There’s already a healthy debate going on here about the decision to remove James Wille Faust’s “Chrysalis” from its prominent place at the Indianapolis International Airport this month in order to make room for a video display of digital art and advertising. So I won’t rehash that here.
Instead, I’d like to look at a perhaps bigger question: Does public art have a shelf life?
In the airport case, there was an understanding that the work would rotate (although Faust claims his understanding was that the piece would be on display far longer than three years). But when most pieces go public, there isn’t a stated removal date.
And so I ask: At some point, will it be okay for the statues around the Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument to be replaced?
Twenty years from now, would it be okay for “Ann Dancing” be replaced by something more high-tech on Mass Ave?
And if the city of Carmel ever comes to its senses about public art, what should the process be for dismissing the embarrassing J. Seward Johnson Jr. sculptures?
Or, once a piece is declared public art, should it be in place forever?
Your thoughts?
Back to Top
IBJ Conversations
12 Comments
Add Comment
Just because the taste of someone in power now doesn't match the taste of the city leaders who installed something twenty or thirty (or three) years ago doesn't mean that the art has lost meaning or validity in the eyes of the public.
A better solution would be to ensure that an open and considered process is behind every work of public art, with public input and long-term thinking. And if an artwork in public is truly meant to be temporary, ensure that everyone (the public, the artist, and the commissioning group) has the same understanding, and communicate that understanding through the organization so that a management change does not do a 180 just to make its mark.
If a time-duration commitment cannot be made that justifies the level of public expenditure, perhaps the entire project should be re-thought.
The sculptures in Carmel clearly accomplish this as do the statues around the monument and the giant head on Mass Ave.
Put differently, public art should only remain public art if can promote that community's identity to others that may not be familiar with it, affirm that identity with its citizens and effectively convey the identity of the community to all
(Hampton Inn and the mighty Budweiser) Is this another one? Does the IMA give a hoot concerning Indiana Artists in general. Nothing wrong with moving art around, but let's not put in the closet and sell the space to the highest commercial bidder.