Public Art

Nickelson

Nickelson

Nori Brick
Tackler
Right need your help here

For My GCSE General Studies i need to look into public art and peoples opinions on it and where they think the money for publuc art should come from. I know we have mixed opinions on here so come on throw them at me :D.
 
Just have a search for the panopticans thread ... you will find plenty of views there.

Me depends on what it is and where it is. By the way i do like the halo - it looks nice sitting on the top of the hill all lit up in the dark..
 
I think if you're talking about the 'art' that involves statues and pieces costing thousands, the bananadog for one, I personally think its a complete waste of time and money.

Yes I appreciate that they are meant to give a welcoming air to a town, however that could be done so much better by cleaning up existing buildings and areas. There is also the fact that they get destroyed or vandalised so quickly.

In a country where we cannot provide a satisfactory health service, afford enough housing for the people, and have so many people living in poverty, public art should be the least of our prioties
 
i think public art should be a kind of arrangement between the artist and the regional council - whereby the artsit gets to display the art for free but can accept offers on it if anyone wants to buy it (obviously it being replacd with a new piece of art)- the tax payer wouldnt have to pay for it - the artist has a "gallery" to showcase his/her work and the public have something to look at whilst they are trying to remember what it was they actually wanted when they went shopping.
the same in cafes etc free art would make their walls look prettier lol and the artist gets a wide audience to see their work
 
As long as it's good art, and funded by those who play the Lottery, I have no problems with it.:)
 
I think if you look around the Borough you will find that any quality public 'art' projects , e.g various War memorials, Gt Harwood town clock, Tiffany glass collection etc . were originally financed by a single donor endowment or through public subscription, none I think invoved action by the local councils apart from maybe the donation of the site .
In my opinion once you get 'educated' public servants (people funded thru Govt. channels) involved then you end up with a committee who after numerous meetings come to a collective decision deciding what is good "Art" , the problem being the results of a committee are nine times out of ten usually mediocre .
think there is an old saying .......if you want to see an animal designed by a committee look at the camel .
 
steeljack said:
In my opinion once you get 'educated' public servants (people funded thru Govt. channels) involved then you end up with a committee who after numerous meetings come to a collective decision deciding what is good "Art" , the problem being the results of a committee are nine times out of ten usually mediocre.
Click to expand...

That's why all public art should first be approved by me.:D
 
I like any public art to have a functional purpose.
eg - sculpture with a fountain, or inbuilt seating.
That way, even those who dont like the art can tolerate it for it's function.

I don't like murals because one man's art is another man's graffiti.

(When I say 'fountain' I don't mean a trickle along a concrete path as in that Diana fiasco)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top