By continuing to use the site you agree to our Privacy & Cookies policy

Your browser seems to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser.


Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.


Views on public art not so far apart


Thank you, Jay Merrick, for joining the discussion on art and the public realm (Ajenda, AJ 24.2.05) following my offering (AJ 27.1.05).

I like his idea that art in public spaces is fine because it is an 'experiment', but I'm not sure the promulgators would consider this a compliment. Rather than being 'simply an ingredient in an urban mix', I fear their undertakings are more deliberate and permanent.

Merrick suspects that the real villain is 'clumsy, top-down urban and cultural change', rather than public art per se, and I go along with that, as I hope my praise for the King's Road showed. We are all interested in public spaces, but I think we are right to be fearful when the words 'place-making' are closely followed by 'public art'.

Maybe we can agree that the vigour of the public realm is probably rooted in something less formal, like this very non-compliant border on the Stockwell Road (pictured).

Crispin Kelly, via email

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment.

The searchable digital buildings archive with drawings from more than 1,500 projects

AJ newsletters