VANCOUVER — In the end, it was scenery -- not sacrilege -- that decided the fate of Vancouver's upside-down church.

For all the talk about what, if anything, Dennis Oppenheim's towering sculpture says about religion and Christianity, it turns out complaints about water views and esthetics were ultimately what forced the controversial artwork out of a downtown park.

"Asking for a work to be removed because it blocks a view or damages a view is probably more insulting than having it removed for its content,'' says Oppenheim, a prominent New York-based artist.

"You have to understand the level of esoterica that a lot of art has to the public at large. It's a strange thing for lots of people, and the first thing they do is ask for it to be removed.''

The sculpture -- titled Device to Root Out Evil -- was taken apart last week and is now destined for Calgary's Glenbow Museum, a move that's raised questions about how willing Canadians are to embrace public art.

It was erected in a small park along Vancouver's waterfront in 2006, one of nearly two dozen works set up around the city for 18-month installations for the Vancouver Sculpture Biennale.

The six-metre-high statue of steel and red stained glass depicts an inverted church, its steeple penetrating the ground and its base reaching out into the sky.

Oppenheim first created the sculpture in 1997 for the Venice Biennale.

Device to Root Out Evil has been followed by controversy ever since, rejected by a non-profit public art group in New York City and again by Stanford University -- Oppenheim's alma matter -- whose president cited concerns from the school's religious leaders among his reasons to turn down the piece.

When news first broke that Vancouver's parks board decided not to extend the church's stay, many assumed religious sensibilities were at work.

But the board says the decision was instead prompted by concerns the sculpture was too large for the small park, as well as complaints from nearby residents who said it was in the way.

Oppenheim, who insists his sculpture is more about architecture than religion, says it's often a struggle to convince both the public and governments to embrace art in open spaces -- especially abstract art or pieces that draw attention.

"This problem that the public quite often have with contemporary art is nothing new,'' he says.

"It's something that they feel is a confrontational sculpture in their community, and maybe they want a more sublime atmosphere to be around.''

The church will be set up somewhere in Calgary, though the Glenbow Museum, which doesn't have room to display it at its downtown location, has yet to pick a spot.

Museum president Jeff Spalding says the sculpture's exit from Vancouver followed a familiar story: it doesn't matter whether the art is controversial or not, there always seems to be someone who'd rather not look at it.

"It just does not matter what shape it is, it does not matter what subject it is, you will find some people aggravated,'' says Spalding.

"Unhappily, an awful lot of installation sculpture, it comes right down to basic real estate things -- people don't want to have to walk around it, it's in their way.''

Still, Spalding says even in Vancouver the reaction to Oppenheim's sculpture appeared to be largely positive.

The park saw a steady stream of locals and tourists marvelling at the imposing structure, debating what it might mean and posing for photos.

Spalding predicts a similar reaction in Calgary -- while some will be left confused, many more will be delighted to have it.

"I think it will be a carbon copy, and that is, on balance, I think people will be very excited to see it and just enjoy it,'' says Spalding.

Vancouver's parks board is currently debating which of the 22 pieces from the Vancouver Sculpture Biennale will remain in the city. Some have already been removed, while there are proposals before the board to keep others.

Part of the issue is that the city doesn't have any formal policy on permanent public art -- up to now most pieces set up by the board have been temporary.

The board is currently working to update its policy.

Cities across the country have set up public art committees and devoted growing budgets to acquiring artwork to spruce up their communities.

Annie Gerin, who co-edited the book "Public Art in Canada,'' says there have actually been great strides in increasing the amount of public art across the country.

Some cities even mandate that one per cent of the budget of new public buildings must be spent on public art.

However, their success often hinges on how specific the pieces are to the spaces they occupy and how residents are involved.

"The thing about the Oppenheim piece is that it's not site-specific, it wasn't made to be there,'' says Gerin, who teaches art history at Universite du Quebec in Montreal.

When art is set up without any consideration of where it's going, Gerin says it's far more likely to be rejected by people who happen to live nearby.

In fact, there's even a name for that -- it's called "plunk art.''

"A public work of art needs to be something that meshes organically with the community,'' she says.

"When a city makes public art commissions, there is a very strong sense that the community has paid for it, and that the community should be consulted.''

For example, she says her home of Montreal has done an excellent job acquiring contemporary art while considering its surroundings.

On the shores of the St. Lawrence River, for example, sit a number of works by Rose-Marie Goulet, large statues that spell out words connected to the area's history of migration.

When people feel a connection to the art, Gerin says they take ownership over it.

"There's all kinds of cases of that,'' she says.

"Of course, we tend to hear about the ones that don't work. There's still a lot of plunk art.''