Hi all.
First, my apologies for not being involved in many of these discussions for
some time.
> (and yes, I know we should also have a debate about _where_ public
> space is!)
This is the bit I'd like to get my teeth into. How far can technology reach
into the domain of public art?
If you can experience it from a public space (i.e. downloading a wap site,
or mapping/drawing with gps) is it still public art, or does 'public art'
need to physically resonate in 'that' public space - and to that end, be
'left' there?
Or is it 'sharing' the experience that defines it as public art? There are
many projects that blend the use of physical and wireless spaces (e.g.
Huddersfield Media Centre's 'Speaker's Corner'
http://the-media-centre.co.uk/speakers_corner.html where the artwork is
'public' within a physical sense but users also can participate via the web
site, SMS and telephone line, and of course Blast Theory's Uncle Roy Is All
Around You http://blasttheory.co.uk/bt/work_uncleroy.html and their various
incarnations). But what about 'bluemobbing', where groups of people
congregate in public spaces to share their artwork by bluetooth? The people
are together physically, sharing an experience, but when they leave there is
no trace of 'public art' - other than isolated pieces in random pockets.
Would anyone consider purely online shared 'public' spaces (blogs,
chatrooms, myspace, flickr, etc) as 'public art'?
Then there's the 'permanence' element. The BBC screen in Manchester city
centre features a curated programme of video art by Cornerhouse, but it
occupies the space at scheduled times of the day (the rest of the time is
known as tramps telly; full of sport, news and neighbours). The screen is a
well known permanent piece of architecture within the city, but despite its
regular arts programme, it's not a permanent work of art - or is it?
Personally, working with phones for this long, I've had mobile internet
projects funded under Arts Council England's 'National Touring Programme'
despite never physically moving anything anywhere. I've also discussed
similar distribution processes with Public Arts officers and been told it's
not a suitable format for public art. In other countries I've had
discussions about public art commissions based purely on mobile content - so
is this a cultural issue, a personal issue (based on the curator in charge)
or are there 'guidelines' for managing public art programmes that curators
are bound to?
This may be a spin-off-too-far, but could you, for example, consider 'book
crossing' (http://www.bookcrossing.com/) to be public art? You read a book
and leave it somewhere for others to read. They may remove the book from the
space where they found it (in fact part of the point is to see how far the
book travels) but they might just read and replace it. Back when I had the
time to spend all day in the pub, I would buy a second hand book from my
favourite tatty shop, read it in the pub round the corner and then leave it
on the pub's shelf. Does that count? It's certainly not visual art or media
art, but is it public art? When I go back to those pubs, I remember the
books that I read there, so there's a kind of morphogenetic resonance - a
permanence for me which links that pub with that book. if other drinkers had
picked up that book after me, would that make our experience valid of a
public art definition?
Thanks Sarah, interesting topic!
--
>> more info <<
http://www.the-phone-book.ltd.uk - encouraging people to be creative with
their mobile phones since the beginning of the 21st century.
NEWS>> Recent exhibition -
http://www.pratt.edu/news/popup.php?story=03.02.06_Pratt_Manhattan_Gallery_Exhibition_Explores_Diminutive_Scale.html
fee plumley
+44 (0) 7968 258630
production director
the-phone-book Limited
po box 134
manchester m21 9wz
united kingdom
|
