reading homework

lacy_1995.pdf

Home >Reading homework help >reading homework

PREFACE

Whenever art introducesradicallydifferentworkingmethods andchal‑ lenges reigningtenets,the criticaltask iscomplicated.Withthis bookthe other authors and I hopeto makeconcrete adiscoursethat,while part of a thirty-year history,isreinvigoratedtoday bythe idealismof youngartists andstudents.The tremendous recent interest in engaged,caringpublic a r t demands acontext in art history andpresent'criticism.It demands aswell the guidanceof predecessorswho can pass on strategies that allow the wheelto moveforward, not suffer endless reinvention.

Likethe work it attempts to explain,the approachwe have chosen isconsciously collaborative.Noneof usown these ideas.They have grown out of aComplicatedhistory over three decades.The writers were selectedbecause of their understandingof various aspects of that history. Ratherthan simplycollect individuallywritten essays intoawhole,we have deliberately set o u t to divide and examine new genrepublic art from various perspectives.

Theideafor the bookarose from aprogramcalled“City Sites: Artists andUrbanStrategies,” sponsoredin 1989by the CaliforniaCollege of Arts and Crafts.1A series of lectureswas deliveredatnontraditional sites in Oaklandby ten artists whosework addressedaparticularconstitu‑ ency on specificissues butalso stood asa prototypefor awider range of humanconcerns. The artists discussedtheir-work andthe strategiesthey haddevelopedfor reachingaudiences.They spokefromlocationsdirectly linkedto their community orsubject matter‐fromhomelessshelters, Spanish-languagecommunity libraries,churches,maintenancegarages for city workers, convalescent homes,elementary schools,andnightclubs. Those who attendedincludedn o t only students andarts professionalsbut peoplefromawide rangeof backgroundswho hadaspecial interest in the subject matter of these artists.

PREFACE

Whenever art introducesradicallydifferent workingmethods andchain lenges reigningtenets,the criticaltask iscomplicated.Withthis bookthe other authors and I hopeto makeconcrete adiscoursethat,while part of a thirty-year history,isreinvigoratedtoday bythe idealismof youngartists andstudents.The tremendous recent interest in engaged,caringpublicar t demands acontext in art historyandpresent'criticism.It demands aswell' the guidanceof predecessorswho can pass on strategies that allow the wheelto moveforward, n o t suffer endlessreinvention.

Likethe work it attempts to explain,the approachwe have chosen isconsciously collaborative.Noneof usownthese ideas.They have grown out of acomplicatedhistory over three decades.Thewriters were selectedbecause of their understandingof various aspects of that history. Ratherthan simply collect individuallywritten essays intoawhole,we havedeliberately set o u t to divideandexamine new genrepublic art from various perspectives.

Theideafor the bookarose fromaprogramcalled“City Sites: Artists andUrbanStrategies,” sponsoredin 1989by the CaliforniaCollege of Arts and Crafts.1A series of lectureswas deliveredatnontraditional sites in Oaklandby ten artists whosework addressedaparticularconstitu‑ ency on specificissues butalso stood asaprototypefor awider range of humanconcerns. The artists discussedtheirswork andthe strategiesthey haddevelopedfor reachingaudiences.They spokefromlocationsdirectly linkedto their community orsubject matter‐fromhomelessshelters, Spanish-languagecommunity libraries,churches,maintenancegarages for city workers, convalescent homes,elementary schools,andnightclubs. Those who attendedincludedn o t only students andarts professionalsbut peoplefromawide rangeof backgroundswho hadaspecialinterest in the subject matter of these artists.

" ( M C I

In addition to lecturing,the artists tools part in special events they had designed, such asprograms for senior citizens,workshops on waste, disposal, and aHappeningwith ninety fourth-graders. Artists from Oak‑ land mentored students in aclass atthe California College of Arts and Crafts held in tandem with the public series; these students developed pro‑ posals for their own interactive artworks. Local newspapers ran articles that uplored the social issues taken up by the visiting lecturers.The “City Sites’ series was itself amodel for new genre public art‐socially engaged, interactive a r t for diverse audiences‐as it featured mass media, education, and the identificationand development of specificconstimencies.

The purposeof the program was to speculate on fine connections between die t e n artists; If anew direction in public a r t was indeed taking shape‐and the work itself aswell asseveral recent articles and curatorial projects seemed to suggest this‐then the n e x t question was whether current criticism provided anappropriate context in which to consider this workTheCalifo‘rnia College ofArtsandCrafts andtheHeadlands Center for the Arts sponsored apublic symposiumat the San Francisco Museum of ModernArt and athreevday retreat for thirty critics, curators. and artists.’ Duringthe sympodum, entitled 'Mappingthe Terrain: New Genre Public Art,’ the participants considered issues includingthe need to develop acritical language that would identify and evaluate this work, unitingits political and aesthetic aspirations.

Interestingly.until recently such artists have n o t been linkedto eachotherinthecriticaldiacourse.They have been examined withintheir artistic disciplines‐performance, video, installation,photography,or murals,for example‐or seen asisolatedand idiosyncratic examples. If they are contextualized at all it is associally conscious or politicalartists, more or less in vogue depending upon the currency of their subject matter; that is,the unifyingcharacteristics have been seen assubject-specific. The structural models and underlyingassumptions of their works are specific totheirtopicsandpersonalstyles,tobesure,yetthere aremajorpoints

. duitydsatthisbooksetsouttouplore. - A t the ‘Mappingthe Terrain’ retreat those helpingto develop this

booklistedmuesthatcould becovered.and suggested otherwriters who, ‘ : ‘ ; « I . ‘

I I I I A C I

unableto bepresent,wereneverthelessvery muchapartof theconversa‑ tionaboutnewgenrepublicart.At leastonceduringtheprocessof draft‑ ingtheir essays,beforethe finalrewrite,the authorswere ableto readand respondto each'other’smanuscripts.Thewriters weredirectedaway from reviewingor describingindividualartists andtowardconsideringques‑ tionsandtheory,butallplayedarolein suggestingthe artists whoseworks areincludedin thecompendiumof thisbook.Readerscanthus maketheir ownconnections betweenthe overviews andspeculationswithinthe es‑ says andtheactualexamplesof artworks.

Althoughnearlyninetyartistsareincludedin thecompendium, nodoubtmanywhoseworks mightillustratethesediscussions were missed,andforthiswewhomadethefinaldecisionsapologize.The artists selecteddofit severalcriteria: they havebeenpracticingwithinthis genre of publicart foryears,manyfor over t w o decades,sothat their work hasa developed,mature,andoftendistinct language.They haveengagedbroad, layered,or atypicalaudiences,andthey implyor state ideasaboutsocial changeandinteraction.Mostimportant,the artistsselectedprovidediffer» ent modelsof'practiceandideology.

In consideringwhomto include,werealizedthat not allthework metourcriteriaequally.Weoptedto includemoreratherthan fewer ex‑ amples.Theboundariesof this choicewere in keepingwiththenewnessof the genreaswellasthecriticalwritingaboutit.This area ofart makingis still too tentativeto condensethefieldof inquiry.Instead,theexamples are meant asareference,andthereaderisinvitedto joinwiththewriters in consideringthe connectionsanddifferencesencompassedbythework.

0f necessity,theessaysinthisbookarespeculative,buttheymeanto redresscurrentdeficienciesin thinkingaboutpublicartandtopointout possiblecriteriafortheassessmentof newgenrepublicart.Thiscollection thusisn o tdoctrinairebutassociativein nature,anditsscopeisintendedto respondtothescopeentertainedbytheartiststhemselves.AsHouston ConwillandEstellaConwillMajozoexpressedit duringthe"Mappingthe Terrain”symposium,“Wecreatemapsof languagethatrepresentcultural pilgrimagesandmetaphoricjourneysoftransformationandempowerment”

«SuzanneLacy

l N T R O Q U C T I D N

CULTURAL PILGRIMAGES A N D METAPHORIC JOURNEYS Suzanne Lacy

Artists andwriters throughout the continentare currently involvedin a. . redefinitionofour continentaltopography. Weinmgineeitheramap ofr e Americas without borders,amapturnedupside down, or one in which . . . bordersare organically drawnbygeography, culture, andimmigration, n o t bythe capriciousfingersofeconomicdomination.

“Guillermo Gomez‐Peri“

Forthe past three or sodecades visual artists of varying backgrounds and perspectives havebeenworkingin amanner that resemblespoliticaland social activity but isdistinguishedbyits aesthetic sensibility. Dealingwith some of the most profoundissuesof our time‐toxic waste, racerelations, homelessness,aging,gangwarfare, and cultural identity‐a group of visual artistshas developeddistinctmodelsfor anart whose public strategies of engagement are an importantpart of itsaesthetic language.The source of these artworks’ structure isn o t exclusively visual orpoliticalinformation, but rather aninternalnecessityperceived by the artist in collaboration withhisor heraudience.

Wemightdescribe this as“new genrepublicart,” to distinguish it in bothformandintentionfromwhat hasbeencalled “publicart”‐‐‐a term usedfor the pasttwenty-fiveyears todescribesculptureand installa‑ tions sitedinpublicplaces.Unlikemuchofwhat has heretoforebeencalled publicart,new genre publicart‐visualart that usesbothtraditionaland nontraditionalmediatocommunicateandinteractwithabroadanddiver‑ sifiedaudienceaboutissuesdirectly relevantto their lives‐is basedon engagement. (Asartist Io Hansonsuggests, “Muchof what has beencalled public ar t mightbetterbedefinedasprivateindulgence.Inherentlypublic ar t issocial intervention”)1The term “newgenre” hasbeenusedsincethe

1N7ROOUCTION

CULTURAL PILGRIMAGES AND METAFHORIC JOURNEYS Suzanne Lucy

Artistsandwriters throughout the continentare currently involvedin a... redefinitionofour continentaltopography. Weimagineeithera mapofthe Americaswithout borders,amapturnedupsidedown, or one in which .. . bordersare organicallydrawnbygeography,culture,andimmigration, n o t bythe capriciousfingersof economicdomination ‐‐Guillermo Gomez-Perk

Forthe past three or sodecadesvisual artists of varyingbackgroundsand perspectiveshavebeenworkingin amanner that resemblespoliticaland social activitybutisdistinguishedby its aesthetic sensibility.Dealingwith some of the mostprofoundissuesofour time‐toxic waste, racerelations, homelessness,aging,gangwarfare,andculturalidentity‐agroup of visual artists hasdevelopeddistinct modelsfor anart whosepublicstrategies of engagement are an importantpart of itsaesthetic language.The source of these artworks’structure isn o texclusively visual orpoliticalinformation, butrather aninternalnecessityperceivedbythe artist in collaboration withhisor heraudience.

Wemightdescribethis as“newgenrepublicart,” todistinguish it in bothformandintentionfromwhathasbeencalled“publicart”-a _ term usedfor thepasttwenty-fiveyears todescribesculptureandinstalla‑ tions sitedinpublicplaces.Unlikemuchofwhat hasheretoforebeencalled publicart,newgenrepublicart‐visualart thatusesbothtraditionaland nontraditionalmediatocommunicateandinteractwithabroadanddiver‑ sifiedaudienceaboutissuesdirectly relevantto their lives‐isbasedon engagement. (AsartistJo Hansonsuggests,“Muchof what hasbeencalled publicart mightbetterbedefinedasprivateindulgence.Inherentlypublic art is socialint:erventio;iri."’)1The term “newgenre” hasbeenusedsincethe

Suzanne Lacy

latesixtiestodescribea r t thatdepartsfromtraditionalboundariesofmedia. Notspecificallypainting,sculpture,orfilm,forexample,newgenreart mightincludecombinationsofdifferentmedia.Installations,performances, conceptualart,andmixed-mediaart.forexample,fallintothenewgenre category,acatchalltermfOrexperimentationillbothformandcontent. > Attackingboundaries,newgenrepublicartistsdrawonideasfromvan‑ guardforms,buttheyaddadevelopedsensibilityaboutaudience,social ‘ strategy,andeffectivenessthat isuniqueto visualan asweknowit today.

Althoughnotoftenincludedindiscussionsaboutpublicart,such artistsadopt“public'astheiroperativeconceptandquest.Accordingto criticPatriciaC.Phillips,“Inspiteofthemanysignsofretreatandwith‑ drawal,mostpeopleremaininneedofandevendesirousofaninvigorated, activeideaof public.Butwhatthecontemporarypoliswillbeisinconclu‑ sive.‘This indeterminacyhasdevelopedasamajortheme'innewgenre publicart.Thenatureofaudience‐intraditionalart takentobejustabout everyone‐isnowbeingrigorouslyinvestigatedinpracticeandtheory.Is “public”aqualifyingdescriptionofplace,.ownership,or access?Isit a subject,oracharacteristicoftheparticularaudience?Doesit explainthe intentionsof theartistortheinterestsoftheaudience?Theinclusionof the publicconnectstheoriesofarttothebroaderpopulation:whatexistsinthe spacebetweenthewordspublicandartisanunknownrelationshipbe‑ tweenartistandaudience,arelationshipthatmayitselfbecometheartwork.

Whetheror notthiswork is‘art"maybethecentralquestionto some.Modernistassumptionsaboutart’snecessarydisengagementfrom “themasses"diehard,althoughmultipleexamplesduringthepasttWenty ormoreyears implydeepinteractibnbefieen“highare"andpopular culture.Duringtheseventies,for instance,LowellDarlingranforgover‑ nor of the stateof California,in aperformancethatwonhimalmostsixty thousandvotes in theprimaries.At thesametimeJudithF.Bacaintervened ingangwarfareinEastLosAngeleswithhermuralprojectMiAbuelira. Appropriated,performative,conceptual,transient.andeveninteractiveart areallacceptedby artworldcriticsaslongasthereappearsto beno real possibilityofsocialchange.Theunderlyingaversiontoartthatclaimsto

Suzanne Lacy

latesixtiestodescribeart'that'departsfromtraditionalboundariesofmedia. Notspecificallypainting,sculpture,orfilm,for example,newgenre art ‘ mightincludecombinationsofdifferentmedia.Installations,performances conceptualart,andmixed‐mediaart,forexample,fall intothenewgenre category,acatchallterm-for:experimentationin bothform and content. Attackingboundaries,newgenrepublicartistsdrawonideasfromvan‑ guardforms,buttheyadda_'developedsensibilityaboutaudience,social strategy,andeffectiveness that isuniqueto visualartlasweknowit today;

Althoughn o toftenincludedin discussionsaboutpublicart,such artistsadopt“public”astheirophrativeconceptandquest.Accordingto criticPatriciaC.Phillips,“Inspiteofthemanysignsofretreatandvvitli‑ drawal,m o s tpeopleremainin needof andevendesirousof aninvigorated, activeideaof public.Butwhat thecontemporarypoliswillbeis‘inconclu‑ sive.”Thisindeterminacyhasdevelopedasamajorthemein newgenre publicart.Thenatureofaudience‐intraditionalart takentobejust about everyone‐isnowbeingrigorouslyinvestigatedinpracticeandtheory.Is “public”annalifyingdescriptionofplace,.ownership,or’abcesS?Isit a subject,or-acharacteriSticof theparticularaudienCei’Doesit explainthe intentionsoftheartistortheinterestsoftheaudience?Theinclusionof the publicconnectstheOries ofart tothebroaderpopulation:whatexistsinthe Spacebetweenthewordspublicandartisanunknownrelationshipbe‑ tweenartistandaudience,arelationshipthatmayitselfbecometheartwork.

Whetherornotthis work is.kart”maybethecentralquestipnto some. Modernistassumptions aboutart’snecessarydisengagementfrom ‑ “themasses”diehard,althoughmultipleerr-simplesduringthepasttwenty ormoreyears implydeepinteractibnibetween“high-art”:andpopular culture.Duringthe seventies,for instance,LovvellDarlingranforgover‑ norof thestateof California,in aperformancethat won himalmostsixty thousandvotes in theprimaries.At thesametimeJudithF.Bacaintervened in gangwarfarein EastLosAngeleswithhermuralprojectMiAbnelita. Appropriated,performative,conceptual,transient,andeveninteractive a r t are allaccepted by art worldcriticsaslongasthere appearsto beno real possibilityofsocialchange._Theunderlyingaversionto.art«thatplain-is to

2 0 .

, .

INTRODUCTION

“do” something,that does n o tsubordinatefunctionto craft,presentsa resonant dilemmafor new genrepublicartists.That their work 1ntendsto affectandtransformistakenbyitsdetractors asevidencethat it isn o t art. Aswewillsee in this book,however,the issuesraisedbythiswork are muchmoreprofoundfor thefieldof art thansuchreductivismimplies.

ALTERNATIVE CARTPGRAPHY: PUBLIC ART'S HISTORlES

Dependingon'how one beginstherecord,publicarthasahistoryasan‑ cient asCave paintingor asrecent asthe Art in PubllcPlacesProgramof the NationalEndowmentfor the Arts.While nooverviewhasbeenagreed uponyet, aquasi-officialhistory of recentpublicart in theUnitedStates canbetracked through commissions,distributionofpercent~for-artmon‑ eys,articles,conferences,andpaneldiscussions.Butwithhistoryaswell as maps,theconstructionof meaningdepends onwho isdomgthemaking.

Art in PublicPlaces

oneversionofhistory,then, beginswiththe demiseofwhatJudithBaca ; calls the “cannonin thepark” ideaof publicart-"thedisplay of sculptures glorifyingaversionofnationalhistorythat excludedlarge segments of the population.The cannon in theparkwas encroacheduponbytheworldof highart in the sixties,whenthe outdoors,particularly 1nurbanareas,came to beseenasapotentialnew exhibitionspacefor artpreviouslyfpundin galleries,museums,andprivatecollections.In themost-cynicalView, the impetuswas .to expandthemarket for sculpture,andthisincludedpatron‑ agefrom corporations.The ability of art to enhancepublicspaces suchas plazas,parks,andcorporate headquarterswas quickly recogmzedasaway torevitalizeinnercities,whichwere beginningtocollapse underthe bur‑ denof increasingsocial‘problems'.Art in publicplaceswas seenasameans of reclaimingandhumanizingtheurbanenvironment. .

Forallintentsandpurposes,the contemporary activity in public -.art dates fromtheestablishmentof the Art in PublicPlacesProgramatthe NationalEndowmentfor theArts in 1967andthe subsequentformation ofstate andcitypercerit‐for‐artprograms.2Governmentalfundingseemed

I N T R O D U C T I O N

“do” something,that does n o tsubordinatefunctionto craft,presents a‘ resonantdilemmafor new genrepublicartists.That their work intendsto affect andtransformistakenbyitsdetractors asevidencethat it isn o t art. Aswewill see in this book,however,the issuesraisedbythis work are muchmoreprofoundfor thefieldof art thansuchreductivisrnimplies.

ALTERNATIVE CARTPGRAPHY: PUBLIC ART'S HISTORIES

Dependingonhow one beginstherecord,public art has ahistoryasan‑ cient ascave paintingor asrecent asthe Art in PublicPlacesProgramof the NationalEndowment'fortheArts.While nooverviewhasbeenagreed uponyet, aquasi-officialhistory of recentpublic art in theUnitedStates canbetrackedthroughcommissions,distributionofpercent‐for-artmon‑ eys,articles,conferences,andpaneldiscussions.Butwithhistoryaswell as map5, the constructionof meaningdepends onwho isdoingthe making.

Art in PublicPlaces

One versionofhistory,then,beginswiththe demise ofwhatJudithBaca cails the “cannonin thepark” ideaof publicart‐the display of sculptures glorifyingaversionofnationalhistorythat excludedlarge segments of the population.The cannonin thepark,was encroacheduponbytheworldof highart in thesixties,whentheoutdoors,particularly in urbanareas,came tobeseen asapotentialnew exhibitionspacefor artpreviouslyfoundin galleries,museums,andprivatecollections.In the most cynicalView,the impetuswas.to expandthemarketfor sculpture,andthis includedpatron‑ age fromcorporations.Theability of anto enhance publicspaces suchas plazas,parks,andcorporate headquarterswas quickly recognizedasaWay torevitalizeinnercities,whichwere beginningtocollapseunderthebur‑ den.ofincreasingsociallproblems'.Art in publicplaces was seenasameans v of reclaimingandhumanizingtheurbanenvironment.

Forallintentsandpurposes,the contemporary activity in public art dates fromthe establishmentof the Art in PublicPlacesProgramatthe NationalEndowmentfor theArts in 1967andthe subsequentformation ofstate andcitypercent‐for‐artprograms,2Governmentalfundingseemed

Suzanne Lacy

topromisedemocraticparticipationandtopromotepublicratherthan privateinterests.These goalswerenominallyachievedbyselectionpanels of arts andcivic representativesappointedby the mayor,who,“asthe representativeof allthepeople,”was initiallyenlistedto authorizeNBA applications.Thelatesixtiesandearlyseventieswere theeraof the civic art collectionthat relatedmoreto art historythanto cityor culturalhistory, andwhichfulfilledtheNBAgoal"togivethepublicaccesstothe bestart of our timeoutsidemuseumwalls.” These works,whichwere commis‑ sionedfrommaquettesandclosely resembledsmaller-scaleversions in collections,movedtheprivateviewingexperienceof the museumout'‑ doors.Festivals,rallies,or otherplazagatheringsweresupplementalto the art,butwere n o tcommunalactivitiesintegrali0 it.Becausethese works were art monumentsindicativeof the author’spersonalmanner of working,n o tculturalmonumentssymbolicof contemporary society, ' the ensuingpublicdebatecenteredonartisticstyle(e.g.,abstractversus figurativeart)ratherthanonpublicvalues.

Throughouttheseventies administratorsandarts activistslobbied forpercent-for‐artprograms,andthese,combinedwithNEAgrants and privatesector money,fueledpublicart.Thesizeof commissionscreateda viablealternativetothegallery systemforsomeartists.In time,andpartly becauseofthe pressureto explaintheworkto anincreasinglydemanding public,anewbreedof arts administratoremergedto smooththeway betweenartists,trainedin moderniststrategiesof individualismandinno‑ vation,andthevarious representativesof thepublicsector.Collaboration with otherprofessionals,research,andconsultativeinteractionwithcivic groups andcommunities becamemorecommon,andteams of artists, architects,designers,andadministratorswere formed.Exceptinunusual circumstances,thefull creativeandcooperativepotentialof suchteams rarelymaterialized.

Morecommissionsandscrutiny broughtfurtherbureaucratization in what curator PatriciaFullerhasidentifiedas'thepublicartestablish-, ment...[with]anincreasingtendency towardcomplicationandrigid- ‘ ifieationofprocesses,thecodificationofagenrecalledpublicart, [and] ideasofprofessionalismwhichadmitartistsandadministratorsto the

INYIDDUCT‘ON

fraternity.This allseems tohavecreatedanapparatus whichcanonly be justifiedbythecreationofpermanentobjects.”

AccordingtoFuller,early in the seventies some artists andadminis‑ trators in thefieldbeganto differentiate between“public art"‐-asculpture in apublicspace‐and“art in publicplaces,” afocus onthelocationor ' spacefor the art.Beginningin 1974,theNEAstressedthattheworkshould alsobe“appropriateto theimmediatesite,” andby 1978applicantswere encouraged“to approachcreatively thewide rangeof possibilitiesfor art inpublicsituations.” TheNBAencouragedproposalsthat integratedart intothesiteandthat movedbeyondthemonumentalsteelobject-off-the‑ pedestalto adoptany permanent media,includingearthworks,environ‑ mentalart,andnontraditionalmediasuchasartificiallights.

Someartists sawpublic art asanopportunity tocommandthe entirecanvas,asit were,to allowthemto operate withasingularand uncompromisedvision.Site-specificart,assuchanin publicplacesbegan to becalled,was commissioned anddesignedfor aparticularspace,taking intoaccount thephysicalandvisualqualities of thesite.Assitebecamea keyelement in public art, the mechanisms by whichworks were commis‑ sionedalsorequiredrevision.‘Therefore,in the eighties the NEAtriedto promotethe artist’sdirectparticipationin the choiceandplanningofthe site.By 1982the Visual Arts andDesignprograms hadjoined forces to encourage “the interactionof visualartists anddesignprofessionals throughthe explorationanddevelopmentof newcollaborativemodels.”

ScottBurton,one of themostrecognizedpublicartists in this pe‑ riod,believedthat“whatarchitectureordesignorpublicart havein com‑ monistheir socialfunctionorcontent. .. .Probablytheculminatingform of public art willbesome kindofsocialplanning,just asearthworks are leadingusto anewnotionof art aslandscapearchitecture.”5Eventually, asthepracticematured,artiststurnedtheir attentiontothehistorical, ecological,andsociologicalaspects of the site,althoughusuallyonly meta‑ phorically,andwithout engagingaudiencesinaway markedlydifferent fromin amuseum.

Bythelateeightiespublic art hadbec‘omearecognizablefield. Conferenceswere held,andasmallbody of literature,dealingfor the most

s ll"?

Suzanne Lacy

part with bureaucratic and administrative issues, considered the complexi‐ ' ties of the interface between visual artists andthe public.6 NEA guidelines of 1979 had called for ademonstration of “methods to insure aninformed community response to the project.” This directive was-extended in 1983 to include planning activities “ t o educate and prepare the commu‑ nity” and “plans for community involvement,preparation, and dialogue." By the beginning of the nineties, the NEA encouraged “educational activi‑ ties which invite community involvement.”

At the same time, the economic downturn, deepening urban troubles, and a new distrust of a r t led to attacks on public a r t and its fund‑ ing sources. Provocative situations marked the last years of the eighties, m o s t notably thecontroversy surrounding RichardSerra’s TiltedArc, when office workers’ demands to removethe sculpture from'its site in a civic plaza led to calls'for greater public accountability by artists. As the conventions of artistic-expression continued to comeinto conflict with public opinion, the presentation of anartist’s plans to community groups ‘ became derigueur. This in t u r n compelled agreater reliance onthe inter‑ mediary skills of the public a r t s administrator,since social interactionwas neither the forte n o r the particular aesthetic interest of many.established \ public artists. Thus skills were differentiated, and artists were able to maintain anaesthetic stance apart from notions of‘public education,

From the beginning,public a r t has been nurtured by its association with various institutions and, by extension, the a r t market. Mthough the move to exhibit a r t in public places was aprogressive one, the majority of artists accommodated themselves to the established museum system, con‑ tinuing to focus their attention on a r t critics and museum-going connois‑ seurs. The didactic aspects of a r t were relegated to the museum education department. “What t o o many artists did was to parachute into aplace and displace it with art,” comments Jeff Kelley. “Site Specificity was really more'like the imposition of akind of disembodied museum zone o n t o what already had been very meaningfuland present before that, which was the place.” ‑

In r e c e n t years, artists, administrators, and critics alike have looked at this progression from objects in museums, to objects inpublic places, to

24‘

I N Y I O D U C T I O N ,

site-specific installations and have framed present social and political ' artworks within the context of this essentially formalist movement. They

have understood the emergence of collaborative notions in a r t asareflec‑ tion of “design teams,” modeled after architectural practices. (Most public artists who developed within the preceding historicalprogression have worked closely with landscape architects, designers, and architects.) H o w‑ ever, it is the premise of this book that an alternative reading of the history of the past thirty years results in adifferent interpretation of these same present concerns. Indeed, many of the artists listed in the compendium of this book had been working for years outside the purview of the accepted public a r t and a r t in public places narrative, dominated asit was by sculp‑ t u r e . Artists asdiverse asAllan Kaprow, Anna Halprin,and Hans Haacke in the sixties and Lynn Hershman,Judy Chicago, Adrian Piper,and Judith Baca in the seventies were operating under different assumptions and aesthetic visions. N o t easily classifiablewithin adiscourse dominated by objects, their work was considered under other rubrics, such aspolitical, performance, or media art; hence the broader implications for both a r t and society were unexplored-by a r t criticism.

A r t in the Public Interest’

An alternative history of today’s public a r t could beread through the development of various vanguard‘groups, such asfeminist, ethnic, Marxist, _ and media artists and other activists. They have acommon interest in leftist politics, social activism, redefinedaudiences, relevance for commu‑ nities (particularly marginalized ones), and collaborative methodology. By re-visioning history through the lens of these interests, rather than artistic media-specificconcerns, we understand the present m o m e n t , new genre public a r t , and its implications for a r t making in away that focuses o u r critical investigatidn.

Wemight begin in the late fifties, when artists challenged the con‑ ventions of galleries-and museums through Happenings and other experi‑ m e n t s with what was to become known aspopular culture. Allan Kaprow has recounted his version of that history.The artists “appropriated the

Suzanne Lacy

partwithbureaucraticandadministrativeissues,consideredthe complexi‐ ' ties of the interfacebetweenvisualartists andthepublic.‘NEA guidelines of 1979hadcalledfor ademonstrationof “methodsto insureaninformed communityresponseto theproject.”7This directivewas-extended in 1983to includeplanningactivities “toeducateandpreparethe commu‑ nity”and“plansfor communityinvolvement,preparation,anddialogue.” Bythebeginningof thenineties,the NBAencouraged“educationalactivi‑ ties-whichinvitecommunity involvement."

At thesame time,the economicdownturn,deepeningurban troubles,and anewdistrustof art ledto attacksonpublica r t anditsfund‑ ingsources. Provocativesituationsmarkedthelastyears of theeighties, most notablythe-controversy surroundingRichardSerra’s TiltedArc, whenofficeworkers’ demandsto removethesculpturefrom‘its sitein a civic plazaledto calls‘for greaterpublicaceountabilitybyartists.Asthe conventions of artistic-expressioncontinuedto come'intoconflictwith publicopinion,thepresentationof anartist’splansto communitygroups ‘ becamederigueur.This in t u r ncompelledagreaterrelianceontheinter‑ mediaryskills of thepublicarts administrator,sincesocialinteractionwas neither thefortenortheparticularaestheticinterestof many.established \ publicartists.Thusskillsweredifferentiated,andartistswere ableto maintainanaesthetic stance apartfromnotionsof‐‘public education.»

Fromthe beginning,public art hasbeennurturedby itsassociation withvarious institutionsand,byextension,the artmarket.Althoughthe '-‘ moveto exhibitart in publicplaceswas aprogressiveone,themajorityof artistsaccommodatedthemselves to theestablishedmuseumsystem,con‑ tinuingto focustheir attentionon art critics andmuseum-goingconnois» seurs.The didactic aspects of art were relegatedto the museumeducation department,“Whatt o o manyartistsdidwas to parachuteintoaplace anddisplaceit withart,” commentsJeff,Kelley,“Sitespecificitywas really more'liketheimpositionof akindof disembodiedmuseumzone onto whatalreadyhadbeenvery meaningfulandpresentbeforethat,which was theplace.”

in recent years,artists,administrators,andcriticsalikehavelooked at thisprogressionfromobjects in museums,to objects in publicplaces,to

24‘

INTIODUCTION.

site-specificinstallationsandhaveframedpresentsocialandpolitical ' artworkswithinthe context of thisessentiallyformalist movement.They haveunderstoodthe emergenceofcollaborativenotionsin art asareflec‑ tionof “designteams,’ modeledafterarchitecturalpractices.(Mostpublic artistswhodevelopedwithintheprecedinghistoricalprogressionhave workedcloselywithlandscapearchitects.designers,andarchitects.)How‑ ever,it isthepremiseof this bookthatanalternativereadingof thehistory of thepastthirtyyearsresultsin adifferent interpretationof these same presentconcerns. Indeed,manyof the artists listedin thecompendiumof this bookhadbeenworkingforyears outsidethepurviewof the accepted publicart andart in publicplacesnarrative,dominatedasit was by sculp‑ ture. ArtistsasdiverseasAllanKaprow,Anna Halprin,andHansHaacke in thesixtiesandLynnHershman,JudyChicago,AdrianPiper,andjudith Bacain theseventies wereoperatingunderdifferentassumptions and aestheticvisions.Noteasilyclassifiablewithinadiscoursedominatedby objects,theirwork was consideredunderother rubrics,suchaspolitical, performance.or media art;hencethebroaderimplicationsforbothartand societywereunexploredby artcriticism.

Art in the PublicInterest’

An alternativehistoryof today’s public art couldbereadthroughthe developmentofvariousvanguardgroups,suchasfeminist,ethnic,Marxist, andmediaartistsandotheractivists.They haveacommoninterestin leftistpolitics,socialactivism,redefinedaudiences,relevancefor commu‑ nities(particularlymarginalizedones),andcollaborativemethodology. By re‐visioninghistorythroughthelensof theseinterests,ratherthan artistic media-specificconcerns,weunderstandthepresent moment,new genrepublicart,anditsimplicationsfor art makinginaway that focuses our criticalinvestigation.

Wemightbeginin thelatefifties,whenartists challengedthe con‑ ventions of galleriesandmuseumsthroughHappeningsandotherexperi‑ mentswithwhat was to becomeknownaspopularculture.AllanKaprow has recountedhisversionof thathistory.Theartists “appropriatedthe

Suzanne Lacy

realenvironmentand not the studio,garbageandn o tfinepaintsand marble.They incorporatedtechnologies thathadn’tbeenusedin art.They incorporatedbehavior,theweather,ecology,andpoliticalissues.In short, thedialoguemovedfrom knowingmoreandmoreaboutwhat art was to wonderingaboutwhatlifewas,the meaningof life.”

Overthe nextdecadespopularculture,whichincludedthemedia and itsmass audience,becamemoreattractivetoartists. In theseventies artistssuchasChrisBurden,AntFarm,LowellDarling,LeslieLabowitz, andmyselfinterruptedtelevisionbroadcastprogrammingwithperfor‑ mances(ShuLeaCheanglatercalledthem“mediabreak‐ins”).Duringthe subsequentdecade,media-relatedartwas moreanalytic thanactivist,but the relativeavailabilityof mediaanditspossibilitiesofscaleencouraged artiststothinkmorecritically aboutaudiences.Therelationshipbetween massculture,media,andengagedartwas recognizedby LynnHershman: 'Theimagesandvalues of theculturethat producesthe [television]pro‑ gramsinvadethesubconsciousculturalidentityof itsviewers. It'sessential that the dialoguebecomes two-way andinteractive,respectsandinvites multiplepointsofview.’

TheconnectionbetweenanactivistView of cultureandnewgenre public art hadbeenforgedduringtheVietnamWar protestsof thelate sixtiesbyUS.artistswhowere in turn influencedbypoliticalactivists.’0 At the same moment,alsodrawingfromtheradicalnatureof the times, womenartistsontheWest Coast,ledbyJudyChicago,developedfeminist art educationprograms."Activist artgrew o u t of the generalmilitancyof the era,andidentitypoliticswas partof it.Womenandethnicartists began to consider their identities‐keyto the newpoliticalanalysis‐~centralto their aestheticin someasyet undefinedmanner.Bothgroups beganwitha consciousnessof their communityof originastheirprimary audience.

. EthnicartistssuchasJudithBaeaworkedin ghettosandbarrios withspecificconstituencies,strugglingto bringtogether theiroftenhighly developedart-schoolaestheticwiththe aestheticsof their owncultures. Emphasizingtheir rolesascommunicators,theseartistsdrew upontheir heritagefor anart language,suchaspublicmurals,thatwouldspeak to theirpeople.Theirwork reflectedthisbridgingof Europeanandethnic

Suzanne Lacy

realenvironmentand not the studio,garbageandn o tfinepaintsand marble.'I'heyincorporatedtechnologies that hadn’tbeenUsedin art. They incorporatedbehavior,theweather,ecology,andpoliticalissues.In short, the dialoguemovedfromknowingmore and moreaboutwhat art was to wonderingaboutwhat lifewas, themeaningof life.”

Over the next decadespopular'culture,whichincludedthe media and its mass audience,becamemoreattractive to artists. In theseventies artists suchasChrisBurden,AntFarm,LowellDarling,LeslieLabowitz, andmyselfinterruptedtelevisionbroadcastprogrammingwithperfor‑ mances (ShuLeaCheanglatercalledthem “mediabreak‐ins”).Duringthe subsequent decade,media-relatedartwas more analytic thanactivist,but the relativeavailability ofmedia anditspossibilitiesofscaleencouraged artists tothink more critically aboutaudiences.Therelationshipbetween mass culture,media,andengaged art was recognizedby LynnHershman: “The imagesandvalues of theculture thatproduces the [television]pro‑ grams invadethesubconscious culturalidentityof itsviewers. It’sessential that the dialogue becomes two~way andinteractive,respects andinvites multiplepoints ofView.”

The connectionbetweenanactivist view of cultureand newgenre public art had beenforgedduringtheVietnamWar protests of thelate sixties by U.S.artists whowere in turn influencedbypoliticalactivists.m At the same moment,alsodrawingfromtheradicalnature of the times, womenartistsonthe West Coast,ledbyJudy Chicago,developedfeminist art educationprograms.“ Activist ar t grew o u t of the generalmilitancyof the era,andidentitypoliticswas part of it.Women and ethnic artists began toconsider their identities‐keyto the newpoliticalanalysis‐centralto their aesthetic in some asyet undefinedmanner.»Bothgroups beganwitha consciousness of their community of originastheirprimary audience.

Ethnicartists suchasJudithBacaworked in ghettos andbarrios withspecificconstituencies,strugglingto bringtogether their oftenhighly developedarr-schoolaesrheticwiththe aestheticsof their owncultures. Emphasizingtheir rolesascommunicators,these artists drew upontheir heritagefor anart language,suchaspublicmurals,that wouldspeak to theirpeople.Theirwork reflectedthisbridgingof Europeanandethnic. 26

INTRODUCTION

cultures,andthey becameparticularlyadept attranslationandcultural critique.Almost invariablythis ledto activism.AccordingtoYolanda Lopez,“Inanerawhen the state hasdisintegratedto the degreewhere it cannolongerattendto the needs of thepeople,artistswho work in the community needto consciouslydevelop organizingandcriticalskills amongthepeoplewithwhomthey work.” For this they were called “community artists,” andcritics refusedto take their work seriously.

“Thepersonalispolitical”was thekoanofthefeminist art move‑ ment,meaningthatpersonalrevelation,throughart,couldbeapolitical tool.The seventies broughtahighdegree ofvisibility towomen’s issues. Feministart,basedin activism,grew o u t of atheoreticalframework pro‑ vided byJudy Chicago,the mostvisible feminist artist fromthat era,along withothers includingMiriamScihapiro,Arlene Raven,SheilaLevrantdc Bretteville,MaryBethEdelson,JuneWayne,andLucyLippard.Chicago thoughtthatthe suppressionof anempoweredfemale identitythrough popularculture'smisrepresentationscould becounteractedbyarticulate identityconstructions in art. In this way, art makingwas connectedboth to abroadpublicandto action.

Movingintothepublic sector throughthe use ofpublicspace, includingthemedia,was inevitableforartistswho sought to informand change.Becauseof their activistorigin,feminist artists were concerned withquestionsof effectiveness.They hadfairly sophisticatedconceptions of the nature of anexpandedaudience,includinghowto reachit,support its passagethroughnew andoftendifficult material,andassess its transfor‑ mationor changeasaresultof the work. Seeingart asaneutralmeeting groundforpeopleof differentbackgrounds,feminists in the seventies ‘ attemptedartistic crossovers amongraces andclasses.Collaborationwas >avaluedpracticeof infinitelyvaryingpossibilities,one thathighlightedthe . relationalaspects of art. Bythe end of the seventiesfeminists hadformu- ’ latedpreciseactiviststrategies andaestheticcriteria for their art.

Thoughtheir art was n o t basedin identitypolitics,other political artistswereworkingduringthe seventies.Marxistartists in particularused photography andtext to portray andanalyze labor.They interactedwith the audiencebyinterviewingworkers,constructingcollectivenarratives,

INTRODUCTION

cultures,andthey becameparticularlyadept attranslationandcultural critique.Almost invariablythis ledto activism.AccordingtoYolanda Lopez,“Inanerawhen thestate hasdisintegratedto the degreewhere it cannolongerattendto the needsof thepeople,artistswho work in the community needto consciouslydeveloporganizingandcriticalskills amongthepeoplewithwhomthey work.” For this they were called “communityartists,” andcriticsrefusedtotake theirworkseriously.

"Thepersonalispolitical”was thekoanofthefeminist art move‑ ment,meaningthatpersonalrevelation,throughart,couldbeapolitical tool.The seventies broughtahighdegree ofvisibility towomen’s issues. Feministart,basedin activism,grew o u t of atheoreticalframework pro‑ vided byJudy Chicago,the mostvisible feminist artist fromthat era,along withothersincludingMiriamSchapiro,Arlene Raven,SheilaLevrantdc * Bretteville,MaryBethEdelson,JuneWayne,andLucyLippard.Chicago thoughtthatthe suppressionof anempoweredfemaleidentitythrough popularculture’smisrepresentationscould becounteractedby articulate identityconstructions in art. In this way,an makingwas connectedboth to abroadpublicandto action.

Movingintothepublicsector throughthe useofpublicspace, includingthemedia,was inevitableforartistswho sought to informand change.Becauseof their activistorigin,feminist artistswere concerned withquestionsof effectiveness.They hadfairly sophisticatedconceptions of the nature of anexpandedaudience,includinghowto reachit,support itspassagethroughnew andoftendifficult material,andassess its transfor‑ mationor changeasaresultof the work.Seeingart asaneutralmeeting groundforpeopleof differentbackgrounds,feminists in the seventies ‘ attemptedartistic crossovers amongraces andclasses.Collaborationwas _avaluedpracticeof infinitelyvaryingpossibilities,one thathighlightedthe relationalaspectsof art. Bythe end of the seventiesfeminists hadformu- _ I latedpreciseactiviststrategies andaestheticcriteriafor their art.

Thoughtheir art was n o t basedin identitypolitics,other political artistswere workingduringthe seventies.Marxistartists in particularused photography andtext to portray andanalyzelabor.They interactedwith theaudiencebyinterviewingworkers,constructingcollectivenarratives,

Suzanne Lacy

andexhibitingthosenarrativeswithinthe laborcommunity.Theiranalysis extendedtoacritiqueof art anditsmarketsaswellandwas exhibitedin museumsand artmagazines.Forthemostpart,thetheoreticalaspects of thiswork Were moredevelopedthanitsactivismuntilthemid-eighties, andwhile thework’s analysiswas comprehensive,it oftendidn’t attempt actualchange.MarthaRosler‘andFredLonidier,however,are among severalwhosework was interactivefromthebeginning

Throughouttheseventies,considerablebutoftenunacknowledged exchangeoccurredamongethnic,feminist,andMarxistartists,particularly ontheWestCoast,makingitdifficulttoattributeideastoonegroupor mother.Thatpeopleweresimultaneouslymembersof morethanone groupalsoaccountedforcross-influences.It issafeto say,however,that workingduringthesame decade andwithinearshotofeachother,these artists reachedsimilarconclusionsfromdifferentvantagepoints,andthese conclusionsaboutthenatureof ar tascommunicationandthearticulation of specific audiencesformthebasisfor newgenrepublicart.

RecentHistory:CallstoAction

Thisconstructionofahistoryof newgenrepublicart isnotbuiltona typology of materials,spaces,or artisticmedia,butratheronconcepts of audience,relationship,communication,andpoliticalintention.It is my premisethattherealheritageof thecurrent moment in publicar t came fromthediscoursesof largelymarginalizedartists.Howevervisiblethe abovecited‘movements”were,they were n o t linkedto eachother,to a centralizedartdiscourse,or to publicart itselfuntilthelateeighties.Four factorsconspiredtonarrowthedistancebetweenour two historicalnarra‑ livesandbringaboutaninterestin amorepublicart. '

First,increasedracialdiscriminationandviolencewerepartof the eightiesconservativebacklash.Asimmigrationswelledtheranksof ethnicpopulations,their newpoliticalpowerandarticulatespokespeople broughtethnicitytotheattention,if nottheagenda,of theU.S.public. Theintroductionofdiversityraisedprofoundquestionsaboutculture itself.Visualartists,participatingin internationalartisticandliteraryex‑

INTIODUCTION

is changes,expressedtheshifts in culturalexpectations of peopleof color xiv throughouttheworld.‘Whatif,’musedGuillermoGomez-Pena,“our internationalismwas nolongerdefinedbyNewYork,Paris,Berlin,or

g': evenMexicoCitybut .. .betweenSanAntonio andBangkok?’ '11»: i geographicalispolitical"becamethenew koanof politicalartists.

A secondfactor in thepoliticalconservatismof theeightiesand earlyninetieswastheattempttocircumscribethe gainswomenhadmade duringthepreviousdecades.Antiabortionforces gatheredmomentumas anincreasinglyconservativeSupremeCourtthreatenedconstitutional attacksonabortionrights.Severalevents, includingAnita Hill'stestimony on sexualharassmentatthetelevisedhearingsfor ClarenceThomas’s SupremeCourtnomination,reignitedanationaldiscussionof women’s rights.In theninetiesartistswere onceagainworkingwithissuesof gender violence,echoingfeministartistsof theseventies,butthis timethemakers includedbothmenandwomen.

Notsurprisingly,giventhepoliticalclimate,theendof theeighties saw anexercisein culturalcensorshiponascale not knownsincethefif‑ ties.This thirdfactor isclosely linkedto thefirst two. Censorshipefforts of politiciansin leaguewithconservativefundamentalists targetedwomen, ethnic,andhomosexualartists.Theattacks madeabundantlyclear the connections betweentherightsof thesesocialgroupsandthoseof artists in general,evokinganalmostunilateralresponsefromthe art world.These attacksonpubliclyvisibleartworks,most ofwhich were temporary or photographic(butalsoincludedJudy Chicago’sDinnerParty),createda lastingandchillinginfluenceonpublicart.

Finally,interestinnewformsofpublicart wasprovokedbydeep‑ eninghealthandecologiealcrises.ConcernedaboutAIDS,pollution,and environmentaldestruction,artistsbeganlookingforstrategies to raise awareness.ArtistswithAIDSbroughtthe diseaseintothegallery,literally andfiguratively,andAIDSactivistsstagedstreet actions inspiredbypen formanceartof thesixtiesandseventies.Environmentalcrises were the subjectofartworks indiversemedia,includingphoto-texts,paintings, installations,andperformances.

2.9

S u a m u Lacy

Althoughin theory newgenrepublicartmightbemadebythoseat eitherendof thepoliticalspectrum,boththehistoryof avant-gardeforms uponwhich it drawsandthesocialbackgroundof thoseattractedto its practiceeffectivelypositionthisworkasliberalor radical.Theissuesjust cited‐oppositiontoracism,violence againstwomen,censorship,AIDS, andecologicaldamage,forexample‐areasmucharecountingofatradi‑ tional leftistagendaasthey arethesubjectmatterof newgenrepublicart.

Withinthe ranksof theartistswho havecontributedto this alterna‑ tivepublicart historyareseveralwho,havingpredictedthe current social andaestheticsituationin theirwork,havecreatedtheirownroadmaps. Concernedwithissuesof race,gender,sexuality,ecology,andurbaniza‑ tion,for twenty years in somecases,their theoreticalperspectivesand activiststrategieswerewelldeveloped.Theseartists,mostof whomare includedin thecompendium,werequicklyheldupby membersof the “official”publicartestablishmentasmodelsforanewformof publicart. Unfortunately,this sporadicrecognitionandthefailuretounderstandthe historyof theseartists”concermandinfluenceshavedisassociatedthem fromtheir radicalheritage.Thisdismembermenthasallowedusto con‑ tinuealongacritical“blindpath’withoutcoherenttheories unitingaes‑ thetic,personal,andpoliticalgoals.Thisbook,in attemptingto reframe anextensivebodyof work,suggests thatnewgenrepublicart is n o tonly aboutsubject matter,andn o tonly aboutplacementor siteforart,but about theaestheticexpressionof activatedvalue systems. "Thenewpublic art is notsomuchamovementof thenineties,anewway of working,asa way of workingthat hasfounditstime,” reflectsindependentcurator MaryJaneJacob.

EXPLORING THE TERRITORY IN QUESTION

Thestageisset.Enterthevarious players,eachwithadifferenthistory butwithsimilarsocialconcerns that leadtoauniqueandidentifiable aestheticlanguage.Thisbookattemptsto throwaspotlightonthework of new genrepublicartistswith thegoalof developingacriticaldialogue. Theessays andtheentries in the compendiumprovideamultivocalover‑

INTIODUCYION

5 viewof theterritory in question.Fromthediscussionamongartistsand " criticsatthe ‘MappingtheTerrain” retreat emergethefollowingrelated "' themes‐ofsocialanalysisandartists' roles,responsibilities,andrelation‑ shipswithaudiences‐thatmaycontributetoaformallanguageforthis ‘: typeofpublicart. '

SocialAnalysisandDemocraticProcesses

Wearelivingin a state of emergency. . . . Ourlivesareframedby asinister ,. kindof BermadaTriangle,theparametersoftobicbareAIDS, recession,and ". polin‘calviolence. I feelthatmorethaneverwemuststepoutsideoftbestrictly

artarena. It is notenoughto makeart.

-Gau'llennoGomez-Perk

Referencesto thebroadercontextof politicalandsocial lifeareneverfar fromtheworks of newgenrepublicartists.Theirartworksreflectvarying degreesof urgency,butallsee thefateof theworldaswhat isatstake."I feelagreaturgencyin myownwork to addressthe issuesof ourdestruc‑ tionand not to makeworksof art thatkeepoursocietydormant' (Juana Alicia,muralist).In oneformor another,socialtheories are linkedclosely withthemakingof this art, andtheirexpressionistakenastheprerogative of theartist aswellasof the curator andcritic.

SomeartistsemphasizeOtherness,marginalization,andoppression; othersanalyzethe impactof technology.Somedrawfromtheecology movementor fromtheories of popularculture.Asmightbeexpected. 'ieministandracialpoliticsareevident.Art’spotentialrolein maintaining, enhancing,creating,andchallengingprivilegeisanunderlyingtheme. Powerrelationshipsare exposedin thevery processofcreating,fromnews makingto artmaking."Weneedto findways n o t to educateaudiences.for art butto buildstructures thatsharethe power inherentin makingculture withasmanypeopleaspossible.Howcanwechangethedispositionof exclusivenessthat liesat theheartof cultural lifein theUnitedStates?” (LynnSowder,independentcurator).

Seekingconsensus seems to be at thecoreof these artists'works. Ascritic andactivistLucyLippardsuggests,the Eurocentricview of the

Suzanne Lacy

worldiscrumbling:“Nothingthatdoesn o t includethevoicesofpeople of color,women, lesbians,andgays canbeconsideredinclusive,universal, ' or healing.To findthewholewemustknowandrespectalltheparts.”

The idealisminherentin this work isreflectedin aninclusive unitingof issuesandconcerns.As artistsEstellaConwillMijozoand HoustonConwillstatedinpresentingtheirworkwithcollaboratorJoseph De Pace,"We.. .address issuesof worldpeace,humanrights,rightsof the physicallychallenged,democracy,memory,culturaldiversity,pro‐choice, ecology,andcaring...andthecommonenemiesofwar,hatred,racism, classism,censorship,drugaddiction,ageism,apartheid,homophobia, hunger,poverty,joblessness,pollution,homelessness,AIDS,greed,impe‑ rialism,cross-culturalblindness,andfearof theOther.‘ Giventhe litany of social illsthat arethesubjectsof thiswork, thereisremarkablylittle despair orcynicism.Optimismisacommonresponse,althoughtempered withpoliticalrealism.

Onequestionsuchworkingmodesgenerate ishowto evaluatethe artist'schoiceof subjectsandsocialanalysis.ls workthat,for example, deconstruccsmediacoverageof the “DesertStorm”war in lraqautomati‑ cally laudablebecauseof itsparticularpositiononwar,technology,or media?Isthesophisticationof itsanalysis,in this caseitsmediatheory,a measurableaspect of thework?

InternalandExternalTransformation: The Artist’s Responsibility

Implicitor explicit in theartists’ referencesto alargersocialagendaistheir desirefor amoreconnectedrolefor artists.The distanceplacedbetween artistsandthe rest ofsociety ispartof theirsocialcritique.‘WhatI find myselfthinkingabout mostthesedays istheisolationofartistsfromour culture.It seems thatassocietydeclinesbotheconomically andsocially there'sanevenstronger needfor thekindof humanismandcreativityof artists'works.Paradoxically,artistsaremorespurnedanddiscounted thanever' (JenniferDowley,director,VisualArts Program,National Endowmentfor theArts).The longingfor acentralizedposition,however,

' 3 2

5. K. E l! . i.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

_‘" is often countered by the artist’s conflicting desire to remain outside asa social critic.

“Public a r t in the Eurocentric cultures has served the value systems and the purposes of anunbrokenhistory of patriarchal dominance that has despoilecl the earth and its inhabitants and seriously threatens the future.

' Responsiblesocial intervention m u s t hold up adifferent image. It must advance other value systems' (Jo Hanson,public and installation artist).

"5 The question is, whose value systems? The definitionof what constitutes i-I beneficial intervention by artists and how responsibility is expressed in

aesthetic terms is in part aconsideration of artists’ intentions. A less obvi‑ ous relationship isbetween the artist’s interiority and the makingof a work. The conversation about the psychological, spiritual, and ethical dimensions of this work is stillsuperficial,halted by afocus on its more overt political aspects. Yet more than afew artists temper their reforma‑ t o r y seal with anunderstanding that aninternalized agenda is being e x t e r‑ nalized through their art.

The fallibility ofaour own conceptions of “good” for others presents anongoing dilemma for new genre public artists. “Fritz Perls calls respon‑ sibility fresponse-ability,’ the ability to respond.He considers ‘obligation' asynonym for ‘megalomania," performance artistJohn Malpede says. “Your responsibility'is your ability to respond to your own needs." A resolution of the ethical dilemma inherent in political proselytizing isto consider the impulse to respond in the context of self.

Allan Kaprow strikes abalance between internal and external neces‑ sity. "It’s n o t only the transformation of the public consciousness that we are interestedin, but it's our o w n transformation asartists that’s just as important.Perhapsacorollary is that community change can’t take place unless it’s transformative within us.That familiar l i n e‐ ' Isee the enemy and it is I’‐means that every prejudice,every misunderstandingthat we perceive o u t in the real world is inside of us,and has to bechallenged.” This philosophicalpositioningof ‘self’ in the context of culture isanunexam‑ inedcharacteristic of this work, along with how its structural, temporal, and iconographic n a t u r e is shaped by the artists’ psychologicalprocesses.

Suzanne Lacy

ContinuityandResponsibility

Thestrongpersonalrelationshipsforgedthroughnewgenre‘publicart are oftenmaintainedbytheartistsover time anddistance.Partof their hu‑ manisticstyle,this characteristic hasobviouspoliticalimplicationsfor continuingandenhancingthechanges set inmotionby thework.When MalpedeWorks withthehomelessin citiesotherthanhishometownof LosAngeles,forexample,hemaylinkthemto localactivistsandartists in theprocessofcreatingaperformance.“Whenwework in othercommuni‑ ties,I feel likeonethingwecanofferto localartists ishowto maintainthe work afterweleave,logisticallyspanking.”

The notionof sustainingor continuingaconnectionbegunthrough theartworkisanexpressionofpersonalresponsibilitythat hasapedagogi‑ calthrust,oftenexpressedaseducatingengagedcommunity members, students,or eventhe artworld.Thispedagogyisrarelyasdoctrinaireasits criticswouldhaveit.Rather,theartist impartsoptionsfor developing activistandaestheticwork,generally onthe constituency’sownterms. Accordingto Malpede,“Wecanoffer anaesthetic structure they can trans‑ formandcarry on. Somecommunityartists get involvedandhaveacom‑ pletelydifferentaestheticagendathanourown,andthenit’s ‘Good!Do that? It’sreally importantthatpeoplehaveastrongartisticvision.It doesn't haveto becongruentwithours.” m

If theartistdoes havestatedpolitianlintentions‐andthe overtness ofthesevaries fromartist toartist‐thencontinuity maybeameasureof boththeartist'sresponsibilityandthework’ssuccess. ' I thastobesus‑ tained.Youcan't-haveaflashin thepanandexpect that’s goingtochange things' (JudithRace).Theissueofcontinuity,andtimein general,isa crucialonefornewpublicart, taxingthe resourcesof afundingandsup‑ portsystembuiltaroundtime-limited installationsandexhibitionsin controllablespaces.

Theemotionalandphysicaldemandsonartistsarehighin this labor-intensivework.Thefinancialcosts ofdevelopingthework overan extendedtime andof continuingcontacts after thepieceisfinishedare rarelybuilt intobudgets,andartistswho.workin regionsoutsidetheir

INTIODUCTION

own arefacedwithperplexingquestions.Someresolvethembyworking locallywithintheircommunities;others buildrelationshipsthat accommo‑ datethedistance.

CollaborativePractice:NotionsofPublicandPrivate

‘Whatever I didpubliclyI was thinkingof atleastonepersonin the gen‑ eralpublic towhommyworkwouldspeak” (LeopoldoMaler,Argentinian installationandperformanceartist).Allart positsaspace betweenthe artistandtheperceiverof thework,traditionally filledwiththe artobject. In newgenrepublicart, thatspaceisfilledwiththerelationshipbetween artistandaudience,prioritizedinthe artist’sworkingstrategies. I

Forsome,therelationshipistheartwork.Thispremisecallsfor a radicallydifferentset ofskills.Forexample.‘iuxtaposition'asanaesthetic practicemay mean,in this case,bringingtogether diversepeoplewithin the structure of thework,exploringsimilarities anddifferencesaspartof a dialogicpractice.Buildingaconstituency mighthaveasmuchto dowith howtheartistenvisionstheoverallshapeand texture of awork asit does withsimply developinganaudience.

These approachesbecomepartof theartist's expandedrepertoire. 'Wecan’tdoworkswithout talkingwithpeoplein the site.Wedoatre ‑ mendous amount of talkingto peoplein thecommunitieswework in .. . andit'satransformativeexperience.It transforms thework andit trans‑ forms us"(HoustonConwill).This processof communicationdescribes not onlyaway of gatheringinformationbutof conceptualizingandrepre‑ sentingtheartist's formalconcerns.Thevoices of othersspeakthrough thisartwork,oftenliterally.Of herproject inLittleTokyoinLosAngeles, SheiladeBrettcvillesays,‘Itmattersto methat their namesandthe dates onwhichthey saidit are there,becausethey’respeakingandI’mnot medi‑ atingtheir speech. I’mnotinterpretingit.I’m-simplygatheringit and givingit formfor others.’

Theskills neededfor this relationalwork arecommunicative in nature,astretchfortheimaginationsof artistsandcriticsusedto the monologicandstudio-basedmodelof art.SuziGablik callsfor anart “that

Suzanne Lacy

ismoreempathicandinteractiveandcomesfromagentle,diffusedmode of listening.. .akindof art thatcannot befully realizedthroughmono‑ logue.It canonlycomeintoitsownin dialogue,in openconversationin which one isobligedto listenandincludeothervoices.”

Thetransitionfromamodelof individualauthorshipto one of collectiverelationshipsuggestedin thiswork isn o tundertakensimply as an exercise in politicalcorrectness. A longingfor theOtherruns asa deep stream through most of theseartists'works,adesirefor connectionthat is part of the creativeendeavor in allitsforms.EstellaConwillMa'jozocon‑ sidersthe bluesastructuralmodelforherart,thegoalof whichisto link AfricanAmericanhistoryto current community. ‘ Inblues,I findthe notionof twinning,of connectionwiththe Other,andfind,in thesearch, that theperceivedtwo areoneattheend.”

This relationalmodel,whether expressedpsychologicallyor politi‑ cally,drawsuponaspiritualtraditionin art.Manynewgenrepublicartists express theirconnection,throughmemory,to traditions of ethnicity, gender,orfamily.Theytalk abouttheirhabitationoftheearthasarela‑ tionship withit andallbeingsthatlivethere.These essentiallyethicaland religiousassertionsarefoundedonasenseof serviceandaneedto over‑ come thedualismof a separate self.Thatdilemmais playedout n o tonly betweenselfandOther butbetweenperceivedpublicandprivatecompo‑ nents of theartist’sself. ‘I think this senseof whatit meansto beasocial personaandthe fact that every socialpersonhasaprivatepersoninsideis vital to the sense of community andto any meaningfulsenseof ‘public'‑ of publicservice.Theway to get to those issuessometimesisorganiza‑ tionalandstructural,butoftenit hasto dowithcompassion,withplay, withtouchingthe innerself in everyindividualwho recognizesthatthe next individualhasasimilarself.Andit isthatcommunity,whether literal or metaphorical,that isin fact therealpublicthatweasartistsmightad‑ dress’ (Kaprow).

EngagingMultipleAudiences

Empathybeginswiththeselfreachingo u t to anotherself,anunderlying dynamicof feelingthatbecomesthesourceof activism.Whether or n o t

p | .

iEi. I L{

INYIODUCTION

i..- onewants to discardthemodelof isolatedauthorship(andi personallydo ; not),it iscertainly nottheonlypossiblealternativefor visualartists.The work of these artistssuggests thatanotherfundamentalpremiseisbeing constructed‐thatcreativeworkscanbearepresentationoforanactual manifestationofrelationship.A very significantrelationshipisbetween the artistandhisor heraudience.

Oneof thedistinguishingcharacteristicsof thework in questionis thefactoringof theaudienceintotheactualconstructionof thework.This work activates theviewer‐creatingaparticipant.evenacollaborator.It mightbesaidthatallanukesitsaudienceinmaccounnevenifonlyinthe subconsciousmindof theartistworkingfor someimaginaryOther.One

' traditionalnotionof latemodernartsuggests that if thisistrue, it isnot somethingoneoughtto admit‐asif makingart for anyoneotherthan oneself isafailureof the imagination.Themakeupof theaudiencefor art was n o theretoforescrutinized,butwas assumedto belargelywhite, middle-class.andknowledgeablein contemporary a r t Artists workedfor eachother,aselectfewcritics,andpotentialbuyers.

Giventhedesirefor relationshipwiththe Other,it was inevitable that theaudiencewouldbecomeincreasinglyprominentasthis formof publicartdeveloped.“Wherebeforetheaudiencewas preparedthrough various museumprogramsin orderto likethework of publicart.or such aworkwas leftfor atimeto softenthe blowsothat reactionsto it were Vmediatedin some way .. .in this truly publicart the audienceisvery much engaged.fromthestart.in theprocessof making”(Jacob).

Asone beginsto articulateformsof actualratherthanmetaphorical engagement,onemustcome to termswithexactlywhomone is speaking to. ‘Whensheabandonscertainmythologiesof publicinorderto create newones,theartistcannot bedismissiveabouttherealitiesof place” (PatriciaPhillips).Potentialaudiencesarerealpeoplefoundinrealplaces. Bearingwitnesstoanidentifiablepersonorgroup challengesthemono‑ lithicimageof theaudiencethat hasbeenenshrinedin thevaluesystems andcriticismof latemodernart.

If the audienceisnolongeragiven,neitherisit singular.Artists arebeginningto conceiveof complexandmultipleaudiences asdistinct

Susanne Lacy

groups,includingintegralparticipants,occasionalviewers,andthe art worlditself.The content of theartworkdefines its audiencegroupings, asdoes the venue.These influencesarereciprocal,withchoicesof venues affectingthe content aswell,amountingto amorefluidandprocess‑ oricntedapproach.

“Whoisthepublicnowthat it haschangedcolor?‘asksJudithBaca. Thesinglemostexplosiveideato themythof acoherentandgeneralizedan audiencehascomefromtherecognitionofdifference."Anearlierheroic andmodernistideaofpublicartsuppressedthesignificantdifferences, whilelookingforsomesort of normativeandcentral ideaof public.Thebig questionforpublicartistsandforcriticsis,howdowedevelopapublicart thatacknowledges andsupportsandenrichesthesedifferenceswhileat the same timediscoveringhowthesedifferencescontributeto anideaofpublic lifethat is,infact,akindofcommonground?’(Phillips).

Ethnicminoritieshavechallengedtheassumptionsof cultureprem‑ isedin the work of European.primarilymaleartists,ashavefeminists, whose theory of differences haseffectivelydemonstrated thepatternsof dominancedeeplyembeddedin thelanguageandsymbolsof representa‑ tion. ‘Inthe future,whose ideaofbeautyandorderwillbeinpublic spaces?That is perhapsthe greatest questionwe haveto face.Youcanlook at alandscapeandyoucansee it asperfect in itself.Or youcanlookat it as undevelopedland.Those are two very differentpointsof view.Whowill makethepublicart in thatspace?” (Baca).

Theroadtoreconcilingdifferencesis notasstraightforwardaswe mighthavethought ten years ago.I'We’restillworkingondismantlingall thoseoldbinaryoppositionsandthedifferencesbetweenthe centerand the edge.All those centers andall thosemarginsarereallyparts of a very largeframework of centers andmarginstogether.Wegetcommunity withoutunity,without understanding,acceptingallthedifferentparts without havingto reallyunderstandeverything,becausetherearesome placeswherewetruly can't” (SheiladcBretteville).

Ambiguityandparadoxresonatewithinthisartwork,recognized bytheartiststhroughtheiractiveparticipationintherealitiesofcommu‑ nity.Differences,whetherreconciledorsimplytolerated,mustbeaccom‑

INTRODUCTION

, -- tedsomehowwithintheartwork.“Weallhavemultipleidentities, “ t h a t5howwecopewiththings.To takeanyofusassimplyatwo‑ finensionalsystemisto notreallyunderstand.Weallhavedistinctback‑ _:5groundsbutacommonforeground”(PeterJemison,curatorandtheorist). : Negotiatingthecomplicatedfieldintroducedbythedestructionofa .3unifiedan audienceistricky.Whereandhowtheartistlocateshervoice withinthework’sstructureiscritical,asistherepresentationof thecom‑ "munityvoice.Whatif thereisdisagreement?Thispracticalquestionfigures significantlyin artcensorshipcontroversiesandisattheheartof newgenre

H5publicart. “Oneof the bigchallengesthatwe'regoingto haveto figureout F inthis country andindemocracyistheroleof individualsandcommuni‑ lii ties‐individualsandtheir freedomandcommunitiesandtheir rights,or 3 standards.Howdowemakethose t w o things cometogetherin someway ‘ thatstillallowsusto beverydifferentbutlivetogether?“(DavidMendoza,

executivedirector,NationalCampaignforFreedomof Expression).

NewRolesforArtists Integrityis basednoton artists' allegiancesto their ownvisions buton an integrationof their ideaswiththoseof the community.Thepresenceofa diversifiedaudiencein theseworks leadsusbackto issuesof power,privi‑ lege,andtheauthority to claimthe territory of representation.Inevitably, then,wemustreconsiderthepossible‘uses’of artworkin the social contextandthe rolesof the artistasan actor in thepublicsector.

In findingnewwaysto work,artistshavedrawnonmodelsoutside the artsto reinterprettheir roles.AllanKaprowcalledattentionto the inherentlypedagogicalnatureof art in aseriesof articlesin the seventies called‘TheEducationoftheUri-Artist."l2Artist aseducatorisaconstruc‑ tionthat followsfrompoliticalintentions.“Ifan isto ever playarolein thecommotionof sharedsocialexperience,it must reexamineitspeda‑ gogicalassumptions,reframingstrategy andaesthetics in terms of reach ing”(RichardBolton,writer andartist). '

This waswellunderstoodbyJudy Chicagoandother feminist artistsof theseventies,whoseideasaboutart weredevelopedfroman examinationof issuesof authority,representation,historicalrevision,and

Susanne Lacy

the pedagogicaleffectsof publicdisclosureonpoliticalsystems.Asthe ‘ audiencesforwomen’s art became morepopulist,mandatedby thebreadth of theartists’aspirationsfor change,thediscursiveaspectsof thework becameasurgentasthe aesthetic.Mediaappearances,classes,exhibitions, discussiongroups,publicdemonstrations,consultations,andwritings were alldevelopedasintegralto the artwork,notasseparate activities. “Whentheartistdesignsthe programaswellasthework of a r t ‐ o r shall I say whentheartisticstrategiesbecomeonewiththeeducationalevents, wehaveanewwayofthinkingaboutthepurposeofthework.Thepro‑ cess that involvesallof these activitiesneedsto berecognizedasthecentral . partofthe work ofart.We’renotjust talkingaboutafinalproductto whichallelse ispreliminary.The artisthim-orherselfasaspokesperson isavery differentkindofrole"(Jacob).

Amorethoroughanalysisof thevariousclaimsartistsmakefor redefiningtheir rolesisneededto keepfromsubstitutingone set of my‑ thologiesformother.Someideasclarifyandotherssimplyconfuse. “Maybethis generationisunloadingthemythof theartist,themythof immediategratification,of genius andsuperiority andenteringthe more realspaceof disappointments,of slowprocessesthatneedto beunder‑ takenbeforesomethingcanbechanged” (Kaprow).

In recentliteratureandatsymposiums,manysuggestionsforrede‑ finingroleshavebeenputforward.YolandaLopezinvokesamodelof citizenship:“Exercisingthesocialcontract betweenthecitizenandthe' state, theartistworks ascitizenwithintheintimatespaces ofcommunity life.”HelenMayerHarrisonsuggests,“Weartistsaremythmakers,andwe participatewitheverybody elsein thesocialconstructionof reality.’ Ina fancifulflightof metaphor,GuillermoGomez-Penasuggests thatartists are “mediapirates,bordercrossers,culturalnegotiators,andcommunity healers.”Thesemetaphoricalreferencesdrawnfromoutsidetheartspro‑ poseadifferentconstructionof visualartspracticeandaudience.When ‘public”beginsto figureprominentlyintheart-makingequation,the stagingareaforart becomespotentiallyanyplace‐fromnewspapersto publicrestrooms,fromshoppingmallsto thesky.Theseexpansivevenues allownotonlyabroaderreachbutultimatelyamoreintegratedrolefor theartist in society.

INVIODUCTION

I . IT ICISH OF NEW GENRE PUBLIC ART

3' ‘t thisdatethereseemto bemorequestionsthananswers,morerhetoric .ninquiry.Criticismflounderswithoutmodedandunexaminedcon‑

' ' - tions,faroutstrippedbyartists‘ongoinginvestigations.It istimeto morethandescribethis artwork,time to lookmoreclosely atwhat

{exists withinthebordersof this new artistic territory. Howdowebeginpullingtogether thevarious strands of newgenre

publicart,muchofthethinkingaboutwhichislocatedwithintheartists’

_' challengingandcomplex fashion.I suggest thefollowingareasasabegin‑ ; ningconstruct: thequality of the imagery,includingthequestionof beauty andtherelevanceof invention;the artist’s intentionandtheeffects of the

i work,whether measurableor hyporhesized;andthework's methodof . conveyingmeaning.Asapreface,the rolesof thecurator andcritic must beconsideredwithrespectto this work.

Curators, Critics,andArtistsasCollaborators

“As acurator, I do becomeinvolvedin thecreativeprocess.The curator it becomesacollaborator,asoundingboard,andultimately afacilitator. It’s

very importantto playaroleof givingpermission,if youwill, that any‑ thingispossiblewhilewe’re thinkingabouthowto create awork' (Jacob). Criticsandcurators whowork withnewgenrepublicartistsactively participatein theethosandassumptionsof the art.They see themselves as oontextualizingandexpandingtheartist’s reach.

Whethersheworks insideor outsideof institutions,the curator presentsandpromotestheartwork to,the art worldandthecultureat large.Increasingly,curators alignthemselves withtheartists’visions for expansiveaudiences.“I'dliketo buildbridges,linkagesbetweenwhat artistsarethinkinganddoingto our daily lives.I’dliketoprovideour culturewithaccessto theideasof artists,to pursuesituationswhere artists canreengageaspartof themainstreamdiscourse,wherethey canpartici‑ pateascitizens.I'dliketo exploresituations where artists are activators, articulators,andlegitimateparticipantsin thecommunity,notoffering

Suzanne Lacy

benedictionsor accusationsfromthesidelines"(Dowley).Withaspirations suchasthese,curators support theartists’ beliefthatvisualart canplaya largerrolein settingthepublicagenda.

In addition,some curators,havingworkedforyearswithartists of this genre,haveeitheradoptedartists’educationalandoutreachstrategies orarrivedatthesamepointfollowingasimilaranalyticprocess.Experi‑ mentingwithpresentationalvenues andcuratorialstyles,theyserveas educatorsfortheprofessionaswellasfor layaudiences,eveninitiating younger artistsintointeractivemodes.Theyfacilitateopportunitiesfor artists toworkwithinthecommunity bycontactingcommunity groups, arrangingresources,andplanninginformationalandeducationalactivities. Notableprojecrsin thepastfew years haveadoptedthemodelsinherent in earlierpublicartworks,withcurators takingonrolesformerly assumed byartists.TheSpoletoFestivalUSAexhibitionandSculptureChicago’s Culturein Action, bothcuratedby MaryJaneJacob,andLynnSowder’s Women’s Work:A ProjectofLiz Claiborne,Inc.areexamplesof expanded projects in whichthe curator envisions andcoordinatesextensivepublic mediaandartisticapproachesto themes andissues.

Thecriticprovidesthewrittencontext thatexpandstheartwork’s potentialmeanings,explainsit to differentaudiences,andrelatesit to the historyandcontemporarypracticesof art. 'Thecritic’sroleis to spread theword,propagate ideas,conceptualize,and networkpubliclywith“ artists.We're mediums.Andweneedto helpfindcomplex anddiverse waystoconnect the privateandthepublic,thepersonalandthepolitical” (LucyLippard).Thecriticevaluates,describingthestandardsby whichthe workwillbemeasuredandpointingoutflaws inthinking.Theirscrutiny isvital,asit is too easy tosimplyapplaudthe work’ssocialintentionsat thepriceof itsaestheticsor,conversely,to ignorethem.

Thecriticaltask isnotaneasy one,aswehavetendedto separate ourpoliticalandaestheticlanguagein this country sincethe ascendancyof formalistcriticismin theforties.“Itseemstomethatarrivingatsomesort ofamodel[forcriticism]involvesgettingpastthis bifurcationbetweenthe aestheticandthesocial.There’s awholethere; someonehasto figureout how tonegotiatetheterritory,becausethis dualismjust doesn’texplainthe

INTRODUCTION

work” (PatriciaFuller).Oftenfunctions betweenthedisciplinesoverlap‑ artistsandcurators writecritically;critics andcurators work collabor‑ ativelywithartists;criticscurate;andartists curateothers’ artworksaspart of alargerworktheyauthor.Newgenrepublicart callsfor anintegrative criticallanguagethroughwhichvalues,ethics,andsocialresponsibilitycan bediscussedin terms of art.

The Questionof Beautyandthe Relevanceof Invention

Thediscussionof beauty,invention,andthe artfulmanipulationandas‑ semblingof medianeedn o tbeexcludedfromtheconsiderationof work that representsvalues andiscontextualizedwithinthepublic.Suchsepara‑ tion isdivisive,atbestanoverreactionto conventionalandconfining notionsof beauty,andatworst anexcuseto dismiss out of handalarge bodyof contemporary art.

CarolBecker,in anessay ontheeducationof artists,quotesJames Hillman’sdescriptionof experiencingbeautyas“thisquick intakeof breath,this littlebSbSbStheJapanesedraw betweentheir teethwhenthey see somethingbeautifulin agarden‐thischain]; reactionisthe aesthetic responsejust ascertain,inevitable,objective andubiquitousaswincingin painandmoaningin pleasure.”Werecognizethis gaspof recognition,a recognitionatonceof thenewly inventedandthealreadyknown.

Theproblemof beauty in theartworksconsideredin this bookisa legacyof thedematerializationof art andthe developmentof conceptual A andperformanceart formsduringthesixties‐howdoweasvisualartists

. judge thebeauty in ideationor temporalshape?Frustrated,somecritics simplyabandontheterritory, leavingbeautyto the domainof materialized andmedia-specificconstructions.Interestingly,theinterrogationof no‑ tions of beautythrough,for example,certaindcconstructivework of the eightiesismoreinstitutionalizedwithinart criticismthanisthe implica‑ tion,ofteninherentin newgenrepublicart,of non-museum-oriented formsof beauty.That is,acritiqueof beautyisacceptableaslongasthe current languageof art ismaintainedandthe makeupof the anaudience isn o tactuallychallenged.

Suzanne Lacy

The roleof inventionin beautyis morecomplex,especially within anart world driven bynovelty.Our rewardsystem, basedonthe appear anceof innovation,oftenleadsustodeny the work of intellectualand spiritualpredecessors,unlessthey are longenoughdeadthat association withthemenhancesratherthancompetes.Thishysteriaforthe new,a prejudiceof our society,hasreachedaclimax in contemporary art.The implicationsforbuildingasustained andeffectiveargumentfor art’ssocial rolearesevere if activistartists cannot acknowledgehowthey arebuilding oneachother’sworks andtheories.

Andyet,inspiteofthepoliticalusestowhichnotionsof invention areput,inavery realsensebeauty‐theclubs}:experience‐resultsfrom reassemblingmeaningin away that,atthatmoment,appearsnewand uniqueto theperceiver.Thisparadoxmustbegrappledwithin newgenre publicart: thedesireforwhat hasn o tbeenseenandthepolitically isolating demandfororiginality.Theperceptionofbeauty,subjectasit istocultural trainingandpoliticalmanipulation.isstillanecessary aspectofhuman existence.Thequality of imageryanduseof materials,includingtimeand interaction,mustbeincludedincriticalanalysisofnewgenrepublicart.

Artists’IntentionsandEffects

Anotherdilemmafor criticismiswhatrelationshipevaluativecriteria shouldhaveto the artist’sexpressionof intentionality.Assumptionsabout authorship,beauty,andwhatconstitutesasuccessfulwork mightchange withanunderstandingof artists' theoreticalconstructions,andsome knowledgeof their intentionsseems necessary if one istounderstandfully. Forexample,JudithBaca suggests two workingmodelsthatmightresult in differentcritical trcatmenls: “Insomeproductionswhere you aregoing for thepowerof theimage,youcangetalargeamountof inputfromthe community beforetheactualmakingof theimage,thenyoutakecontrol of the aesthetic.That’s onemodel.Another isafully collaborativeprocess in whichyougivethevoiceto thecommunity andthey makethe image. Bothof theseprocessesarecompletelyvalid,butthere’s very littleroom forthe secondbecauseartists takesuchhugerisksbecomingassociated

INYlODUCTION

" - aprocessthat mightnotendupasabeautifulobject.Theconfusionis 1-~ivewhenyoutalk topeoplewho arewritingaboutit;whose art isit,

" kids,thehomeless,or yours?” Canwetrust theartist’sclaimsfor thework?Somecriticshave

'« a ;estedthat the distancebetweentheartist’spoliticalintentionsandreal socialchangeisthe onlycriterion.This ideareflectsthedualisticconun‑

attheheartofcriticalthinkingaboutthiswork‐is it anorisit ‘soeialwork?Methodstraditionally usedto measurechange,drawnfrom thepoliticalor socialsciences,arenever,to my knowledge,actuallyap‑ }I-plied.Thelanguagelor'doingsoisn o t inplace,andevenif it were,weare Eireluctantto reduceourcriticalevaluationto oneof numbers,or even,for that matter,to personaltestimonies.Concreteresults in thepublicsphere,

._andhowthesereflectthe artist’sintentions,mayoccasionally beillustra‑

.7tiveofawork’ssuccess butfallshort,astheydonotcaptureallthevaried I‘:_ levelson whichan operates.

, Art andMeaning

2 Byleaningtoo far in thedirectionof evaluatingthework’s socialclaims, - criticsavoidgivingequalconsiderationto itsaestheticgoals.Ourcurrent criticallanguagehasadifficult timecomingtoterms withany processart. '

. YetasJeffKelleystates, ‘Processesare alsometaphors.They arepowerful . containersof meaning.Youhaveto havepeople[critics]whocanevaluate ; thequalitiesof aprocess,just asthey evaluatethequalitiesof aproduct.

. There’safalsedichotomy that's alwaystalkedabout,evenbyus,between *. objectsandprocesses.Any timeweobjectify consciousness,it’sanobject * in asense,abodyof meaning.Lookingataproductattheend,or looking , onlyatthesocialgoodintentionsor effectivenessof thework iscertainly

i; not thewholepicture.‘ *- Asvariable astheindividualperceptionsof meaningmayhe,atleast i, thistertainisafamiliaronetoancriticism‐eocialmeaningasitisemhod‑ b ledin symbolic aces. ‘Partof what we’re doingisto dream.[Anartist] is ll not changingthehomelessproblem.Howmanymillionhomelessarethere

in theworld?Howmanypeopleisthat oneartistworkingwith?No.this

Suzanne Lacy

isanissueabout identityandhistory”(AlfLohr,Germancriticandartist). Whether the art operates asaconcrete agentof changeor functions in the worldof symbolism (andhowsuchsymbolismwillaffectactualbehavior) isaquestionthat must informamorecomplexcriticalapproach.

Evenwhentheartist's intentionsareto evokeratherthanmerelyto suggestsocial transformation,thequestionof whether art operates differ‑ ently than,say.directactionmustbeconsidered.Why doesthis work assumetheposition.‘shape,’andcontext of art?If indeedit does,oneof theevaluativesites must bethemeaningto itsaudience,ameaningn o t necessarilyaccessibleby directquery.

Perhaps,in theend,themeritofasingleandparticularwork in and of itselfwilln o t bethe soleconcernof ourcriticism.If newgenrepublic artistsareenvisioninganewformof society‐asharedprojectwithothers ’ who arenotartists,workingindifferentmannersandplaces‐thenthe artwork must be seenwith respectto that visionandassessedin part by its relationshiptothecollectivesocialpropositiontowhichit subscribes. That is,art becomesone’sstatementofvalues aswellasareflectionofa modeof seeing.

In apublicart dialoguefocusedonthebureaucraticandthe struc‑ tural,thevisionary potentialofpublicart, itsability to generatesocial meaning,is lost.Inherentin seeingwherewearegoingisaskingwhywe are goingthere.If in Meppingtbe Terrainwereframethefieldwithin whichthis artworkoperates, reunitingit withitsradicalheritageandthe artists’ethicalintentions,thenperhapsourunderstandingof this artwill beredirectedalongadifferentroad.

Whether it operates assymbolicgestureor concrete action,new genrepublicart mustbeevaluatedin amultifacetedway to accountfor its impactnot only onactionbutonconsciousness,notonlyon othersbuton theartiststhemselves,andnotonlyonotherartists’practicesbutonthe definitionofart. Centraltothisevaluationisaredefinitionthatmaywell challengethe natureof artasweknowit,art notprimarilyasaproductbut asaprocessofvaluefinding,aset ofphilosophies,anedaiealaction.andan aspectof alargersocioculturalagenda.

( " Y I O D U C Y I O N

” W h n w m t h A n M W l ” 3 fl h - a m I ” ) .

u i m a d q u m d n - m d m n f n u m i p u d t h m ' M t h m - i n fl n c m l ’ u fl k _ - m d b y 6 e C M C d l q - i m e fl u i l ” l .

“7- m a fi m a m m m m m a ‐ q - o m m m - w n m ‘ A n M d W M M M M I ” ) .

; 1.p u n k .'Ouuidt h u m p !

, - ; m a d . u a e m m w m m m h u m m m m a m n u u m l ‘ m V M W ' W W M h W - w fi m d fi c m fi fl fl d m h l m m m ‘ u w m - m m m m fi u w m - h h m m

a m n i fl b u fi u z h fi c p fl c w d u m d h u u c k m '

‘ V , m m u m n a u m h m ¢ m a m m 1 m m n m u m m m 1 9 m

‘ l m k M W d W h m a M G - M h fl C - « t h a n k a a n l u fl u m M u C fl fl o u i - S n n U M h P m O fl - h h l m . h a l M d l M a h k a h l e M I - d m t h t h u d - v fl p fi m m m u m m m w i - m m m w m m s a h h m

“,1 d m m m m h M m M M M u h w h - M h m w y - W i h u m m d m u h d u b p d w w h b m w y fi n d u b h w m " . W ' W m h ' w w . w u d i m '_, I L M J I n I l p w ' f T h M d c h r u m L ' M N I - I fl . m l G ( l 9 7 | ) . p p . M l : ' T b c M - m i o n

o t h l - A n h g h n l L ’ A u N m n m o . ) ( l m L " . H 9 : - I d ' 1 h u u a i u t h n - A n ‘ u . h a m ‘ . . h h m u u u n m x m u - n

[ L l a m a - H M ' T M W d M ‘ T c - n C c h u c o . n . J I . M d E o - ( I ” I ) . " H , m u m m ' m u n h u v m m u d e m - h m m

" m d fl c h W W d J i u y G i n u m n Y u h m l m )