In 1981, Tilted Arc was on display in Manhattan after Richard Serra was commissioned to make the piece of art. However, due to public complaints, the Tilted Arc was removed years later and Richard Serra started a law case regarding the removal of his artwork.
This particular event is particularly interesting in that it provokes the problem of the very purpose of public art as well and the ownership of public art. Here, I am referring to ownership in an abstract sense that may or may not have been severed from its traditional meaning, i.e. the lawful right of occupying the art piece as a property. Indeed, one may see that the very purpose of putting an artwork at some place might be to please the general public, or as a memorial to a public figure or event that at least a fraction of people could relate to, i.e. part of their common memory. However, does that mean that the general pubic “own” the art in the sense that it should be them that should eventually authorize the installation of the art? Does the artist who make the installation own the art after it was installed?