March 2010

In this month's issue

Explore the Apollo archive

Look back over two vibrant years of Apollo: browse every issue from January 2006 to the present day.

Archive

You will, I suspect, already have an opinion on the proposed sculptures competing to be the ‘landmark’ at the Ebbsfleet gateway. Mark Wallinger’s giant horse or a Rachel Whiteread cast of a house? Public art seems to be mushrooming around us, but a University of the Arts debate at the National Gallery held on the evening of the Ebbsfleet unveiling asked ‘Is public art a waste of space?’ That the question was asked at all already proves one thing. We, the public, are clearly disgruntled. Is this because often the work is poor and unexciting? Or are we reacting to ‘art’ being plonked in our path, thrust into our mindscapes, by invisible committees claiming to serve the greater cultural good?

Clearly, we make a distinction between the bronze and stone memorials that serve to commemorate historical events or individuals, and the secular sculptures of, for example, Trafalgar Square’s fourth plinth project. We seem to have lower expectations of the artistic merit of, say, the sculpture of Nelson Mandela in Parliament Square, and can recognise the national relevance of Nelson atop his column. But once we stray into the secular realm, we have a great deal more to say about the relevance, artistic merit and cost of contemporary work.

And what after all is a public space? There is always a private interest shadowing public space, in the form of sponsorship, advertising and private/public collaborations that results in art commissioned by local government, art bodies or commercial groups. No doubt the compromises involved in committee decision-making explains – but does not excuse – some of the underachieving sculptures that spring so readily to mind: The Meeting Place at St Pancras; the Diana Memorial Fountain; or Neil Simmon’s statue of Margaret Thatcher. And why indeed should the government development of the Ebbsfleet valley with 10,000 homes, Eurostar services and Olympic trains be topped with a tokenist ‘landmark’ sculpture? Is it a given that there should be one at all – especially as it will be permanent?

The answer is, of course, because when done well, the results endear themselves in the public conscious. A good sculpture in the right context has undeniable potency. Gormley’s Angel of the North, while initially unpopular, is now cherished and widely recognised, and has played a part in the regeneration of the northeast. His hundred figures embedded in Crosby Beach – Another Place – prompt you to look at the sky, sea and sand and understand the scale as if looking for the first time. Andy Goldsworthy’s wooden sculptures in Grizedale Forest, commissioned by the Forestry commission, enhance that landscape, while the sculptures displayed on the fourth plinth have provoked a mix of reactions and debates, extending far beyond the usual museum and gallery vistors. Good public art changes and enriches public space, and ourselves.

Is public art a waste of space? All too often, sadly yes. But the challenge is to rid ourselves of committee art and allow the best artists the space to do what they do best.