Taking the bull by the horns

A PARADE of colourful cows exhibited in cities worldwide is the target of a bid to bring them to Edinburgh. At least 100 fibreglass animals could be displayed in the city early next year. But would we miss them if they got lost on the way? Whilst there is nothing wrong with a procession of painted cattle there is very little that is right with it.

CowParade is the largest public art event in the world today. It has travelled the globe, showing in Chicago, stopping off in Prague, Sydney, London and is currently in South Africa. While the life-size fibreglass cows remain the same, local artists, organisations and celebrities add their own designs. Afterwards the organisers sell them for charity.

There is no question that they have been popular, attracting tourists and generating a buzz. So I’m sure you are wondering what grumpy cow would dismiss a herd that brightens up our streets and gives money to good causes. My problem with this exhibit is that it is one of many banal but inoffensive displays littering our public spaces.

According to Jo Darke, director of the Public Monuments and Sculpture Association (PMSA), "There is a burgeoning industry around public art". Exact figures have yet to be compiled, but the database under construction by PMSA shows an unprecedented rise. Figures suggest that there were over six times more sculptures in the 1990s than there were between 1900-1909 - the peak of statue building mania during the Victorian period.

The Scottish Arts Council has funded 76 projects across Scotland in the last 10 years and more than 6m has been awarded, ranging from 13,500 for sculpture works at Dalerb picnic site in Perthshire to 350,000 for artworks at the Royal Aberdeen Children’s Hospital. The SAC is also assisting in the development of the Public Art Resource, a new agency to "advance excellence and innovation within public art".

TODAY’S PUBLIC ART is everywhere, but it’s either ephemeral and elusive or very limited and literal. Many projects are meant to reflect on the natural world. On the Wing by Diane McLean in Dundee is one such work. The piece is based on a flock of birds in flight - long white poles support wing-shaped metal triangles in a curved line which echoes the movement of a flock. But it still looks like sculpture imitating birds in flight rather than a sculpture that stands on its own. And the base which connects it to the land is clunky.

Or we get the wacky kind such as CowParade. It’s quirky in a playful way. It doesn’t try to be great art, just fun. This is fantastic for kids and enjoyable every now and again, but it offers less for the rest of the population, especially when there is so much of it.

The wacky element is elaborated on by Peter Hanig, the CowParade event organiser, who explains: "Suddenly people can see that art can be fun and that art can be interesting to everyone, not just people who frequent museums."

His assumption, that people who don’t visit museums want childlike and easy art, is concerning; he expresses low expectations of the audience.

Much of public art is created in a top-down process and is a state-sponsored initiative. Private companies, the National Lottery, local authorities and other official bodies ask for the art and pay for it. It has not always been this way. Most public artworks of the 19th century came out of politically motivated campaigns launched by groups and associations. The Albert Memorial was among many paid for by public subscription. Donations from British countrywomen funded a Monument to Wellington.

A public petition was circulated to purchase Auguste Rodin’s The Thinker; the crouched down man deep in deep thought, after it was exhibited. Once achieved it was displayed outside the Pantheon in Paris for everyone to see. Public subscriptions and petitions are rare today. It’s this detachment from the people that makes the work so safe.

It doesn’t have to be this way. There is great work created beneath this pandemic of fine but uninvolving art.

The work of Kenny Hunter, the Glasgow sculptor, explores traditional monuments, idols and contemporary politics. Citizen Firefighter, standing outside Central Station in Glasgow, consists of a plastic action toy and a real firefighter having trouble with his heavy breathing apparatus. It demands our attention and reflection. Fellow Scot, Toby Paterson, has created stimulating pieces and projects including a community-driven initiative which developed two parks, one at each end of Royston Road in Glasgow.

A place of beauty was created over which the community have some ownership and control. The project lives on after the developers and artists have left.

And I cannot criticise public art without praising Antony Gormley’s Angel of the North. This 20-metre-tall steel angel stands on the hill above the A1 in Gateshead, its arms spread wide and its body tilting forward but with no features. The material references the area’s traditional industry. The figure is aspirational, standing for the hope for a better world - a hope still to be defined.

It would be impossible to write a checklist of what makes these artists’ work great, but in my opinion these works relate, resonate, are not too literal and embody meaning. They express public passions artistically. The public are involved.

WHICH BEGS THE question: why is so much money and energy being spent on so much that is insubstantial when we could do better? Firstly, those commissioning and paying for the art today are unsure of what they want. But whilst it may be unclear what to represent, as there is an absence of belief, funders do have a view on what public art can achieve and it’s not helping.

A report for the Arts Council of the South East claims that public art can be "a driver for social renewal, and create a sense of ownership" and even "forge a new identity". High expectations indeed for painted fibreglass cows and metal birds.

These are real social challenges for us to address, let alone solve. No artist, however amazing, can impose his work on a community. Public art cannot fill the gap in public life.

Art that is burdened with performing social functions often does not work as good art. Some artists who are asked to create community just depict in arbitrary fashion bits of villages or towns past. So what is to be done? Artists should concentrate on the art, not how to be inclusive, or whatever difficult social task that is being required of them.

They should refuse funders and politicians who ask them to solve social problems that need social solutions. A relationship needs to be created between the art and the public.

Josie Appleton, author of Museums for the People? goes so far as to suggest that "the official breadline for public art should be cut". It might be better, she suggests, for "artists to justify their artwork to society and appeal to the public for support".

Cutting funding is a tempting idea. It would force artists to be accountable to the public, not arts boards or private companies. But I am loath to suggest less money for the arts, even though I think it’s poorly spent.

The fact that the Royston Road project and the Angel of the North were partly funded by the Arts Council shows that it’s not impossible for artists to use official funding to produce works that resonate. We have to demand more. Otherwise we’ll continue to walk on by.

Tiffany Jenkins is director of the arts and society programme at the Institute of Ideas