Public art gives more in return
Is the debate around public funds for public art about the dollars the city spends or is it about the return on investment?
When I first considered moving to Chattanooga, numerous people in North Carolina spoke very positively of the city, describing it as having a “great energy.” In fact, the city described itself as “One of the 50 Best Places to Live” (National Geographic) on its website. Upon arriving, I could see why so many thought so highly of the city; Chattanooga felt dynamic, positive and alive. Whether called a “can do attitude,” “creative potential,” or an “entrepreneurial spirit,” there is an intangible, but very real creative energy that fills the air here.
What does public art have to do with this dynamic quality that so many other cities envy? Art articulates the spirit of the city. It’s a primary way we tell others we are indeed a great place to live and that we embrace visionary, creative potential. It is this “telling” of ourselves that draws others to us — tourists and industry alike. The private investors for the public art fund understand this; it’s why they invest. Is this return on investment worth it to the city as well?
ANNE WILSON