The image trap in public art is the administrator’s, the curator’s or the committee’s dilemma, not the artists. (Of course, many artists do play.) The trap drops when a particular work is required to be a significant symbol for a place, a time or a people.
So many writers have analyzed the invention of symbols. I don’t have the background to comment on simulacre or metaphor. Sincerity or manipulation. As you can see, I don’t even know the polarities.
In my day job, I am in the self-laid trap. In the USA and UK, art projects abound to find that gigantic landmark or gateway or monument that identifies the city, region or country to the tourist and citizen. Both soulful and photographic; durable and immediate; and always night and day.
Copyright: Aktins, Howard Bowcott – Celtic Knot
I am more disabled as I come from architecture, not visual art, literature or film. The architect’s controversy of modern or pre-modern is completely immature compared to the dilemmas of the visual artists regarding the urban interjection that seeks meaning for the place and people. For 150 years, architects have debated only one symbolic clash: modern (the now and future) and historic (the valuable and humane).
So I utilized someone else trap to think about my problem as an administrator: the LANDMARK WALES competition for a series of huge artworks to welcome people to places in Wales, UK. As with all UK competitions, they are seeking the success of the “Angel of the North” by Gormley. I hope the Brits can free themselves faster from Gormley than the Yank’s freed themselves from Maya Lin’s Vietnam War Memorial. (Perhaps we are not free yet)
In the trap, most evaluations are grounded in sensible functional concerns and generic cultural beliefs. Function is both “Will it standup for 100 years?” and “What does it do for our image?” On a cultural note, “How does the artwork say who we were and will be?” Although some engineering analysis may help a little, the success of artistic solutions to the questions are completely unknowable in a political situation seeking certainity.
Without much rationale justification, someone accuses some else of forcing the artwork on the community. It will be true – in every single case. Can’t be avoided. Don’t play if you don’t want to get burned. Even with the case of the Fremont Troll in Seattle, the art community felt repressed by the popular vote (Accompanied by campaigning by the winning artists.)
So in the irrational, I ask some simple questions of myself.
1. “Do I want to see the artwork in person. Would I travel to be with it?”
2. “Do I find myself thinking about it? Does it make me appreciate some unusual qualities of the people that built it and live with it.
3. For a proposal evaluation, “Do I believe the artist can make it just right?”
So armed with the questions and my inconsistent application, I return to the Landmark Wales. (Hey these questions really work. Try it yourself). The first question requires visualization that the actualization will be better than the drawing or photograph. Even if the drawing is appealing, do you really need more than the drawing?
Copyright: Infanger & Parker: Dragon’s Breathe
In this category: Echelman’s 3D banner, Aktin’s Celtic Knot and Infanger/Parker’s constellation dragon. Echelman to see the heraldic thing wave on the hill. Aktins for its scale and shape against the city. Infanger/Parker to see the man-made flickering against the stars.
Second Question about thinking. But this is harder than it appears because you must eliminate all cheap easy cynical thoughts and thoughts regarding position in the international art dialogue. These thoughts are fun, but ask yourself about the narrative of the people installing and living with the work. My mind goes filmic. Burke’s double headed janus and willingness to live with the android self-image. That’s it. I want Plensa’s Sleeping Lord and Marks Barfield’s Red Cloud to spark thoughts, but nothing comes.
Finally, can the artist make it just right? With these caliber of artists, the answer should be “yes” for all. The question is not just execution, but rather if the idea presented can be achieved. This is the problem with “Red Cloud”. All the flying and quivering red mannequins will add up to nothing. I think another artist might be able to make this proposal work, but not the inventors. Based on the drawings and past work, I believe that Leighton’s Sentinels through execution might surpass the lack of visual spendor.
If I had a blank check, I would build Echelman’s banner. Something about it is very 19th century, military pride from the UK. If it stands up and moves in the wind, I would love to watch it in person. It is her best work yet.
Copyright: Echelman: Untitled
I have mixed up all the individual competitions. Here are my predictions on the winners
1. A550: START OVER. If forced, Graeme Massie & Donald Urquhart: Red Linear
2. Holyhead Harbor: Atkins, Howard Bowcott: Celtic Knot
3. Second Servern Crossing: Amber and Pearl: Dragon Egg
4. Dowlais Top: Infanger and Parker: Dragon’s Breath
5. Monmouth A40: Openarch
6. A483/A5: Simeon Nelson: Draco
Good Luck in Wales and every other place seeking the big symbol.
Public Art, Public Space
Am AMAZED at your expressions,and descriptive word talent. Much of these articles should be published. Can you have a column in some Art, or ??related magazine??