SCAPE - Art and industry: urban(e) arts festival
Elaina Hamilton
Scape, the art and industry biennial’s second festival, aims to bring art works back into the public sphere claiming their place amongst a diverse landscape as public artworks. A discussion of public art necessitates an investigation into the phenomenology of the discourses that exist surrounding the dialectical relationship between aesthetic perception and public space. Analysis of public art raises questions such as how do we propose to define the public sphere, and what is public space? What is the ‘art’ in public art? Who and what criteria should dictate what public art should be included into the public landscape? There are two sides to the argument of who is entitled to judge and place value on public works of art, one promotes the democratic notion of popular opinion and the other those who have knowledge and opinions about serious art. The cultural terrain of public art is an intricate web consisting of a multiple voices, each needing to be taken into consideration and accounted for. The problem presented is do the public know best when it comes to public art and if so who should speak for the public? The idea of a Scape talks about both the physical environment of a landscape and the multifaceted layers of significance projected onto that landscape. It talks about identities of a place, the history of that space and of creating new meanings, new histories interwoven with the old. The festival is promoted as being a celebration of the urban landscape of Christchurch.
In the past, artists have focused their attentions away from moral and political concerns to mainly formal issues regarding their works of art. Due to the combination of the institutionalisation of art, situating and confining art to galleries and museums and the modernist principle of art seen as being autonomous, detached from everyday social practises and concerns works of art became detached from the public context. In the mid 20thcentury public art surfaced as a way to enrich an austere public landscape, signalling the public environment had become of important aesthetic concern, alongside its functional aspects. However, it still lacked significant contribution from the public realm.[1] Artists shifted their focus away from the ‘inside’ of the artwork and its inherent meanings to the ‘outside’ that is its context and frame. As a result, site-specific artworks came about challenging the formalist doctrine of autonomy in art. Context became incorporated into the works.[2] The 1960’s brought about site-specific sculpture that was revolutionary in the overwhelming sculptural history of public art. Work outside gallery spaces suggested an alternative to the gallery set works of institutionalised art, which are contained by and within the social institution that is the art world.
As art has become increasingly integrated into the public sphere it has become multivalent. Today Art can function in many different ways. It can be an expression of emotions, it can be used as a tool to educate and it can be informative used as a vehicle to transmit ideas. Increasingly public discourse has become engrossed with moral and political issues, overwhelming artists with the sense of obligation to satisfy social responsibilities, to fulfil a need that art should speak of life, of the world in transition, instead of art that speaks solely about art itself. In a way that is still unimaginable today, primitive art and life were interdependent of each other.[3] The recognised art of numerous cultures including that of early European art embraced a collaborative model of the art process. Works spoke about shared cultural convictions of communities rather than the individual acts of autonomous self-expression as advocated by modernism. As evidenced in early art works from Greece, Rome, and Christian works from the Middle Ages that celebrate shared cultural ideals.[4]
Public
art can be seen as a way to bring high art to the so-called masses and
in doing so can highlight the often antagonistic relationship that exists
in the society of today between the everyday processes of living and
the fine arts.[5] Public art resides in the liminal
space that exists between art and life. Scape proposes to do this by
constructing works in highly visible public spaces, bringing artworks
and artists out into the public arena. 
In
creating a festival Scape also attempts to invite the ‘public’ into the
gallery space, by providing typically elite gallery spaces as alternative
public spaces. However supposedly public space such as museums and public
galleries, which were originally designed to liberate cultural objects
and works of art from the confinements of private treasuries, become ‘privatised’ by
virtue of the very process of aesthetic appropriation of the works by
the art world institution that turns them into ‘museum’ and ‘gallery
pieces’.[6] Labelling works as public and placing
them in ‘public’ spaces does not ensure works of art are public works
of art.
An interesting reaction happens between artworks and spectators when the process of aesthetic appreciation is not a forced one, which happens when discourses surrounding objects promote exclusion. Rather than having an experience that is set around certain sets of closed expectations, this is an art object; having an experience that has none, art object simply as object. The object is no longer ‘privatised’ through the process of appropriation, and can be approached spontaneously in terms of the dislocation of space and in relation to identity/identities. This however, begins to question the degrees of separation that exist and should exist between the artist, the artwork and the community. The works Kotuku and Aeolian harp both situated in the gardens take up this unassuming but powerful position within the vast landscape of which they are situated, as they quietly invite public contemplation. The botanical gardens provide an already clearly demarcated public space that naturally engenders a meditative, reflective and inquisitive attitude be brought to the space, which presents an opportunity for an open experience of the artwork.
In the creation of public art, many different sectors of society are engaged in the art making process. This process is a collaborate and interactive one and may include input from artists, curators, architects, conservators, developers, engineers, public officials along with the ‘general public’, each with diverse and conflicting interests in need of reconciliation.[7] Nowadays, art has made the break away from the galleries, and is once again being reclaimed by the public. Scape proposes a commitment to bringing art out of the galleries and into the civic sphere, so that it can be considered, discussed, and enjoyed by a large and varying group of people.[8] However, in the Scape project many of the sites exhibiting artworks are indeed private gallery spaces or exclusive retail outlets. Which begs the question, who exactly does the large and varied cross-section of society consist of that Scape is aiming at? With the exception of a few sites, like the botanical gardens, the works are no more accessible to the public than a ‘privatised’ gallery space is. Many of the sites engage in a pseudo-public sphere, the bourgeois public sphere,[9] places that are not frequented by a wide cross-section of the community and would seem intimidating, in the way that galleries are, to a lot of people. In Gramscian terms, the official bourgeois public sphere is an institutional vehicle for a mode of rule whose power is based in hegemonic control.[10] The artist residency set up by Art and Industry at Rangi Ruru is another example of the pseudo-public space. Schools are often misconstrued as public spaces because they are still seen as organisations belonging to the community. Rangi Ruru is a very privatised space, as it exists as a private school with tuition fees reaching towards ten thousand dollars a year, making it an restricted space.
Featured in the Winter 2002 edition of Urbis, a contemporary New Zealand design magazine, along with an advertisement for Scape is a competition running for readers to win a trip for two to see the biennial.[11] Retailing for around $8.95 Urbis exists as an exclusive, specialized, high profile magazine and only engages a very specific market in the public sector. Unlike other festivals though, the Scape projects are all free to the public. This allows for potential access to all members of the public. The funding for Scape is a mixture of both private and public funding, which does not allow the festival to be a truly public event; private funding, which maintains its own interests, still ensures Scape is bound to political links. An article written by John Coley in The Press notes the way that issues relating to cultural and arts administration can become politically charged, referring to the art in public places sub-committee, chaired by Cr Anna Crighton, who is also deputy chair for the board of trustees for the Arts and Industry biennial trust. “…concern about Cr Crightons sub-committee that it is councillor driven and politically controlled, and ventures over the boundary of policy making and management. No matter if three sub-committee members are an architect, a landscape architect and an arts administrator, it is the three councillors who exercise control. Decision making is clearly with the politicians…for that matter the public at large is not mentioned for a source of ideas.”[12]
The Scape website talks of the positioning of artworks. “Exhibitions and projects will be concentrated in the inner city, enabling even greater public access”.[13] This raises the question is the centre of the city a fair representation of a wide cross-section of the communities that combine to make up Christchurch city, and is the concentration of these works in the inner city a suitable way to address the wider public sphere? Scape aims are to break down elitism, ensuring works are accessible to all, and to generate an understanding and awareness of art.[14] For a majority of the public the works do not ensure an easy or immediate access into gaining a greater insight into the meanings of these exhibitions, which would involve Internet access, or buying the Scape publication, as many of the works exist on location with little or no theoretical explanation. The gala dinner does not achieve the principles Scape set for itself, it is not accessible to all sections of the public, and does not break down elitism but would seem if anything to further it. With a ticket price of one hundred and fifty dollars making it a reasonably exclusive event, it is certainly not open to all members of the community. This black tie event was not a celebration of public space but was held in the private space that is the Air New Zealand/Pratt and Whitney Christchurch Engine Centre Hanger at Christchurch International Airport, a site that is usually out of bounds to the public. The festival seems to be more about urbane than urban.
Art placed in public sites is placed there to engage and interact with all people, and it is this unique association of how it is made, where it is, and what it means that distinguishes it as public art. The video installations were easy to ignore, and did not seem to engage passers by who were busily going about their shopping. People seemed almost unaware of their presence. Public art can enrich or transform a landscape, as well as questioning assumptions or heightening awareness surrounding an issue. It is not only a reflection of how we see the world singularly, but if to succeed, is a collective expression of a community sees the world.[15]
Art is not public art by virtue of its title or by its locality. Artworks simply positioned within a space, without any consultation of the public, initially will most likely fail as they will undoubtedly be considered by the public to be unpopular. For public art to succeed the artist must take into account the mood of the public, as part of the success of a work of art must rely on a work being received correctly by the public. A public work of art could not rely purely on its aesthetic merits. Public art must be discussed and evaluated in relation to social functioning; it needs to be understood in relation to, as opposed to being understood as insulated from, the numerous functions that compose the fabric of city life.[16] For the selection of works for such a festival as Scape, public art needs to be assessed under some evaluative process. What is important about this process is who gets to dictate the appropriateness of a public work of art? There are a multitude of knowledges at work in such a contested cultural site, each with opposing views. Artists, curators, and aestheticians who may value works in terms of aesthetic value and in turn call for decisions to be left to ‘experts’ in such areas rather than the public majority not considered experts in such fields. Should the selection of public art be driven by public tastes or be seen as an opportunity to educate and shape public taste? Who are experts in public taste? Driven by political motivations, the language of political discourse operates in terms of the value of economic gain and the tourist dollar. The value of works are discussed as cultural tourist attractions, according to the number of patrons and visitors attracted, affording expressions such as ‘most photographed’ and ‘most visible’.
Most public art terminology often alludes to a representative democracy that operates under the democratic ideal of egalitarianism; works should avoid ‘elitism’ and be accessible to the public.[17] So, where does the value of such a project lie? Public art typically claims to simultaneously oppose cultural elitism and to remain committed to artistic quality.[18] Similarly, Scape aims to ‘break down elitism and ensure that artworks are accessible to all’ and to ‘celebrate excellence in the arts’. Public works of art are bound more closely to their conditions of production within an urban space than by a materialistic critique of the production of traditional high art and in turn its aesthetic perception. Public art needs to be separated from its confinement within the parameters of aesthetic discourse, not seen as belonging to, a subset of art. Public art cannot be judged from an art theoretical aesthetic perspective because of its unique association with life.
In public spaces where there is a strong connection, symbolic or otherwise, to public ownership of that space, a person’s identity is intimately related to their surrounding environment, and the way they experience that space. The way in which we define public space connected intimately with ideas about what it means to be human and with the nature of life within a society.[19] As known space changes, through the addition of public art so to changes the way that people interact with and relate to that space. The creation of public art is a process of ‘place making’. Public art needs to be imbued with genius loci, the spirit of a place. A challenge made to public art is how to best establish communication and how to better an ongoing dialogue with a diverse and complex public. Cultural geography in a public environment can be a site of conflict, where different subcultures with conflicting interests diverge and create a contested domain. Multiple discourses operate on many levels in such a site, and a diverse number of interpretations can be obtained. Aesthetic discourse, within the larger framework of an art theoretical and art historical discourse can be intangible to those who operate outside this discourse. Political discourse exists in the environment as well as an urban public discourse, and an aesthetic theoretical discourse.
The
idea of place is not a static one, and so art that is site-specific,
related to its context should also not remain fixed, and needs to change
along with the idea of place embodied in the particular space. Reading
the cultural landscape is central to the making of public art. To give
a definition of place an understanding of the relationship between both
the people and the physical and cultural geography must exist.[20] A
cultural landscape exists as a multiplicity of different strata. For
works of art that are permanently inserted into the public environment,
meanings around the work may be lost from what was initially there, however
new meanings will be added that it gains by the associations it has with
the place and the course of people’s lives.[21] 
Sites
are layered with multiple histories and continue to grow, containing,
embracing, concealing numerous and dissonant voices. Whare is a site
specific installation for the gallery space of SOFA, inspired by Sir
Apirana Ngata's revival of whare (Maori architecture) in the late1920s
and 30s, celebrates new artists' takes on the traditional meeting house. The
site is one that is full of rich histories and layers of significance,
histories that are woven strands whose meanings are interlinked. The
SOFA gallery is housed in the old university library, both a new and
old meeting place, has poignant significance as it was there that Sir
Apirana Ngata became New Zealand's
first Maori graduate.[22]
Public art cannot and should not be expected to appeal to all members of a community, for it would be impossible to satisfy the interests of such a varied and dissimilar group of people. Naturally, then, as public art attracts attention, it is bound to cause some kind of controversy. Variation in public opinion can be seen as a healthy sign that art in the public arena is acknowledged and not ignored.[23] Through debate, the opportunity arises for a greater awareness regarding a subject. Public art cannot promise public understanding and should not expect a consensus to be reached by the public as a whole. Michael Parekowhai’s ‘Bunnies’ stirred controversy from the many different vantage points of different members of the community. The majority of public opinion filling the Letters to the Editor column of The Press were disapproving of the intended placement of the giant, cartoonesque, rabbits in the square. One member of the public noting, “The bunnies are absolutely revolting. I love the chalice but the bunnies are just tacky. I would love to see more sculptures in the square but not of the Hollywood variety.”[24] Contested ideas about the what the site meant to various groups, as well as ideas surrounding the value of the work surfaced. “Anna Crighton said the Michael Parekowhai designed bunnies would take the city by a contemporary storm, shaking its Victorian complacency to reinvigorate its most cherished place.”[25] While Christchurch mayor, Gary Moore held a different view, “…Gary Moore, had doubts, he said that most people considered the square the most formal part of the city, adding their was no permanent place for that sort of thing”.[26]
The politics of space become evident when different perspectives challenge meanings around the identity of Christchurch. According to the festival organisers of the 2000 Biennial Christchurch is a city of appearances. “Christchurch is a city with all trappings and appearances of a sound, handsome, formal and pioneering environment.”[27] The 2002 biennial has been cleverly marketed as Scape: an urban arts festival, redefining and relocating itself within the urban public sphere. It would seem though that Scape simply echoes the notion of Christchurch operating on appearances, perpetuating that theme, appealing to a public as being focused on public issues but only ever reaching a pseudo-public realm. Consequently, many good works of art become inaccessible to the real public in both a very real physical and conceptual way.
In conclusion, an analysis into the phenomenon of public art and how a festival such as Scape relates to such issues surrounding public art reveals the many tensions between various discourses that have arisen regarding the functionality, importance and inclusion of public art into the public landscape. Public art poses challenges for artists to maintain artistic integrity while having a sense of social responsibility, expressing collective identities and making works accessible to the wide public audience their works are aimed at embracing. Scape attempts to address these issues as set out in their aims but seems to fail in some cases because of the physical and conceptual inaccessibility of works to the public sphere. The very notion of the public challenges the traditions of the Western art practise grounded in autonomy. It forces us to think about our relationship to the space around us, and how we constitute our identity within that space. Public art is a challenging process, but one that can be ultimately a very rewarding experience, an experience that should be accessible to all.
Bibliography
Bach, Penny Balkin [ed.] New Land Marks: public art, community and the meaning of place, (Washington, DC: Editions Ariel, 2001)
Bach, Penny Balkin, “Defining the public context”, New Land Marks: public art, community and the meaning of place, (Washington, DC: Editions Ariel, 2001)
Carroll, Noel, “Moderate Moralism”, British Journal of Aesthetics, vol. 36:3:223-238
Coley, John, “Give gallery a voice”, The Press, 26 June 2002
Deutsche, Rosalyn, Evictions: Art and spatial politics, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1996)
Dissnayake, Ellen, “Why public art is necessary?” New Land Marks: public art, community and the meaning of place, (Washington, DC: Editions Ariel, 2001)
Fraser, Nancy, “Rethinking the public sphere”, The phantom public sphere, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993)
Freeland, Cynthia, But is it art? (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001)
Hein, Hilde, “What is public art?: time, place and meaning” from Neill, Alex and Ridley, Aaron [ed.] Arguing about Art: Contemporary philosophical debates, New York, McGraw Hill, 1995
Hine, Thomas, “The art of identity”, New Land Marks: public art, community and the meaning of place, (Washington, DC: Editions Ariel, 2001)
Mitchell, W.J.T, [ed.] Art and the public sphere, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992)
Robbins, Bruce, The phantom public sphere, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993)
Seine, Harriet [ed.] and Webster, Sally [ed.] Critical Issues in public art, content, context and controversy, (New York: Icon Editions, 1992)
http://www.artandindustry.org.nz
http://www.artscentre.org.nz/famous.html
http://www.rangiruru.school.nz/School/fees/default.htm