'Working In Public' - a public conversation at the Scottish Parliament

I was invited to be 'audience member' at Holyrood for an event called 'Working In Public'. Well it was the final evening of a very long (and seemingly complicated) process or 'public conversation' (as they called it) discussing many of the key issues of public art practice: What do we mean by public art... in what sense is this work art? Coming in at the end as I did the question I left with was: ' in what sense is this conversation public'. It felt like the wrong context to have an open discussion of this kind. I was pleased to have been invited and enjoyed what were a fascinating series of (too brief) presentations by artists and workers in the public sphere. But even these went by without time for questions. It all felt burdened by expectation and somewhat ironically - context.
Suzanne Lacy in summing up gave a very optimistic account of the current potential for public art practice where she discussed the reframing of art through the language and mechanisms of research. What did such a shift represent and mean she asked. Good question. Her vision seemed to be a very appealing one in which art as research had the opportunity to open itself up to the possibility of failure through experimentation. (great) Art could rightly be a form of asking questions as well as seeking new knowledge to be transferred. (great) She seemed to be putting forward the model of public art (and the role of artists) as a way of promoting public discourse in a fruitful new union of culture and politics. (Did she mean politics with a capital 'P' or was this just me reading too much into the context?).
I would love to share such optimism, but I can't help thinking (like the father of the bride to be) that this marriage must come at some cost. In other words, I wouldn't mind coughing up if I trusted the groom and thought the marriage had a decent future. It's not the finances and funding that concern me but the key question about who and how art is measured in terms of its success. Are artists being set up in positions of civic responsibility in order to divert attention away from the politicians? John Caughey (former arts chair for the AHRC) asked how funding changes art and what would bad public art look like. I don't neccessarily think these two questions follow on from eachother as art which has taken enormous risks might end up 'looking' shite - but it must have been given the chance to experiment and fail (not just by the artists but by the commissioners, funders and ultimately yes, the politicians). So the key question for me regards measuring or evidencing the impact of public art. There has to be a more intelligent way of measuring the process or the journey as well as the physical outcome and these have to be built in at the very inception, at the top, with the politicians. Artists have to be given the opportunity to fail, to make mistakes. Politics and politicians should know all about failure - maybe they could give workshops to artists...