There is lots of weird public art out there, and this new sculpture in San Diego of fish jumping between two statues of fish cannery workers (on can pedestals) certainly qualifies. What is more rare is a mainstream newspaper article that takes issue with the work so directly, and with such a good headline (as in title of this blog posting).

One of the contradictions that create this field of public art, is that public art is generally owned by someone. It is property, and often "private property" at that. what happens when the owners of public art go bankrupt? Who gets the asset? or liability more likely as public art does require upkeep and its asset value may be hard to realize.

This article on the BBC tells the story of some notable public art pieces owned by the Liverpool Architecture Design Trust.

A long interview with the new President of the Society of Nigerian Artists. The bit that relates to public art is at the end of the long article so scroll down.

Titbits include this rant on the proper positioning and placement of public sculptures

"You will discover that most of the sculptures in Nigeria are [placed] too low, that is why mad people can go there and deface the works by pasting posters on them. The Herbert Macaulay statute situated in Sabo area of Lagos, people went to put a cap on it. At Broad Street, various sculptural pieces situated in the ever busy street are seen from a distance. The pedestal itself sometimes appear somewhat like a story building and the wall when viewing it from a distance. The Obafemi Awolowo's and Tai Solarin's statutes are too low, which makes it possible for people to tamper with them."