Now that the scheduled announcement of the commission of the Northbourne Monument is a month overdue, may we assume you have taken wise counsel and gone back to the drawing board? In early February you announced that a final decision would be made in April, and it’s now June.

ArtWranglers is hoping that the silence around this question is the result of some real Authority, and that the Arts ACT Public Arts Panel has resolved not to recommend any of the four finalists. The decision to adorn the southern end of Northbourne Avenue with a million dollar work of art is not one to be taken lightly. As we’ve commented previously, if it to stand the test of time, it first must pass the test as a work of art, and three of the four tail-waggers are the works of designers and architects. While “design-art” is a bit of a marketing fad overseas (see the recent articles in the International Herald-Tribune) please don’t give us another expensive “sculptural marker” like those scattered along the Gungahlin Bypass… A “sculptural marker” (the term used by your own PR people) will never make it as art, will never be remembered or cited as art in the public domain, and will have no identity, influence or impact on the course of contemporary art – except in the negative sense.

In May ArtWranglers went on an international quest to find the best examples of art in the public domain, thus creating a database of truly impressive works in the Public Artefacts category on our sidebar. Take a look at what is to be seen in New York, Toronto, London and Paris.

Dear Chief Minister, your problem is now how to do it better, so that the selection process encourages real artists to make submissions for a work that will indeed be a destination work of art, not just a signal of a zone change. How about inviting artists of the calibre of Fiona Hall, Imants Tillers, Jennifer Turpin, or even  a crossover like Marc Newson to make proposals and really get the process cracking?

As we’ve noted in previous posts the committee of experts has only one artist representative (Chrissie Grishin, a.k.a. G.W.Bot) and one invitee (Betty Churcher) with any visual arts expertise. Chrissie has recently been making bronze avatars of her print imagery, and of course Betty has the overview of a stellar career in the National Cultural Institutional world. But neither have expressed a particular interest in sculpture per se, but there they are. First step: appoint a specific panel with national credibility.

In an earlier post we offered a checklist of the kinds of questions you might ask to determine whether a Public Artefact is in fact a Work of Art. It’s a eight star system. Ask your experts to account for their decisions in a rigorous way. See what they come up with.

1. Does it have a story to tell? How eloquent is the telling?

2. What language is it speaking? How well does it articulate its meanings?

3. Does it have a history? How well does it tell it?

4. What sensual and material pleasures does it offer? How does it make us feel?

5. Does it tell me something new? Is it worth knowing?

6. Does it ask questions of itself? Can we access its dialogue?

7. Does it move me? Up or down?

8. And then (based on the above): is it a work of art?

Over to you. Some of the best decisions about public life are made after due consideration and advice. Do it over again. Invite some real artists.