Public Art

Question 1:
On page 65, Kwon discusses how public art is often difficult for the public to relate to because the abstract movement. He says, " despite the physical accessibility, public art remained resolutely inaccessible insofar as the prevalent style of modernist abstraction remained indecipherable, uninteresting, and meaningless to a general audience." Yet, even if art is produced in a non abstract form, are the people of the community really able to relate or understand the art? Is it possible for public art to ever be appreciated by the entire community in which it resides? If not, then what is the concern in attempting to appease all parties?

Question 2:
Public art is more widely accepted the less distinctive it is. Kwon states, " the more an art work abandoned its distinctive look of "Art" to seamlessly assimilate to the site, as defined by the conventions of architecture and urban design, the more it was hailed as a progressive art gesture" (72). In this sense, art is imitating life and attempting to blend into the existing world. How exactly is art defined? At what point does something just become a bench in the park or a set of walkways if the intent of the artist is to impact the surrounding area the least?