Just what does the ‘public’ part of public art amount to? Should the public even be involved? Public sculpture is a challenge for any artist tasked with catering for a range of tastes and opinions and seldom pleases everyone.  You’d have to be really unlucky to have the entire public hating it – and that does happen.  But then again, just who are the ‘public’? The much vaunted man-in-the-street who knows nothing about art but knows what he likes? As the artist you could carry out a survey. UK artist Alex Chinneck might never get a project off the ground on that basis. Imagine if the question was ‘should I be allowed to build an upside down house on your street?’ And then there’s getting your conception past a committee who double as both public purse holders and guardians of culture. Is there actually a common denominator for general acceptance or don’t you even bother asking on the basis that if the public sees something often enough they’ll get used to it?

The public works that seem to resonate with the public tend to have reflective surfaces and make ideal backdrops for selfies. Think of Cloud Gate by Kapoor or closer to home for me, Flugelman’s stainless steel balls in Rundle Mall. They present no political edge, require no explanation and are timelessly inoffensive – as long as you don’t mention the cost. Public art does better in the popularity stakes when inflation is under control and you know where your next meal is coming from. Highly expensive public commissions around the world have been vandalised, had bits being smashed off them, paint thrown at them and inevitably been pulled down or relocated in the face of public outrage stirred up by the media. The media of course loves a good controversy and willingly goes into bat for the public even if it has no idea who they are beyond potential readership. But then again, art has never fared well in the media.

Subscribers to London’s the Spectator, voted in What’s That Thing?” and Origin by Solas Creative, won the award for the worst public artwork installed in the UK during 2016. It was described as clumsy, aggressive, and cheap-looking. The journalist questioned the arrogance of the bureaucrats who commissioned it, assuming that it was the result of backroon discussions by grey suited men with no artistic credentials. Often however, the panels that decide on public sculpture are artists themselves. What that says is anybody’s guess. You might ask just how so many panels could get it all so wrong.

Of the works in. recent times that pleased nobody – surely a feat worthy of an award – Rainaldi’s rendering of Pope John Paul II, drew a negative response from Romans and admirers of the pontiff. People felt that it was too stern and impersonal. Margaret Thatcher fared no better. She was loved abroad for becoming the UK’s first female Prime Minister and loathed at home. However, no one expected theatre director Paul Kelleher to remove her sculpted head with a baseball bat. Raynaud’s Dialogue with History (1987), variously described as ‘Rubik’s Cube’ and the ‘Fridge’ [a series of white cubes] was gifted to the city of Quebec by French President Jacques Chirac and has since been demolished due to its inability to fit in with its 18th century surroundings and keeping the French half of Canada happy.  

A standard definition says that ‘Public art humanises the built environment and invigorates public spaces providing an intersection between past, present and future.’ Perhaps the key word here is humanises. There is no doubt that the Soviet era tower block mentality offered little in the way of humanity and Mussolini favoured architecture that scared people with its hostile sterility so you’d assume that any public sculptural addition would have been welcomed by the people even if all they got was a statue of the revered leader. At least it wouldn’t offer alternative or ambiguous meaning. However, perhaps the efforts of those decorating public spaces are too human and that’s the worry. Your average public art critic wouldn’t have a clue how to make stainless steel balls and as with painting it is this factor that has people praising art to the hilt [look how realistic is looks…and the detail]. The public wants to believe that art is created by magicians who exist beyond the norms of life. If it looks as though the average ‘man’ in the street could have done it then woebetide.

Then there are those who’s interaction with public sculpture proved to be newsworthy. The American tourist who got trapped inside the giant ‘vagina’ – Fernando de la Jara’s marble sculpture, Chacán-Pi ; the boy who became wedged inside a steel structure called Caracol, by artist John Clement and the texting head-bumpers who walked into Sophie Ryder’s

The Kiss forcing officials to relocate it, all got too close for comfort. No doubt there should have been an explicit sign in multiple languages about the dangers of art.  You can’t blame the sculptures though as much as the stupidity of the public. No doubt the artists were dismayed that what may well have been a year’s effort of construction and persuasion ended up going down in history for other than artistic merit.

Ah, the public. Australia is littered with oversized public sculptures from The Big Prawn, The Big Pineapple, The Big Potato, The Big Lobster, The Giant Koala, The Big Apple, The Big Axe, The Big Banana, The Big Barramundi and The Big Buffalo. There were at last count 150 of them. Tourists drive hundreds of kilometres to cross each one off a bucket list. Such works are universally admired and no one thinks of daubing them with paint, smashing off bits with a hammer or pulling them off their foundations. Pity! In fact, there is national pride at play. People actually boast about them and tourist organisations add arty pictures to tourist literature while ignoring real art which only gets a mention as something inside a cultural institution. Now if there is such a thing as the lowest common denominator of public taste, then this surely must be it.

As far back as ancient Athens public money has been spent in the public good to improve society and produce better citizens. Whether though current Athenians think primarily about the culturising effect of the ancient monuments or the tourist dollars, is open to survey.