Should public art reflect what we want to see, or do we want artists to show us what we didn't know we wanted to look at?
If we didn't know we wanted to look at (or live with) it, how can we tell artists what we want before they have made it?
So why not let them get on with it – then we can discuss it?
However, at risk of ignoring the above, I'd say that:
Public art used to be about glorifying kings, queens, great men and (some) women and of course, military conquests - often won at the expense or exploitation of cultures whose decendants now partly make up our own (some of whom could be us, or our friends and families) – or, perhaps more excusably, memorials to those who have died in those military conflicts. Do we still want to make monuments to the past or should we make spaces in our villages, towns and cities for works of art that can challenge those received ideas? And do we really want to see more stuff we already recognize?
I want to see the Big Art Project give us work that sneaks up on us and stops us in our tracks and by doing that, makes us look at the world in a different way. These don't have to be huge bombastic statements, they could be quite small, or even near-invisible interventions in the land- or city-scape. How 'Big' does the art have to be? Or do people think that art has to be big in order to be effective or 'worthy'?
What I find most surprising about modern art is how anyone has the guts to own up to creating such rubbish. If I set about making a piece of art I’m sure I could do better than a red blob and a blue line on a bit of canvas… and I’ve not even been to art school!
big has always impressed us, look at michangelos david. I would love to see a gigantic structure, not human though, unless it was for interesting reasons.
