Lack of money for art maintenance

NOT wanting to be a miserable cynic, but in response to Susan McLeod (Championing nature and art) I would just point out that there's a difference between CaRT 'investing in art', and a bunch of people on a quango trying to avoid under-spending on their budgets and only doing things when 'funding is available', writes David Davis.

All too often what we get is the latter situation. Third-party funding is spent on installing the art, bolstered with whatever budget cash they're desperate to get rid of before the end of financial year—but there's no money allocated for the art's continued maintenance.

Dilapidated eyesore covered in graffiti

This means that far from 'delighting and inspiring people', what we usually get within five years is a dilapidated eyesore covered in graffiti. As a typical example I'd offer the Coventry Canal between Coventry City Centre and its junction with the North Oxford.

[The photographs shows the condition of the art on that stretch of waterway.]

The environment and amenity value is actually lowered in the long term, with the visible neglect encouraging more littering, graffiti and petty crime in a vicious circle.

Upkeep of its art

If the CaRT can break this cycle and maintain the upkeep of its art installations, then good luck to them! But past precedent does not fill me with confidence.