Re: [Mpls] public art

[Brobson34]

Mark Wilde writes, "Eric's (and others) opinions about what is worthwhile should never be considered when funding arts organizations, and choosing public art."

I almost didn't bother to post a reply, since the rebuttal seems so obvious. But maybe not to some, so here goes:

What is the purpose of art if not to stimulate thoughts, opinions, passions and debate? If we are to make no personal connection or distinction to the art being made for the public, and our reaction to the worthiness of that art should make no difference
in what organizations we fund or what art we display, then why should Intermedia Arts receive any more or less consideration than a group devoted to, say, misspelling the names of our presidents out of hundreds of thousands of matchsticks...or to a group that wants to put Mary Tyler Moore on the shoulders of every Snoopy and Charlie Brown statue in the Twin Cities?

It is one thing to state the opinion that funding for the projects of Intermedia Arts is more valuable to the public discourse and the underlying purposes of art than funding for matchstick misspellings and Mary Tyler Moore statues. It is quite another to state that the opinions of those who feel differently shouldn't be considered. Wilde's comments strike me as either nonsensical or Orwellian, as in "some opinions about public art are more equal than others."

I hope that list members supportive of Intermedia Arts would be stirred to either justify or repudiate Wilde's comments, so that I have a better understanding of whether I should support taxpayer funding of the purpose and philosophy of their organization. Because if Wilde's beliefs are consistent with those of Intermedia Arts, I'm inclined to think that a withdrawal of public funding for the group would both save money and provide a worthwhile lesson in "arts education" for some hypocritical chauvanists sorely in need of a wakeup call.

Britt Robson
Lyndale