The extent to which the art works in Scape: Arts & Industry Urban Arts Festival 2002 are likely to be accessible to a general audience. 
 

by Eric Forster 
 

The French theorist Pierre Bourdieu finishes the introduction to his book Distinction with the statement: "Art and cultural consumption are predisposed, consciously and deliberately or not, to fulfil a social function of legitimating social differences" (7). After observing the field of artistic production in 1960's France, Bourdieu came to the conclusion that art was an elitist practice in that it refers to a  “restricted culture” purposely accessible to a minority only. In the promotional brochure that was distributed prior to Scape, we learn that one of the aims of the Art and Industry Biennials is to "break down elitism” (4). It follows, then, that making artistic practices a less restricted culture would be one way to achieve this aim and, indeed, the promotional brochure does state their attempt to “ensure the art works are accessible to all” (4). Clearly, the role Scape plays in taking art out of galleries and into the civic sphere is one way that it is making the art world a less restricted culture. However, it is not so much physical inaccessibility that makes art practices a restricted culture, but its perceptual inaccessibility. This is very clearly demonstrated by Bourdieu’s Distinction where he shows the clear divide between artistic taste and popular taste.  Indeed, for Bourdieu making art a more physically accessible practice does little to break down social hierarchies: “The more open and free art galleries are, the more effectively they serve to distinguish between those who, equipped with the cultural resources to understand them, elect to use them and those who, lacking those resources, do not" (Bourdieu paraphrased in Accounting for Tastes 244). It is clear, then, that Scape’s aim to “break down elitism” by making art a less restricted cultural practice will be successful insofar as the art work they display is perceptually accessible to a wide audience. The objective of my study is to ascertain the extent to which the Scape festival is likely to be successful in its attempt to exhibit art that is perceptually accessible to a general audience. To do this I will focus on the individual art works and consider how important the aesthetic disposistion and institutionally derived knowledge are for their appreciation.   

In Distinction, Bourdieu proposed that it is possible to draw some clear distinctions between working class taste (popular taste) and bourgeoisie taste (high cultural taste). Those with popular taste will favour art that makes direct, easily identifiable, reference to social relations: “Continuity between art and life” (4) and art where content is more important than style: “Subordination of form to function” (4).     These generalisations that Bourdieu made about popular taste in Distinction are strikingly similar to the generalisations made by John A. Walker in Art and Outrage about the tastes of the majority of people in 1990s Britain: “They tend to be empirical and pragmatic rather than theoretical, hence they favour the concrete and the particular rather than abstractions and generalisations” (6). For Bourdieu, high cultural taste is defined in its opposition to popular taste: “As for the working classes, perhaps their sole function in the system of aesthetic positions is to serve as a foil, a negative reference point, in relation to which all aesthetics define themselves” (57). For this reason those with high cultural taste will like art that makes no reference to social relations “art which imitates art, deriving from its own history the exclusive source of its experiments and even of its breaks from tradition” and art where there is “primacy of forms over function” (5). The art of high cultural taste is a part of a restricted culture because it can only be understood via institutionally derived knowledge and the art-referencing aesthetic disposition. Bourdieu made these observations of taste in relation to what he observed in 1960s France but he wrote that "the model of the relationships between the universe of economic and social conditions and the universe of lifestyles which is put forward here...seems to me to be valid beyond the particular French case" (xi Distinction). Indeed, the writers of the book Accounting for Tastes (Tony Bennett, Michael Emmison, John Frow) used Bourdieu’s theories in Distinction as the basis upon which they analysed the tastes in late 1990’s Australia.     

In the April 16 issue of The Press, Deborah McCormick stated that the “works in Scape have been chosen for their accessibility” (6). This being the case, we would expect to find that the artworks in Scape are not decipherable only to those who have high cultural taste. We would not expect an inclination towards the aesthetic disposition and/or institutionally derived knowledge to be necessary for their appreciation.  But there are some art works in the festival that do seem to reflect high cultural taste in exactly the way that Bourdieu defined it. For example there is Caroline Rothwell's artwork "Kotuku" a large sculpture depicting the native white heron that was situated in the Botanic Gardens Water Garden Pond. In the festival programme it is written that "the sculpture is concerned with light and shade and tricks of visual perspective distort our experience of form...the result is a haunting and enigmatic work, recognisable as the native heron but also an abstract form ready to engage with the viewer's imagination" (14). The sculpture is “an abstract form”, it is not in any obvious way “about anything”, thus, there is the high cultural “denial of the social” which Bourdieu observed. The appeal of “Kotuku” lies in the ability of the viewer to be “haunted” by it, to experience an aesthetic effect from it. The video projects of Scape tend also to require knowledge of high cultural forms for their appreciation. We see, again, that the aesthetic disposition is required: “a common thread runs between them: when focused upon in a particular way, things that once seemed so very familiar suddenly become mysteriously strange and hauntingly poetic” (programme, 39). Anu Lehtonen’s “Shovelling Snow” video installation will only be “hauntingly poetic” if the viewer realises that watching someone build and then destruct a snowman is in fact “human vulnerability...metaphorically depicted”, thus, it is necessary to have insider knowledge on the way art works. The necessity of this insider knowledge is also clearly needed to appreciate Erwin Wurm’s video installations because Wurm’s work alludes “to the Duchampian notion of the ready-made” (programme, 45). It is fair to say, I think, that it would quite strange if any of the art works discussed so far were chosen for their accessibility.

Michael Parekowhai’s “Cosmo and Jim McMurty” (or “Bunnies” as it came to be referred) was chosen as the artwork for the most culturally important space used in the festival, the Cathedral Square. In the April 16 issue of The Press McCormick states that Parekowhai was chosen for the Square specifically because of the accessibility of his work and she goes on to say: “While his works address serious issues they do so in a striking and often humourous way that has appealed to the general public as well as the art world" (6). It is two particular aspects of  “Bunnies” that would have led the organisers of Scape to consider it an “accessible” work that would appeal to the general public. Firstly, the artwork embraces popular taste by being Disney-like and using cute animals which are popularly considered visually pleasing.  Secondly, the artwork does not conform to the “form over function” characteristic of high art, rather, it aims to make a social comment: "The stylised bunnies were designed to reflect the impact of colonialism on Maori and how people have transformed the land" (Press, Aug 13, front page). However, I would argue that these two aspects of the artwork do not, in fact, help make it accessible to the general public. Indeed, to gauge from the Letters to the Editor published in The Press following the paper’s initial broadcasting of the impending sculpture, the art work was not accessible. Of the sixteen letters to the editor concerning “Bunnies” that I saw, twelve could not see any value in the sculpture. Two of the other four letters were written by affiliates of the Arts and Industry Biennial Trust (Deborah McCormick and Anna Crighton) with the other two being written by prominent members of the arts community (Max Podstolski and Jonathon Smart). Of the letter writers that had negative reactions to the sculpture there was Brenda Hunter who wrote: “What a load of rubbish...let's have our city council doing something constructive for a change” (April 17 pg.8) and David Killick who wrote: “So our city council is happy to spend $20,000 of ratepayer's money on "administration costs" for two enormous fibreglass cartoon-character rabbits in Cathedral Square, yet is unable to cover a deep hole in the footpath in Sydenham, resulting in a woman falling down it and being injured" (April 23 pg.8). In these two letters we see how “Bunnies” can be construed as still denying the social and privileging form over function.

The non-appreciation of the “Bunnies” sculpture by the general public is, I think, due to the fact that institutionally derived knowledge is again necessary for its appreciation as an artwork. We see that knowledge of academic theorisation is necessary when in the article “Polls Apart” from the July 3 issue of The Press Warren Feeney makes this attempt to explain “Bunnies”: “While Parekowhai's work may initially seem frivolous, it belongs to a postmodern context of art-making that acknowledges Walt Disney shares equal billing with modernist theory”. We also see that the art-referencing aesthetic disposition is needed when in a letter to the April 17 issue of The Press Max Podstolski attempts to explain “Bunnies” by writing of the way Parekowhai follows the American artist Jeff Koons: “Koons specialises in appropriating objects or images that are popular, banal and kitsch and recontextualising them as "serious" or "high" art” (14). The “Bunnies” sculpture may use objects of popular taste, but it is appropriating these objects to a high cultural perceptual technique. This quote from Bourdieu clarifies this: “Whenever he (the aesthete) appropriates one of the objects of popular taste (e.g. Westerns or strip cartoons), he introduces a distance...by displacing the interest from the ‘content’, characters, plot, etc., to the form, to the specifically artistic effects which are only appreciated relationally, through a comparison with other works” (34). To construct two giant Disney-type rabbits in the Square and call it “art”, is to act in a way that only makes sense through reference to art history and academic discourse. To appreciate Michael Parekowhai’s “Bunnies” once needs to be familiar with the way other artists, such as Jeff Koons, have appropriated “popular” objects for their art and one needs also to be familiar with the theorisation of postmodernism.

To be able to link “Bunnies” with a social comment, it is again necessary to be familiar with academic discourse, namely, the theory of postcolonialism. In the Editorial of the April 16 issue of The Press is this comment: “As for the bunnies, we are seriously assured that the rabbit is actually a metaphor for colonialism" (6). It is a comment which shows that to be able to view the “Bunnies” sculpture and link it to the social issue of New Zealand’s European colonisation, one needs to be familiar with the fact that the discourse of postcolonialism is influencing much contemporary art. There are several other art works in Scape that attempt engagement with social issues but do so in a way that is inaccessible to those without institutionally derived knowledge. For example there is Tony de Latour’s “Monument”, which is a sculpture that expresses a continuation with his concern for uncovering the truth of New Zealand’s past: “De Lautour's recent painting has been concerned with 'revisionist histories'...de Lautour's interventions reveal colonial history as less grand and noble than grubby and scruffy" (programme, 22).  But to express this concern, De Lautour has produced a sculpture that initially appears “to be a Victorian silver epergne - a kind of table setting - it is only gradually that the viewer becomes aware of the low-brow narrative present in the work”(programme, 22). We see that De Lautour’s social comment is presented very subtlety, to realise its meaning it is necessary to be aware of the academic discourse of revisionist histories. Writing about art being produced in the 1940’s, John A. Walker writes in Art and Outrage that art at this time was “often politically motivated by a desire to contribute to social change...the artists' transformity ambition paradoxically was associated with a refusal to communicate in commonly understood languages” (2). Clearly, it is an observation that is applicable to a number of artists involved in Scape.

These art works that are decipherable only when considered in reference to other art and to academic discourse, will not contribute much to the task of making artistic practice less a part of a restricted culture. It seems to be the case that an artwork such as Parekowhai’s “Bunnies” may be physically accessible to a wide audience but is perceptually accessible to very few. However, “Bunnies” is an artwork that is closer to being accessible than the art that Bourdieu observed in France in the 1960s. It may be distanced by its meaning coming via institutional discourse, but its social reference makes it less distanced than an artwork that simply refers to other art. I would argue that the presence of such art in public places and the debate it produces is a process that will inevitably make the art works even less inaccessible. Members of the general public who followed the dialogue that resulted from the proposed “Bunnies” sculpture almost certainly would have gained perceptual resources that mean they now better understand artistic expression. Indeed, in Accounting for Tastes it is described how “the social exclusiveness of art galleries is a concern for Bourdieu...he urges an enhanced role for public education in culturally skilling the population so as to make those institutions more democratically accessible" (Accounting forTastes 240). It should be pointed out that there is the difficulty, as pointed out by Bourdieu in “Forms of Capital” in that these art-deciphering tools are not easily transmitted: “This embodied capital, cannot be transmitted instantaneously (unlike money, property rights, or even titles of nobility) by gift or bequest, purchase or exchange" (244-5). In his April 17 letter to The Press Max Podstolski criticises Parekowhai because he “is not content to let the work speak for itself, so pointedly explains it in postcolonial terms”, but what is clear is that for the art works of Scape to be accessible to a wide audience it is vital that someone “pointedly explains” them. Members of the non arts attending majority will be that much more likely to support public art if it can be adequately demonstrated to them that art refers to everyday life.  

There are art works in the festival, though, that probably do not even need any explaining to be in some part accessible to a wide audience. For example there is Ani O’Neill’s art installation “Humoured” that has this description in the programme: “Made out of various recycled materials including raffia and bread bags, the creatures continue O'Neill's exploration and preservation of Pacific Island craft techniques in a contemporary art context...The installation also shows O'Neill's ongoing interest in collaboration, community and concern for the environment” (12). This description points out a number of ways that “Humoured” is engaged in social issues, but the one I would like to focus on is her “concern for the environment”. In O’Neill’s “Humoured” there are creatures placed around the Botanic Gardens Hothouse and these creatures are quite visibly made out of recycled materials. O’Neill is, thus, involving herself in the widespread popular issue of recycling. Her installation “Humoured” is clearly not denying the social or privileging form over function, it is an accessible artwork. Another artist in the Scape programme that includes a concern for the environment in their art is Matej Andraz Vogrincic who is constructing a site-specific installation in the Arts Centre during October and November. In the programme we read, "during his residency, Vogrincic will invite the public to donate materials, which he will transform into an installation" (28). The need to find ways of recycling used goods is such a widespread social concern that Vogrincic’s art work is likely, I think, to be more accessible for engaging in the issue.

It is clear that some of the art in Scape will at least be to some degree accessible to a wide audience. There is art that quite visibly expresses engagement in accessible social issues and art that does so via inaccessible levels of academic theorisation. We then have reason to believe the sincerity of the festival organisers when they state that their desire to bring art into the public sphere “comes from a need to express more visually the broad social, economic and cultural agendas that exist in New Zealand" (2000 catalogue, 6). This kind of artistic expression where there is an attempt to make art part of a less restricted culture contradicts Bourdieu’s assertion that art only ever legitimates social differences. But Christchurch in 2002 is a quite different cultural and historical context to that in which Bourdieu produced his book Distinction. One way in which the context has changed is that there has been social and academic movements that have drawn attention to the politics that are always involved in cultural production. Indeed, in Art and Outrage Walker points out that “the distinctive features of 1970's art were its re-politicisation and feminisation” (9). The politicisation of art has continued since the seventies so that a lot of art today has a social/political edge that was not apparent in the art Bourdieu viewed during the 1960s. The book Accounting for Tastes points out another way the context has changed so that Bourdieu’s theories lose a degree of relevance: “Individuals are increasing enrolled in the processes of governing for themselves not as citizens placed in a direct relationship to the state but indirectly as members of differentiated and often deterritorialised communities" (243). It is certainly the case that the clearly defined social hierarchy that existed in France when Bourdieu wrote Distinction is different to the more horizontal community structure that exists in New Zealand today. Because the arts community is no longer so clearly linked to communities of economic wealth and power, art will begin to welcome works that critique the social system. Conversely, it could be argued that the way a lot of art still denies the social is reflective of the fact that artistic practice is still part of legitimate culture, that is, it is institutionally sanctioned. 

It is clear, however, that Bourdieu’s book Distinction is relevant to an analysis of the distinctions in taste that exist in Christchurch in 2002, there is still the same divide between popular taste and the tastes of the artistic community. This poses a lot of problems for any organisation such as Art and Industry that is committed to making art more accessible to the general public and less part of a restricted culture. Taking art out of galleries and into the civic sphere may make art more physically accessible, but it does not improve its perceptual accessibility and this is the main way in which art remains part of a restricted culture. The organisers of Scape were conscious of this and so chose art works for the festival that they hoped would be perceptually accessible. These art works were those that engaged themselves in social issues and referenced images and objects from popular culture, such as Michael Parekowhai’s “Bunnies”. What the negative public reaction to “Bunnies” demonstrated was that this artwork, despite its accessible attributes, was not appreciated by the general public. This can be attributed to the fact that the art-referencing aesthetic disposition and institutionally derived knowledge was still necessary for its appreciation. That it is not necessarily the case that art will always be perceptually inaccessible was shown by several art works from the Scape programme, these were those that involve themselves in environmental concerns in a clearly visible way.              

WORKS CITED

• Bennett, Tony & Emmison, Michael & Frow, John. (Eds.) Accounting For Tastes: Australian Everyday Cultures, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1999.

• Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, Translated by Richard Nice, Harvard University Press: Massachusetts, 1984.

• Bourdieu, Pierre. “The Forms of Capital”, in Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, Greenwood Press: Connecticut, 1986.

• The Press, Issues: April 16, April 17, April 23, July 3, August 13.

• Walker, John A. Art and Outrage: Provocation, Controversy and the Visual Arts, Pluto Press: Sterling, Virginia, 1999.

Art and Industry Publications:

• Arts and Industry 2000 Biennial Catalogue, Art and Industry Biennial Trust: Christchurch, 2000.

• Scape Promotional Brochure, Art and Industry Biennial Trust: Christchurch, 2002.

• Scape Programme, Arts and Industry Biennial Trust: Christchurch. August 2002.