Community and public art projects

The ideas of ‘community’ and ‘public art’ are heavily discussed in Miwon Kwon’s chapter ‘Sittings of public Art: integration versus intervention’. Throughout the chapter she makes some very interesting points particularly highlighted by the comparison between Serra and Adhearn’s work. When thinking about the ideas of site-specific art most assume it is a direct reaction to the surroundings or landscape however, it seems it is more complicated with the works relationship to the community it is placed within. This relationship that is created between its site and identity of both the artist and community become critical counterpoints within the meaning and outcome of the work. Public artworks have become more than just a sculpture placed within the surroundings showcasing the achievements of the artist. This concept of site-specificity was created around the 1960s as a part of the artists rejecting modernist ideas of the art object. Kwon states that ‘Public art works were meant to play a supplementary but crucial role in the amelioration of what were perceived to be ill effects of the repetitive, monotonous, and functionalist style of modernist architecture.” However, this failed as it was lacking public engagement merely becoming an extension of modernist architecture.

This notion of accessibility in relation to the progression of public art was very interesting as it states that “despite the physical accessibility, public art remained resolutely inaccessible insofar as the prevalent style of modernist abstraction remained indecipherable, uninteresting and meaningless to a general audience” This turning point in art I think signified when public art became a means of making the works more appealing to the communities they were taking place in. Artists started to prioritise utility over aesthetic making it more relevant to its public audience- creating almost a social consciousness and responsibility through these public artworks.

Serra created the 120 foot steel sculpture entitled 'Titled Arc" placing it within the public space creating much controversy. Serra saw that his work was an interrogation into the public site ‘about the sites socio-political conditions…rather than fulfilling an ameliorative function in relation to the site.” However, Serra was criticized for his work as it was driven by art specific concerns rather than concerns for his audience (community) –the only people able to gage with a work like this would be those from an art background especially due to the fact it was commissioned by the U.S government. Serra did believe that ‘art is not supposed to be democratic. It is not for the people.” Contrary to this was the work of Ahearn who’s work was a direct relation to his neighbourhood casting portraits of his neighbours and people on the street. Ahearn was adamant on his working remaining as a part of the community. Ahearn's work also created controversy many arguing that his works could not adequately depict his African American community.

*Kwon sees that these two works ‘underscore the lack of agreement over what we mean by, and expect from, an ‘interventionary’ site specificity.”

Ultimately, The value of these site-specific works is not in the mere object itself but over time this interaction between artist and the community. This is due to the fact that artists ‘reassure the viewer with an easily shared idea or subject” this is significant as when there is a shared idea with the community in these works the community is a part of the piece and the community consequently, becomes the subject making the work more interesting for a viewer however problematic and confusing it may be.