Aesthetic Evangelists

1.) I very much do support the notion of community art, I think it can be very beneficial in the sense that it can give the community sustenance and keep it from deteriorating or becoming a low-income community. What worries me though is the bridge between artist and public/community. Grant Kester in Aesthetic Evangelists states that "The public artist most commonly interacts with urban planners, architects, and city agencies concerned with the administration of public buildings and spaces, while the community-based public artist more commonly interacts with social service agencies and social workers (women's shelters, homeless advocates, neighborhood groups, etc.)," I just feel like that could at some point become problematic when dealing with communities, because within a community comes a balance, and that balance creates a way of life that defines not only the community as a whole but the members residing in it. Sometimes communities do not want to accept artistic visions or sometimes the vision doesn't properly represent the community.

2.)Another discrepancy that could arise with this "New Public Art" could be solicitation or exploitation of communities. This could come in many facets but the one I'm thinking of is political. Politicians use art as a form of propaganda, artists are viewed as the voice for the voiceless, I worry that some artist might use this platform as a means to push a political agenda or use this on targeted communities as means to further push a political agenda they believe in.

3.)I do however believe that if portrayed properly, these community artists could give a voice to those communities that suffer tremendously. I remember in class we examined a video where a woman had organized a live performance of teens in the inner cities of Oakland, allowing them to shed light on their tribulations through car conversations. Something that we mindlessly do has been brought to a larger scale, giving the intimacy of these interactions more depth and insight.