Public art has been increasingly advocated on the basis of a series of supposed contributions to urban regeneration since the 1980s. A wide range of advocates have claimed that public art can help develop senses of identity, develop senses of place, contribute to civic identity, address community needs, tackle social exclusion, possess educational value and promote social change. However, these claims have been subject to very little serious evaluation. This paper critically reviews these claims along with salient theoretical critiques of public art's contributions to urban regeneration. It concludes by raising questions that might frame a research agenda for public art within this context.

This paper critically reviews claims that public art helps develop senses of identity and senses of place, contributes to civic identy, addresses community needs, etc., and provides theoretical critiques of public art's contributions to urban regeneration.