http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_18448756
ln the past year I've visiting Colorado quite often, and every time I go I see amazing public art almost everywhere I go. I just figured it was just in the downtown area, until my parents who just moved to Denver told me that business had to give a percentage to "public art." After doing my research I found out that the state of Colorado has the Art in Public Places Act. This Act makes one precent of capital construction for new or renovated state buildings to be used to purchase or make art for the specific building.
There seems to be a bit of controversy over the art placed and the rules about the art staying no matter what the community says. I think its awesome that Colorado puts so much money, time, and effort into the art's and the community that surrounds it. A lot of work that Colorado owns are pieces we have looked at in this Art History class. It's nice to know why the works are there in Colorado and who paid for them. I hope you all find this article interesting!
I love that Colorado has taken the lead in making sure that the public not only gets to experience great art everywhere, but they are contributing to it too. Looking at some of the pictures in the article I am pleased to see that there is a pretty good variety of art works which are bound to please one person or another. I also like the conversation that Colorado is having about censorship. They are trying to focus on making art that is "unexpected and delightful" rather than controversial. I think that is a very important theme to uphold when trying to beautify a place. I am aware that not everyone will have positive opinions about this, but I am in full support!
ReplyDeleteColorado's public art law is a wonderful thing for those of us that love art, but I'm not sure it should be a mandatory contribution for Colorado businesses. In the long run, it's the taxpayer that pays for the art and not all taxpayers would be happy about this fact. This article seems to contradict itself in a few places too, or maybe it's the law that contradicts itself. They say they want to respect First Amendment censorship laws and it seems like they already have some controversial pieces displayed (religeous pieces, depicting Jesus [in an unnatural sex act] or being covered with ants), but they're looking for "'things that don't offend', having nothing to do with politics, religion, or anything menacing". Yet they want to evoke thought and make people wonder. Does this sound awfully limiting to any of you other artists? I also don't understand what is so controversial about Christian Quintin's Grand Canyon piece. Does it really matter if it looks exactly like his original presentation? It looks like a beautiful piece to me and I'm sure the artist put a lot of thought and work into it. But they kept it in hiding for a year and then sent it back! I think that's just rude! The article also says it's the law in Colorado that they have to keep a piece in place for 5 years, once it's been put in place, but it doesn't sound like everyone is complying with that law either. There's lots of public art in other states, where there aren't mandatory tax laws. (I have been to the San Jose, CA airport several times just to see the artwork there.) I actually think we can do just as well (or at least almost as well) with voluntary contributions and then, people can't be quite as upset with the resulting artwork.
ReplyDeleteI think that is really cool that Denver has so much public art in their city. I have been to Denver a handful of times and I'm still seeing new art every time go. I've also been in the Denver Airport even more times and I always walk around and look at the merls on the walls and even the floors. I met an artist last year that has her work in the airport and I think that it's super cool. I want to have some of my work in Denver airport at some point in my career! I really like the fact that Denver has a public art act in place. it allows more artist to get their name out and it allows the public to see a lot of different art pieces that will expand their thinking. I think we as a class should get a law passed in incline so we can put up art pieces in our town. It would be sick!
ReplyDeleteI feel that public art gives everyone a chance to have a moment outside of themselves, a moment to expand their horizons. Colorado is truly a groundbreaking state for their law to increase the amount of art in public spaces. I also believe that it is wonderful how they are raising the funds to install the works. The installations create an interest and a destination for people to see. In the long run the art will only help the economy in Colorado while presenting an avenue of thought that can inspire the inner creativity of a person who doesn't go out of their way to visit the traditional artistic centers. I would support the same movement nation wide.
ReplyDeleteI am proud that Colorado has implemented protection for the artists against censorship. The five-year rule insures that the artists hard work remains on display regardless of public outcry. All of the pieces undergo a certain level of decision making to deem whether or not that are appropriate for the public eye before they are displayed. Most of the examples of public distaste for the pieces seemed to be nitpicky and invalid of actual complaints worthy of action. Colorado seems to be upholding their obligation to the artists, and does not seem to be over influenced by unhappy citizens.
ReplyDelete