Firstly, how was it selected?

The suite of works by Mr Goodwin would have been submitted as a very small component of a very large highway construction tender. Whilst an art component may have been a requirement for tenderers, the selection criteria would probably have ignored the art component and focussed instead on the tenderers overall cost, capacity and capability (standard Government procurement criteria). Therefore, this art has not really been selected by anyone, but rather came as part of a package. (Akin to the extra set of steak knives…)

Secondly, why did Roads ACT want art on its new road?

Was it because everyone else is doing it? Or was it because they had just had a protracted debate / consultation with the adjacent communities who expressed vehement opposition to the new road?

The ACT Government’s August 2007 media release states that the GDE public art will: ‘enhance the driving experience and better integrate the road with its natural setting’.

On a road surrounded by disaffected communities, what is the point of using public art to ‘enhance the driving experience’ of the motorists who are presumably perfectly pleased with their faster smoother drive from point A to B?

Just because roadways are brutal engineered places, it doesn’t mean the art that goes with them has to be as well.

Perhaps Roads ACT could have used the public art to reconnect the communities back to their compromised natural reserves by commisioning environmental art for the access areas around the underpasses into O’Connor Ridge and Black Mountain.

Though Richard Goodwin is the road-art-specialist of most engineers’ choice, I once saw a sketch of his for an environmental artwork that was never built. From memory it was located in a pond and was designed to collect solar energy. It looked like an overgrown stick insect that was a bit wobbly on its pins. This wonderfully whimsical work would have looked great in one of the ponds near the GDE, and could have served a second purpose by powering some of the roadway lighting.

Dear ArtWranglers,

Don’t feel too secure about those hold down bolts – they probably haven’t been labelled yet – big backlog in the ACT bolt labelling department at present.

There are a few issues going on in “Architecture gives Art a bad name” so here goes……

IS PUBLIC FUNDING OF COMMUNITY ART GOOD?
Of course. All government programs should have an art component (preferably integrated with the main work but add ons are better than nothing). Why only sponsor engineers?

IS IT GOOD ART THAT IS BEING FUNDED ?
Rhizome could have been better. The work attempts to compete with its industrial design setting and, in my opinion, comes off second. It would work better in isolation – a “Sculpture by the Sea” type setting or that hilltop outside Cooma. “Rhizome” is just not appropriate to this busy highway intersection.

The alternative “non-competitive” approach, as Claes Oldenberg has done with his San Francisco work at Bay Bridge, would work better with its wry humour, scale, legibility, appropriateness to context and landmark creation. “If you get to Rhizome you’ve gone too far ” fails the landmark test. I know which approach I’d prefer at the Rhizome site.

DOES ART HAVE TO BE POPULAR TO BE GOOD?
No. Would we want the Boxing Kangaroo as our new national flag?

DOES ART HAVE TO BE POPULAR AT TIME OF UNVEILING OR CAN FUTURE APPRECIATION JUSTIFY THE WORK ?
Time is the only worthwhile test. Some artworks are immediately accepted by the community (Vietnam Memorial on Anzac Parade, the Sydney Opera House), others slowly grow in people’s esteem (Eiffel Tower, Pollack’s Blue Poles). Immediate acceptance by the public is no test. On the other hand, works are sometimes popular at unveiling because they are promoted, endorsed or are inherently important (e.g. New Parliament House) – it is not controversial to like them. However, in time, the public grow weary of such works as they often lack some essential ingredient – they do not spark the imagination. I do not think Rhizome sparks the imagination. Which brings one back to the question: If it is not good art, how did it get chosen?

So, has Architecture given Art a bad name? Perhaps more a lost opportunity to have done something better. The sculptor’s qualifications are no restriction as Melbourne’s gateway (on Tullamarine freeway) was also created by architects and that is probably the best highway art in the world.

Thanks for the discussion venue,

Penleigh Boyd
Architect Canberra
January 2008