Cultural maturity at risk of dissipating

Peter Entwisle took my topic. Well, not really, but I'd already begun lamenting the recent cuts to the art in public places programme before I read his article in Monday's ODT.

You see, I'm currently writing another article about the role of creativity within universities, and particularly about Dunedin's reputation as a place promoting individual originality, and valuing artistic pursuits. With Otago's strong links with many successful literary and artistic figures, not to mention the town-central statue of Burns the Bard, and general reputation for authenticity and perhaps even eccentricity, you'd think that fostering creativity would be one of Dunedin's priorities.

That was the argument of my article - and it was a good one - until the Dunedin City Council slashed (nay, obliterated) public art funding, and a siege of philistines bombarded online "comments" with messages of anti-aesthetic support.

My frustration is thus twofold: First, the reduction of artistic funding devalues our city's creative pursuits.

Arts students already suffer daily discrimination for investing in subjects that society doesn't consider worthwhile; so, allow me to brace the lid as you hammer that coffin closed.

Second, my article's thesis now needs restructuring (an admittedly trivial, yet an annoyingly time-consuming hassle).

As you'll all be aware, the council's thrifty initiative is to refrain from installing art works, and to postpone all public art funding, until 2016-17.

After then, financial support will be halved to just $25,000 a year (ODT, 16.8.12). Now, you can't claim that an extra $25,000 per year will make any impact on our city's economy; it's hot-chip change towards our "higher priorities", in fact $25,000 wouldn't repay an average student's StudyLink debt.

What's the real issue here, Dunedin? What is it that you want from public art? Obviously, our current installations are struggling to impress.

Unlike the public gallery, which - as Mr Entwisle pointed out - you're welcome to enter and leave as you please, public art is more confrontational through its unavoidable presence. In the same way that you disagree with what they do, he wears, or I say, anyone or everyone may challenge what you define as "good," or even as "acceptable" artwork.

Artistic appreciation isn't an intrinsic quality; it comes from the co-operation between a beholder and an object; it's something that people make with the world. Many people, as they drive past a sculpture on their way to work, are frustrated because they don't understand the purpose of the work: What does it do, exactly? What does it mean? How does this bring money into our city? How does this benefit me, as a ratepayer?

Those who ask these questions are missing the point. Essentially, that there is no such reductive point.

If an artwork is generally deemed as visually attractive, it tends to be more publicly palatable, because "viewing pleasure" is a widely justifiable motive. So-called unconventional or avant-garde works have a harder time convincing us of their value.

If we discount art due to ugliness, however, we're severely limiting aesthetic potential. Dunedin's many historical sites perfectly capture the allure of unpolished beauty; it's often unclean, decrepit, tragic or sepulchral, perhaps slightly insane, never predictable.

French street-artist "JR" said: "Art is not supposed to change the world, to change practical things, but to change perceptions. Art can change the way we see the world. Art can create an analogy." Public sculptures invoke reflection, uplift spirits, challenge preconceptions, confront taboo, and tell stories. Community creations invite interaction and response. Art opens minds and feeds souls.

For those who are looking for investment rationalisation, public art is essentially advertising for a city's cultural maturity, and Mr Entwisle rightly asserts that, "A city which doesn't continue to embellish itself with public art is not aesthetically alive." If you're all still serious about reducing costs, well, we live in a city full of talented and innovative students, who would be willing to work for little - if any - personal profit.

How to solve the issue of conflicting preferences?

Oscar Wilde (of course) has a suggestion: " ... Art should never try to be popular. The public should try to make itself artistic." But that's easier said than done, isn't it, Dunedin?

Katie Kenny studies English at the University of Otago

Add a Comment