The Atlanta airport is adding a new international terminal but there's been controversy over the artwork for it.

The issues haven't been over what you would think, content or imagery, but rather the value of art itself. The question is whether the $5 million art budget might be better utilized in some other way. Perhaps better security equipment, faster trams, more televisions, etc. In other words, things that serve a more "functional" purpose. Now I can't make a broad statement about the value of "art" in American public life. But my guess is that when you read $5 million you thought, man that does seem like a lot. What if I told you that money was coming out of your state taxes? Would you consider it well spent? I'm a designer by trade and even I have trouble seeing the ROI.

My thought is that when industry and commerce are king, the purpose or "function" of art is reduced to mere decoration? Nothing more than air freshener? Art is only considered significant or valuable when it serves a more pragmatic purpose. It has to be qualified as "functional" art to be worth paying for. Thoughts?

For the record, the art budget is not being provided via your taxes but rather a ‘passenger facility charge.' Basically an extra $3 added to every ticket of every passenger flying through Atlanta. And the artwork being commissioned does serve somewhat of functional purpose. It will be incorporated in a 1,000-foot wall along the tunnel between the new terminal and concourse, dividing cleared/uncleared passengers.

Back to Blog