removed from outside of Federal Plaza.
On Laura’s point, here are a couple of Mark Quinn’s works.