I have a question on the whole 1% for public art on all capital projects.
Why doesn't intersting architecture count as public art in terms of that money? If you look at the west LRT stations each one looks awsome. The copper off axis ovals look far better than the utilitarian anderson station. But isn't that architecture and extra material cost "ART". Why does the money tossed at art have to be statues or convential art shouldn't it just be making ulititarian structures nicer?
So when I here that the West LRT hasn't met its 1% public art spending it frusterates me because the design itself incorporated it. Its like saying 1% of the peace bridge would need to be spent on public art when the bridge itself is art.
Wouldnt a better approach be to ensure that architecturally please desgins were used rather than some arbitrary % to be added afterwards.
|