Public Art Dbq

Question#1 Some people might think that abandoned, “ghetto” sites have become useless, uninspiring, invaluable and should be demolished to create a building in which people could inhabit or use with a purpose. Although, that is not always the situation, some places could be transformed into a building that is advantageous to all. To support this, it clearly states in Source#2 that “Through government partnerships, public art can also transform dull or run-down public spaces and inspire the people who live and work there. We believe that art is educational and belongs to all people. We endeavor to produce creative projects that engage citizens, beautify public spaces, and challenge expectations.”(Createforall.com) This source identifies how

Although, not everyone will have the money so many artists rely on the government’s money. The government can transform places from a dirty untouched street to a clean and educational place. Source #2 states all of theses facts and provide in depth about how they run theses funds. Art can be life changing just like how Philadelphia changed to “The City of Murals”. According to Source #1 cities such as Philadelphia allowed artists to change a whole city. Using the government’s approval and money Philadelphia became famous and was remodeled into a totally breath taking

Everyone will see a piece of art differently and people will come to the terms that not every citizen will appreciate or have the same perspective on the sculpture that your are about to put in the center of town. According to an editorial Art for Art’s Sake: The case for government funding against art, the unemployment rate in the nation is high, which not only does other cities account for the increasing rate of unemployment but so does our very own. Therefore, using the city should be using their funds to help people’s lives transforming it for the good. I believe so because what good is a city if their aesthetics increases but the citizens lives slowly crumbles away from the lack of a job or even a home to live in. Furthermore, the editorial states that “Art is, by its very nature, expressive and controversial. The best art represents an individual point of view that is critical, imaginative, and eye-opening. This kind of ingenuity requires freedom and independence on the part of the artist.” This complies that an artist will not create a piece that will please everyone with a limited amount of money. Art requires “freedom” and only that will allow an artist to produce a breathtaking piece that everyone will love and appreciate. Since the city needs to use the money for