This is my email reply in full to arts editor, Robert Faires, sent in preparation of his article “Gentle Disturbances” produced for the March 24, 2006 issue of the Austin Chronicle. His article is an insightful addition to Austin’s ongoing definition of public art. I have highlighted the sentences that were quoted.

Robert Faires: [...] To that end, would you tell me what you think of large-scale public art?

Me:

Relevant public artworks are inevitably historical gestures. The social, conceptual and aesthetic biases of the city’s citizens, government, and cultural funding departments are revealed, tested, and occasionally changed through the work’s realization. Large-scale public works such as Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc (1981), which was removed from a commercial square because of a small public outcry, document the contentious territory that truly relevant public work occupies. Tilted Arc did not seek to please the public or merely decorate commercial architecture. Instead, it forcibly changed public space and the routines of those who used it. In fact, Tilted Arc forced people to walk around it, slowing the NYC site’s constant foot traffic.

Those that resented this dominant gesture rallied against the artwork with unsubstantiated attacks claiming it could be used by terrorists, that it was ugly, and that it attracted rats. In its dismantling, the poetry of Tilted Arc was destroyed, but its ability to document a specific time and place’s preferences remains forever. Historical gestures such as this large-scale public work help us define where we are, who we are and who we want to be. In addition, the process and discussion of public art gives the world otherwise unavailable insight into a place’s perception of itself.

This “permanent” work received all the accolades the art establishment could muster, but in the end, 122 art advocate testimonials were outweighed by 58 against it. (1)

The lesson I glean from this is that all public art is ephemeral because permanence relies on current cultural preferences.

Because of the ways in which politicians use public arts funding to bolster their constituencies, there is never a guarantee when developing critical works for the public space.

Traditionally, permanent public art must be accepted in proposal form. Some aspects such as the site, subject, cost and theme are often pre-defined. This development process can easily lead to conservative thinking because of the number of checkboxes that must be filled. Beauty at true scale is difficult to portray in a proposal and arduous to cram into a paragraph. Works may never gain approval because of their complexity, their reliance on the artist’s personal history or their aesthetic uniqueness. Indeed, familiarity is funding’s best friend.

For example, the Stevie Ray Vaughan statue (2) on Austin’s hike-n-bike trail is an obvious choice for permanence and institutional approval because it memorializes a regional celebrity, markets the city as musician-friendly and is made of a traditional art material. But, what new cultural discussions did our funding of this sculpture inspire? None.

Temporary Advantage

So it is clear that by specifically choosing to create temporary public works, an artist is able to consider different materials, concepts and spaces that may be off-limits for the more traditional domain of permanent public art. The requirements change from “last forever” to “simply exist.” I believe this creates opportunities for people outside of the arts establishment and cultural mainstream. This is because temporary works need not celebrate, market or monumentalize any specific person or idea to be exhibited in public space. Instead, they can “simply exist.”

However, temporary work is historically problematic because it makes itself and its ideas easily replaceable. The public is asked to consider an art experience of little consequence. This immediacy and ephemerality should be balanced by the documentation of such work in internet-friendly formats such as video, photography and websites. This documentation insures that the historical gesture remains a part of a global conversation even though it is no longer a part of the local space. Indeed, Christo and Jeanne Claude’s large-scale public works remain a part of our cultural discourse through the films that document each project’s realization. The documentation of the local and international response to each project becomes instrumental in Christo’s historical gesture.

No matter how brief…

No matter how brief its existence, public art changes the history of a place and identity of its people. Public art creates the opportunity for a true dialogue about contemporary society’s requirements for “Art” and art experiences by directly confronting an audience that may not seek out this dialogue. Further, the process of proposing new works in public space exposes the forces, processes and preferences that define the cultural and institutional mainstream.

Notes

(1)
Info pulled from PBS Culture Shock - Flash Points: Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc on March 11, 2006

(2)
I would like to add the following after more internet-based research: Ralph Helmick produced the SRV memorial in 1994 as a commission for the Stevie Ray Vaughan Memorial Fund. On his site, he notes “The figure is unapologetically realistic; the bronze shadow showing him playing guitar is a metaphor for his musical legacy.” He’s not really playing guitar but I recognize the sentiment… I find his work Ghost Writer, 1994 to be a more successful piece. It, paired with the SRV memorial serves as a brilliant illustration of the aesthetic confines of two very different public commissions that were completed around the same time. It is clear that Ralph Helmick is a very capable artist and Austin would do well to commission him for something with fewer restrictions.

2005-2006 Cultural Arts Funding Recipients
Austin, Texas

Fig. 1 Not part of original email.

tags: art, austin, texas, publicart, sculpture, ephemeral

Post Info

Discuss, Permalink, Discussion Feed

Friday, March 24th, 2006 at 2:12 pm

topic: art