It's very normal in our time to see art presented as a statement. Public art is usually in this vein. The public space is treated as a canvas upon which to make "bold" statements, to "send a message" or "make a change". A discourse is implied; either you agree with it, or you're the one the statement is directed against. I believe that many who agree with the message of a confrontational public art piece are mostly indifferent to it, but recognize that it aligns with socially-uncontested values, and have no incentive to risk being seen as a villain of good values. The other camp are people who don't like the art, but fall into the only model of dissent they've seen in opposition to it, which is an exaggerated reactionary posture defined by the opposing side. In this way, some people will step into pre-determined roles in the discourse, acting out positions they didn't personally choose. I think the real discourse is elsewhere: the artist and/or people who commissioned the art to be placed there see the public as an audience to be confronted with "uncomfortable truths" and other boldness. They don't see the audience as equals, nor the public space (or any other venue) as a level ground for communal sharing, but as objects upon which to exercise personal expressions of power. They think people need to be shaken, harrowed, put in their place, lectured, changed, or awakened. The underlying premise being that this is in the interest of the betterment of humanity, of justice or eventual peace. But it isn't! That is a false premise, and this is revealed in the gesture itself. What is at the heart of those good things if not love? And where is love in speaking downward, of treating relationships as one-way conduits for correction? All this to say that when it comes to public spaces specifically, I think many art installations are against the betterment & humanization of the space. Art is not automatically good (even if it's well-made). "Art for art's sake" is a hollow sentiment. The art & music world as we know it today is designed around ego, insecurity, and the desire for immortality through cultural power. It's proven in the fact that people look up to artists & musicians. People who idolize an artist do so because they perceive the artist's "aboveness" as transcendence, and hope that in admiring them they'll find escape from their own finitude. Fear of death sits as its root, and fear fosters confrontation, not communion. Art formed by that impulse produces civic lecturing, not civic hospitality—and if our public spaces are not curated with hospitality in mind, what is their true purpose?