Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown
Percent-for-art programs in most cities are only for public buildings. Philadelphia is unusual in extending the requirement to buildings built on land assembled by the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority.
In Chicago, we don't use land assembly and writedown all that extensively for private development, but I suppose it would have given us additional public art pieces at Block 37, 35 West Wacker/Renaissance Hotel, Jewel/Osco at Roosevelt & Wabash, and a few other places.
A better question is how meaningful the artworks are to the general public, particularly as modern art has diverged so much from popular understanding. As Dave Barry once wrote, we know it's public art because hardly ever do private citizens get together and decide to put up something that looks like the rusting remains of a helicopter crash. I think about that every time I pass Frank Stella's The Town-Ho's Story in the Metcalfe Federal Building lobby.
One promising recent idea has been the way some agencies (Seattle Metro was a pioneer) now use their percent-for-art commissions to create useful, artisanal objects rather than later add-ons. So they'll have the artist create security gates or benches that are thought-provoking as well as practical.
|
I wouldn't mind if we got what the Brits got when they renovated St Pancras...
independent.co.uk
I have definitely noticed how public art really beautifies some cities. Percent for Art and Mural Arts have been amazing for Philadelphia; Kansas City has fountains
literally everywhere...
The interesting thing here, though, is that public art can show that people truly care about a place. Some of the best public art in the country is no more or less fancy than shop owners putting nice murals up on their walls. "Bureaucratic" art rarely ever works.