Art in the public realm

A selection of your comments on public art

I think it's fascinating and essential. It breaks people out of the everyday urban trance, and makes connections, within the individual and among individuals. It makes people think all kinds of thoughts they would not otherwise have thought.

Most of the time, in my opinion, public art is a case of 'The emporers new clothes'. I guess it must honestly appeal to some people. I think it should be encouraged to stimulate the populace.

I think it an excellent idea, giving space for a constant rotation of work, allowing artists from all disciplines and background space, causing the ordinary person on the street to include in their everyday conversation the subject of art, both what is and what isn't - in their view.

Please continue - I've enjoyed both the Alison Lapper and the Schutte - much better than a blank plinth.

I think its a fantastic way to showcase art and to make it visibly accessible. Its also a way to bring people into the Square ('Oh we can pop down to Trafalgar Square to see that piece') who may not normally go out of their way to go to the area. What a lovely way to make art accessible to the masses!

In a word: fantastic. This is a great location as it naturally fits with proximity to the National and Portrait galleries, but overall anything like this can only be a good thing in terms of promoting cultural maturity, tourism and contribute to London's 'buzz'.

Well I think it is a good idea because we see a cross between modern art and old art. Also because you have the National Gallery right behind the fourth plinth. Contemporary art leads to discussion and debate, often as it's seen to be controversial, and is criticised for its merit, yet it gets people talking. Showcasing the best of it in prominent places can only be to the good.

Public art can (but sadly does not always) invigorate a space, make us stop in our tracks and look at our surroundings in a different and new way. Public art should not be a one line joke that tires easily. Public art should be exciting, and where possible involve the public.

An excellent idea. I live in Western Australia and the dearth of public space art here is unbearable. It's one of the things I love about coming to London is walking around and just coming across these art works in different corners.

Essential. Public art blows dust from the municipal corridors of High Art and stimulates fresh debate along streets and squares.

The 4th plinth is an important site for dissenting and downright different representations of our culture within the public realm. This is one of art's most important roles.

I think that such spaces should be devoted to the memory of people who have dedicated their lives to the improvement of mankind in some way. Although it is nice to see modern creative london's encouragement, the juxtaposition of such content on a backdrop of empire and rememberance risks making both parties look somehow nonsensical. It's just a bit silly.

Absolutely essential : such art should be accessible to all, at all times and free!

I love the idea of public spaces to display contemporary art. The vast majority of the British public do not have the time or inclination to visit traditional galleries so easily accessed displays like this can be enjoyed and considered by all.

There has been public art in important places from the beginning of villages or towns. The idea of using the Fourth Plinth in a variety of ways is stimulating and somehow representative of our restless age in contrast to the static dominance of Nelson's column itself. Public art in London makes an essential contribution to the total London experience.

It is not democratic. Most of it is dull due to the selection process. I do feel guilty about the use of public money. Good public art is worthwhile. I think a plinth as a concept is too self concious. Here is a piece of art for you to revere. Art is a part of life, take it or leave it, love it or hate it and it should be more integral with normal life not set apart or (in the case of a plinth, literally) above it.

Dubious. New and modern are not synonymous with good. Good public are like Nelson himself will last 200 years and still be recognisable and have meaning after all that time.

Distinctive, thought-provoking works of art should be in all public open spaces.

Public art is what being human is all about - ever since cavemen times, human beings have created art around them, in their surroundings, helping us to express the unexpressable.

Very interesting if the art is challenging and generates a debate.

I am in favour of having contemporary art in public spaces, not just in London, and not just in Trafalgar Square.

The more the better!

I enjoy public art. Some I like, some I don't, but most is worth seeing.

An excellent idea - even if I don't understand it

It's a good idea - there is a place for contemporary, thought-provoking art alongside traditional statues at London landmarks.

It's great to have something which changes regularly. Too often sculpture becomes so familier that it just blends into the landscape and is overlooked. The changing fourth plinth promotes interest and discussion. If you don't like the current piece you know it won't be there forever.

I feel it is a wonderful opportunity for Art to come to the people. I feel it will engage people in the process and the finished product whither they like the piece or not. The square itself is a wonderful frame and setting for such pieces.

I am personally not in favour of the rotation of various pieces of art on the fourth plinth. I feel that the plinth should have something suitable, in keeping with the Square and permanent. A statue of Keith Park RAF, Commander of 11 Gp during the Battle of Britain is an excellent choice. He fits in well with the military theme of the Square and as far as I know is not commemorated in London.

Excellent idea - refreshing and vital.

Necessary - London needs these, or our city becomes a museum.. They are a source of modernity, relevance and stimulation for us all, as we go about in our city and for those who visit.

I agree with having high-profile contemporary art in public spaces in London, but not at sites of National monuments like Trafalgar square. Sites like Oxford Circus with no overt national significance would be ideal.

i like it, because the city becomes more attractive.

I vividly remember having public works of art pointed out to me when I was very young and would like my children to have similar memories.

Very important but it is desirable to keep with the traditions of the public space concerned.

I would welcome contemporary art in public spaces. I don't believe that the fourth plinth would be the place to experiment. The traditional setting demands something in keeping with the space

It's the only sensible use for the fourth plinth. It was built for an equestrian statue of a military leader, something that is extremely unlikely to look anything but very silly in the 21st century. As is stands near several of our greatest art galleries, let's use it as a high profile display for modern art.

Great idea.

Oh no!

It's a huge positive for London, but works need to be selected very carefully.

I am very much in favour of public art as a mark of an advanced civilised society. It is too easy to bow to the inevitable comments such as You could have built 2 hospitals/schools etc etc for that money. Without public art we become bland, colourless and are reduced to utilitarianism.

Fantastic.. London is just one place in England where wonderful public art is available.

It's a brilliant idea but where is the art fitting for such a prominent site?

Public art is vital in order to revitalise the day-to-day spaces around us.

Wonderful to have these works on display outside. 12 months is a good time for each to remain on display. I have really enjoyed viewing the present and previous works in Trafalgar Sq on my infrequent visits to London.