>

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
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?