Course blog for American University PERF-570, Fall 2014
This article is a little bit ridiculous. Not because of the horrible puns but because the author of the article, Kriston Capps, contends that Florentijn Hofman’s Rubber Duck “sends an infantilizing message about the role of public art in cities.” I disagree; the presence of the Rubber Duck is fulfilling its role as a fun and whimsical way of enriching a community’s experience. There is nothing infantilizing about it!
Capps backs up her argument with these four main points:
Personally, I disagree with all of the writer’s points (except maybe point #3, I am undecided on that one). Despite being at odds with Capps ideas, I do think her article illuminates a few questions for arts managers:
It also highlights how the most non-controversial piece of art can raise a fury. I bet the Pittsburgh Cultural Trust was not expecting such an unfavorable reaction to “the most G-Rated installation ever.”
Other work by Florentijn: