What is and isn’t art is one of the greatest philosophical debates in aesthetics. Art is subjective. Is it enough for something to be called “art” for the public to appreciate it? Would the general public appreciate an abstract concept that it doesn’t understand? Not when public funds are used.
When taxpayer money is used to fund any sort of project, the project must fulfill certain criteria. It must have purpose, must be cost-effective and it must last a long time. The city doesn’t spend money on constructing a road that will only last a few months, for example. Why should public art be any different?
Take the new piece of art that is commissioned by the NCC for the Teardrop Plaza. Where is the Teardrop Plaza, you may ask? It’s a small platform at the end of Alexandra Bridge that overlooks the Ottawa River and Parliament Hill. On Sept. 22, the NCC unveiled a series of curved wooden walls at the Teardrop Plaza, where people can sit on the newly installed benches to enjoy the city’s scenery.
The problem with this installment, called the Jetee, is that it will only be functional from spring to fall and only for three years. After that, it will be removed and a new piece will be commissioned. This sounds awfully wasteful and an unnecessary expenditure, especially in a time when all levels of government strapped for funds.
The city puts aside one per cent of its budget for new municipal spaces toward public art projects and installations. Such projects include the abstract sculptures in the new Barrhaven South Recreation Complex. The cost of the sculptures is an astounding $300,000. What are these sculptures of?
“A grid-like form of aluminum tubes and colourful pods suspended from the ceiling of the complex,” says the city’s website. The sculpture’s purpose is to “engage viewers in a dialogue with art and architecture while rephrasing a retro-futuristic aesthetic.”
Pictures of the sculptures show a series of grey tubes, menacingly suspended from the complex ceiling, caging in several colourful pods.
If art is a reflection of reality in sometimes an abstract and visually engaging way, then the reality this sculpture represents is a grim one, belonging more in an art gallery where people go to be awed and reflect on art, than in a recreation complex.
It’s a waste of money to spend $300,000 on a project that serves little purpose in a recreation complex, that won’t be understood by the vast majority of visitors and is not aesthetically fit for such an environment.
On the other hand, some of the public art projects tdo serve a purpose, and fit within the atmosphere of the community. For example, a large star-shaped sculpture that will be built in Half Moon Bay Park.
The city’s art is what makes it vibrant, colourful and unique. We shouldn’t stop funding it, but we also have various other priorities, including the city’s infrastructure and the downtown library. The city can’t afford to waste its limited resources on art projects that mean nothing to anybody.
The city should choose what art to invest in in a more careful way, taking into consideration a more rigid cost-benefit analysis for public art in a given environment.