In an important series of essays published in his early years as an art critic, Arthur Danto seemingly claimed: 1) that art should be subsidized but not censored; 2) that refusing to subsidize art constitutes censorship; 3) that public art is subsidized, not least by its placement in public spaces; and 4) that public art can be removed from those spaces when the public doesn't like it. Yet these claims seem inconsistent. This chapter tries to solve this puzzle, addressing along the way important…
Read moreIn an important series of essays published in his early years as an art critic, Arthur Danto seemingly claimed: 1) that art should be subsidized but not censored; 2) that refusing to subsidize art constitutes censorship; 3) that public art is subsidized, not least by its placement in public spaces; and 4) that public art can be removed from those spaces when the public doesn't like it. Yet these claims seem inconsistent. This chapter tries to solve this puzzle, addressing along the way important questions about the relationship of non‐subsidy and censorship and the distinct nature of public art as opposed to art in public spaces.
