Imagine an argument about the value of surprising public art and well-designed public space.
Interesting that I feel the need to add “well-designed” to public space. Public space ALWAYS exists so it MUST BE qualified. Public art is always an optional ADDITION and very, very rare when compared to the quantity of public space. [Perhaps I am wrong and the value of the gigantic ether of nearly invisible public space needs consideration. Many observers note the reduction in public space by “corporate interests” with the loss of the democratization of any and all publicly accessible space that was gained in 20th century. Not really less space, but a transformation of “id” space into “super-ego” space.]
I choose “surprising” because all good artworks must reach beyond my expectations on every real viewing. The work and its site must have the ability drag me back to look, to feel and to think again. A surprise that demands as much work from me as the object or space.
Satisfaction of the anticipated is not enough, but is generally the highest achievement of government projects of all types. The successful risk takers in government administration raise the level of the anticipation. This is a tricky business. The risk taker must convince others in power that the public’s level can also be raised and then satisfied. I once witness the director of the Seattle Public Library raise the level such that only architect Rem Koolhaas could satisfy the level. Brilliant.
We are seeing this in the Democratic primary where Obama has successfully raised anticipation for a “people-serving government” and Clinton has called into question his ability to achieve the result. As per all questions in government (public art and public space), the voters are choosing between guaranteed lower level achievement and a hope for a higher level.
The definition of well-designed might be the satisfaction of the anticipated. As government public art programs age, “well-designed” becomes a popular adjective. We desperately need to renew the surprise in public art.
Digg it…Del.icio.us …Technorati…Stumble Upon..Reddit
Reis writes:
This seems to be the crucial issue in public art- being safe, versus taking risks, which, of course, can result in either greatness or disaster.
We are having a big brou-ha-ha here in Seattle these days, as a local right wing talk radio host is going on a crusade against public art as a waste of the taxpayers dollars- his current targets include art at a DUMP! and the hiring of Mike Ross, who built the magnificent Big Rig Jig at Burning Man, for a half million dollars.
The constant drone is that all art is a waste of money, but particularly public art- as it is PUBLIC MONEY. The result is that administrators defend themselves by either picking the most bland, innocuous stuff possible, or by commissioning architectural decoration instead of freestanding art.
Both of these policies are an attempt to keep a low profile, but when the enemy is against spending any money at all, no matter the art, neither works.
It takes not only great arts administrators, but the full fledged support of the political establishment to get great public art. And this is rare.
Weiss reponds.
Your right and I am also a fan of the “Big Rig”. Sorry to hear about Seattle, but every city must defend against assault by one media personality every five years or so.
There has been a conspiracy(ish) against casual-ness in our towns and cities in recent years, as municipal fathers and mothers promote good taste.
What’s irritating is that good taste is often translated in to the commissioning of minimalist public spaces.
Minimalism is an expensive look. Easy on the eye.
Minimalism can be surprising – but it normally demands sublime sweeteners in your tea, or a natural affinity with Tao.
Result = boring public spaces.