The inevitable policy review is an opportunity to think about doing things better.
It was reported (ODT, 16.8.12) funding for the programme will be stopped until the 2016-17 year. After that it will proceed at the rate of $25,000 a year instead of the recent $50,000, for the next four years.
The programme has $89,000 of carried over money until funding is resumed. The installation of any new work is on hold until the review is completed.
The report mentioned a "public uproar" about Harbour Mouth Molars on Portsmouth Drive, the last work installed, and a "local political storm" over the temporary installation in the Octagon of Haka Peep Show which had funding from another council source but strained relations among councillors over the cost and secrecy surrounding the work.
Of course, council is seeking to reduce costs anyway so this was probably an easy decision to make.
Too easy. A city which doesn't continue to embellish itself with public art is not aesthetically alive. Public art programmes can be particularly ticklish to administer. We need to think carefully about how it's done.
The committee overseeing the programme is chaired by Cr Bill Acklin who wants people to be better informed about the next project after it's chosen but before it's installed.
Rebecca Williams, labouring under the title Council events and community development manager, is the senior staff member for the programme. In the report's words she "noted that community buy-in on art works was 'a sensitive balancing act"'.
So it is but her and Cr Acklin's comments suggest they don't have much insight into the issues. More is needed than simply telling people in advance what their money will be spent on.
Regan Gentry's Harbour Mouth Molars were criticised by many as ugly or even disgusting. They were defended by Simon Cunliffe, formerly of this newspaper, who also wondered if the commissioners strove for a "popular notion of beauty and meaning" the result would be art (ODT, 14.4.2010).
Rachel Rakena's Haka Peep Show, installed during the Rugby World Cup, offended some because of its phallicism but more who saw more public money being spent on rugby at a time when tempers were boiling over the extravagance of building the stadium. It was intended as a bit of a joke but few saw much that was funny.
The last wasn't really an art in public places project but an event. It was a mistake for the committee to handle this project but even as an event it was foolish given the massive public anger over rugby spending.
Harbour Mouth Molars is more instructive. The people who see them as ugly have a point. They are, but deliberately and ugliness is not always inappropriate, or disliked, in a public work of art.
The university's archway building has grotesques including one which is a head having a tooth extracted. These are admired and liked by many and as embellishments to a Tudor revival building have a helpful context.
The Cargill monument also has grotesques - removed at present for its restoration. The monument caused a furore in 1863, partly because it represented a new kind of art, also because of an issue a bit like the stadium and also because of J.G.S.
Grant's vituperative dislike of the man it commemorated. But no-one has complained about the ugliness of the grotesques for a long time.
The context of Harbour Mouth Molars is not so self-explanatory and so more and earlier information might have helped. A deeper misunderstanding lies behind Mr Cunliffe's remarks.
The idea that art can only succeed if it is innovative and or shocking, or at least that a public negative reaction is a sign of its success, is a modern misconception. It grew from the negative reception of the Impressionists and was crystallised following the rejection of Marcel Duchamp's urinal, Fountain, in 1917.
In the Renaissance artists sometimes innovated, but they didn't seek public rejection.
As things stand, people are prepared to suspend judgement over challenging works, publicly funded ones, in places like the art gallery.
They are much less forgiving about ones in public places.
This may seem unreasonable since both the gallery and Portsmouth Drive are publicly owned. Perhaps, but to see the gallery works you have to specially visit whereas you can't help seeing the Portsmouth Drive ones if you're using the road.
In any case, people react differently to this different siting and the committee needs to take that into account.
It also needs to think carefully about context, how the site by itself will make the work intelligible without the benefit of additional information.
Above all it shouldn't be afraid to please the public. This doesn't require aesthetic compromise - and it is public money.
Peter Entwisle is a Dunedin curator, historian and writer.
