Anytime I see a piece of public art I always wonder who made the decision to put it there in the first place and why. Personally I have always stopped to think if whether the certain area needed a public artwork in the first place or could the money have went to something else that would be more beneficial to the area rather than an eyesore (like that of Ian Ritchie Architects, Spire) or something that’s easily overlooked by the public (for example Rachel Joynts, Freeflow). After all it is meant to be for them.
On researching I came across an interesting article written in 2004 which involved then Arts Officer of Dublin City Council, Jack Gilligan and former of collections in IMMA, Catherine Marshall. The discussion was about how public art work was beginning to be ‘littered’ around Ireland and how to distinguish between an eyesore and a work of genius. In the article Mr Gilligan said: “Public art enriches all our lives… We could end up littering our city and countryside with public art, and then it would lose its impact,” In response to this Ms Marshall stated “the ‘littering’ may have already begun”. She then went on to say that, public artworks “clog up my city…the people who commission public art have a duty to everyone using the space in which it’s located to see that it fits in with both the location and people’s lives”. It is the last point that Ms Marshall makes that I find most interesting. If the ‘people who commission public art’ have a duty to the public using the space, then why do they not encourage more input from the public as to whether the proposals should be given the go ahead or not?
The main public art piece I want to focus on is the one I mentioned earlier which is the ‘Monument of Light’ or better known as, ‘The Spire’. On completion in 2003, the Spires total construction cost came to a total of €4.6m. The architects said they sought “elegance and dynamic simplicity bridging art and technology” and also the project manager Michael O’Neill said in 2003 “the Spire will pay for itself in five years through tourism”. As it is a public artwork it is meant to be for the public, yet on asking people for opinions on the piece they are a mixed verdict with most siding with a less favorable opinion of it. Personally I feel it was chosen to try and establish Dublin in the art scene by constructing the tallest piece of public art in the world and not for the public. Another question that arose while researching was that of the maintenance costs of public artwork. The total cost of maintaining and cleaning the Spire since 2003 has been estimated to cost €2.54 million by 2015 which is almost half of what it cost to construct in the first place. It is in a situation like this I feel that public artwork was not necessary at least not on that scale and that the judging panel should have had more public involvement in its selection of proposal.
Lastly in the presentation Mr O’Cuiv was very enthusiastic to encourage the likes of art students (once graduated and established) to apply for a public art scheme. Being an art student I found that this would be a great way to gain experience and if chosen great to get publicity and funding. However on viewing a number of different public artworks I found that more times than not the same artist’s names would keep coming up. After some more research I found another quote from Ms Marshall, head of collections in IMMA, this time in which she said “One problem with public art is that there is a lot of repetition…a certain number of artists being used and re-used” Knowing this point is fairly discouraging as an artist and would in a sense make me turn away from public art. Why go through the trouble of doing the work just to be possibly overlooked for another artist with more public artworks under their belt? Maybe this is the reason Dublin is filled with many of the same overlooked pieces of public artwork.
In conclusion although I find public art works to be of a great importance and great initiative that could be used to bring together people from all walks of life in creating a piece for their city to be proud of and to also, maybe, generate income which could be then in turn put back into the community, I believe that it is a small minority that is given complete power to choose the art in which they feel would best benefit a certain area which includes little or no input from the public that the pieces are meant to be for. If the pubic were given more of a say in what was made then maybe they could have something to be proud of and take more interest in it.
No comments:
Post a Comment