public art signage criticism from SvN

It is nice to know that I’m not the only one concerned with the messages that public signs send. In his post Two very different takes on public sculpture and art Håkan Bruce at writes about the two different experiences he had at Seattle’s Olympic Sculpture Park and Chicago’s Millenium Park:

Nice landscaping, nice setting, nice sculpture, but the lasting impression wasn’t made by the art, it was made by a sign (actually, about 10 signs):

Contrast this with Chicago’s Millennium Park. Public art and architecture that is entirely interactive.

A fountain that spits on you…

The post is about public art but the larger lesson is about letting people engage with spaces in ways that come naturally. 48pt Word document signs around the library impact (probably negatively) the way people engage with you and the space.

2 thoughts on “public art signage criticism from SvN”

  1. He wrote a very good post! Humans are tactile creatures and interested in how it feels, tastes, smells and moves.

    On a small scale, I feel the very same way about suburban lawn art and such. It drives me crazy when people put all these tempting objects for kids in their yards, but have a hissy when kids are attracted to it.

    I want to touch the pink plasic flamingos! Shan

Leave a Reply