 |
 |
Re: new technology in public art, I think it's really a matter of the field catching up with artists. More established programs are more likely to commission new media art than newer programs that are still simply advocating for why a public investment in visual art is a good thing. Newer programs tend to commission timid work. There were quite a few new media art projects showcased at the Americans for the Arts Public Art Network conference this year and I hear about new media projects from most of my colleagues in more established programs. I think that there's a real desire in the field to work with new media artists and that the biggest obstacles out there are the perceived & sometimes real technical challenges of installing new media work and its maintenance. (As an aside, when I was in Seattle we commissioned one of Sheldon Brown's early large scale new media works. It was simple to install and very low maintenance. The biggest challenge was the client who did not recognize why it was considered art) The enticing element of new media work is that it can be mutable, interactive, commissioned as temporary and/or programmable, e.g. it's rarely going to be invisible or boring. Regarding Jorn's comments about art in private development, it's a thorny issue but perhaps more nuanced for us as a publicly-funded agency. We manage 'public' art in some private development here and have noticed two trends -- either the developers are very conservative & want to play it very safe because they're second-guessing their market (this applies mainly to speculative development) OR they want to 'brand' themselves as hot and adventurous and therefore are willing to take risks. The way we're hoping to tackle the challenge of working with private developers is that we're formulating public art plans in areas where private development is taking place. We will be encouraging private developers to place their art funds into a pool that supports these plans, at least in part. By using that strategy we are establishing urban design/community goals for public art and setting a standard for developers to meet. However, without such goals, when working with developers we consider them to be our primary clients and our intersection with community members is secondary, being mainly a part of the development approval process rather than being the more intrinsic part of the projects that it is if the City itself is commissioning something. Lastly, regarding Jorn's remarks about professional "public artists" and also the question about design-as-art: yes, there are a lot of cynical 'artists' out there who have figured out that there is a formula they can follow to produce acceptable public art. Depending on the experience of the public art administrator/curator a program can fall prey to this kind of safe work or aspire to create real, groud-breaking art. My feeling about this is that a) it's important to encourage talented curators to wade into the public sector so that intelligence and talent win out and, b) those of us who have been in the field for a while have a responsibility to challenge others in the field to take risks. TTFN. bg -----Original Message----- From: Sarah Cook [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 11:59 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Permanence and public art - recap and then... 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