Whose Art Is It?

"untitled", George Sugarman, 1992

Hard times and economic woes continue to decimate art funding at national as well as local levels. The Pinellas County Arts Council, oldest in the state (1976), officially ceased to function this year.

Scratching for ways to make further cuts, some county governments have decided to suspend requirements that new government buildings spend 1% on public art. Hillsborough County has ended this program and Broward County is considering similar cuts.

As sad as this turn of events seems, there is a segment of the population who will applaud these decisions. For this small but vocal group, the spending of tax dollars on what they deem frivolous and even vulgar public art is a travesty and waste of money. Art funding agencies have sometimes capitulated to the demands of a few self-appointed art critics.

Of course, art is where you find it, and it would be most difficult to reach consensus on the merits of a work of art. The Eiffel Tower in Paris was derided by citizens as a piece of junk when first erected. It is now the unofficial trademark of the City of Lights. Picasso's iconic woman sculpture in Chicago faced mountains of scorn, but has since become a photo op for tourists and locals alike.

What changed in these two instances? First, city governments refused to cave in to nattering nay-sayers. They firmly believed that public art belongs to everyone, even art that some believe is provacative. Secondly, with time and open minds, more and more citizens came to, if not love, at least tolerate these public works of art.

Public art has a future in our visual landscapes, but only if it is allowed to be what it is - creative, visionary and thought provoking. Much of what I see passing as public art is actually landscape and building decoration. The public deserves to experience the full range of artistic expression of which artists are capable.

Planet Art In Gainesville



Gainesville Solar Walk,

 Elizabeth Indianos, 2002



Last Monday I made a zippy trip up to Gainesville with my road buddy Casandra.  One hundred and forty-four miles fell away in a blur as Casi juiced her Mazda to the limit.

Arriving in town with time to spare, we went all Jamaican, man, and dined at the Reggae Shack Cafe on West University Avenue. Best curried tempeh I ever ate.

On the way back to her mom's house, we took a small detour and discovered the planets. This collection is a 4 billion to 1 exact scale public art project by Tarpon Springs artist Elizabeth Indianos.

Stretching nearly a mile along NW 8th Avenue, the Gainesville Solar Walk includes the Sun and all the planets in the solar system. At the very end, all by himself, stands Pluto. Downgraded to a planetoid a while back, he seemed at odds in this miniature tableau. 

Next time I will begin my solar walk from NW 22nd Street. From that direction, Pluto will become the numero uno planet or planetoid in the solar system.





Whose Public Art Is It?

Cloud Gate by Anish Kapoor

The placing of works of art in public settings has long been a popular way to introduce people to a variety of artistic techniques and visions. Art that might have been seen only in museums could now be enjoyed in parks and plazas and public buildings.

The city of Chicago has long had an excellent public art program, with examples ranging from Picasso’s fifty- foot sculpture at the Civic Center to the more recent minimal masterpiece, Cloud Gate, by Anish Kapoor.

Public art as a form of government subsidy has become so successful that there are now over 350 public art programs around the country.

However, the open and progressive nature of the movement has created a backlash in many communities. Under the banner of diversity, budget constraints, local history or political correctness, local art boards are placing such prerequisites on artists that their unique visions become compromised.



Chicago Picasso by Pablo Picasso
photo: SOM/Ezra Stoller

Having, at some point, offended a few vocal citizens, public art programs have chosen or been ordered to play it safe. Thus, in an effort to appeal to the most people, they often select safe, conservative and family-friendly art. Sadly, the unwritten message received by visionary artists becomes “do not apply!”



The answer to this problem should be that there is enough public art to please everyone, but that is being unrealistic. I’m sure there are still people in Chicago who absolutely hate Picasso’s monumental cubist sculpture.



A better solution might be to cultivate as many visionary citizens as there are visionary artists. 





Arbiters of Good Taste Ride Into Clearwater

Rest safely citizens of Clearwater. No longer must you tolerate wicked or satanic art in your fair city. Your City Council, atop white steeds of moral indignation, has ridden to the rescue.

Several years ago, Clearwater, like hundreds of cites across the country, formed a Public Art Project. One of the Project’s goals would be placement of outstanding artworks throughout the city - in city buildings as well as select commercial settings.

Longtime city employee, teacher and artist Margo Walbolt headed up the Project until her recent retirement. Under Margo’s excellent guidance, and with the assistance of an arts committee, many wonderful examples of art began to grace the city. Clearwater’s mayor and City Council applauded. Everyone was happy.

Last year the Downtown Development Board (The City) and the Clearwater Downtown Partnership (local businesses) began placing temporary sculptures in the median of Cleveland Street. These public art pieces went through a rigorous selection process by a panel of experts and are fine examples of art created by national artists.

One piece titled Sorcerer’s Gate soon brought an outcry of protest from some in the community. The title and part of the piece they interpreted as a tail were found objectionable on religious grounds. The sculpture was called “wicked” and “a message from hell.”

The Clearwater City Council caved under the complaints. It has now changed a city law ensuring that they, the Council, have final approval over public art. In so doing, the City Council has compromised the Public Art Project and decided they know more about art than their own art committee experts.

The Council has acceded to the beliefs of a small and vocal part of the community, and denied Clearwater’s citizens and visitors the opportunity to experience a wide variety of art.

This is unfortunate in the short-term, but creativity springs eternal and public art will continue to enrich our lives for years to come. Municipal governments, on the other hand, come and go.