Bao Le

Professor Matt Hill

Writ 1133 – 11

April 6, 2011

Public Art: City Revival or Social Revival?

“Now art should never try to be popular. The public should try to make itself

artistic.” This quote by Oscar Wilde might not have been talking about public art per se,

but public art is a clear indicator to whether the public is really trying to make itself

artistic or not. I remember my parents telling me that artists make no money and that I

should never pursue it as a career choice. (True story, I was five at the time.) While this

technically may be true, the older, wiser me has chosen to believe that artists make their

money in social dollars. The reward of giving back to your community and bettering

them through your art is romantically argued to be much more rewarding than just

materialistic gain. Because of these preconceived notions of art, there are people out there

that regards public works of art as extraneous add-ons to a city; there for aesthetics but

doesn’t really serve a utilitarian purpose. In our current economy and society, it’s hard to

believe that governments would continue to put out contracts for public works of art if it

really didn’t give extra utility to the city. Public art is not only used for aesthetics but it is

also a medium of urban and social revival.

Nowadays, people liken public art to anything that is exhibited to public space,
accessible to all. This definition allows for the blurring between public art and vandalism

however. Graffiti vandalism is usually cited as art but the scope of this document defines

public art that is anything that is sanctioned by companies or governments.

Public art has originally been used for political reasons. In totalitarian regimes,

public art has been used to further propaganda. The art created during Mao Zedong’s

Cultural Revolution in China is a clear example of this. Public art dates back to ancient

Greece where they would adorn their buildings and statues with sculptures and

representations of gods or deities.

The purpose of art for politics in more open societies is the sharing of ideas or

attitudes to the general public. For politics, art is an ambassador to other cities (Clark). It

allows people to understand the ideals or values of a city in a universal way. Also, public

art can work as a way of stimulating the economy. In 1993, public art has accounted for

1.3 million jobs and $37 billion in spending last year (Clark).

Given this evidence, public art can be argued to be essential to politics. On the

other side of this argument though, people argue that public works of art takes off too

much funding from the government. People argue that while art should exist, the

government shouldn’t be paying for it; if there is high enough demand for the art, the

public will create it without the need for additional funds (Clark). In the grand scheme of

things, the funding required for public art is small, however any amount set aside for art

can be used instead for other programs like education.

These days, governments have been proactive about works of public art though.

In New York City, there is a law that no less than 1% of the first twenty million dollars
and an additional 0.5% of the amount exceeding twenty million dollars be used for

artwork in any public building owned by the city. In Westminster, Colorado, the

government has a dedicated page to public art, which showcases their recent works on

73rd street (Westminster Colorado). This shows that relatively recently, politicians have

understood the utility that public works of art affords them. Whether this new legislation

is used purely for personal gain or popularity or whether it is used for the greater public

good is up for debate.

The argument that governments do not need to pay for public art pieces is not

without merit. There is a lot of public movement for public pieces of art and a good

amount of public art exhibitions are random and temporary. Not something that the

government would have contracted. A study in 1993 stated that 80% of americans feel

that artwork makes their city a better place to live (Clark). There have also been studies

that indicated that public support for the arts exhibited a high stature in communities

(Blanchard). This expresses the fact that the populace has a need to have public art in

their communities. Not even that but “A survey conducted in the Portland Tri-Country

Area of Oregon revealed that arts and culture served as an important consideration in the

growth and development of communities” (Blanchard).

This points to clear evidence that public art acts as a vehicle for social revival. Art

acts as a measure of a community’s culture and how much it’s citizens value the

community they live in. The argument could be made that art at this point is not just a

extraneous decoration that a community chooses to partake in or not but as a medium for

the revival of possibly dead communities. Frankly, communities with public art are

frequently the ones getting developed. People are flocking to communities with the art
and they are attracting the attention of businesses and politicians.

There is a limit to this though, sometimes art can be too risqué or too

inappropriate. A good example of this is when a new sculpture was deemed to be too

revealing by the community (Kelley). Even though there was already had nude statues in

their community, they just felt like this was too much and might have negative impact on

their community. Here it can be argued that the town is too saturated or simple that while

the community enjoys naked people as much as the next guy, they’re not totally

concentrated on them.

Urban revival in Denver has been much greater than other cities (Olmsted).

Olmsted credits this urban revival in public art to the fact that Denver is one of the few

cities that haven’t torn down their historic district yet. Not only does Denver have a lot of

public sculptures and works of art, but also it can be argued that our buildings are works

of art though. The civic center, Denver International Airport, and the Denver Art

Museum are all examples of buildings as works of art. Denver is rapidly turning into

another metropolis and the evidence presented so far suggests that its use of public art is

one of the driving factors of this growth.

Public art can be seen as vehicles of both city revival and social revival. The

benefit of government or company funded public pieces of art is that they allow other

people to gauge the investment a particular community has with their town or city. The

need of the people for art is combined with the benefits to society means that public

pieces of art are here to stay. Cities and legislators have now realized the important of

having not only an economically successful city but also a culturally rich and socially
expressive city too.
Works Cited
Westminster Colorado. Public Art. n.d. 5 April 2011
<http://www.ci.westminster.co.us/93.htm>.

Blanchard, Janice. "As the Pendulum Swings: A Historical Review of the

Politics and the Policies of the Arts and Aging." Generations 30.1
(2006): 50-56.

Clark, Charles S. "Arts Funding: Is boosting the status of the arts a wise
investment?" CQ Researcher 4 (1994): 913-936.

Kelley, Katie. "Little Love in Colorado Town for Another Nude

Sculpture." New York Times 30 July 2006: 22.

Olmsted, Larry. "Downtown Revival Riding High." n.d. Academic Search

Complete. USA Today. 3 4 2011.
Bao Le

Peer Critique of Adrianna’s Paper

Peer Critique: (Note, the version that I received was not finished)

The introduction of the paper, while interesting, didn’t transition very well into

the rest of the paragraph. While it was relevant, the sentences following the introduction

of the paragraph made it feel choppy. The idea of the paper is that syringe exchange

programs are beneficial to society and that the state of Colorado should legalize it.

The evidence used in this paper doesn’t really support the argument; they seem to

be just there to help the author define some of the terms that she is using. She presents

two sides of the argument but does nothing to address the counter argument or disprove

it. There are 6 sources cited in the works cited area, and the author does incorporate them

throughout the writing. There is decent flow to them, but as stated above the citations

aren’t really proofs to her argument.

Overall the topic is interesting and it is clear that the author has done her research

about it, but the paper as a whole is a bit choppy. I’m also beginning to believe that there

are a bit too many acronyms for a paper of this length.

Reverse Outline:

I. Conclusion

a. Drug prohibition does not work.

b. Other states are moving forward and we should too.

II. Body

a. Laws that prevent Syringe Exchange Programs in Colorado

i. Generally are laws that deal with drug paraphernalia and

prescription drugs.

ii. 45 states still do not allow people to buy syringes without a

prescription.

b. Harm Reduction

i. Began because of HIV/AIDS

ii. Controversy about how harm reduction programs makes it seem

like they are promoting drug use.

iii. Bleach is dangerous

iv. SEPs allowed by Federal Government, but there is a restriction on

funding.

c. First Needle Exchange Program

i. Amsterdam to stop Hep B

d. Harm Reduction Definition

i. Definition of Harm Reduction

ii. Provide medical and social care

 iii. SEPs not popular in the US but others are

e. Goal of USED

i. SEPs are part of what is know as Harm Reduction Programs

ii. Provides clean needles without a prescription

f. USED

i. Does not have a proper location.

ii. Is illegal and they have to work underground.

iii. Serious lack of funding

g. Introduction

i. Even though the US has a “zero tolerance” policy regarding drugs,

the increasing benefits of Harm Reduction Programs means that

states should adopt them.

ii. SEPs help IDUs not only for clean syringes but also helps them

reduce their drug intake.