Should You Pay For Religious Public Art In Edmond?
Edmond has made a name for itself as a leader when it comes to its public art program. The city is truly a shining beacon of artistic expression.
Now the Visual Arts Commission, which is given the mission of choosing what art is displayed publicly and helps fund those projects, is faced with an unenviable task.
Since early this year members of the commission have studied the guidelines used by other cities that sponsor public art. The members were especially keen on finding the wording in helping them decide guidelines for religious art.
Online Surveys & Market Research
The commission has been twice faced with deciding on funding art project of Biblical proportions. After a public outcry, an abstract statue of Moses was eventually placed on the grounds of Edmond’s First Christian Church after some residents agreed to pay the city’s stake in the statue and relieve them from funding religious art.
A vote on funds for a statue of Jesus surrounded by three children has twice been delayed until the commission could get its guidelines in place. The statue is on the commission’s agenda again following discussion of guidelines.
Commissions overlooking public art programs for the cities of Portland, Maine and Nashville, TN. both have restrictions for funding art works for the following purposes: “1. Work that portrays school, team, corporate or organizational mascots. 2. Art that has singularly religious or sectarian purposes 3. Work that is not accessible to the general public.” Our Visual Arts Commission is looking at similar restrictions to guide them in the future.
Recently the Parks Department of the Borough of Brooklyn, which governs New York City’s public art, proposed a rule calling for a ban on art that fails to “demonstrate a proper respect for public morals, or conduct or that includes material that is political, sexual or religious in nature.” It’s a sad day when religious art is lumped in with “art” of a sexual nature. Woe to those who call good evil and evil good I heard someone once say.
If the Italian government were to offer to loan Edmond any of its masterpieces, Michelangelo’s David, for example or any of the religious paintings of the Renaissance period, it would appear that under this restriction the city would have to decline.
The commission has a tough task ahead of them and so far there has not been much of an outcry from the religious community as in the court decision to remove the cross from the Edmond seal or the giant cross at I-35 and Second St. Perhaps we are starting to become a secularized community.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
In general, there should not be any government funded or display or anything that is religious. I like the verbiage you mentioned that are used by Portland and Nashville. So maybe there are exceptions. I guess that’s why I like restricting “Art that has singularly religious or sectarian purposes ” .
But I’d love to have a circle of statues representing the different religions: Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Pink Unicorn, and others. And maybe have an empty spot for Atheists.
I think it could be argued that the statue of David or the painting of the Last Supper while technically religious in nature would be of such artistic importance that the religion issue doesn’t even really apply. I apologize for not being able to state this in a very good way. How more religious could something be than the Last Supper? But it’s such a great work of art, even I like it. Hypocritical? Maybe…
Regarding the huge cross at 2nd and I-35: I’ve always wondered how many needy people could have been helped with the money that was spent on it.