This week’s feature story is about public art, both the legal kind commissioned by the city, and the kind that skirts (or runs right over) the edges of legality.

In addition, Christina Couch spoke with Farhad Radfar, the owner and director of MIR Appraisal Services Inc. to find out how much the famed Picasso statue would fetch on the open market. Let’s face it, with the way the CTA threw money away on its superstation, the city could use a little extra scratch. As you’ve read, Mr. Radfar says that the Picasso would sell for "$50 [million] to $75 million, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it sold for $500 million."

So we decided to see if he was right. And put the Picasso on Ebay.

With all due respect to Mr. Radfar, but he doesn’t know bupkus when it comes to selling stuff on Ebay. As you can see here, the Picasso "sold" for a whopping 99 cents* to one "chillyinchitown." Our art broker, Mr. Tom Crown, informs me that said buyer has not contacted him about acquiring the item, nor has he or she sent payment via his PayPal account.

All of this tongue-in-cheekery raises a couple serious questions:

1. Who owns public art?
2. If we want to sell public art, can we? Or should we?

As our brilliant Art & Design editor Lauren Weinberg points out, the public doesn’t fund public art all by itself. And with respect to the Picasso, the public doesn’t own any of it at all (though it was the inspiration for the city’s efforts to fund art through public financing). So uh…I guess Mr. Crown’s in big trouble. Hope he has a jet gassed up.

But public art shouldn’t be looked at in terms of ownership. The city - and the state - see value in art and culture and believe it contributes to the overall well-being of its citizenry. I’ll take what should be a non-controversial opinion and agree. Just this past week alone, I’ve had my own personal rage level taken down a couple notches thanks to the beauty of the Art Institute’s garden and the feel of grass underneath me as I recline on the grass of Millennium Park. (Just don’t think about the project’s massive cost overruns.)

Life in Chicago isn’t all about making sure the trains run on time, keeping the trash picked up, and keeping its citizens safe, even if a little more of all that wouldn’t hurt. But if the city stopped spending money on art, it doesn’t mean all its problems would go away (the old "why are we spending money on X when Y is happening…" fallacy). Sure, it doesn’t feed the hungry, but "world-class" cities are the ones that have solid public arts programs, not just ones that take care of basic needs.

* Not for nothing, but it cost $4.25 to put the auction up what with all the fancy borders and highlighting. So as I see it, somebody owes Mr. Crown $3.26.