>

Are you suspicious of any art that was not financed by the artist? Cause there is a very long list going back to the renaissance that you should be critical of then, including the Mona Lisa and Michelangelo's David statue, both of which were conceived of and funded by outside sources. 
Most art requires money that an artist does not have themselves. Musicians have labels, movies have studios, painters and sculptors have patrons. It is perfectly normal to be suspicious of that relationship but thinking that this stops great art from happening is wrong.
Art with an excess of inclusion, or a hard outline of what’s to be painted or sculpted and by whom, you are in effect taking those artists and putting chains on them. The ultimate irony. Just because a person is black, does not mean they want to paint murals of black people

You think someone is making them and they don't do that of their own accord?

Instead of offering artists a location to work together and brainstorm on new pieces/create them, they rifle through those that fit their virtues of the hour, and create more unneeded division amongst what already is a pretty antisocial group of people sic. Artists.

First you claim they simply tell artists what to create, now they're rifling through created art looking for things to fit some theoretical virtue?
So you don't think it's at all possible that artists are creating what they want (except you do, right above), or that people are choosing art in any genuine manner? Everyone is just trying to virtue signal, no one actually has virtue? 
What would change your view? Statements by artists? >

I think it’s somewhat possible, but I think that artists often don’t want to ‘sell out’ and the lack of opportunity gives them no choice. I think it perverts natural creativity into merely creating things politicians will invest in for morality points >

This really shows an unfamiliarity with artist communities and their mindset. Unless you start talking to real elitist-types, very few people have an issue with art commissions. Outside of work involving subjects the artist actively disagrees with, or falls outside their skill-set, you would be hard pressed to find a creator that would turn down work for the proper pay; artists need to eat too. 
You're really trying to victimize a group of people you have little familiarity with to make a political point, which funny enough would fall under your own definition of virtue signaling. >

Yup, art patrons is a century old practice, probably older.
In fact, most artists I know are 90% of the time producing things they are paid to produce. Some of their patrons are very nitpicky and want to control the creative process, and some just give a theme and let them roll with it. And all of the works fall somewhere within the type of work they do on their free time.
So yeah, pretty much what you said. >

TBH you never explain why they are less accepting you just say why u basically just think its not artistic 
Any examples of cities with a lot  of murals like this? >

Boston, LA, Chicago, really any major city. I should have elaborated but these places are highly segregated, and people are at the peak of awfulness to eachother, regardless of creed. But in the areas where these things are promoted, often you can travel two blocks and find a swath of disadvantaged people that the wealthy communities paying for these things could give two shits about >

Which means what exactly? What role do you think public art ought to serve? >

To make the world beautiful >

The world is already beautiful.
How would the presence of a beautiful object mean that place is less accepting? >

It’s because it’s not done in good faith. It’s not done because of the artists free will, it’s done because they need to pay bills. >

Wait so...youre saying it's bad cause they were asked to do it? Rather then just spontaneously doing it out of the blue? >

It’s bad because they wouldn’t get the opportunity to freely express something and be paid that way. It’s bad because it forces the artist to express an ideology simply to pay bills >

If I ask an artist to draw me a picture of a bird with a hat am I forcing some ideal on them? Are they dropping morals to do it? I'm pretty sure they're doing the work they paid for and it stops at that. >

A bird with a hat is interpretive, not morally charged. It’s a false equivalency >

Promenant statues/art etc usually signify a high ideal. Public art featuring figures who stood something usually indicate that the inhabitants of that area stand with that person, support their values.
No one is forcing artists to work, artists are free to choose what work they accept. >

But they aren’t free, because they will cease to be artists or worse be blackballed if they don’t take these commissions >

Nonsense. Do you have any sources of this to back up this claim? Artists are free to accept or reject whatever commissions they want. >

True but often the only work they can find is drawing rule 43 anime titties which kind of boxes them in as well I'd say. My guess would be it's rare to be an artist to make a living on their own original, unrestricted ideas. >

Just because that's the type of art you're familiar with doesn't mean it's the extent of the art industry. >

That was more of an example of the kind of undesirable work many artist have to accept to make money, obviously not literally the only option. I just said that because I remember seeing a post about an artist who's been making hentai porn and absolutely hates but it's by far the most lucrative work he's able to do. How dare you assume I'm a weeb lol >

Is there something specific you are reacting to? >

Boston is the most frequent. But LA is bad too >

Can you link a photo of specific art? You say Boston public art and my brain goes straight to the glorious potato statue. >

The potato is a great example, I’ll need a bit to find the others I’m jumping in the shower but the murals around MIT, Tufts etc >

The potato statue was apparently conceived of by the artist themself:h www.boston.com/news/history/2017/10/19/potato-potato-potatoes-potato-the-story-behind-one-of-bostons-most-obscure-monuments/%3famp=1 >

Who paid for it >


Who paid for it

Why does that matter, if the artist made something that was their own idea and creation? >

Because the person or entity  who pays for it has ultimate influence over the product