Public art, as the name suggests, is artwork displayed in a public space. It can take a variety of forms and may interpret, commemorate, or respond to a specific location or event. It can also function as a community-building tool and contribute to urban revitalization. Public art can be temporary or permanent, and can include works such as murals, sculpture, integrated architectural or landscape architectural work, memorials, community-centered processes, and digital new media.
Although there are many definitions of public art, most agree that it is “art in a public place installed by a government agency and funded with taxpayer dollars” (Zebracki 2012; Hall 2007). Public art encompasses a wide range of work from monumental bronze statues to community-centered processes that engage citizens with their city’s history, culture, and identity. It can also enliven public spaces through vibrant color and dazzling patterns, and invites deeper theoretical contemplation of the setting and its role in society.
While controversial art usually generates outrage and ire in its traditional context of the gallery, it can provoke even more heated debate when it appears in the civic or communal sphere, mingling with people in their everyday lives and paid for with tax dollars. This article examines some large-scale pieces that have sparked controversy and evoked strong emotions from both the critics and the general public, with a focus on how these works have changed their surroundings or challenged perceptions of what is considered art.
Unlike other forms of art, which typically have a fixed period for display, the majority of public art is commissioned on an ongoing basis and must endure for as long as its location exists. As a result, its longevity and public exposure are critical to its success. This issue explores how this longevity has helped shape the form of contemporary public art and how it is responding to changing social conditions, such as population growth and globalization.
While the idea of a public art that is continually evolving and responding to its environment is attractive, it is not without challenges. It is difficult to define when a project has reached its final phase, and there are questions about how best to manage projects on a continuous basis.
Another challenge is that of defining who is responsible for a particular piece of public art. Is it the architect, the artist or both? Is the public’s reaction a result of the architecture, the artwork or both? The article discusses a case study from Kvam, a small village in Oppland County, Norway, that demonstrates how this concept of responsibility has informed the design and development of recent public art projects. It also looks at how these projects can inspire a more holistic approach to the design and evaluation of future public art in the region.