Public art is often a matter of public debate. It exists outside of the defining power of museums and galleries, and thus may be scrutinised in a way it never is inside these institutions (McClellan 2008). Its critics point to its illegitimacy and question its meaning and function. Its supporters defend its integrity and argue that the critics just don’t ‘get it’.
Artworks are not just meant to be seen, but also listened to, talked about, debated and used as tools to explore our identities, culture, values, and beliefs. Their sonic qualities make them ideal as broadcast infrastructure – radio towers that transmit their shared meaning to anyone tuned into their frequency.
Many artists work with sound in their artworks, but the medium can take many forms. It can be a part of a performance alongside dance, or an exclusively sonic artwork. The most famous examples include the sound sculptures of Max Ernst or the audiovisual works of Lucien Freud and Jasper Johns.
Whether it is a sound installation, a piece of architecture that incorporates or reflects the soundscape of its location, or a voice broadcast from a public space, sound has become an integral aspect of many new forms of public art.
When public art is created for a specific place, and not just as an add-on to an existing collection, the process of creating it can be more open and inclusive than when the artwork is commissioned for a private or corporate client. For example, an artist might be invited to participate in a community-led design process, or the artwork could be shaped by a local heritage conservation plan. These participatory processes can give the artwork a sense of belonging that it might not have otherwise enjoyed.
The longevity of a work of public art depends on engagement. The local community can act as the eyes and ears of the work, reporting when it is damaged or in need of maintenance. This can be facilitated by including the public art custodian’s contact details in the signage and interpretation.
When an artwork elicits a negative response, it can be difficult to reconcile this with the democratic ideal that public art should please everyone. The result can be cookie cutter art that is aesthetically pleasing but intellectually deficient. It is important for those who commission public art to understand that the most valuable response is one of outrage or indifference, rather than apathy.