JJ101
Respond to both 200 words or more + REF
Paul starts this section of Scripture with a thesis statement that is literal Heaven to our ears, those of us who are Gentiles. He claims that " a righteousness from God , apart from the law, has been made known...". He is telling us that salvation is possible without having to go to a priest and sacrifice. A new righteousness is possible now that Jesus Christ has died on the cross for us.
Paul states that God presented Jesus a sacrifice of atonement and through faith in Christ blood we can be saved. Atonement in the Old Testament was made when someone would bring an animal to the priest and he would sacrifice on an altar and the person would be good for another determined period of time. Notice that they would have to come back. Although the priest would say that they were clean for a little while this was something that was on the outside. Jesus coming to cleanse the inside once and for all was the ultimate atonement of sin.
James says that we are justified by works and not just in faith alone as where Paul says we are justified by our faith. There is no tension here between these two guys. We are justified by our faith in Christ and that is what will allow us to enter Heaven. We are also justified by our works in the sense that we will want to do works in we truly have faith in Christ. We will want to do our best to fulfill Matthew 28 and go and make disciples. This will involve us doing things for people and this alone doesn't save but faith and works go hand and hand.
JJ102
In Romans 3:21-4:25, Paul makes a case for salvation by grace rather than through obedience to the Law. He opens in 3:21 with a thesis statement saying that the righteousness of God came to fruition apart from the Law. He follows by saying that the Law and the prophets have borne witness to God's righteousness but are not themselves the source.
Paul build his case by beginning with what Jesus had done in His life, death, and resurrection. He tells them that all people have sinned and are incapable of having equal footing with God, and that the only way to gain the righteousness of God is through faith in Jesus Christ. In this there is no room for boasting in our ability to be "good enough" or for there to be exclusivity for the Jewish people, since all are equally in need. Paul then states that within our salvation by faith, we still aim to uphold the Law.
Next Paul uses the example of Abraham in a way that was definitely countercultural and likely very offensive to many listening to him. He claimed that the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham and his offspring came through faith and not through the Law. He references the Scripture that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness," to make the case that despite Abraham's following of the Law, he was not owed righteousness but that it was a gift. Paul claimed that Abraham was not righteous through circ.
“Oh GOSH! Reflecting on Hackteria's Collaborative Practices in a Global Do-It...
JJ101Respond to both 200 words or more + REFPaul starts this s.docx
1. JJ101
Respond to both 200 words or more + REF
Paul starts this section of Scripture with a thesis statement that
is literal Heaven to our ears, those of us who are Gentiles. He
claims that " a righteousness from God , apart from the law, has
been made known...". He is telling us that salvation is possible
without having to go to a priest and sacrifice. A new
righteousness is possible now that Jesus Christ has died on the
cross for us.
Paul states that God presented Jesus a sacrifice of atonement
and through faith in Christ blood we can be saved. Atonement in
the Old Testament was made when someone would bring an
animal to the priest and he would sacrifice on an altar and the
person would be good for another determined period of time.
Notice that they would have to come back. Although the priest
would say that they were clean for a little while this was
something that was on the outside. Jesus coming to cleanse the
inside once and for all was the ultimate atonement of sin.
James says that we are justified by works and not just in
faith alone as where Paul says we are justified by our faith.
There is no tension here between these two guys. We are
justified by our faith in Christ and that is what will allow us to
enter Heaven. We are also justified by our works in the sense
that we will want to do works in we truly have faith in Christ.
We will want to do our best to fulfill Matthew 28 and go and
make disciples. This will involve us doing things for people and
this alone doesn't save but faith and works go hand and hand.
JJ102
In Romans 3:21-4:25, Paul makes a case for salvation by grace
rather than through obedience to the Law. He opens in 3:21
with a thesis statement saying that the righteousness of God
came to fruition apart from the Law. He follows by saying that
the Law and the prophets have borne witness to God's
2. righteousness but are not themselves the source.
Paul build his case by beginning with what Jesus had
done in His life, death, and resurrection. He tells them that all
people have sinned and are incapable of having equal footing
with God, and that the only way to gain the righteousness of
God is through faith in Jesus Christ. In this there is no room
for boasting in our ability to be "good enough" or for there to be
exclusivity for the Jewish people, since all are equally in need.
Paul then states that within our salvation by faith, we still aim
to uphold the Law.
Next Paul uses the example of Abraham in a way that
was definitely countercultural and likely very offensive to many
listening to him. He claimed that the fulfillment of God's
promise to Abraham and his offspring came through faith and
not through the Law. He references the Scripture that says,
"Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as
righteousness," to make the case that despite Abraham's
following of the Law, he was not owed righteousness but that it
was a gift. Paul claimed that Abraham was not righteous
through circumcision but that his circumcision was a sign of his
righteousness through faith.
In James 2:14-26, James talks about the relationship
between faith and works stating that they are interconnected and
talks about faith fueling and motivating works, even using
Abraham as an example again. While James is making a case for
the importance of works in the Christian life, he is not making
the case that works are what bring salvation and give us the
righteousness of God. Because of this, what Paul says in
Romans and James' statements are not conflicting or
contradictory, rather complimentary.
PREFACE
3. 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
4. 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.
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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 . ‘
8. 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
9. 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
pilgrimagesandmetaphoricjourneysoftransformationandempower
ment”
«SuzanneLacy
I3
10. 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
11. 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
nontraditionalmediatocommunicateandinteractwithabroadanddiv
er‑
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
12. 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
nontraditionalmediatocommunicateandinteractwithabroadanddiv
er‑
sifiedaudienceaboutissuesdirectly relevantto their
lives‐isbasedon
13. 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,newgenrear
t
mightincludecombinationsofdifferentmedia.Installations,perfor
mances,
conceptualart,andmixed-
mediaart.forexample,fallintothenewgenre
category,acatchalltermfOrexperimentationillbothformandcontent
. >
Attackingboundaries,newgenrepublicartistsdrawonideasfromvan
‑
guardforms,buttheyaddadevelopedsensibilityaboutaudience,soci
al ‘
strategy,andeffectivenessthat isuniqueto visualan asweknowit
today.
Althoughnotoftenincludedindiscussionsaboutpublicart,such
artistsadopt“public'astheiroperativeconceptandquest.Accordingt
o
criticPatriciaC.Phillips,“Inspiteofthemanysignsofretreatandwith‑
drawal,mostpeopleremaininneedofandevendesirousofaninvigorat
ed,
activeideaof
public.Butwhatthecontemporarypoliswillbeisinconclu‑
15. to
20
Suzanne Lacy
latesixtiestodescribeart'that'departsfromtraditionalboundariesof
media.
Notspecificallypainting,sculpture,orfilm,for example,newgenre
art ‘
mightincludecombinationsofdifferentmedia.Installations,perfor
mances
conceptualart,andmixed‐mediaart,forexample,fall
intothenewgenre
category,acatchallterm-for:experimentationin bothform and
content.
Attackingboundaries,newgenrepublicartistsdrawonideasfromvan
‑
guardforms,buttheyadda_'developedsensibilityaboutaudience,soc
ial
strategy,andeffectiveness that isuniqueto visualartlasweknowit
today;
Althoughn o toftenincludedin discussionsaboutpublicart,such
artistsadopt“public”astheirophrativeconceptandquest.Accordingt
o
criticPatriciaC.Phillips,“Inspiteofthemanysignsofretreatandvvitl
i‑
drawal,m o s tpeopleremainin needof andevendesirousof
aninvigorated,
activeideaof public.Butwhat
thecontemporarypoliswillbeis‘inconclu‑
sive.”Thisindeterminacyhasdevelopedasamajorthemein
newgenre
16. publicart.Thenatureofaudience‐intraditionalart takentobejust
about
everyone‐isnowbeingrigorouslyinvestigatedinpracticeandtheory.
Is
“public”annalifyingdescriptionofplace,.ownership,or’abcesS?Isi
t a
subject,or-acharacteriSticof theparticularaudienCei’Doesit
explainthe
intentionsoftheartistortheinterestsoftheaudience?Theinclusionof
the
publicconnectstheOries ofart
tothebroaderpopulation:whatexistsinthe
Spacebetweenthewordspublicandartisanunknownrelationshipbe‑
tweenartistandaudience,arelationshipthatmayitselfbecometheart
work.
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,andeveninteracti
ve a r t
are allaccepted by art worldcriticsaslongasthere appearsto beno
real
possibilityofsocialchange._Theunderlyingaversionto.art«thatplai
17. n-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.Butwithhistoryasw
ell as
maps,theconstructionof meaningdepends onwho
isdomgthemaking.
18. 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
19. 2|
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.Butwithhistoryasw
ell as
map5, the constructionof meaningdepends onwho isdoingthe
making.
Art in PublicPlaces
One versionofhistory,then,beginswiththe demise
20. 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
2|
21. 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
22. 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
23. 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
24. 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
23
s
ll"?
s
25. 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‑
26. 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
27. 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
28. 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
25
29. 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
30. 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.
31. site-specificinstallationsandhaveframedpresentsocialandpolitical
' artworkswithinthe context of thisessentiallyformalist
movement.They
haveunderstoodthe emergenceofcollaborativenotionsin art
asareflec‑
tionof “designteams,’
modeledafterarchitecturalpractices.(Mostpublic
artistswhodevelopedwithintheprecedinghistoricalprogressionhav
e
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.Noteasilyclassifiablewithinadiscoursedominate
dby
objects,theirwork was consideredunderother
rubrics,suchaspolitical,
performance.or media
art;hencethebroaderimplicationsforbothartand
societywereunexploredby artcriticism.
Art in the PublicInterest’
32. An alternativehistoryof today’s public art
couldbereadthroughthe
developmentofvariousvanguardgroups,suchasfeminist,ethnic,Ma
rxist,
andmediaartistsandotheractivists.They haveacommoninterestin
leftistpolitics,socialactivism,redefinedaudiences,relevancefor
commu‑
nities(particularlymarginalizedones),andcollaborativemethodolo
gy.
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
25
Suzanne Lacy
realenvironmentand not the studio,garbageandn o tfinepaintsand
marble.They incorporatedtechnologies thathadn’tbeenusedin
art.They
incorporatedbehavior,theweather,ecology,andpoliticalissues.In
short,
33. thedialoguemovedfrom knowingmoreandmoreaboutwhat art was
to
wonderingaboutwhatlifewas,the meaningof life.”
Overthe nextdecadespopularculture,whichincludedthemedia
and itsmass audience,becamemoreattractivetoartists. In
theseventies
artistssuchasChrisBurden,AntFarm,LowellDarling,LeslieLabowi
tz,
andmyselfinterruptedtelevisionbroadcastprogrammingwithperfor
‑
mances(ShuLeaCheanglatercalledthem“mediabreak‐ins”).During
the
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,
34. 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
26
Suzanne Lacy
realenvironmentand not the studio,garbageandn o tfinepaintsand
marble.'I'heyincorporatedtechnologies that hadn’tbeenUsedin
art. They
35. 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
36. 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
37. 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,couldbeapolitica
l
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.Chica
go
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
38. 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
,
27
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
39. the
community needto
consciouslydeveloporganizingandcriticalskills
amongthepeoplewithwhomthey work.” For this they were called
“communityartists,” andcriticsrefusedtotake theirworkseriously.
"Thepersonalispolitical”was thekoanofthefeminist art move‑
ment,meaningthatpersonalrevelation,throughart,couldbeapolitica
l
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.Chica
go
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
40. 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,constructingcollectivenarrati
ves,
27
Suzanne Lacy
andexhibitingthosenarrativeswithinthe
laborcommunity.Theiranalysis
extendedtoacritiqueof art anditsmarketsaswellandwas
exhibitedin
museumsand artmagazines.Forthemostpart,thetheoreticalaspects
of
thiswork Were moredevelopedthanitsactivismuntilthemid-
eighties,
41. andwhile thework’s analysiswas comprehensive,it oftendidn’t
attempt
actualchange.MarthaRosler‘andFredLonidier,however,are
among
severalwhosework was interactivefromthebeginning
Throughouttheseventies,considerablebutoftenunacknowledged
exchangeoccurredamongethnic,feminist,andMarxistartists,partic
ularly
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
42. 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‑
20
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
anincreasinglyconservativeSupremeCourtthreatenedconstitution
43. al
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
44. 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.
45. 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
46. 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
47. 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
3|
48. 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
HoustonConwillstatedinpresentingtheirworkwithcollaboratorJos
eph
De Pace,"We.. .address issuesof
worldpeace,humanrights,rightsof the
physicallychallenged,democracy,memory,culturaldiversity,pro‐c
hoice,
ecology,andcaring...andthecommonenemiesofwar,hatred,racism,
classism,censorship,drugaddiction,ageism,apartheid,homophobi
a,
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‑
49. 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
50. _‘" 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.
51. 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.
33
52. Suzanne Lacy
ContinuityandResponsibility
Thestrongpersonalrelationshipsforgedthroughnewgenre‘publicar
t 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.
53. 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
34
INTIODUCTION
54. 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
‑
55. 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
35
Suzanne Lacy
ismoreempathicandinteractiveandcomesfromagentle,diffusedmo
de
of listening.. .akindof art thatcannot befully
realizedthroughmono‑
logue.It canonlycomeintoitsownin dialogue,in
56. 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
57. 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
36
p
| .
iEi.
I
L{
INYIODUCTION
i..- onewants to discardthemodelof isolatedauthorship(andi
58. 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
59. 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).Potentialaudiencesarerealpeoplefoundinrealpla
ces.
Bearingwitnesstoanidentifiablepersonorgroup
challengesthemono‑
lithicimageof theaudiencethat hasbeenenshrinedin
thevaluesystems
andcriticismof latemodernart.
If the audienceisnolongeragiven,neitherisit singular.Artists
arebeginningto conceiveof complexandmultipleaudiences
asdistinct
37
Susanne Lacy
groups,includingintegralparticipants,occasionalviewers,andthe
art
worlditself.The content of theartworkdefines its
audiencegroupings,
asdoes the venue.These influencesarereciprocal,withchoicesof
60. venues
affectingthe content aswell,amountingto amorefluidandprocess‑
oricntedapproach.
“Whoisthepublicnowthat it haschangedcolor?‘asksJudithBaca.
Thesinglemostexplosiveideato themythof
acoherentandgeneralizedan
audiencehascomefromtherecognitionofdifference."Anearlierhero
ic
andmodernistideaofpublicartsuppressedthesignificantdifferences
,
whilelookingforsomesort of normativeandcentral ideaof
public.Thebig
questionforpublicartistsandforcriticsis,howdowedevelopapublica
rt
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).
61. 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
bytheartiststhroughtheiractiveparticipationintherealitiesofcomm
u‑
nity.Differences,whetherreconciledorsimplytolerated,mustbeacc
om‑
JI
INTRODUCTION
, -- tedsomehowwithintheartwork.“Weallhavemultipleidentities,
“ t h a t5howwecopewiththings.To takeanyofusassimplyatwo‑
finensionalsystemisto
notreallyunderstand.Weallhavedistinctback‑
_:5groundsbutacommonforeground”(PeterJemison,curatorandthe
orist).
: Negotiatingthecomplicatedfieldintroducedbythedestructionofa
.3unifiedan
62. 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
63. 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
39
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,andwriting
s
were alldevelopedasintegralto the artwork,notasseparate
activities.
“Whentheartistdesignsthe programaswellasthework of a r t ‐ o r
64. 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,an
dwe
participatewitheverybody elsein thesocialconstructionof
reality.’ Ina
fancifulflightof metaphor,GuillermoGomez-Penasuggests
thatartists
are
“mediapirates,bordercrossers,culturalnegotiators,andcommunity
66. ; 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
67. canreengageaspartof themainstreamdiscourse,wherethey
canpartici‑
pateascitizens.I'dliketo exploresituations where artists are
activators,
articulators,andlegitimateparticipantsin
thecommunity,notoffering
4|
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,andplanninginformationalandeducationalacti
vities.
Notableprojecrsin thepastfew years
haveadoptedthemodelsinherent
68. 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
69. ofamodel[forcriticism]involvesgettingpastthis
bifurcationbetweenthe
aestheticandthesocial.There’s awholethere; someonehasto
figureout
how tonegotiatetheterritory,becausethis dualismjust
doesn’texplainthe
42
INTRODUCTION
work” (PatriciaFuller).Oftenfunctions
betweenthedisciplinesoverlap‑
artistsandcurators writecritically;critics andcurators work
collabor‑
ativelywithartists;criticscurate;andartists curateothers’
artworksaspart
of alargerworktheyauthor.Newgenrepublicart callsfor
anintegrative
criticallanguagethroughwhichvalues,ethics,andsocialresponsibili
tycan
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
70. 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
71. anaudience
isn o tactuallychallenged.
43
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
72. aspectofhuman
existence.Thequality of imageryanduseof
materials,includingtimeand
interaction,mustbeincludedincriticalanalysisofnewgenrepublicar
t.
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
44
73. 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
74. 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
75. oneartistworkingwith?No.this
45
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.
76. 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.
46
( " Y I O D U C Y I O N
77. ” 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
78. [ 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 )
Q7