What IS it? I'd like to see it in person. I mean, any sort of justification for symbolism or what-have-you I will most likely feel is bullshit, but it's a neat experiment at those proportions.
Tax money goes to the public. Art's neat. The public benefits from public art. I don't have a problem with that. If nothing else, cities that finance controversial art get more media coverage, and more media coverage translates to more tourism dollars, and the whole thing pays for itself. The more controversial the art, the more likely you are to have insane left- or right-wing people traveling to your city, camping out in protest, buying food from local vendors, gassing their vehicles in local service-stations, and so on. It's win-win.
For the record, I like the idea of publicly funded art. That's just sort of a base-level disagreement we have that makes conversations ABOUT public art a zero-sum game. People trying to make art sorta piss me off, but the idea that there is something that exists for no reason I find to be a fun one. The idea that people can sustain themselves doing something that has virtually no purpose in any practical sense is AWESOME.
Unfortunately, most public art doesn't really fall into that category - people who believe in art also believe that art does something uplifting and awesome, and is something that we need to have around - but either way, there's no loser. The miniscule amounts of each taxpayer's money that goes to these sorts of things makes it just something that's fun and productive.
When you get right down to it, every city building, every park, every single edifice erected or purchased by a governing body is aesthetic in some way. You could argue that the city of Fictionalcity, USA needs a park that has no monuments, sculptures, or gardens... but the three or four cents from each taxpayer required to make that park a little more interesting, drive interest in art, (and therefore making art supply shops, art gallerieis, art criticism, etc. members of the local economy) and this or that group while creating public discussion and bla-bi-dee-bla is a small price to pay that few if any taxpayers actually notice.
I'd be willing to condemn paying Parking Enforcement before I'd condemn a public piece of "art" every year.
Seriously, tho, what the hell was that thing you linked to? Where does it stand? I was thinking when I was last in an art gallery that it's good that cities/corporations fund art, because so much of it simply wouldn't have a place in the world if it weren't for that fact. I was simultaneously lamenting how much ridiculously bad giant expensive art exists in the world, but you can't have the one without the other and so on.
Hell, this whole push towards globalism and diversity that denies the individuality of peoples and regions makes it vital, as far as I'm concerned, that local (not federal) entities fund art as a way of enforcing their identity. That thing that started all this has a neat look to it that feels very southwest, and for every fuck-nut that tries to claim that the US is homogenous, and the world is homogenous, and people don't have different identities, pieces of art like that, where you can point and go "Look at what Portland, Oregon chooses to fund, and look at what New York City, New York chooses to fund, and look at what Berlin, Germany chooses to fund" serve as abject lessons that people are different and unique. Even to the point of "Look at what Washington, D.C. chooses to fund, and look at what Richmond, Virginia chooses to fund, and see how the idea of southern heritage is totally dead from Richmond up," or what-have-you.
Tax money goes to the public. Art's neat. The public benefits from public art. I don't have a problem with that. If nothing else, cities that finance controversial art get more media coverage, and more media coverage translates to more tourism dollars, and the whole thing pays for itself. The more controversial the art, the more likely you are to have insane left- or right-wing people traveling to your city, camping out in protest, buying food from local vendors, gassing their vehicles in local service-stations, and so on. It's win-win.
For the record, I like the idea of publicly funded art. That's just sort of a base-level disagreement we have that makes conversations ABOUT public art a zero-sum game. People trying to make art sorta piss me off, but the idea that there is something that exists for no reason I find to be a fun one. The idea that people can sustain themselves doing something that has virtually no purpose in any practical sense is AWESOME.
Unfortunately, most public art doesn't really fall into that category - people who believe in art also believe that art does something uplifting and awesome, and is something that we need to have around - but either way, there's no loser. The miniscule amounts of each taxpayer's money that goes to these sorts of things makes it just something that's fun and productive.
When you get right down to it, every city building, every park, every single edifice erected or purchased by a governing body is aesthetic in some way. You could argue that the city of Fictionalcity, USA needs a park that has no monuments, sculptures, or gardens... but the three or four cents from each taxpayer required to make that park a little more interesting, drive interest in art, (and therefore making art supply shops, art gallerieis, art criticism, etc. members of the local economy) and this or that group while creating public discussion and bla-bi-dee-bla is a small price to pay that few if any taxpayers actually notice.
I'd be willing to condemn paying Parking Enforcement before I'd condemn a public piece of "art" every year.
Seriously, tho, what the hell was that thing you linked to? Where does it stand? I was thinking when I was last in an art gallery that it's good that cities/corporations fund art, because so much of it simply wouldn't have a place in the world if it weren't for that fact. I was simultaneously lamenting how much ridiculously bad giant expensive art exists in the world, but you can't have the one without the other and so on.
Hell, this whole push towards globalism and diversity that denies the individuality of peoples and regions makes it vital, as far as I'm concerned, that local (not federal) entities fund art as a way of enforcing their identity. That thing that started all this has a neat look to it that feels very southwest, and for every fuck-nut that tries to claim that the US is homogenous, and the world is homogenous, and people don't have different identities, pieces of art like that, where you can point and go "Look at what Portland, Oregon chooses to fund, and look at what New York City, New York chooses to fund, and look at what Berlin, Germany chooses to fund" serve as abject lessons that people are different and unique. Even to the point of "Look at what Washington, D.C. chooses to fund, and look at what Richmond, Virginia chooses to fund, and see how the idea of southern heritage is totally dead from Richmond up," or what-have-you.
Reply
Leave a comment