3 Reasons Why Public Art is so Mid
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 лют 2023
- Public art consistently misses the mark and there are 3 major reasons why.
Instagram: / art_chad_
Tik Tok: / art_chad
Twitter: / articus_chad
Patreon: patreon.com/Artchad
0:43 Economics
2:48 Gatekeeping
5:48 Empathy
I think you nailed it. These artists and institutions spend way too much time getting art degrees, and completely forget what ordinary people find beautiful. You can hang the weird abstract stuff in a galley where the art nerds can appreciate it. But if you're designing a 3 story high sculpture for a city square, you can't get away with ugly experimental crap. Make art for the intended audience.
The only thing that wasn’t touched upon that I think should have been, is that even the art students who might appreciate these works in galleries, have to themselves imagine the piece removed from its surroundings to consider it good. Like, the people living in these cities see it as it is, interacting with its surrounding itself, and if you put a colorless, angular, metal or concrete object in a place surrounded oppressively by all those things, they aren’t going to like it.
This reminds me of architecture. The majority of new buildings being constructed aren't pleasing to the eye, but they don't look to be either. Selfish architects make them for themselves, not for the public. In my country (Sweden) a quite influential movement has started to bring the issue of architecture to light called Arkitekturupproret (The architecture uprising). In a study, it was shown that the majority of Swedes regardless of political ideology, like older buildings from ~1890-1930 built in older styles, but these kinds of buildings are rarely if ever being built today. Politicians of all parties realized that architecture is something the public cares for and now advocate for a return to older styles of architecture instead of modernism, and the public news and newspapers also cover the importance of having nice looking architecture instead of concrete and steel boxes.
Modern design is like comedy. When it hits it hits. When it doesn’t… Well that’s a different story haha
@@Dino_Medici Yes, the Sydney Opera house is a great example of good modern architecture!
It could also be money laundering.
Yeah, that statue is very odd.
A normal, classic statue of the two hugging would be better, it wouldn't be confusing or send any potential wrong message, it'd just be a representation of what it represents.
It'd also look a lot nicer.
This is just what happens when faceless corporations fund art. Synchronize me some beauty !
a lot of it I think is "try too hard to be symbolic" and it loses all beauty and become so in your face it also loses all subtlety, that's partly what happens what happens when institutions, colleges, corporations starts to push arts, and ESPECIALLY when they pick high profile artists who wants a lot of clout. Ai Wei Wei was actually someone I kind of respected for his past work in China, and he has talent, but the clout chasing definitely made him almost disgusting afterwards(seriously, that photo).
one of the solutions we should implement, something I actually kind of respects the Soviet for, is to make all public art anonymous.
I have an arts education but in film. One of the best classes I got to take was a business class which emphasized the importance of knowing your audience and being marketable.
Plot twist: Art that makes you ask “how the hell did this get made?” is the most thought provoking of all
Not really, the answer is pretty simple: nepotism + embezzlement. Nepotism doesn't necessarily require a blood relation, it can be just a friend of a friend within the local administration. Or maybe cronyism is a better term.
I find that public art tends to be inversely proportional to how well known it is. It's not hard to find bad public art and it is a little harder to find good public art, however public art being consistently bad is false. For example my local community college has an entire stone circle on campus and its really cool.
That Calgary "Anything under $50mil must have $300k put towards public art" sounds like some kinda money laundering scheme tbh. Like, this whole operation that you need is cheap and already serves the community, why spend more money on something nobody wanted?
To be fair its pretty ingenious if they're able to keep getting away with it.
Oh man, why would you do the blue ring like that, it's such a circular ring, the best blue ring in the whole Alberta.
Just found your channel, please keep doing videos these are really good!! I´m glad I was lucky enough to find you through a random search about muses and your other video popped up.
I´ve noticed this same art phenomenon in my country too, although I feel like some artwork is kinda nice some of it just looks like anyone could´ve done it better. I live in the ”art district” of my city and right under my balcony there`s these metal boards that are just the ugliest thing I`ve seen like whyyyy
Also love the paintbrush mic holder too btw XD
This is a great video man, I really hope the algo finds you one day
I look forward to your uploads.
Ultimately art is an individualistic process and product, and will always prove subjective, possibly even divisive depending on context - that's the point of art. Public art projects do not need an artist in this spirited sense - they need people with graphics skills, painting and sculpture etc. of course but not someone with a personal point to make.
Rather, these "art" projects (which aren't really art at this point, just essentially nice ornamentation) need makers who are completely in touch with the love and feel of their area and who will make something that everyone will like, even if the result is by-definition average and somewhat lukewarm, because that will do the job - the job being to represent the area accurately and brighten up resident's days as they walk past and rest near the resulting monument.
Linguistic hurdles and barriers are always a huge part of such long-ongoing issues (itself highly relevant to the purpose of art as formulating a point that current language cannot). The Stirnerian "spook" in this situation is the very notion of "public art" itself, because as established in this video, "public" and "art" cannot co-exist, they are mutually exclusive. You can have art that's relatively accessible to the public, say in a museum, and you can have ornamentation with art-like qualities and craftmanship in a public place, but truly "public art" is gibberish, on par with a man eating his own head.
ah, it's so good to listen to your rants: you speak so much from my heart! 😋
This is a very myopic take. Look at Daily Tous le Jours. Absolutely amazing public art.
Public art is to break up the banality of purely utilitarian projects.
Art doesn't need to be beautiful or universally, or even broadly, liked for it to be worthwhile.
When you overly involve the public's input on each project you end up getting everything cancelled, because there is no consensus. Or you end up with really boring art that is mostly aimed at entertaining people's kids.
Community art projects, and projects that directly involve the public are important, but also more risky, controversial art is also part of having a vibrant arts and culture sector.
I'm speaking as a working community artist who places public interactions at the forefront of (much of) my work.
There is, and should be, room for both.
You don't have to like every piece of public art. There's probably something wrong if you do.
Again, check out Daily Tous Les Jours. Montreal based and I think has some of the best public art projects out there. But that kind of work requires big $, and it should be publicly funded.
Also some projects are totally shit. But that's what you get when you do a lot of stuff. Having some shit projects is the price you pay for having projects at all. I personally really like Calgary's "Traveling Light" except for it's placement. I think if it were in a park where people move through on a human scale, the juxtaposition of the giant ring against the comparatively small street lights illuminated at the top would be very whimsical to approach and move around. It definitely would add interest to a landscape.
Most of the money goes to fabricators so it's good economically. The artist isn't getting six figures to make a single piece. Most of the money is spent on labour and materials.
I had a $70k budget for a public exhibition last year and I only made $6k. Around 7k was on materials and the rest was spent on equipment/space rentals and labour of skilled trades people.
Sorry for the novel, but man I spend so much time applying for funding, for people to act like artists just get blank checks.
Nah man, I still can't afford groceries. Don't advocate defunding arts.
The only thing that wasn’t touched upon that I think should have been, is that even the art students who might appreciate these works in galleries, have to themselves imagine the piece removed from its surroundings to consider it good. Like, the people living in these cities see it as it is, interacting with its surrounding itself, and if you put a colorless, angular, metal or concrete object in a place surrounded oppressively by all those things, they aren’t going to like it.
So on one hand you don't want the public to have a say on the art that gets made, but on the other hand, you want that same public to pay for it with their taxes. How about you fund your own projects and that way you get to make whatever the hell you want?
I think it would we better if we said the percentage of money should be used on beautifying the building itself, idk, think like 5 over 1 versus an old brick and limestone tennament, instead of some stupid sculpture.
Man, I was about to disagree so strongly with the Ai Weiwei price, which struck me as genuinely beautiful, until you showed that photo. Why did you have to show me that photo😭
It would make more sense to use the mandatory funding to fund arts education in public schools instead of specific projects. That pink sculpture in Queens is an insult to my eyesight; ditto for the public art in Calgary.
Halifax Nova Scotia mentioned!!!!!
Meanwhile all the public art in my city is murals of random animals riding bikes and shit and I love it
Very insightful. The same could be said for a lot of the more ridiculous architecture I see now, I don't see the new office building or museum, I see the obnoxious ego of an architect trying to make a statement.
WTF is that an 8 bit sor etude as your bg music?
Oh yea I'm subbing early so i can say I was here from the beginning when he has millions
what a way to meaning.
How is their only 650 likes?!
6:21 isn't something I consider to be an important point. I really don't think its a meaningful statement. It has to be a work by someone, and even if it was a collaboration between many people, a direction is given. The sentiment of the masses might not represent the best solution. Its not any more significant then giving an artist a go of it. If they're twisting it to do something that isn't capable of being appreciated by most people, then they too fail at the challenge. I think its a matter of what is it you really want, an impossibility?
Your solution at 7:31 feels like its just as much a selfish understanding as well. Its not necessarily the right solution either. If architecture in the west became more important, would these high end pieces really matter? Is great art bound by its time? Should it be as pleasing as possible to everyone even if everyone has bad taste? Its for a leader to lead in a direction of progression, and as that is an iterative process, why would you be upset that so many fail?
That is the essence of what we're dealing with. Legacy is what binds us to so many flawed structures and when people try to create a path away from that bound framework, I don't mind. Even if I don't think it succeeded or was seen as "mid" the progression of works will eventually bear out a truly great piece that is worth the mediocrity.
The ML statue isn’t even bad though.
CALGARY MENTIONED!!!!!1!!! No but FR our public art is dawgshit. I really do believe and always have believed that the best public art is usually graffiti.
this smacks soooooo hard of embezzlement
That MLK statue looks like Vladimir Putin
Damn it, Ivan, we've been found out! Those pesky westerners saw our hand of Kremlin once again!
Interesting take. But, if you want to get down to the root of it, the problem of bad public art is the same problem with most bad art, in general: prioritizing theory over execution. That weird MLK "hug" statue works better as a thesis statement, than it does as an actual sculpture. I think it's the result of a priestly caste in academe, who hold a mistaken belief that craftsmanship isn't necessary, and obscurantism equals complexity.
Anyway, that's just my two-cents-worth. All the best, everybody.
Modern Art == money laundry ?
Didn’t mlk cheat on his wife tho…
Cause it's made by the public