Public Art Visions and Possibilities: Views from a Practicing Artist
Published in Routledge Companion to Art in the Public Realm, 2021. Edited by Cameron Cartiere and Leon Tan.
Select Excerpt
The word ‘public’ can be deceptive. It is ambiguous and often misused. However, a dictionary definition is clear: “concerning the people as a whole.” So, I am mulling over all the confusion around this word – ‘public’.
Once upon a time, all art was public art. Most of it was utilitarian. We are in a moment in history evolving away from cultural hegemony and assumed dominance of some body over others – kings, dictators, colonial powers, other institutions – and towards a more decentralised and equitable redistribution. We are right now in this struggle.
The sculpture on the Parthenon, masks and objects used in rituals around the world, murals in the subway, decorated bus stations, benches and walls - all of these are public. In theory, current public art reflects the values and aspirations of a society.
I consider public art to be art which is created ‘with, for, and by’ the public. This criteria contains a wide range of fascinating possibilities. Art is the heartbeat of a community - it is that wonderful hum of people creating things that they love and care about, with the goal of informing, elevating, and celebrating. Artists belong in the centre of their community and should receive sufficient funding in the same way that other public services like the postal service or health clinics do.
Funding determines almost everything in a capitalist culture. Funders rarely accept pieces or processes that would truly engage the public, enhance local ecologies, provide interaction, or entail long-term contextual evolution. Funders and foundations tend to be obsessed with quantification; every hour and every object created must have easily-defined monetary value. As a consequence, public arts organisations often do little more than “go shopping” for artwork that satisfies a predefined and somewhat superficial checklist.
Throughout my working life, I’ve swung between the privacy of my studio and public spaces, with occasional pauses in galleries and museums. A public space allowed me to define myself, to interact with the public. Once I stepped out, in 1976, I received sufficient funding to keep going one way or another. A gallery or alternative space would sponsor a street event. At times, I simply went out and existed in a public space for a period of time. As someone who has performed and worked in both private and public settings, I can attest to the reality that the two are very different. Listening to a man tell his story in front of a Wall Street bank is a profoundly different experience from asking people for their stories while performing in a museum. But the museum paid for that performance, and I was grateful.
The existence of art with the public challenges dominant power structures simply because it engages the public, often connecting people, offering vision and possibility and is not constrained by markets.