When thinking about the quality of public art pieces, an individual might go to a number of different sources to find out if a piece was a success. First, one might simply judge the artwork for its artistic value alone – what sort of social statement it makes, how well it uses its surroundings to its advantage, etc. This approach is one that perhaps an art critic would take, not the approach of the common man passing this piece on a daily basis. Which brings us to the second factor for judging a piece of public art – whether the public likes it. After all, the piece was installed in a public place to be viewed by the public. Even if it holds a deep meaning and is very artistic, is it really worth anything if it is not liked by those who see it? This was the case with Richard Serra’s “Tilted Arc” which was installed in Federal Plaza – the public hated it so much that it was removed from the site. I believe that there is a real distinction between the value of art and the value of public art. Perhaps Serra’s installation was very artistically valuable. However, it clearly was not very valuable as a public art installation because very few of the public actually liked it and it was quite intrusive – a large black wall in the middle of the plaza. If a piece of art gets in the way of daily life in a busy square like Federal Plaza, there is no question that even if it is very significant and beautiful, it is not a good piece of public art. Public art has an important element of function as well as form. It should improve the location where it is installed, not make things harder for those who use the space.
a wiki of socially engaged art