The Times art section has a little piece today about some of the art at the LINK stops in the Rainier Valley.
Given that they have to spend 1% of their costs on art, I’d probably prefer that they find a way to use that to simply beautify the station with elegant design, like the DC Metro, rather than create pieces that will please critics, befuddle everyone else, and occasionally get everyone mad beyond reason. But if public art is your thing, check the piece out.
gee, many of us in Seattle *like* public art. You think pieces like “People Waiting for the Interurban” simply “please critics” and “befuddle everyone else”? wow.
And that capitol hill project has had updates since that posting you linked to. i.e., try this: http://www.ellenforney.com/blog/2008/06/17/public-art-is-different-from-regular-art/
There is something to be said for public art for the sake of supporting the art community as a whole. In France, unemployment is available for artists who are between jobs, or directors who can’t find projects – people who would otherwise be lost into the rat race can keep a steady income between work. They lay it out so you have to have been previously productive to qualify, of course.
A system that allows new art to be created even when economics would shrink the pool of successful artists helps insulate our art community from hard times. As so much art requires long-term commitment, this keeps us from stifling the growth of artists who might later leave a lasting impression on history.