Happy Friday, and welcome to another edition of the public art news roundup.
Any free brainspace I had this week was devoted to wondering why we are keeping Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill at all. The man has an (albeit contested) monument in his own public square, a statue in D.C., and a state park named after him, which in my opinion is altogether more than he deserves. Why keep him also hanging around on the back of our money- money that he used to buy and sell other human beings- human beings like Harriet Tubman?
Obviously the answer is probably something along the lines of: god forbid we allow a black woman to occupy space that is ~supposed~ to belong to white guys. But shoutout to this interpretation:
Harriet Tubman replacing Andrew Jackson on the $20 is perfect because of how much he would have hated it.
— Erin Ruberry (@erinruberry) April 20, 2016
Now to the roundup:
A £300,000 (about $432,440) sculpture in Inverness, Scotland was panned by the public, due almost entirely to cost, though Councilors are still looking for a way to realize the project, the Press and Journal reports. Previously from that publication: “Inverness ‘Tilting Pier’ would pay for itself.'”
The New York Times on rising commercial interest in public art. One consequence noted in the article:
As such, London is becoming a place to visit, what Mr. Davy of Futurecity calls an “urban play area,” rather than a place in which to live. And its public art reflects this.
Meanwhile, in Pittsburgh, an example of what happens when public art doesn’t actually belong to the public: George Rickey’s “Ls – One Up One Down Excentric” could leave town if the building owner decides to sell it while redeveloping.
Welp, this is why they usually shield public votes with a nominating committee: Boaty McBoatface.
A huge, shiny, gold-colored, motion-sensing monument to Gangnam Style was unveiled in Seol.
Featured Image via the Korea Times. Credit: Yonhap.