Battles Over Public
Art - 4/05
by Robert Maniscalco
Should art be seen but not heard? At what point can
it be said that an artist has gone too far? These
are questions, important questions, that effect all
of us. The answers place the very nature of art and
free speech in the balance. There are a number of
battles raging over public art in our community that
I want to share with you, dear reader, because they
effect everyone's freedom of expression.
If you haven't heard by now, artist Ed "Gonzo"
Stross faces jail time in the City of Roseville for
his mural reinterpretation of Michaelangelo's "The
Creation of Man." Is it art or an unattractive
nuisance? Has this artist crossed the line? Perhaps
the real question we should be asking is,"Can
we trust our justice system to be both legal arbiter
and art critics?"
In another case in Sylvan Lake, well-known and respected
art collectors, Frank & Shirley Piku are also
facing jail time over a sculpture by Eric Mesko, a
respected Detroit artist. The city contends in their
prosecution that the outdoor installation in question
is a fence. The complaint by a neighbor asserts that
is offensive. The question is, is it a fence or offense?
So who should get to say whether something is a work
of art or not?
Meanwhile, just down the street from my gallery people
are battling to save a public mural which happens
to be painted on the side of a building slated to
be razed. Citizens have gotten together and are raising
over $25,000 to preserve it, citing it as an important
landmark. Downtown, the huge whale mural overlooking
Comerica Park, a gift painted by the native Detroiter
Robert Wyland, was slated to be covered over by a
car billboard until the community raised their voices
in protest. Years earlier, members of the arts community
complained the mural had no business being in Detroit
and lobbied to keep it from being created.
At different times, public art means different things
to different people. Should time then, be the arbiter
of what art is or what it may become?
Take the Joe Lewis fist, downtown; there are those
who wish you would. No public artwork in Detroit has
caused such a fuss. Despite vandals and many outspoken
critics, it's still swinging. Likewise, the Vietnam
Memorial had its early critics. Now, after some time
to ponder the uncomfortable genius of it, who could
imagine tearing it down?
Two sides of the same coin. There are battles to
save a work of art, and battles to make it go away.
Perhaps controversy is a sign the art has hit it's
mark. After all, shouldn't art make us feel something?
Isn't one of the major criteria distinguishing art
from any combination of junk that it elicit a feeling
from the viewer? Is it possible our society has lost
sight of this important function, to edify, to question,
to invite thought and generate passion and ideas?
The political climate changes like the weather but
isn't art supposed to be eternal?
Maybe it would be easier to live in a nice world
where everyone agreed with everyone else. If such
a place actually did exist I can only imagine how
dead and boring it would be. Let's instead all agree
to disagree and get on with the delicate tango of
making the world a better place to live, whatever
that might mean to you (yes, even if it means protesting
against a work of art you find offensive!).
Here's a novel definition of art: something that
doesn't cause or lead to physical hurt or injury to
someone else. I believe in a country where our freedom
of expression should be protected at all costs, whether
or not we choose to call it art.
List
of Essays