Comment of the Day: The Difference Between Public Art and Landscape Decoration

COMMENT OF THE DAY: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUBLIC ART AND LANDSCAPE DECORATION “It is poorly written, but I think I get the point of the Glasstire post. Public art should really be art that is given its own space and not be little more than an attempt to pretty up the existing urban landscape. When you have artists putting decorations on electric boxes, bridges, or other things that are normally not even noticed as part of our urban landscape, you diminish the art and the artist into a municipal decorating service. Public art should be set aside from the urban landscape instead of being relegated to dressing it up. I generally agree. I do like the paintings on the electric boxes, but these kind of projects seem to be a way of paying lip service to public art.” [Old School, commenting on Tip-Off for Apartments by the Toyota Center; Details of the Coming Canino Farmer’s Market Redo] Photo of mini mural by Anat Ronen at Airline Dr. and Hardwicke: UP Art Studio

3 Comment

  • Old School, the author of the original article, and a number of other commenters seem not to know that a lot of artworks over the centuries were created for the very purpose of municipal decoration. An art history course would set you straight on the matter.
    And then, the idea that public art should be “set aside from the urban landscape” is nonsense based on a caricature of what art and artists are supposed to be and of what defines the urban landscape. Again, some historical perspective is required here.

  • Can’t we do both?

  • That Glasstire author is the reason why no one likes Hipsters.