The Cost of Art

I came across an interesting article on Yahoo earlier today, and decided to share my views. The article, Venice mayor mocks billboard critics, discusses the recent upset over several historic buildings in Venice being partially covered by billboards. Tourists who come to view these historic monuments are upset at the views they are finding, and many art historians and critics claim that the billboards are degrading and defacing the buildings they obscure. Giorgio Orsoni, the major of Venice, has responded with the reason behind the advertisements: to bring in revenue to support the extortionate costs of renovating the buildings.

Now, one might ask: What does this have to do with design? Everything. Clearly, the design of the buildings and the advertisements themselves come into play in this scenario. However, the bigger issue here is designing a solution that will appease parties on both sides of the arguments. Despite the upset over the situation, the solution currently in place is a smart use of resources. According to the article, restoration costs for the Palace of the Doge alone run approximately 2.8 million euros (about $3.8 million). Without the money brought in by companies such as Coca-Cola, Bulgari, and Rolex, how else would the city afford such costly renovations?

True, millions of tourists travel to Venice each year, expecting certain sights, but most of the buildings being restored are only partially obscured by the advertisements. Besides, if the advertisements were not in place, the areas of restoration would still be covered to hide the work in progress. The main difference would be that the renovations would take considerably longer due to lack of funds. Although I understand the desire to separate the historic buildings of Venice from the everyday commercial advertisements of the modern world, without the revenue that the ads bring, there would be no possibility of the city of Venice completing the necessary restorations in a timely manner.