Public art for the public.(Art in Public Places Program)(Art in Architecture Program)

THERE used to be two federal programs dedicated to funding public art. Now there is one. This isn't an accident--a bureaucratic trick of fate or yet another example of congressional budgetary perfidy. It is easy to imagine circumstances in which we would still have both, or in which both would have vanished. In fact, for a long time both programs were on the same road to self-destruction: funding projects that many members of the general public found incomprehensible at best and offensive at worst. The story of how one program adapted while the other disappeared is instructive for anyone concerned with how government can and should support artists.

The key to understanding the divergence between the two programs lies in a concept that seems so intuitive once stated that it is almost surprising that it encounters so much resistance in the art world--the distinction between "public art" and "gallery art." People will tolerate, and perhaps even embrace, artworks in a gallery setting that would irk them if displayed in a public space. Unlike gallery art, public art must not be mindful merely of artistic concerns, but must also be attentive to the contextual aspect of its siting--it is created not to stand on its own, but to augment a larger public space. It is as much a question of public utility, associational significance, and expectations as it is a matter of the quality of particular pieces of art: Works that may gain critical renown in a gallery or sculpture park might be ridiculed in public.

The National Endowment for the Arts' Art in Public Places Program (APP) collapsed because it remained stubbornly out of touch with this reality. The General Services Administration's Art in Architecture Program (AiA), on the other hand, has thrived under a new model that recognizes the difference between gallery art and public art, and that takes account of the sensibilities of the people who will have to see the artwork every day. The GSA and NEA learned this lesson the hard way, through trial and error. But the two programs responded to their hurdles in very different ways. The GSA drew on the evolving wisdom of the field of public art, opening itself to local community input at its building sites and to the development of art forms that lend themselves to increased integration of artistic and architectural elements. However, the NEA's APP, assaulted by the twin knives of congressional budget cuts and public scrutiny, did not learn from its mistakes and was not robust enough to survive challenges to its institutional core of curators, artists, and museum directors.

"Our tax money paid for that?"

Public art, unlike gallery art, must be made for the public--the public is, of necessity, its audience. One can choose not to go to a gallery, but there are only a finite number of doors to a courthouse, and citizens are affected when art is commissioned for a plaza in front of the primary entrance--they will have to look at it whether it offends them or not. And they arguably have a right to critique anything that impedes their progress across that space or that annoys them on their way.