What do you see in the picture to the right?
Not the white suspension bridge…the other thing. Any guesses? A pile of calf’s livers? A collection of kidney beans shaped like a man’s naughty bits?
That is a sculpture called National Velvet by John McEnroe and is a recent addition to Denver, Colorado’s collection of public art.
Neat, eh? I can’t make up my mind. Let’s discuss what I have decided to call the “Beanie Weenie.”
Pros:
- It’s not boring.
- It’s…um…not boring.
Cons:
- It’s a big phallic symbol right next to the main highway in the largest city in Colorado.
While every city can’t have public art from Frank Gehry as cool as this or this, do we really have to settle for a Beanie Weenie? This takes us back to the question I asked in the title of this post: Does public art have a responsibility to the public?
I would say the answer is a qualified yes. I am not going to argue that we should limit the subject matter for a public commission to bunnies, rainbows and snowflakes. But I will argue that when your artwork is part of a public place, it needs to be something that doesn’t make me shake my head and mutter, “wonder how many of my tax dollars some idiot, pointy-headed bureaucrat spent on that.”
And what about the notion art should challenge the viewer and not everyone is going to like it? That’s cool when you’re buying art for your own living room. Buy all the crazy stuff you want. If you are going to put it up for all of us to see and enjoy, you do owe all of us something. Respect maybe? Acknowledgment of the trust being placed in you to make our city look good?
At least the Beanie Weenie isn’t the emaciated, demonic horse-thing the city stuck out at Denver International Airport to greet new visitors to the Mile High City. Having that sculpture be the first thing you see when you leave the airport is like having your angry, drunk uncle dress up in a toga and greet the guests at your wedding as they arrive. Not the best way to make a first impression.
The city is marketing itself to visitors and current citizens with public art. What exactly is the gang at Denver Pubic Art Program trying to say to all of us?
I happen to represent the artist responsible for “National Velvet” and have to say you’re a little late to the debate on this one Peter, it’s been covered endless times in countless (or should I say mindless) blogs, so maybe you want to google some of those instead of starting your own brilliant dialogue. The so called “gang” at the denver public art program happens to be made up of people with both knowledge and respect for art, not close-minded individuals who think if it’s not a Gehry then it’s not worth having. The artist responsible for this work is one of the foremost talents the city of denver has and I don’t suspect he makes his work in order to be desired or admired by the largest portion of the public. Why should he, his work electrifies both the landscape and the mind. No self-respecting public artist or otherwise is going to create artwork that the masses love, my years in the art business have taught me nothing if not that. I’m sorry that you and a lot of other people are more interested in the idea that everything that exists should be for everybody. Give me a break. yuck.
Here’s a thought for you and everyone else. If “national velvet” is phallic, then why don’t you peruse the landscape and start documenting the many architectural forms that are indeed as phallic as this sculpture and start a dialogue around their value. I believe there is some sort of project or neighborhood marker right off of Speer as you enter the Highlands neighborhood that is way more phallic in my opinion, not to mention an eyesore. No one has yet brought this fact up, and I’m sure it cost as much if not more than John’s sculpture, and probably the only people at all to have input into it were the developer of the property and his crew. I’m sure there are others to remark on as well, now maybe that would make for a slightly original dialogue.
I’m mixed on this one. I agree with the commenter above in that just because something looks like a cock doesn’t mean we should stoop to the juvenile level and remove it just for that reason.
However, if a vast majority of citizens say “this is frightening” – (as in the case with a the DIA horse and its creepy red eyes” – perhaps it should be relegated to a less prominent area of display…
I don’t think public art should be simply photos of landscapes you’d find in a cheap motel, but at the same time they should have a somewhat broad appeal because aften all they are on display for, – well the public and visitors to our fine city.
I found your blog on google and read a few of your other posts. I just added you to my Google News Reader. Keep up the good work. Look forward to reading more from you in the future.
Check out this link to the correct info about the Cloud Gate sculpture in Chicago by British artist Anish Kapoor. http://www.millenniumpark.org/artandarchitecture/cloud_gate.html
As for public art I appreciate that Denver has committed to local artists. The great new art in Chicago is all by out of town architects and artists in spite of a bustling local art scene.
I laughed so hard at your post & I just added you to Google reader – great entry. I personally agree that art should be a little more responsible than this fabulous mess of art. Better to look towards the Big Blue Bear or the MCA’s new building by architect David Adjaye.