By definition, public art is out there in the open. Often, it has been made and placed with the intention that people can see it close up. They may be able and even encouraged to touch it, and possibly to interact with it in other ways such as walking within or through it. The Waterfall in the Market Place is an example of an artwork designed for such interaction. You can walk through the rear wall and behind the water, and you can climb the steps to see and touch the calm water before it tumbles over the edge. Public art is there for everyone to respond to. In one sense, it belongs to all of us.

It is a sad fact of modern life that some people in the community seem able to respond only with violence. Because they're usually to be found in very public spaces, vandalism is a constant threat to public artworks.

There are some artworks that it would be very difficult for vandals to damage. They may be too solid and strong and difficult to damage with paint or other markers; they may be out of reach, placed high on a building for example; they may be simply invisible to minds fuelled by hatred of anything that speaks of public order and harmony.

If all public artwork were to be designed to be entirely vandal-proof, the scope for variety in public artworks would be greatly reduced. Because we hope that the variety of artworks should be as great as possible, this is not the way forward.

The great majority of artworks do not suffer from serious vandalism. It could be argued that the real surprise is that, overall, vandalism to public artworks is limited. This is partly because avoiding the effects of vandalism should be taken into account when the artwork is planned and designed. As with other aspects of maintenance, if enough care is taken at the technical specification stage, then the long-term maintenance costs will be minimised.

The photographs show two examples of damage to artworks through vandalism. Both the Reform Bill Heads and Tree Spirit feature in the Derby Public Artwork Series featured on other web pages within the Council's web site. The damage was done in Autumn 2004.

There was much concern about the damage in both cases. It was reported to those responsible for maintenance, and action is being taken. An unfortunate certainty is that public artworks will be damaged in the future. It is equally certain that, whenever possible, the damage will be rectified by those who believe that public artworks make a very positive contribution to the variety, quality and interest of our shared environment.