GOVERNMENT PRIORITY
By Julianna Overett
The recent influx in public artworks has begun creating controversy in the capital. These costly artworks are appearing at intersections and along roadsides around town. It seems the intended message of the art and the motivation behind their installation is being tainted by the lack of consultation with tax payers and the community. In addition their sudden arrival and the areas chosen for their placement is questionable.
The Government has allocated $2.5 million to public art this financial year. So far this money has been used to buy a selection of sculptures. A few of the most prominent artworks seen propping up around Canberra are the Dinornis Maximus, seen at the junction of Yarra Glen. The title refers to an ancient flightless bird. The 11-metre tall wind activated sculpture cost $140,000 and was designed by Phil Price a New Zealand artist. Another of these public artworks, titled Rain Pools, was recently installed at the Foreshore Garden at Clare Holland House in Russel. It consists of a series of dark granite discs that reflects the philosophy of the care and support given at Clare Holland House. The artwork was created by Queensland based artist Stephen Newton. This piece cost $150,000. Another $750,000 was spent on various other artworks seen along the Gungahlin Drive Extension.
One of the most controversial artworks appears to be the Rhizome sculpture. Members of the general public might be more familiar with this piece as the large metal structure placed obscurely beside the new and unfinished Gungahlin Drive Extension. A quick read through discussions on riotact.com give a clear indication to public responses to the commissioning of this particular piece. For those of you who don’t know the meaning behind this piece perhaps you will be more understanding when you know more about it. It was created by Richard Goodwin, a Sydney-based artist and architect. This specific piece was designed as an interpretation of Australia’s indigenous grasses. A moment’s glance, as you drive past at 80km/h, however may not allow drivers time to engage or appreciate the work fully. Public appreciation of the sculpture may be further compromised by commuter frustration with the ongoing completion and planning of the Gungahlin Extension. Taxpayer money appears to have prioritised art work over commuter needs and this has exacerbated the controversy over the sculptures in general.
It appears that Canberrans may not be totally opposed to the artworks per se, however the lack of community consultation and information provided to the public has compromised appreciation of the works. In a recent interview Clinton White, a liberal candidate for the Molonglo region, said he believed a key election issue was the “Stanhope Government’s allergy to consultation. This lack of consultation is at the root of issues of concern such as education, health, the look of the city, planning, housing affordability and our narrow economic base.” There has been little thought to the connection between the intended meaning behind the works and where they are situated. In some cases their placement beside busy roads has prevented the sculptures from being easily accessible to the public. Certainly the sculptures have been introduced for the public to enjoy but it seems that they may have become more of a distraction and a concern to drivers.
“At its best, art can be inspiring, interactive, reflective and communicative. It shapes not only our enjoyment of the present, but can honour our past and inspire the future. At its heart, art is a way for people from all walks of life and all cultural backgrounds to engage their imaginations and to engage with each other.” (Public Art Policy – Canberra Liberals 2008). It is not the art that is in question but rather the lost opportunity to allow this art to be its best and to fully engage the people for whom it is intended.
The controversial subject has caused many debates between the Liberal and Labor parties. Jon Stanhope recently defended the public art millions. “We could actually live in a cultural desert if people felt that was an appropriate way for us to express who we are and how we live,” he said. “I accept that some of the works that have been commissioned have not struck a particularly enlightening chord. But for us to then just dismiss public art is a pity and not reflective of the majority in this community or who we are or who we aspire to be.” He justified the artworks as a means to reach “the height of greatness” of other major cities.
Over the years Canberra has drawn a large number of tourists to The National Gallery of Australia, one of our most prominent sources of art from around the world. The risk to artworks during transportation has resulted in some reluctance in allowing works to be loaned for exhibitions in Australia. Perhaps this is the reason why government is reaching for new and more permanent exhibits that will add to the cultural richness and beauty of our city, in order to reach a height of greatness. Somehow the recent spurt of art does not appear like it will achieve its suggested aim of gaining a sense of cultural recognition, of engaging the public and beautifying the often forgotten capital of Australia.
After discussions with various members of the community it seems that many would agree that it is time for the state government to consider a new scheme for public art. Online responses to the artworks show that the current art scheme is not succeeding in meeting the needs of the public. In order for the Canberra government to meet their targets, they need to devise a scheme that will focus on the commission, selection and placement of future art. The nation’s capital needs a scheme that engages the public and is easily accessible to all.
The government is falling into the trap of comparing the capital to other major cities in Australia. There is a clear lean towards creating an atmosphere in the capital similar to that of our neighboring cities, Sydney and Melbourne. This includes road design and aesthetic additions. Perhaps this is because other cities have frequently stolen the limelight in world recognition with many around the world being unable to correctly identify Australia’s capital city. As Canberra approaches its coming of age with the centenary celebrations in 2013, it is time that our nation’s capital discovers its own unique identity.
In order for Canberrans to be proud of the city they live in they need to feel that they are a part of it. Canberra is full of people who are capable of creating artworks “that will reflect all that is the ‘spirit of Canberra’”. Jon Stanhope. It is a pity that the recent inflow of art and sculptures around Canberra appear to exclude our local artists. Surely local artwork would resonate and connect much deeper in the hearts of Canberrans.
