Is there too much public art?

Alex Needham

As Anish Kapoor's design is unveiled to a storm of heckles, are you exasperated by the prevalence of public sculpture today?

The press launch of the ArcelorMittal Orbit on Friday has prompted another round of articles about the purpose of public art.

Eternal frame? … the ArcelorMittal Orbit seen from underneath. Picture by Ki Price/Reuters

Anish Kapoor's tower in east London's Olympic Park, which he perhaps unwisely compared to the Tower of Babel at the press conference, has provoked a torrent of comment, much of it - from local residents and in the comments under this piece by the Guardian's Charlotte Higgins - highly negative. On the other hand Jonathan Jones, not usually a fan of Kapoor, praised the tower as "a drunken party animal of a building" and ultimately a celebration of the people of London.

Having gone up the tower on Friday, I have to say that I'm glad I don't live nearby, although it's not out of keeping with Stratford's redevelopment, which has turned the place into a heavily branded jungle of grey and white steel.

The Orbit will also undoubtedly continue to draw people to the area once the Olympics have left town, although even Kapoor said that the £15 it will cost to go up to the top is extortionate.

The view is, of course, stunning - you can see the perimeter of London in all directions - although the lack of a cafe or anything else apart from two giant mirror sculptures and a viewing platform feels like a miss to me. A spokesperson for the project says that one will be installed when the Games are over.

Presumably to coincide with the ArcelorMittal Orbit's launch, rightwing think tank the New Culture Forum has published a report excoriating public art, claiming: "Everything about the process by which public art is commissioned today militates against the commissioning of good artists and the creation of good art." The Times's Libby Purves agrees (£) describing the Orbit as "a piece of vainglorious sub-industrial steel gigantism, signifying nothing", and saying that while artists "may be imaginative ... not more than a poet. Poets do not make millions." (Neither do the vast majority of artists, it has to be said.)

In the Telegraph, Rupert Christiansen says that, while there is a place for "good" public art - he acknowledges that Antony Gormley's Angel of the North, surely the UK's most famous piece of public art, "contributed something positive to the efforts to regenerate Gateshead" - too much of it is "faddish and mediocre".

From illuminated skips in Brighton to bouncy castles in Glasgow, public art is part of life, particularly in our cities. Is there too much of it? Do you find it uplifting or thought-provoking - or is it just an ego trip for councils, corporations and, of course, artists?

- The Guardian