with regards to Matt's question "is it possible for time-limites
works to be commissioned in a public art model?" - yes there is, and
it has been practiced in Hamburg (there may be other cities on this
planet that did too), as I posted earlier. this is also documented in
a series of bi-lingual books which might be got through university
library interloan. these are just the examples i have handy:
Clegg & Guttmann, Die Offene Bibliothek / The Open Public Library,
Cantz Verlag 1994, ISBN 3-89322-684-2
Christian Philipp Müller, Kunst auf Schritt und Tritt / Public Art is
Everywhere, Kellner Verlag 1997, ISBN 3-89630-104-7
Stadtfahr / City Tour, Kellner Verlag 1996, ISBN 3-927623-53-9
The last one was a project with busses. all commissioned within the
city's public art programme. these are just examples, there were more
until 2001 when the 1% for art in the city's budget was scrapped.
complete list at
http://www.hamburg.de/Behoerden/Kulturbehoerde/Raum/
Or another example: During the worldcup, there was an art in public
exhibition in Nürnberg, financed by the city and the football
association, "Das grosse Rasenstück".
As Barbara said, it only needs a little bit of convincing and
adventurous public art officers. and a different perspective on art
in public, that gets rid of the assumption that art in public lasts
longer than anything else. but usually these assumptions are hampered
by politics. there will always be someone complaining about the waste
of money if it doesn't last. and, unfortunately, at least in my UK
experience, it is also not enough to have an adventurous public art
officer, if a) they do not have a budget, and b) they have to wait to
get permission from the city council. The latter often don't
understand that art in public can play a crucial role in challenging
notions about art, or why that is a good thing.
Also, if artists don't approach their public art officer with ideas
that go beyond the traditional sculpture either with or without a
videoscreen in it, then there cannot be a, say, network work of art.
and if the art officer cannot mediate the work of art as something
that is proposing a new notion of art and its capabilities, then it
won't be there neither. I don't believe that the Public is part of
the equation (nobody goes to ask the public about every little
decision they make - that's why there are elections): they will react
positively or otherwise, vandalize or not, it doesn't matter. The
work will live the time it does; the commission could also be
contracted with a limited life span. The 'public' in public art, is
the commissioning and mediating body. It is then a matter of whether
these manage to convince, that their commission is a work of art.
as far as I am concerned, works commissioned by developers are not
public art, although they might be publicly accessible: they are
corporate art. the reality may be that public bodies have to work
with developers: yet I think that this is where the political comes
into play again. the distiction, i feel, has to be made between
public and corporate art, simply because politically I prefer there
to be a distinction.
jorn
Am 21.07.2006 um 19:59 schrieb Sarah Cook:
> hi all
> hope you're surviving the heatwave wherever you are - i am wishing
> newcastle had more public art fountains i could sit with my toes in!
>
> i thought i should recap where we have got to thus far, in no
> particular order:
>
> = perhaps thinking of strategies for sustainability and an art
> work's life span is more useful than thinking about permanence when
> it comes to public art projects. this then takes into account
> platforms for presentation of work that could change, and artists
> being able to upgrade or let degrade their work, as they and the
> commissioners (and public?) see fit. comments from you all about
> the archives/registration end of things have been very useful
>
> = mark wallinger definitely isn't the first artist to install a
> permanent work of art in a public location using new media
> technology (and let's not get in to the video is or isn't new media
> debate here just now - it's too hot!). thanks all for all the great
> examples; it's always nice to feel like the CRUMB list can
> spontaneously write new art histories if we put our heads together.
>
> = it seems we still could unpack further discussions around % for
> art programmes and the types of work it results in - as far as
> issues for curators and for the field of new media are concerned. i
> particularly liked jorn's comments about the business/developer
> side of things and a wonder as to where the public actually is in
> the equation.
>
> = tied to this, it seems to me there is a crossover between art and
> design here too - as developers look to designers and information
> architects (sometimes interaction designers) for technology-driven
> displays to flash about their buildings and cities (and again,
> don't get me started about what this means for curators - it's just
> too hot, my brain might fry).
>
> = as for the nature of public art itself - its history and our
> assumptions about how it works - is it the case that there are few
> new media driven projects commissioned in proportion to the more
> static works we tend to associate with the field, or does it just
> seem that way? and if it is true, then why? is it just a question
> of sustainability and the equipment that puts people off, or a
> genuine lack of opportunities, or is it the limited purview of the
> commissioner and the artists' difficulty in convincing them of the
> feasibilities? as Matt asked: " Is it possible for time-limited
> works to be reasonably commissioned at all in a public art model?
> How do we change that public art model (which tends to think very
> much along the lines of architecture in terms of permanence)?" (or,
> what hasn't there been a work of interactive, technology-driven,
> variable media for the fourth plinth in trafalgar square yet?)
>
> and now, back to the ice-cream,
> sarah
>
|
