About 10 years ago I wrote a letter to the editor suggesting a better use of public art funds would be a park with benches and a soapbox where people like me could stand and rant about things like …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you had an active account on our previous website, then you have an account here. Simply reset your password to regain access to your account.
If you did not have an account on our previous website, but are a current print subscriber, click here to set up your website account.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
* Having trouble? Call our circulation department at 360-385-2900, or email our support.
Please log in to continue |
|
About 10 years ago I wrote a letter to the editor suggesting a better use of public art funds would be a park with benches and a soapbox where people like me could stand and rant about things like public art.
That didn’t happen, so about five years ago, in another letter to the editor, I suggested public art funds be used to help fund the winter homeless shelter - a more practical use I thought.
That didn’t happen, so now I’m resigned to the fact that public art is here to stay.
If this is the case, why not “term limits” on public art? After a reasonable time (six months?) the “creation” on display would be moved to the creator’s yard where she or he could admire it every day! The public art space could then display the work of a new artist, thereby helping another artistic career.
And the public would be treated to a new piece of public art - more acceptable and enjoyable if we knew it would be gone before long.
Doug Humes
DISCOVERY BAY
