This is not to say I didn't like Cooke’s piece. I completely understand how powerful(and fun) it can be to associate a space with a piece of public sculpture (something that wasn't really addressed in the Times piece.) Though I do not experience that as much in Richmond, I do associate a lot of the spaces I love in Chicago with public sculpture. I totally get the point Cooke is making and I think it is one of the best points when defending the creation and preservation of public sculpture. However, I think the article did assume a knowledge of her home city (or, at least it would have been a lot nicer to read if there were pictures to accompany the piece she described. I'm not a big fan of reading art articles where, I can't really see the art. I know the Times piece didn't include images either, but that article wasn't as much about specific sculpture/monuments as it was about attitudes towards public art.)
We had a really good seminar about these two pieces. Maybe you can help us out with this--- neither pieces mentioned murals--- is “public art” as it's spoken about in these pieces inherently sculptural? Is mural it's own thing? We didn't know.