 |
| Titled Arc, Richard Serra |
Without getting into a debate over "what is art?" I'd like you to consider the practicality and function of public art work. Although you may not find public art work to be functional or practical at first, but think about a piece that you may have seen before. Did this piece make you think? Did you originally notice this piece?
Can anyone think of a few pieces of public art that are around the city of Pittsburgh or Oakland? Think about it for a few minutes a write down the locations and a brief description of what they look like. Then consider what function each piece may have.
Let's discuss these for a few minutes.
Now let's discuss a few piece that were very controversial that one of them was taken down all together. One piece is from CMU and another was once in NYC. First, we'll deal with the NYC piece since it brings about an extreme case in the debate over the practicality and functional purposes of public art pieces.
"Titled Arc" was extremely controversial and it took years to rid it from public view. The following PBS article explains.
 |
| Walking to the Sky, Jonathan Borofsky |
"Walking to the Sky" is another controversial public art piece. Here is an article that voices some concerns from CMU students. After reading this article and considering the points being discussed about public opinion and public consideration being taken into account for works of public art, argue for a side; are you for art that pleases the majority or are you more for art that makes an impact or proves a point regardless of public perception. 250-500 words. HAVE FUN!
