Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Allegheny County Council on Tuesday is expected to consider removing a requirement for public art funding from a 2005 law that has never been enforced.
It requires a set-aside for public art of 2 percent of county spending on construction or capital improvements to county-owned buildings, parks or public facilities. Council’s public works committee approved revising the law at its meeting Thursday night.
1 comment:
The situation presented in this article brings up an important question – should governments give funding to support the creation and upkeep of public (“free”) art? I think this article represents both sides of the issue quite well. The initial opinion of many is yes, the government should be able to spare some of tax payers’ money to help fund projects that hopefully lead to a more enriching community experience. But at second thought, what does that say about art if it is funded by the government? The implications of this with respect to expression can be significant. But maybe that isn’t a big deal – at some level, non-politically motivated art—oftentimes, art for art’s sake—or art for visual beauty or educational purposes, with no ulterior motive, is important enough to warrant public government funding.
I think I am in support of some government funding for public art. Having even a little additional cash flow can make a big difference for artists and the community. Those in support of removing the 2% requirement claim it is because the art does not improve the “utility” of the space for the public. On this, I disagree. Having an art installation that offers an experience (even if brief) for no cost to the public does in fact improve the public space, and that is my main motivation for siding with keeping the requirement for government funding. The argument that it creates “potential administrative burdens” is just classic governmental whining. Citizens pay these people’s salaries, and claiming that this is creating such an undue burden is ridiculous.
I hope the issue is resolved in a productive manner. It is encouraging to see artists such as Raymer stepping up to the plate to donate their work to the public. It would be better, though, if he was being paid for the installation.
Post a Comment