Artribune survey: Is public art a common good?

Artribune's inquiry gathers perspectives from artists, curators, and critics on the limits and potential of public art. Pablo Helguera critiques public art as often mediocre and egocentric, serving political and economic interests rather than the public. Alfredo Pirri defines public art as losing authorial possession and becoming a sign of love, challenging state authority. Helidon Gjergji distinguishes between 'art in public' and 'art for the public,' advocating for truly urban art that engages communities. Sara Dolfi Agostini highlights safety regulations and maintenance as key limits, with curators facilitating dialogue. Claudia Zanfi calls for new agile structures and sustainable projects that engage with local and international contexts. Luca Vitone sees public art as an institutional attempt to involve citizens in collective space, carrying political value. Cecilia Alemani views it as vital for civic discourse and community pride. Alessandra Pioselli emphasizes context and participation, avoiding instrumentalization. Antonella Muzi stresses the need for critical thinking and educational processes. Bryony Roberts notes the shift toward interactive works and the importance of public funding despite cuts. Tobias Rehberger desires art in daily life, where functionality and unfamiliarity subvert categories. The article, curated by Santa Nastro, was published in Artribune Magazine #32.