Maple & Main

art (art) n. 1. The quality, production, expression, or realm of what is beautiful or of more than ordinary significance.

Sounds nice, doesn’t it?

But put the word “public” in front of it, and it changes everything.

The words “public art” and “public debate” appear to go hand in hand more often than not.

It seems any time someone gets the idea to place a piece of art out in view of the general public, it spurs a swell of controversy.

Some might say that controversy is a benefit of public art- it gets people talking. Others would simply rather not have to deal with the issue.

Whatever your opinion on public art may be, there is one thing everyone may agree on- public art begets attention.

I was perusing one of my favorite local blogs the other day and my attention was captured by an article regarding the controversy surrounding the placement of an art piece outside of the Brookfield Public Library.

While stating he is a proponent of public art, Brookfield’s Mayor is not overly fond of placing it where everyone can see it.

Public art hidden from the view of the public?

Interesting.

Nevertheless, here we are once more in the stew of controversy over a piece of artwork.

Public art again lives up to its reputation.

So by now you may be asking yourself, “What’s the point here? Who cares that public art is such an attention getter?”

You know who cares…New York City cares.

They care to the tune of $15 million.

New York City is considering shelling out a $15 million check to Danish artist Olafur Eliasson to construct up to four waterfalls in various spots of the city as a display of public art.

You may be asking yourself why, because it sounds crazy, doesn’t it.  

On the contrary, the project could generate almost $55 million worth of tourism for the city.

$55 million for a $15 million investment.

Public art can do that? Who would of thought?

And before you go back to the “sounds crazy” statement, we need to look back at another public art project the City of New York supported a while back.

Artist Christo (I would like to wrap the planet in cellophane) and his wife Jeanne-Claude (I still love my husband even though he wants to wrap the planet in cellophane) erected a massive project in Central Park called “The Gates”.

The plan included a series of 7500 squared arches made of fabric that stood 16 feet high and lined 23 miles of footpaths in the park.

Weird, eh?

Here's what is not so weird, The project generated over $80 million for the city and created temporary work for many a jobless New Yorker.

So as I sit here reading "blog" after "Sound Off" after "letter to the editor" about how Waukesha's downtown needs more bar/restaurants to generate tourism dollars, I really begin to scratch my head.

Don't get me wrong, I think downtown could definitely benefit from the addition of more restaurants...

I said restaurants.

Not "restaurants" that are open until 2:30AM. That now takes on the characteristics of a bar.

And within a 1 mile radius of the center of downtown Waukesha, there are 27 bars- 8 of which I haunt on a regular basis because they are noble establishments.

But the 27 we have don't seem to be holding together the fabric of our downtown. They are not sustaining the economy down here in such a way that we need to litter the landscape with more. So what makes someone think we need more?

You know what's nice about public art?

It's quiet.

It sits where you set it and it doesn't make a sound. It respects its neighborhood and supports silence.

Put 27 pieces of public art down here and I'll bet it would catch a tourist's eye; maybe even make them meander the streets, stop for a bite to eat, perhaps wander into a store to shop, and possibly even pause in the end for a drink.

How about that.

Perhaps it is time we start looking at interesting alternatives for breathing some life into this downtown and embrace something unconventional.

You can say public art offends you and you can say you don't like it and you can say it's ugly. But there are plenty of things down here that do far worse.

And in the end, the art will do exactly what it is supposed to do; exactly what so many down here need it to do.

I think what Mr. Wigderson said in a blog response to Brookfield’s public art dilemma perfectly sums it up…