The Indianapolis airport is taking down a "sculptural painting" by an Indiana artist in favor of a video screen that can carry ads and messages. Naturally, this is fueling the "commerce is pushing out aesthetics" debate.
But some arts patrons said the move seems at odds with the special attention airport officials gave to public art when the terminal opened in 2008, saying it would serve as a "visual gateway" to Indianapolis culture.
It also raises another question:
Does public art have a shelf life?
In the airport case, there was an understanding that the work would rotate (although Faust claims his understanding was that the piece would be on display far longer than three years). But when most pieces go public, there isn't a stated removal date.
And so I ask: At some point, will it be okay for the statues around the Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument to be replaced?
I think it depends on he individual work of art. It it has significance for its historical value -- such as a statue of Anthony Wayne or Johnny Appleseed in Fort Wayne-- I'd say just leave it there; it says something about us that's important. Likewise, if it's true art that attempts to say something meaningful about the human condition, such as the "Crack the whip" piece on the Lincoln lawn (OK, only "public" art by a stretch of the definition), that's good for an extended stay. Crap like the Fort Wayne Museum of Art tends to put out, however, like the hideous piece of orange constructivist sculpture, should never be put up in the first place.
I'm ambivalent about the airport piece, which I suppose is good reason to support it going in the "revolving art" category. (You can see it in the video, or the first linked story.) It ain't really art, but it's kind of purrty to look at in an abstract, makes-me-feel-jumpy kind of way.
