The Responsibility of Preserving Public Art
Amidst all of the political drama surrounding copyright recently, I haven’t been making it a priority to think or write about the other issues in art (yes, there really are other issues than merely copyright!). Many of these other issues were highlighted at the Visual Arts Summit (see my summaries here) and copyright had, amazingly, a low profile at the summit. And I’m using the phrase “low profile” because I don’t actually remember copyright being mentioned, but find it incredible that it wouldn’t have come up at some point…
What was mentioned is the need to preserve our art. This was particularly poignant during the tour of the Gatineau Preservation Centre.
Josh Kanter, Chariman of the International Sculpture Centre’s Board of Directors, asked about “the relationship of the artist, artwork, and owner in the sphere of public art projects” in the Dec 2007 issue of Sculpture. Public Art was the topic of last year’s ISC Conference, and will be again this year.
Recently, we have seen some noticeable examples of public art being in ill repair…or worse:
- Daniel Buren threatening to destroy is own work because it has been ill maintained (and an interesting discussion of the threat on the Sculpture forum)
- The Wall, by Forrest Myers, being targeted for removal in favour of advertising space
- Banksy’s graffiti art being removed by maintenance staff throughout London
- And, of course, the recent threat to The Spiral Jetty due to a thirst for oil
What makes these cases different from someone accidentally putting their elbow through a privately-owned and privately-displayed painting by Picasso?
Firstly, a privately-owned work of art is most likely loved or held as an investment (and sometimes both!). This drastically increases its chances of being well-maintained and not subjected to a hostile environment or outright destruction (although there are instances where site-specific work has been sold to private estates, and conflicts arise when the home-owner wants to remove the work). A work owned by a collective (be it a company, governmental body, or other group displaying the work publicly) is more susceptible to becoming a low priority, particularly if the original purchaser is not there to defend it.
Public art, by the very nature of it being public, also amplifies the need to maintain the public’s access to the work. Throw in the fact that much public art is site-specific and the concept that the owner owns the physical manifestation of the artwork but the artist owns the integrity of the work, and you have yourself quite a conundrum.
Does the owner of public art have a responsibility to preserve the art? Or should artists who create public art understand that it will not be permanent? What happens when that public art increases in cultural value, like a historic building or monument?
Tags: art, political, preservation, public art, responsibility, sculpture
Leave a Reply