Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

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

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Views on public art not so far apart

  • Comment
letters

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

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.