Admittedly, I like to make an distinction between art and public art that's similar to the differences between art and architecture.
I'm all for art, such as those in museums or a person's home, causing discomfort (making us think and feel). But I think we have to be a bit more judicious about public art, displays that are out in the open that residents are basically forced to view when around town.
Architecture is both "public art" and functional. They have pragmatic uses, ,but most of us also want the buildings in our town to evoke a sense of place, comfort, interest, beauty, local vernacular, etc. In a word, we want them to be inviting and reassuring, in a way.
On the other hand, some architects (modernist ones, in particular) become so enamored with themselves being artists that they create buildings that run counter to popular notions of what an aesthetic building is. They want to "make a point" or cause emotional disquiet, etc. I generally don't think architecture is the place for that because it's such public art.
That puts murals in a sort of tension for me.
Obviously, I believe there's a place for public art (such as the murals) to challenge us and, to a small degree, be unsettling. But we need to be careful that this doesn't detract too much from creating a welcoming, calming, or enlivening spirit through effective architecture and public art.
The Confederate monument, for instance, is a piece of public art that defies all of this. It imposes, threatens, fragments, and darkens downtown Morganton. On top of all the other moral reasons it should be removed.
All this to say, the Murals walk a fine line for me, as far as public art goes, but I am delighted they were created and hope they spark important conversations and help other folks feel more seen and welcomed.
Absolutely. And I feel strongly that public art, supported by public finds, should generally reflect things that are inclusive and sensitive - but not everyone will agree with public art, no matter what it is. The art at the new Courthouse is inclusive and represents the sacrifices of all segments of our community during WWII, go see it if you haven't yet.
On another note, I think I made a donation to Common Appalachian? And I want to get my sons signed up and make a donation for them too
Yes, I saw that donation come in. It made my day! Common Appalachian has received a few other donations, but I haven't fully turned that feature on yet. (Perhaps this is the impetus to do it.)
And, its puts a smile on my face to hear about your sons. I hope they find CA worthwhile.
Great job Jeffrey! Good art is supposed to make you think and feel!
Thank you for the kind words, Mary.
Admittedly, I like to make an distinction between art and public art that's similar to the differences between art and architecture.
I'm all for art, such as those in museums or a person's home, causing discomfort (making us think and feel). But I think we have to be a bit more judicious about public art, displays that are out in the open that residents are basically forced to view when around town.
Architecture is both "public art" and functional. They have pragmatic uses, ,but most of us also want the buildings in our town to evoke a sense of place, comfort, interest, beauty, local vernacular, etc. In a word, we want them to be inviting and reassuring, in a way.
On the other hand, some architects (modernist ones, in particular) become so enamored with themselves being artists that they create buildings that run counter to popular notions of what an aesthetic building is. They want to "make a point" or cause emotional disquiet, etc. I generally don't think architecture is the place for that because it's such public art.
That puts murals in a sort of tension for me.
Obviously, I believe there's a place for public art (such as the murals) to challenge us and, to a small degree, be unsettling. But we need to be careful that this doesn't detract too much from creating a welcoming, calming, or enlivening spirit through effective architecture and public art.
The Confederate monument, for instance, is a piece of public art that defies all of this. It imposes, threatens, fragments, and darkens downtown Morganton. On top of all the other moral reasons it should be removed.
All this to say, the Murals walk a fine line for me, as far as public art goes, but I am delighted they were created and hope they spark important conversations and help other folks feel more seen and welcomed.
Absolutely. And I feel strongly that public art, supported by public finds, should generally reflect things that are inclusive and sensitive - but not everyone will agree with public art, no matter what it is. The art at the new Courthouse is inclusive and represents the sacrifices of all segments of our community during WWII, go see it if you haven't yet.
On another note, I think I made a donation to Common Appalachian? And I want to get my sons signed up and make a donation for them too
Agreed.
Yes, I saw that donation come in. It made my day! Common Appalachian has received a few other donations, but I haven't fully turned that feature on yet. (Perhaps this is the impetus to do it.)
And, its puts a smile on my face to hear about your sons. I hope they find CA worthwhile.