Reactionary art opinions
PUBLISHED: 15:21 01 February 2007 | UPDATED: 13:45 04 May 2010
THE recent whingeing surrounding the planned installation in Jubilee Gardens seen in your letters page is indicative of a dispiriting reactionary malaise which afflicts the majority of debate on public art. The money being used for the project has alrea
THE recent whingeing surrounding the planned installation in Jubilee Gardens seen in your letters page is indicative of a dispiriting reactionary malaise which afflicts the majority of 'debate' on public art.
The money being used for the project has already been ring-fenced from national coffers. The suggestion that this money is somehow being sucked out of funding local services is simply incorrect. There is a discussion to be had on the Government funding of public art and its role in society, but this is an entirely different issue to the merits or otherwise of this particular work.
Given that none of us have, as yet, seen the piece, I wonder how so many individuals feel able to voice their opinion regarding its aesthetic merits. Personally, I cannot see how it would fail to improve the current vista of the two rather functional boat sheds alongside a refuelling station.
As to the risk of vandalism, I wonder whether it is appropriate to be held to ransom in our decision making by the possible actions of a small group of disenfranchised youths with nothing better to do. The other fixtures in Jubilee Gardens such as the fountain, eel statue and new bench have not been targeted, so it's hard to see why the new installation will be.
It's frankly embarrassing that, when offered the chance to have an innovative piece of art in our town, so many individuals are prepared to throw up so many poorly constructed objections. Not one of your correspondents had anything positive to offer in the way of an alternative site or type of art that they would like to see.