Residents reacted very differently to a new artwork installed in a square. Some found it beautiful; others thought the money should have gone elsewhere. A local group invited discussion of the work and its location. Participants described memories the square evoked and what a public space should accommodate. The artist explained the idea, while allowing other interpretations. This reduced the focus on finding one correct meaning. Disagreement about costs and priorities did not disappear; it became clearer. Public art can be both an object and an opportunity for public conversation. Claiming a work creates debate is insufficient if affected people lack space in it. An artwork can also have value without everyone liking it. The question is how to discuss aesthetic experiences and shared priorities without one kind of argument automatically invalidating the other.