Moment and Monument: Public Art as Conflict/Resolution
This is a compilation and re-contextualization of several smaller posts about public art I’ve written over the past year. I’m pulling them all together into one (hopefully) cohesive article.
One of my instructors and mentors proposed a definition for installation or environmental art. I’m paraphrasing somewhat, but it goes something like this: Installation, environmental, or otherwise “public” art, is the re-purposing or re-contextualizing of a space into an aesthetic or experiential artifact.
Some argue that it’s not applicable as a definition for Public Art- largely because of a perceived lack of transformative quality. I disagree. The difference is that its transformative quality is bound up with seemingly external actors- namely, the politics of public art.
So far in this course, we’ve seen examples of work that were financed or produced by a state body. We’ve also seen work financed or produced by private citizens which ostensibly make up the bulk of “the public.” There’s state-approved work co-opted by private artists. And possibly vice-versa.
Public life is defined by the conversation between the governors and the governed. Often, it’s more like an argument. Naturally, art- which I’ve always seen more as a conversational catalyst than a created object- furthers than conversation by expressing, instigating, or provoking those embroiled in the debate. Conversation is inherently transformational- even with smalltalk, the connection made with someone else changes you.
I would say that public art is transformational, in that it continues the conversation within the public square that defines the development of culture. The vector that this transformation follows is the same as in other categories of human endeavor in which narratives emerge- that of Conflict, and it’s ultimate Resolution.
Public Art isn’t hidden away. It doesn’t live in someone’s home, or in a gallery. It’s there for everyone.
That means that everyone who engages with the art has to share. Your individual interpretation and parsing of the work isn’t the only one that’s important, even for your own sake. Your needs and your agenda are brought into contention with those of potentially thousands (or millions) of others. And there isn’t necessarily a duty or an understanding to reach consensus about a piece. Many different evaluations develop, most are not reconciled, and it all becomes part of the piece.
At the same time, we have the conflict between audience and authority. The authority of the artist, the authority of a corporate sponsor, the authority of a government body. Each has their own needs and their own agenda- but with the added muscle of authority to press it. With the power they wield- be it authorship, or money, or Eminent Domain- the conflict between audience and authority becomes protracted. Numbers versus money. Bureaucracy versus constituency. Intended verses intention.
Public Art can be seen as the manifestation of an entrenched struggle for rights of cultural authorship. Eventually, though, that struggle has to be resolved. Someone wins, and someone loses. Or, a truce is declared. A (hopefully) lasting peace is brokered.
Public Art is a manifestation of that resolution as well. The treaty is signed abstractly, and the Art is the transubstantiation of that treaty. Belligerents put aside art and agree on certain terms. The agreement takes shape as sculpture, or architecture, or monuments. We all agree on what our culture is, and Public Art becomes the seal of that covenant.
By engaging with the culture around you, you agree to the terms of the cultural treaty as well. Do you disagree? Then make Art that says so. Start the war anew. Break the treaty. You, as cultural author, owe nothing less.
