NIMBYism is by 2010 a well-known phenomenon. There are many things we believe are necessary for the well-functionning of societies but we don't want them in our backyards: prisons, social housing, wind turbines, nuclear power plants just to name a few. As Jonathan Jones writes in a Guardian comment, it is now time to include another piece of infrastructure on the list: art!

Recently, an installation art project in Cardigan, Wales was scrapped after 4,400 people signed a petition against it. Such local opposition is widespread and usually founded around two main issues:

1. It's ugly

2. It's a waste of money

While the first issue is hard to argue against due to subjectivity, proponents of public art can often find a way around the second. The Danish town of Holstebro provides a good example: the mayor used 20,000 € on a Giacometti sculpture in 1966, but was so afraid of the public reaction that he didn't announce the purchase until after the local election. In February 2010, a similar statue was sold for 65 million £ at Sotheby's sparking debate about whether Holstebro municipality should sell its own sculpture at the auction and invest in schools, nurseries or other public amenities instead. Now the mayor's investment had proven to be too good!

Alternatively, public art can be promoted by including the local community at an early stage. This is the way followed in Copenhagen. Art neighbourhoods where the projects are formulated together with the residents is one way forward, another is giving prominence to installations which fulfil an actual physical role in the area. Swings For The Public which installed old fashion swings on squares in Copenhagen in 2008 is an example of this. After all, the energy that local citizens use on protest movements is a valuable asset, and it is the task of the authorities to turn it into something good!