"If 'sucks' and 'puke' are the best verbs your mom could teach you, you're probably busy removing the wheels from your house."
Oh, gosh, must we trot out the postmodernist lingo to convince you that public art critics are not all some knuckle dragging trailerparkers?
Really, LibDemElite, you be so classist?
I would love to see modern sculpure on the level of say, marino marini, in our public sphere, but we don't often get sculpture of that level, just more of that abandoned foundry-turned hipster loft scrapmetal tossup, weird oral-fixation oval abstractions, and assorted "functionalist" stuff in front of banks next to fountains.
The defenders of this sort of stuff will give you the narrative-it's all a "commentary", of course, on today's society. As Tom Wolfe so accurately opined, it's actually an unintentional commentary on the dearth of craft and the proliferation of art schools.
I actually enjoy the River Gallery Sculpure Garden, but for the most part, the public art in this town is as cold, dead, and offputting as any that you see in front of a corporate headquarters in most cities.
The best and funniest argument against public art I've seen in a while.
Let's face it. Most public art sucks. If I have to look at any more "found" objects, particularly another stack of leftover I-beams, I'm going to puke.
A lot of the art in general in Chattanooga sucks. The "art mill"'s shows I find to be hilariously bad, a mix of the depressing bric-a-brac found at the Sunday market and failed conceptual ideas that long stopped being funded by the Guggenheim's of the world.
The idea of public art is a good one. Unfortunately, for some strange reason, it usually results in obnoxious lumps-of-something foisted on an indifferent public.
Look at it this way-at least we don't have a thousand Howard Finster imitators in Chatt.