Art's Common ground

THE ''PARTISANS" sculpture that found a home on Boston Common almost a quarter-century ago deserves better than exile to some uncertain destination in some far-flung state. The casting of five emaciated horsemen by Polish immigrant Andrew Pitynski is controversial and shocking, often desirable elements in public art.

There is a process in Boston for planning, commissioning, and placing public works of art such as statues, fountains, even decorative plaques. ''Opportunities are provided for community feedback," according to the Boston Art Commission guidelines for public art. But the guidelines say nothing about the removal of art objects. Theoretically, the public should have some say in what belongs in its outdoor living spaces. In reality, a four-member art commission that represents major cultural institutions across the city makes the decisions, pretty much unilaterally, as it did in a vote on the sculpture last June. The commission members are Ann Macomber, a member of the Museum of Fine Arts board of overseers; Karen Pfefferle, gallery manager and curator; William Taylor, a trustee of the Boston Public Library and former Globe publisher; and architect Carol Burns.

The sculpture invokes the enervating struggles of man and beast during the resistance to Nazism and communism. Cheerful it is not. But the image resonated with many Bostonians and tourists. Boston sculptor Joseph Wheelwright said he found it ''a welcome relief from the relentless neoclassicism on the Common." For others, including the influential Friends of the Public Garden, ''Partisans" was little more than an aluminum eyesore worth roughly $800 in materials.

There is nothing particularly unusual about this disagreement. Public art is often conflicting. The dialogue among members of the audience is part of the show. It is not the role of the city to silence the debate without a reasonable opportunity for people to make their views known. Boston is a vessel full of public meetings on everything from dog runs to liquor licenses. The removal of public art should not be an exception.

Sarah Hutt, the city's director of public art, insists that the sculpture was a loaner with a convoluted history dating to Mayor Kevin White and, as such, doesn't fall under the city's normal procedures. A better argument is that the sculpture had become unstable and might have posed a danger to the public. Yet there was no serious discussion about what might be required to stabilize it. The city did make an effort to find the piece a new home. But a few refusals seemed to stymie a city administration known for its forcefulness.

''Partisans" has been in Boston longer than most city residents. Perhaps it's not a brilliant work like the Robert Gould Shaw monument, and no piece of public art, once put on display, owns its site in perpetuity. Still, persons who were moved by the Common's gaunt horsemen deserved to be heard before the partisans were trucked away.