The Art of Planning
(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...Melbourne has, in previous years, hosted much criticism of public art projects. Subjects of this criticism have included: the yellow peril (or Vault), the goalposts on the Western Bypass, the cheese sticks at the end of the Tullamarine Freeway, the pick-up sticks (my personal favourite) across Princes Bridge and many others (Bock 2006). It seams that almost everyone has their own public art piece that they loath or love, and the one that has grown on them over time. Miles (1997) defines public art as “the intervention of art…in the design of the built environment, and the intervention of artists…in the public realm” and categorizes it as either ‘critical’ or ‘decorative.’ (Miles 1997 P. 202) Criticism of public art doesn’t seam to be exclusive to any category. The following paper will raise questions for discussion about the appropriateness of this ‘intervention.’
Public art has been an integral feature in human landscapes since the ancient Greek and Roman cities. The recent movements towards mixed use development, mixed movement zones (shared car and pedestrian zones) and higher density living further necessitates the need for human scale art projects and considered urban design. (Mossop 2001) Public art projects and the design of a public space can soften the impact of these modern planning objectives, but it can also, to an extent, shape communities and the way that people behave within them.
The reason why I believe that urban art in Melbourne consistently causes debate is because the general public feel that they have little or no control over the way that ‘their’ urban environments are shaped and used. In some ways, the criticism of public art has become an outlet for these frustrations, or in other words, it has become “the whipping boy for a whole lot of other resentments.” (Bock 2002 P. 2) Some would argue that the introduction of public art, (particularly in established communities) is in some cases a top down paternalistic approach (this is what people want). Subsequently, chosen pieces are not intelligently combined with the existing or preferred physical and social environment. With respect to this, I think that there needs to be a review of “how to create spaces (aided by public art) which will encourage specific community driven activities.” (Mossop 2001 P. 17)
Schopfer (1902) highlights the importance of city beautification as a way of achieving positive social outcomes such as a sense of place and local pride. Schopfer criticises city beautification methods of his time and argues that art in the public realm “can still do more” than the natural features or the aesthetic appearance of the buildings. (Schopfer 1902 P. 1) His implication is that beautification should be ingrained into the development process rather than an ‘ad hoc’ afterthought. (Schopfer 1902) Schopfer could however be seen as placing to high an onus on beautification as the solution to the problems associated with the rise of capitalism, the industrial revolution and mass urbanisation. Jacobs (1961) highlights a low income housing project in East Harlem as an example of where these types of planning methods simply serve to encourage a feeling of subjection and powerlessness among residents. The “object of hatred” (Jacobs 1961 P. 21) in this instance, was a rectangular lawn said to be introduced without consideration for the needs and wants of the residents. Jacobs identifies this project as an example of where the real issues have not been addressed. Similarly, public art and some other aesthetically motivated community projects today, are wrongly advocated as solutions to a variety of problems associated with urbanization. As identified above, public art can play a role as a way of softening the impacts of these movements, but is in some cases a simplistic, paternalistic and even a href=”http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/pretentious”>pretentious approach.
Schopfer would have been please to discover (if he had not died in 1931) that incorporated in one of the largest urban renewal projects in Australia’s history was an ‘Integrated Art Policy 2003’ that ensured that “the natural beauty of an urban environment is complemented by similarly striking and well-integrated art works” (VicUrban 2003 – This policy can be viewed online). This policy identifies criteria for public art projects funded by the mandatory 1% developer contribution to public art. Subsequently, “$15 million worth of artworks has been integrated into the Docklands precinct, as at 30 June 2006” (VicUrban 2007) with the hope of accelerating the community identification process, while reducing the visual impact of the mega scale residential and commercial development projects. What must be questioned, is the effectiveness of such pieces and the appropriateness of imposing a preferred character on an area before people occupy the developments.
You can view some of the docklands public art projects available in PDF form online at the bottom of the page.
Docklands of course has also been criticised for the subject matter and arbitrary nature of some pieces. For instance, the Indigenous Australian theme of public art has been condemned for being a type of ‘guilty art.’ If you are interested in this perspective on public art in dockland then the PDF is also available online. Public art provides a medium for new communities to shape themselves and it is something that should be incorporated into the designing of urban spaces. The Docklands urban renewal project is a good example of where art has been incorporated into the physical and social development period. Yet the assumption that public art can solve all social and built form problems is flawed. Trying to resolve ‘hard’ social problems like isolation, social exclusion or community cohesiveness through beautification, is a naive approach that simply ignores issues.
Questions for discussion.
- Are public art projects merely another way in which paternalistic approaches to planning are being conducted? Do you know of any examples around Melbourne where an established community has or hasn’t identified with a particular art installation?
- What do you think is good public art and what is bad public art?
- Is controversy and criticism of public art necessarily a bad thing?
- What do you think is the role of public art is in an urban setting? Does it even have a role or is it inappropriate?
- Do you think that the implementation of the Integrated Art Policy (2003) has been successful in tackling the social and physical problems that Docklands faces?
- Is it appropriate or effective to impose a preferred character on an area before people occupy the developments?
References & Further Resources
- Bellamy. L (2006) Sculptures find new street cred. The Age Newspaper. January 7, 2006 (online) [accessed 7/04/07]
- Bock. A (2006) The trouble with public art. The Age Newspaper. March 21 2002
- Jacobs. J (1961) “Introduction” The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Random House, New York, pp.5-34.
- Miles. M (1997) Art Space and the City. Routledge, London. Chapter 8 Art as a Social Process.
- Mossop. E (2001) Public Space: Civilising the City, in Mossop, E & Walton, P City Spaces: Art and Design, Fine Art Publishing,
Sydney. - Schopfer, J (1902)“Art in the City. The Plan of a City. Furnishing a City” Architectural Record 12 (November 1903): 42-48 (online): [accessed 29/03/07]
- VicUrban (2003) Integrated Art Policy 2003.online: [accessed 7/04/07]
Urban Art. VicUrban Docklands Website.online: [accessed 7/04/07]
Posted in Community Planning, Physical Planning |
The role of public art in place-making is important; it can contribute and/or create an identity within an area and can facilitate the beginnings of a new community. However its limitations must also be acknowledged, particularly that public art cannot overcome any existing social, environmental or economic ills within a community. Beautifying or aesthetically revamping an area doesn’t create practical and user friendly areas it simply softens an areas visual appearance. Of immense importance when creating public art is to recognise and incorporate a link within the art piece to the wider community – whether it be by recognising some aspect of the areas history or its locality, its community, major industry or environment. Further, I believe the community must have a sense of ownership over public art pieces, either by tendering the art contract to local artist/s, or by encouraging the wider community to attend festivities or a ceremony’s during the art piece’s unveiling.
I would like to draw on an example to illustrate my opinions -
A new infill residential development is currently underway in what was previously a large quarry. The developers have not had their first resident move in, or a house or any other significant infrastructure built, yet a public art piece has been installed. The piece depicts a quarry worker looking out to the surrounding land through binoculars while perched on a high ladder. This piece has attempted to make links with the areas previous industrial use, however very recently it was discovered that there were several bullet holes within the worker among other acts of vandalism.
This example, although simple, illustrates how important it is to engage the wider community, if not wait for the new community to be present and establish itself before the implementation of public art. By doing so it will ideally facilitate the creation of a relationship between the art piece and the community, as well as a sense of ownership. Without doing so, public art pieces simply invite acts of vandalisms and fail to create an identity, contribute to the community or create visually pleasing areas - which is public arts primary role.
Kira. That is an interesting scenario that you have highlighted within Melbourne where the community (or at least a few members) have not connected with an art installation. I am interested as to where you got this information from as it provides a very good modern day example of what I am trying to explore.
Further, I would argue that the Docklands ‘Integrated Art Policy 2003’ is a prime example of where public art has been installed paternalistically, prior to any community establishment very successfully. According to you, it is important “to engage the wider community, if not wait for the new community to be present and establish itself before the implementation of public art.” I would like to hear your comments in relation to the Docklands public art project with regards to you stance identified above. If you think that Docklands has been successful then what do you think are the reasons/differences?
Public art project can contribute (or detract) greatly to a sense of place- as ‘Willz’ pointes out. Some of the most successful urban art, I feel, combines ‘function’ as well as ‘form’, that is, serving a functional purpose as well as being of artistic value. Using functional artwork in urban environments often receives a better response from the community than purely artistic pieces. This is generally due to people understanding ‘the point’ of the piece. An ideal example of functional urban artwork is Webb Bridge, located at Yarra’s Edge at the Docklands. This bridge was commissioned as part of the Docklands Integrated Art Policy 2003, and as well being a magnificent piece of artwork, it also provides a link to the commercial hub of the area. This piece illustrates how function and beauty can be successfully integrated into the urban environment.
I feel that functional urban artwork plays an important role in the ‘shaping’ of urban environments, whether it is a bridge, walkway or even a piece or artwork that delineates a place or meeting point. Having a function allows artwork to be more easily accepted by the community and while there still is a place for the purely aesthetic, a future emphasis functional artwork will ensure more urban artwork is commissioned for Melbourne, and that urban artwork will be ‘loved’, rather than ‘loathed.’
I am not overly familiar with the Docklands art Project Policy -
However, I still have issues with the type of public art which has been installed in Docklands. Many of the pieces, in my opinion, look like wobbly blobs, others are simply trying too hard, and in almost every open space in Docklands there is a public art piece - what happened to letting a space speak for itself - the view, the architectural style of a building, the trees… etc. Why does the developer feel the need to impose a character into these spaces?
One major gripe within the Docklands development is its incorporation of indigenous related art. It is ironic, as it is unlikely that many indigenous Australians would still retain their traditional connection with the Docklands area, given the violent history between European invaders and Melbourne’s traditional land owners. In my opinion, it would have been far better to incorporate a percentage of not-for-profit housing in docklands so disadvantaged or lower socio-economic indigenous people could actually consider living in Docklands. Rather than establish such a token art piece, such as the giant owl, which I believe represents little for indigenous Australians today.
As a planner, I too agree that function as well as form is an important aspect of public art installations. Functional art is less imposing as regardless of its form, it still serves a purpose. For instance, some may argue that the Webb Bridge has little aesthetic appeal, however it cannot be argued that it does not provide pedestrian/bicycle access over the Yarra River.
Should public art just be a collection of what Kira calls “wobbly blobs” arbitrarily placed in a park or a streetscape or must it serve a purpose?
Art by nature is subjective, and as a result it is risky to place art in any public space. An artist in most instances will never create work that has a simply aesthetic value; there will always be a meaning or story behind the art. The process that they go through to produce artwork for the public to comment and interact with is complex and would rarely ever be place arbitrarily on a streetscape. However I do admit that this sometimes happens, and this is a failure in my opinion.
My concern with some of the comments made so far about functional art and aesthetic art is the generalisation of art into these two categories. What makes art functional and what makes art aesthetic? I think all art is functional and all art has aesthetic values. Whether these artworks have a positive or negative effect in the public environment is a better question. Functional artwork implies interaction with art, but if this interaction is not physical is it still functional. I think in reference to art then you must consider non physical interaction to still be functional. So when someone stands and thinks about what the art represents or comments on the interaction between the art and the surrounding space then the artwork is functioning.
The type of interaction with art is what makes public art successful or unsuccessful. Many pieces in the city have being a failure because it fails to interact with the person and the community. Interaction can be a person stopping to take in and try to understand the intention of the art, or perhaps a kid using the installation as play equipment.
Successful public artwork will take into consideration the urban fabric of the place. It will be sensitive to the culture, the community, the environment whilst adding something extra to the public realm. The merge between artist intention and community interaction should be the main focus when implementing public artwork in an urban environment, rather than injecting new character into a space.
When there is not a community to interact and help develop an artwork that represents the community then the art becomes simply art in a public space rather then public art. This is evident in some of the art in the docklands. These have being developed because it is a requirement to include a piece of public art in each new development in the docklands rather than a need.
As Kira stated ‘a token art piece, such as the giant owl” provides little to the character of the place but the debate, questions and controversy of the artwork perhaps has given people the opportunity to understand the intention of the artwork and what it is representing rather than what it physically looks like.
A number of interesting opinions have been shared about the role of public art in an urban context. Surprisingly only two responses identified specific art installations and only Kira highlighted, what I agree to be a guilty acknowledgement of Indigenous cultural heritage in the Docklands precinct. Bristowea identified the importance of an integration of both function and beauty into the urban environment where as Genevieve argued that beauty in its-self is a function, and expressed concerns with generalisations about functional and aesthetic public art.
Thank you to those that aided discussion in relation to my post.