[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: United States
Good design! http://cqyzcewi.com/btrw/reyy.html | http://lrqzmvem.com/kesk/goad.html
From: njowske@hotmail.com
In answer to a few of your questions...the problem of integrating public art into a community needs to be better studied at the graduate level. I spent two years of my graduate education at Michigan doing just that and here are a few ideas...1. there are ways to research and reach a large relatively representational section of a community.. well thought out surveys, displays with questionaires and a series of community meetings to name a few. 2. a sculptor interested in placing art permanently in a community must, if responsible, research and understand the history, culture, sensitivities and climate of that community. That takes time and a knowledge of community research, but it is the only responsible way to proceed. 3. it is wrong headed to assume a community is "ill-equipped" to discuss contemporary art...they might not share an artist's goals or language, and they might require visuals to understand a proposal but, properly approached, they can be sold a proposal sensitive to their reservations. Finally, perhaps artists could finally abandon the need to ram rod an "education" down the throats of those who ultimately FOOT THE BILL. An aesthetically interesting piece (I prefer the word "beautiful" to "pretty") can open the doors, wallets and hearts of a community to all public art, much faster and more effectively than a confrontational dismissive forced "education" in the latest TRENDS in contemporary art. Alas, to the unwashed brain surgeons, fire fighters and inner city teachers, the word "art" might STILL first suggest BEAUTY. And herein lies the challenge..are public artists so limited they cannot create a single work both significant AND beautiful? Why not?