A $2.4 million public art piece chosen by a city-appointed panel for the planned downtown park near Van Buren Street and Central Avenue has been rejected by the Phoenix City Manager’s Office despite $104,000 already paid to the artist.
Phoenix Arts and Culture Commission members are angry and wonder if someone in City Hall thinks the proposed piece, which resembles a floating jellyfish, is too unconventional and will reignite a controversy on what makes for proper public art.
Phoenix ditches $2.4 million public-art project for park.
What is it about public art that sparks such passionate debate?
It usually begins with a generous impulse: to honor a prominent citizen, beautify the city, show respect for the importance of art in our lives. But the process of deciding just what art to put where frequently inspires strong disagreement – contention that, on reflection, has obvious roots.
Public art is meant to provoke, to enlighten, to provide new ways of seeing the world around us. To be successful, an artist must have freedom to create.
Public art: Who decides? — baltimoresun.com.
The British architectural profession has had a largely negative response to plans for London’s 80,000-seat Olympic stadium, which were unveiled last month. Critics say that the design, by HOK Sport and architect Peter Cook of HOK, lacks the flair of conceptual images shown during London’s bid to host the 2012 Games. But the city’s Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) defends the stadium as an adaptable and practical structure that can be re-used.
Critics have panned designs for the 2012 Olympic Stadium in London, an 80,000-seat arena created by HOK Sport and architect Peter Cook of HOK. The building is intended to be dismantled and re-assembled elsewhere after the Games.
Critics of the stadium, including several newspaper columnists and architect Will Alsop, have voiced a long list of complaints starting with the fact that there was no competition to chose the designers.
London’s 2012 Olympics Stadium Panned | News | Architectural Record.