Public Art Essay
Dear City Council:
It has come to my attention that there is mixed feelings on the decision of whether or not
art should be government funded. After examining various sources, it is apparent that there are
both positives and negatives to each side of the argument, but one side stands stronger. Public art
should not be government funded because the money should be spent on more important areas
and the art can cause controversy resulting on bad impressions on politicians.
The primary reason why public art should not be funded is because the money that is
spent on art should be used for more impactful resources for citizens. In Source 4, the author
states that cutting government funding for art “frees up tax dollars for indispensable government
necessities that protect the safety and well being of citizens”. Instead of using the money for
necessities, local governments spent about “858 million public dollars” in 2008 on funding art
(Source 4). The tax dollars should be spent on resources such as road building, maintenance,
healthcare, housing, and schools, which, unlike public art, would benefit all citizens. Some might
claim that public art is a source of revenue that would bring profit which could be used on these
necessities. Although it is true that some art may bring some business to cities, ultimately, most
art is not guaranteed to appeal to people and create business, much less profitable revenue. The
public can reject art that is displayed as seen in the event of the Washington statue where a newly
released piece of art was quickly removed because of the public’s impression (Source 1). In the
case that the people do not like the art, thousands of dollars could be wasted. Overall, the
government should not use money to fund public art since it could be used for necessities or
displease the public, and go to waste.
Another reason why art should not be publically funded is because of the chance that the
art can spark controversial opinions and jeopardize the impression on the politicians that
commissioned it. For example, in Source 3, it is seen that when a commissioned sculpture was
released in a Chicago plaza, it brought controversial ideas and trouble. The mayor’s director of
special events, Jack riley, “immediately urged removal of the sculpture” and alderman John
Hoellen recommended that the city council “deport” it (Source 3). In a situation like this one, it
is shown that if politicians commission public art, they are at risk of causing controversy.
Controversial opinions would lead to damaging a reputation of the politician and endanger
his/her chances of being elected. Some might argue that if the art, at first, is unaccepted it will
eventually become appreciated by the public and become iconic. Provided that some art may be
liked if it manages to stay, it remains that in most cases, art that is scorned when released, gets
removed without a chance of it becoming appreciated. This is shown in Source 1 when the statue
of Washington was “quickly removed from its prominent place in the Capitol’s rotunda”.
Ultimately, the risk of a controversial impression on public art that released is a reason why it
should not be funded by local governments.
In conclusion, after studying various sources, I have come to the reasoning that though art
can be beautiful and well appreciated, local governments’ money should go to necessities where
it can be spent for the well-being of us citizens, without the risk of wasting it, or jeopardizing a
politician's image. Because of these reasons, it is clear to me now that it would be a mistake for
governments to fund public art.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Citizen