Commentary: Right idea but the wrong execution

The fuss over Marc Quinn's marble statue of a pregnant disabled woman, due to sit on the empty plinth in Trafalgar Square, raises several questions: what is the purpose of public art? Who is public art for? Who should decide on our public monuments? Do the British care about art at all?

Th truth about public art is that nobody looks at it. What is intended to be the most visible of displays becomes the least regarded. There are two reasons for this; one, that human beings like to file everything at the level of familiarity. As soon as a thing is known, we cease to look at it. The second reason, of course, is that public art is often awful. Public art often fails in its first duty to make us see, because its other agendas have so crowded in on it, that it is dull and dead.

We can say that public art is a commemoration, and that it's first duty is to act as a memory point, but I would say that the best public art both commemorates the moment and exists as a glorious event in its own right.

Public art cannot represent a dead imperial past, or the careful sensibilities of the few. The function of art changes as we do, and I believe that public art now must speak to a wide audience. Marc Quinn's work will also begin a different conversation, and that is all to the good. I do not think his work is suitable for such a grand arena as Trafalgar Square, and it may be a mistake to choose an essentially interior artist to begin this programme.

Londoners disliked all of the short-listed offers, and their dislike cannot simply be dismissed. It is difficult to criticise Quinn because we do not want to criticise his subject matter - a pregnant disabled woman is a fine subject for a sculpture - but I am not convinced that it is the right thing for the plinth.