Critical Sites – Artists and Communities meet in Dunedin’s Landscape
1998 NZ Registered Architects Board Conference paper presented by Lloyd Edwards, while in the role of DCC Community Arts Advisor
[Reproduced with permission]
`Art in Public places’. This innocent, disarmingly benign term raises as many questions as it generates answers to the development of art practice, communities, and the urban landscape.
To create works of art for public places, places more accessible to people than say art commissioned for wealthy patrons, wealthy corporates or for institutions would at first glance seem to generate significant benefits to artists, public commissioners, funders and the public at large.
If this were the case why are our public spaces not overflowing with a variety of expressions of artists creativity and why, as a public audience, are we not pausing on our way to school, to work, to the Dairy, why are we not contemplating a variety of artist generated objects, creations, happenings, and coincidences that reflect at least something of who we are and what it all may or may not be about?
Is art really where we find it,(should it have been left there?) and if so is art only to be found in a book, at a theatre, during a concert, in an art gallery, on the Internet and every now and again on Sunday night television?
Thankfully the multiplicity of answers to these questions falls outside the brief I have given
The questions I am more familiar with are;
Which work is to be selected? Will it come in on budget? Have the Community been consulted and how? How many artists have tendered and who? Does the work need a building permit or resource consent? Is there a contract and what does it mean? Who is going to maintain the work and what happens to it in two, five or ten or fifty year’s time?
In other words there is now an implicit acceptance within the culture of the I work within tha the aesthetic value is simply one component of many that make up the concept and the reality of art in public places.
What I propose to do is to give you some specific examples of the development of art in public places from the perspective of a local authority Community arts advisor who entered into the minefield of agendas, misconceptions, prejudices, jealousies, creative desires and community desires that surrounded the development of a Sculpture in Public Places Policy for the city of Dunedin.
I intend to report back on the policy’s development, achievements and failures during its first three years of operation.
The title of this presentation offers some clues as to how this story will end. This will be a story describing the interaction of artists and communities and how those interactions have physically manifested themselves as works of public art within a diverse range of communities, and a variety of public environments.
The stories behind the objects created are seldom shared, the opportunities for doing so tend to be few and far between and generally are filled with the rhetoric of the skeptic and the advocate …yet I trust you will discover in these stories another dimension of values and meanings engendered by the development of Art in public places and I trust an understanding of the term site specific and pragmatically just how critical this is to the positive outcomes Dunedin City has experienced through the development of our Art in Public Places Policy.
Towards the end of 1994 a Sculpture in Public Places Policy was approved by Council through the narrowest of majorities – a casting vote One of the original Policy’s statements was, ” that the incorporation of pieces of sculpture into the townscape of the city should make the city a more attractive and interesting place by creating a fuller and richer visual environment…”
The endorsement of the policy prompted a number of negative responses from politicians and various sections of the Community. Council investment in Art of this nature it was claimed was a frivolous waste of the rate payer’s money given more pressing infrastructural demands on the resident’s dollar. Further it was asserted that art did not belong in the public domain as places for the viewing of art already existed thanks to the galleries contained within the Museums and Art Galleries Dunedin City is fortunate to blessed with. The history of Public Art practice in New Zealand and overseas was plundered for its bad press and the quality of Public art and its role and function in relation to Dunedin’s built heritage were also questioned.
At the other end of the spectrum artists interested in developing their practice within the public domain felt that lip service had been paid to their true value and their creative talents.
A sum of $10,000 had been attached to the policy, with no clear indication as to a commission process and no clear expression as to potential sites for commissions. Many artists claimed the term sculpture in public places limited the ability of the policy to recognise that there were many ways in which artists could create works for the public domain, and that these works might involve posterity or indeed may simply be experienced as Oscar Wilde put it as ‘the pleasure that abideth for a moment’ rather than ‘the sorrow that endureth forever’.
Many artists felt they were simply being tacked on to public places rather than being involved in the genesis of design processes focused on the maintenance and development of the built environment, and that any policy was a controlling rather than a liberating document.
Add to this a diverse range of interests, attitudes, and preconceptions from Communities about public art and the variety of roles it might play within a range of communities, urban, semi-rural and rural. For many the notion of Public Art could be summed up in one word. Mural. – the mural being the most frequent expression of public art encountered and used by communities.
The last thing people wanted was for an object or visual statement to be dropped down in their backyard with at the very least no consultation and at the very worst no warning.
In confronting these issues the development of effective processes was a primary focus.
These processes needed to
a: broaden the range of possible experiences available to artists and communities when working in the Public domain
b: create works that in some way reflected stories that artists and communities value
c: Generate employment and exposure for arts practitioners
d: Meet the Policy goals and objectives laid out in Dunedin City Council’s Arts and Culture Policy and then Sculpture in Public Places Policy.
e: Develop new understandings of art practice and the levels at which artists work within communities
f: Involve communities, artists, and planners within the development of specific sites where the creative articulation of space was timely and appropriate and of value to the communities involved.
g: Grow confidence, investment and ownership in the Public Art Policy, its processes and the works created as a result of those processes.
Public art was required to work in an additive rather than a subtractive manner regardless of any debate about perceived aesthetic value.
It was obvious that from a standing start, equipped with few resources and little shared understanding of the role of Art in public places that one project was not going to achieve all of this.
Conversely a starting point needed to be found, a site and a Community willing to participate in the development not only of a work of public art but of the process through which such a work would be derived.
In order for the policy to be truly effective a range of projects and processes needed to be developed over time in order to accommodate a range of communities – geographic and communities of interest, levels of participation, geographic sites and types of work.
The policy needed to describe in more detail the variety of roles and interest the local authority could maintain and project in the development of art in public places and to provide a transparent gateway for artists interested in the intervention of art within a public landscape.
The first two years of the Policy saw Dunedin City Council embark upon four commission projects under the auspices of the Sculpture in Public Places Policy.
The Mosgiel and St. Clair Communities were the first to be approached. Following consultation with focus groups existent in both communities specific sites for works of art were agreed upon.
It is important to note that at this time no geographic community had expressed an interest in receiving a commission… indeed both the St. Clair and Mosgiel focus groups were very clear in communicating their personal aesthetic sensibilities and equally unclear as to how to
proceed with or participate in process, communication with artists, and were hesitant about their role within the art in public places commission process.
Some members wished to determine the nature and form of works before consulting with artists, others wished to participate to minimise potential damage to the community’s visual environment, whilst others were quietly enthusiastic about working with artists and acting as a point of access for artists to learn more about their community before the artists developed their personal creative concepts.
Conversely some artists were suspicious of community involvement in their creative processes, they rejected the notion of art by committee or by consensus.
Some artists refused to relate to the specific sites selected wanting to place upon the landscape works perhaps well suited to the studio/gallery environment but not connected to the environmental, social, recreational, and cultural rhythms of the community in which the site was situated.
Some did not wish to produce warm fuzzy or monumental art that simply reaffirmed a traditional perspective.
Other artists responded to the idea of specific sites and communication with the audience prior to the development of concepts. Others felt their work was simply being tacked on at the end of an urban design process and that the opportunity to produce more than what has been colloquially termed ‘Plop art’ was severely limited … and then there were artists who laughed and said they charged the commission amount for design sketches…
These values and attitudes were all actively sought and considered when developing the commission processes for the Sculpture In Public Places Commission projects.
As I have said focus groups were identified within communities, the various departments within the local authority responsible for land management, urban design and compliance issues were involved in the commission processes from the outset, and an informal but eclectic collection of arts practitioners and intellectuals were consulted at various stages of the Commission process.
The process itself turned out to be relatively simple. It needed to balance the various interests and to deliver a commission that worked well with the chosen physical site. Ultimate responsibility for the work in terms of buck stopping, maintenance, safety etceteras, remained with the local authority.
Once the Community focus group was in place and the site located, investigated and confirmed, a public statement of intent was published in the print media. The statement called for expressions of interest from artists wishing to tender for the commission of a work of public art. A site was given and general requirements asserted.
The commissions were to;
- Provision of a preliminary costing, and a curriculum vitae including examples of previous work.
A two week deadline was given to register their interest in this manner.
Following the receipt of submissions three proposals were selected specific to the site. The artists involved were funded to further develop their creative ideas in consultation with the local authority and the community focus groups. The three developed proposals were then exhibited for a fortnight within the community and the community surveyed for their response to the following statements
- Would you like to see a work of Public art on this site?
- Would you like to see one of the works on display commissioned if so, which work
- Why do you want this work?
In all five commission processes we have run under the art in Public Places Commission project no more than 25 percent of respondents have said no to the first question and no more than 25 percent have said yes but also said no to at least one of the developed proposals.
These results gave confidence to the community focus groups to local authority staff and to the artists committed to the process.
The final selection of works was made by the Local Authority… this task was made simpler by the fact that any of the three works were assessed by council staff for safety, structural integrity, the artists ability to technically complete the work, resource consent and regulatory issues. In effect any of the three works would work on the site from this perspective. The aesthetic value of the works was one of many values looked at in deciding the final commission.
In consultation with all parties a work was decided upon, and Commission contracts were developed. Upon the completion of installation ownership details, and maintenance schedules were attached to the commission contract and deposited with the Contracts and Asset Management department.
By the fourth project, the Middlemarch commission, we were beginning to fine tune a number of the consultative processes involved. Every time we ran the process the community was a different community and the artists presented a diverse range of ideas and concepts.
Even at the preliminary stage of developing their submissions of interest artists were actively seeking out members of the local community focus groups, researching local social history, informing their practice and focusing on the specific nature and significance of the site.
The artists and focus groups began to expand each other’s concepts of community, of public art practice and the values and stories that could be expressed within the public
domain. Many of the proposals began to encompass community participation at various stages of the creation and installation of the proposed commissions.
The fourth project was significant on another level. Through the previous three projects the local press and community’s attitudes shifted from a doubting stance as to the value of public art to a position of quiet interest, and enthusiasm for the results to date.
With the fourth project a number of informal approaches were made to the local authority by the Middlemarch District Promotions Association. A briefing meeting was held with interested parties in the Middlemarch area informing them of the Sculpture in Public Places Policy and the Commission projects. Interest in having a work sited within the Middlemarch township was also expressed by the Strath-Taieri Community Board.
From a position of having to sell the concept to communities we were now eliciting invitations from communities for works of public art…. I am happy to say this is now the case with our Waikouaiti Commission and that there is now a waiting list of communities keen to be involved in not only the commission of a work of public art, but the art in public places commission process.
A number of other projects have developed under the auspices of the Sculpture in Public Places Policy….
A temporary sculpture exhibition held within the Dunedin Botanic Garden provided a point of liaison between Garden staff, artists, and users of the garden… as a result a creative New Zealand funded artist was given a project brief and invited to join a project design team looking at the re-articulation of the lower public entrance to the Botanic Gardens.
Similar consultation processes to those used in the Sculpture in Public Places commission projects were employed in the design process and the outcome is a Public Art Project where an artist has assisted in shaping the entire re-interpretation of the Lower Botanic Garden entrance area eliciting a $158,000 public art commission funded by a variety of external funding sources including a $100,000 contribution from the Alexander Macmillan Trust.
Two artists involved in Art in Public Places commissions are now been involved in playground design teams consulting with local communities with regard to the development of playgrounds within the Dunedin City Area.
The consultation processes and contracts developed via the art in public places policy commission scheme have proved useful in providing artists, communities and local authority staff with points of access to each others expertise.
The corporate sector has entered into the spirit of the policy and a number of corporate entities are now involved in a public art commission project about to commence in John Wickliffe square.
Community organisations are applying to Local Authority arts funding schemes for an increasingly diverse range of public art projects…. from Inner city Murals to Ships figureheads for installation on Heritage buildings, to artists residencies in schools culminating in murals, tiled public spaces, environmental works of art are being developed as part of environmental education and stream beautification projects…. and all of these projects are quoting the art in public places policy in their funding applications and
sponsorship proposals and using and adapting the processes, consultation processes and contracts developed through the initial four commission projects.
The public’s expectation of what is possible, and what they can value from art in the public domain is expanding, and the level of debate shifting from a to a deeper examination of public spaces roles in articulating visual conversations concerning our cultures and our sense of identity. A range of public art works and styles is now recognised.
The temporary nature of some public art works is now acknowledged and encouraged alongside the creation of more permanent Interventions. The involvement of artists in design and consultation processes is beginning to be valued by communities and the local authority, and a number of projects initiated that involve artists in such processes.
The physical site has provided the focus for the development of policy and process The site has facilitated the collective investigation of the cultural, historical, social, recreational physical, and spiritual values bound up in the land and the built environment…. The physical site has become a focussing factor closely linked to the development of forms of public art and public art practice.
Conversations encouraged by the process have affirmed to many involved in the development and review of the Sculpture in Public Places policy and its subsequent reemergence as the Art in Public Places Policy, that the site is critical to the outcome and the outcome critical to the site. We are finding in our landscape, our urban places, and our built =-environment spaces where artists and communities may meet and share something of themselves and their stories.
It is only when these conversations occur that preconceptions are shattered, roles reinterpreted, ownership defined, opportunities discovered and that the funding issues become a secondary rather than a primary concern.
Aesthetic values are still debated but in a culture and a context where the debate informs and challenges rather than mystifies and divides.
Quality is a primary focus in process design and execution. and a range of creative expressions subtle and overt are now welcomed by artists and by communities. The Policy is contributing to a range of placemaking activities, events and projects, enhancing the cultural life of the city for residents and visitors and enlivening production and debate within the city’s Communities of arts practitioners.
As we move from the age of technology and enter what academics and intellectuals such as Rolf Jensen, director of the Copenhagen Institute for future studies, are now calling “the age of dreams” the ability of artists and communities to assist each other in the telling of our stories… to celebrate, question, appropriate and subvert our sense of culture and identity will be telling in determining whether in its broadest context society leads itself into a global homogeneity of ritual and culture or whether we will value, respect and celebrate our differences.
Presentation additions – slides and OHP
Additional notes
Observation/Point of view ….. In the public domain artists and bureaucrats are criticised for the same things
1. Produce results that are inappropriate, not functional, unusable and for the public. or accused of representing views and agendas ‘less than’ public.
With regard to valuing the creative process and its application within society. – a recent exhibition at the Guggenheim Museum, New York,
Art of the motorcycle exhibition.
[SOLOMON R. GUGGENHEIM MUSEUM JUNE 26 - SEPTEMBER 20, 1998]
Can an artist build a motorcycle?
Can a motorcycle engineer create a work of art?
