Carnie! van Winkel

Publicness and Recognizability

"Art may gain in meaning by leaving the museum," stated Hans van Houwelingen

in an interview fiveyears ago. These days more and more artists are embra­

cing the idea that art would obtain extra relevance - especially in a social

sense - if it abandoned its institutions. The number of artists that set up

projects in public space or put themselves up for commissions is still grow­

ing. They hope or rather believe that in this way the isolated position ofvis­

ual art will come to an end. Working outside the boundaries of museums and

galleries , interacting and communicating with "ordinary people" in places

where they live and work would end the socially trivial effects of the profes­

sional activities in the art world. At last the indifference of the larger public

to contemporary art would be broken. Artists move into city districts to

do meaningful and positive things, to contribute to "the quality of public

space." According to Hans van Houwelingen: "Artists can increase people's

awareness, or they can be an important factor in generating a more livable

environment."

Without further ado I would like to make my own statement: There is no fun­

damental difference between the space of the museum and public space.

The museum is merely the culmination ofthe public realm to which artists

are tied , whether they like it or not. I strongly disagree with the popular

opinion that art would gain in importance if it withdrew from the museum.

Idisagree with the opinion that artists could work outside the art context any­

way. Art, by definition, always derives its meaning from the art context. All

artists, even beginners, work for the museum, whether they wish to or not.

In the past 150 years the necessary connection between visual art and specific

techniques, like painting and sculpture, has gradually, however irrevocably,

broken off. Anything, literally anything, could be a work ofart: any object,

any process, any event . There are no more rules or demands that have to be

met if something is to be accepted as a work of art. This is a crucial part of

the cultural legacy of the avant-garde. Anything could be a work ofart, pro­

vided there is an artist who designates it as such; an artist who claims: "This

is a work ofart," and subsequently presents the object, process or event of his

or her choice to the public for assessment. The public must be enabled either

to confirm or reject the artist's claim: Yes,this is a work ofart, or, no, this is

not a wo rk of art at all. A work of an does not exist when it has not beenbrought to the public's attention in the first place, when it has not been"publicized."And whynot?Because the lack ofrulesanddemandsmeansthatthere are no obvious signs left that make a work ofan identifiab leas such.

Suppose you were walking through a shopping street in a given town and youwould noticeaheapofsand into whichared polewasstuck.How could yoube sure that this was not parr of some art project or outdoor sculptureshow?Ihave seen cases that weremore absurd.So to be effectiveas a workof art, the work musr be labeled as one, otherwise it remains unnoticed:even if you fell flat on your face onto that heap of sand, you would neverguess that it was a work ofart.

Visual art derives its meaning from the art context, for every work of art ispositioned in relation to other works as well as to texts. theories and con­cepts thai Together constitute the art discourse. As a whole, this collectionforms a kind of rvirt ual" or imaginary museum,which is not tied ro a placeor building. Art magazines and exhibition catalogues are, for example, anessential part oft bis virtual museum.

It isan illusion to think that itwould be possiblefor an artist to escapefrom thevirtual museum. Ofcourse,artists arc ableto work in streetsand squares, indeserted railway tunnels, at people's homes, in airpor ts, on the beach orwherever; hut if they fail to reach the virtual museum - one way or theother, even a small article in Flash Art would do - their work remains un­known as a workofart , and isdoomed to insignificance.

I repeat my previous statement: There is no fundamental difference betweenthe space of the museum and public space. At this point though. I wouldlike to add that there are nevertheless some differences of degree betweenthe space inside the museum and publicspace.Saying that these differencesare qualifying rather than fundamental, I mean that they basicallydo notalter the inescapable condition oCthe virtual museum. I will name three ofthese differences.

The first difference. In museums and other established art institutes publicnessmanifests itself as a closed quality.111is kind of publicness is characterizedby preservation and documentation, by a stable hierarchy. It orders and iscumulative by nature. Everything that takes place in here is being docu­mented and archived according to standard procedures. However, in urbanareas outside the museum building publicness manifests itself as an open

quality.This second kind of publicness is characterized bythe absence ofanestablished memory or self-image; it is unstable, inconsistent and nonhier­archical. The movement of traffic, changes inarchitecture,the cuttingdownor planting of trees,coincidental meetings that take place or appointmentsthat are missed; all these events arc passing by unrecorded.

Many artists and curators are fascinated with this open quality. and claim thatthey can appropriate it. Let me givean example. In 1996 the German artistAndreas Slominski put a bicycletire around a lamppost in the ciry of Mun­ster. He did nor JUSt throw the tire over the lamppost, but had arranged thatlocalauthor ities assisted him with an excavator and a crane. The lamppostwas dug up, disconnected from the electricity supply and lifted from theearth, allowing the artist to place his tire around it. After this, the post wasput back, the hole refilled with earth, and all traces of rhe intervention wereneatly removed. The Sight of the bicycle tire around the lamppost did notgiveany reason to assume that it was a work of art . Probably you all haveseen a bicycle tire around a lamppost before, or perhaps even thrown onearound it yourself. However, the artist took photographs of the event andpublished them in a catalogue, affirming its art status after all.

iUthe past fi fteen yearsartists have made mllnyworks of this kind within thescope of temporary art events in public space all over Europe. arrangingordinary objects in ordinary, urban surroundings, only having visitors ex­perience the work in the urban context as a work of art via the museumcontext. With flyers,guides and maps in their hands they are ledto appointedsites to undergo a pre-decided, ready-made experience.

moo what happens is that publicness as an open quality is put on top of pub­licness as a dosed quality.This is the major problem of context-related artevents in publicspace.The public. space of the city is subjected to the publicspace of the museum. Artists and curators flir t with the inconsistent and in­complete power of cognition, which is a property of urban publicness.withoutgiving up - or without being able to give up - their dependence ona museologicalsystem ofdocumenracon.Jn other words.th e claim to pub­licness asan open quality canno t be substantiated,with the result that these..-orksof art are leading a totallyacademicexistence.

that.we arrive at theseconddifferenceordegree between museum art and. an. Every contempo rary work ofart is,fundamentally,a material as

as a conceptual entity,The work ofan is a thing, but the thing is also a

NN

work of art.The bicycle tire around the lamppost in Munster is an art workthat relates to specificideas about art and refers ( 0 other works. Yet it is alsoa bicycle tire around a lamppost on which your rootis caught if you do notwatch your step. A work of art always relates to two kinds of contexts: thespatial context - that is, the direct. physicalsurroundings- and the art con­text. These two worlds never coincide; there is a widegap between them.

This principle applies to any modern or contemporary work of art , includingmuseum pieces.JUSt thinkofJoseph Beuys' Fenecee(Corner of Fat) - a well­known example, whichover keencleanersmistakenly rubbed offduringamuseum exhibition.Stillinside the museum the label,"this is a workofart,"isalmosta standard implication. Inother words, thegap between the mater­ial and the ideal dimension is much wider outside the museum than inside.As I was saying, this is not an absolute diffe rence but a difference ofdegree.

Contemporary artists working in public space oflen make the mistake to over­look the gap between these rwodimensions of theworkofart.Theyassumethat anyone will be able (0 notice and experience - without the slightestknowledge beforehand - the rhetorical effects through which they havetheir work inserted into the discourse ofcontemporary art. Theythink thatthe impact of the material presence of the work in public space automat­

Icallyequals its impact in the art discourse. And then they often add: Idon'tcare whether you call it art or nor.

Artists who sayabout their work, I don't care whetheryoucall it art or nor,denythe greatest achievement of twentieth century an : the fact that anythingcould be a work ofart on the condition that there is an artist who has classi­fied it as such and who has presented it to the publicas a work of art . Thestatement,"this is a work of an," is essential for the production and recep­tion ofvisual art. There is no return possible to thesituation in which a workof art entailed a natural unity of form, function and meaning. Anyone whoinsists that this is stillan option,celebrates a state of regression. Artis ts areable to give up anything but the right to label something, whatever, as awork of an. After all. exercising this right is the only thing that qualifiesthem as artists.

Before 1discuss the third difference of degree, I would like to raise a question.Why is it that artists should play a role in public space? Are there anygrounds for the conviction that public art is so important? The questionmay seem very simple, yet is rarely seriously asked. This is remarkable,

because the high expectations that peo ple have of the application of visualart are anything but obviou s. These expectations are preferably expressedthrough the explicit proposition that visual art isactuelly capable of achiev­ing someth ing. For instance it is said thai: visual art can contribute to the

quality of public space, visual an can make people more aware of theirenvironment , visual art can enhance the quality of life in town districts,

visual art can stimulate social cohesion, visual art can create posslbllMes

fororienta tion and identi fi cation. The question is:what do these statementsact ually mean? Theyare suggesting two things: first , that visual art shouldbe considered a form of expertise, and second , that an extern al appeal to

this expertisc ts possible at any time, We are supposed to believe that artis ts

have capacities that other people do not have, and that these specific abil­

ities add urto the core of their artistic discipline , distinguishing visual ar t

from other disciplines. Furthermore, the suggestion rum that the expert iseof the art ist sho uld be taken (or granted - that it is a general value which is

not really under discussion.The problem is that in reality visual an has lost its basis ofexpertise quite some

time ago; visual art no longer represents a general exp ert ise that artis ts can

mllmlYLlr[[/t[ [0,Tn[JimullOnIn rrmin"fIlIWfin~ fn.rnl.IYI~ today-with an unlimited freedom to choose and handle their material - is at odds

with every notion of skill and metier. As I said before, there are no longer

any rules that prescribe which technical and esthetic demands an object

should meet to be acceptable as a work of art . The regulations and conven­

tions that formerlygave the art ists' activities the status ofa metier no longer

exist. O ne does not need to have specifi c skills to be an art ist. In essence,visual art does not even need to have a visual character. What visual art is

remains an open question;any work ofan is a single, part icular respo nse to

that question.

Even so.j ustas in theseventies the idea is advocated that artists should be includ­

ed in urban development project teams to think about life in future cities

or to participate in planning new quarters, as if nothing has happened. To

un derpin th is idea it is often suggested that the expertise of art ists consist

of their "visual and conceptual training," their "spatial intelligence" or even

their "social com petence." Obviously this is an atte mpt to reverse the irre­

versible. Such presumptions arc not only regressivc, vague and fashionable.but also quite opportunistic, as they suggest that arch itects, urban plannersand urban developers do not , or nor sufficiently, have these abilities.

]

The fact that visual art as a discipline does not any longer represent a generalexpertise - again, this is not a loss but an achievement - implicates thatthere are no o bjectifiable arguments in favo r of the contribution of visual

art to public space; there are only individual motivations to believe in this

cont ribution. The question of the cultural and social relevance of public art

is basically a matte r ofbelief,com parable to the question ofthe existence of

God:some believe in it, others do not. Anyone who asks forarguments getsan individual confession of fatth for an answer, which differs from person

to person and lacks general legitimacy, since it is impossible to specify in

general terms what visual art is, not to mention what it cou ld do.

Why would an individual confession of faith not be sufficient to legitimize the

application of visual art? The answer is sim ple: because one canno t base apolicy on this. Ifyou are thinking about public art you have to confront the

phenomenon ofart policy, for in public space any individualart production

will necessarily be preceded by the administrative planning of a commis­

sion policy. ln contrast with so-called autonomo us works of art , allYpublic

work ofart expresses by definition some form of aft policy, be it municipal,provincial, or state policy.

Th is is the third difference ofdegree between art inside the museum and aft inpublic space outs ide the museum. It is primarily a social difference. Every

public work of art may be considered an expression - o r perhaps a symp­tom - of art policy.Such an em bedment in policy explains why again and

again attempts arc made to articulate the expertise of visual ar t in generalterms . Public servants , politicians and their advisers have to legit imize

financial expenses for art commissions, like any othe r spending frompublic funds. Not only the eagernes s of art ists but also the eagerness of

those in charge triggered the public art boom of the nineties.

The Dutch Secretary for Cultu re, Rick van del' Ploeg. g ives high priority toart in public space. He considers public art a su itable policy inst rumentfor healing the breach between ar t and the people, as it was seen in theseventies too . By stimulat ing public art he believes that the ivory tower in

which the professional elite has locked up art can be broken down.

In a recent lecture Thije Adams, a high official in the Department of Van del'

Ploeg, answered the quest ion why public art was so important . His answerboiled down to one argument because in th is way art could become com­mu nal property again. His story was exceptionally rhetorical. Fi rst, Adams

argued that art in general is not communal property. To prove th is he usedstric tly economic argumems. Then on behalf of the Secretary he dictatedthe political conditions on which art cou ld and might become communal

property again. He was steering towards a conditiona lsubsidy.His reasoningwas as follows: the governm ent subsidizes art to serve public interests,

SO the government can on ly subsidize those works of art that are in theinterest of the public indeed. Accord ingly, he concluded that art ists must

abide by the unwritte n rules of public space; their work shou ld be COI1­

venient and attractive, open and particularly nor confront ing.That is what

Adams literally said: convenient. att ractive and not confronting. Fromthis o ffi cial's point of view, users and local residents would auto matically

appreciate wo rks of art if these requirements were met. As a matter of

cou rse vandalism of ar tworks wou ld disappear. It was as simple as that..Pnha ps you are surprised to hear that such ideas circulate inside the Depar t­

menr of Cultu re in the Netherlands: perhaps you are not. The artists who

atten ded the lecture seemed not surprised. Remarkably, nobody protested

against th is decree. Apparently artists have accepted the conditions that

politicians impose upon their participation. Benefiting from the Wishfu l

thinking of politics in an opportunistic manner, they threaten to be reducedto the decorators of consensus society. Politics dictate that the artist please

the people, and the ar tist says:Okay, when can Istan?

So much for national polities. On a local level similar ideas prevail. In many

large and smaller municipalities the interest in the application of visual art

in public space is anything but neutral. Municipalities are com peting for

the most attractive environment to citizens as well as the most favorable

climate to new business activities. Major financial interests are at stake.

Local authorities are at pains to highlight the "unique" character of their

cities, implement ing visual art to give a cultural touch to the marketing ofthe city.

The funny thing is that by emphasiz ing local differences all these cities act very

similar. In o rder to realize a "particular ization of public space"local autho r­

ities from nor th to south appeal to the potential ofvisual art. Everywhere it

isdecided to integrate visualart into archit ecture and town plann ing, and to

haveart ists involved in developments as earlyas possible, although similarconcepts extensively explored in the seventies did not work out very well.

In most cities the same ambitions concerning public space are heard: to

n>,

enhance the quality of life. invest in the quality of environments. facilitateorientation and ident ification, establish the ident ity of a town district. er

cetera.

In fact this is a bizarre, ideologic mix of outdated welfarese from the seventiesand well-worn marketing cliches from the nineties: 00 the one hand the

antique,behavioristic notion that monotonous surroundings would lead to

"sensory deprivation, " alienat ion and reduction of the "or ientation stimu ­lus" in the brains; and on the other hand the worn-out jargon of custom er

relations, image building and prod uct placement. The shortcomings of the

one ideology are used to disguise the weaknesses of the other.

Local governments go for one thing only,and that is recognizability: the recog­

nizabliliry of rheirown city or town. And this by means ofvisual art - ofall

medium s a medium unfit to strengthen the recogn izability of anything, as

it is in essence unrecogn izable itself. ln the policy of these cities ident ity isreduced to image for the sake of the widest possible recognizability. They

fool them selves with a polished-up reputation from wh ich all unwelcome

stains were removed. easy to handle as an image. like the logo on the mu­

nicipa l's writing-paper.

The keenness with which many cities have embraced visualart is nor incidental:

it fi ts in the excessive fixation on "visual quality" that cha racterizes the

Dutch government's po licy concerning spatial planning, urban develop­

ment and public space. For example, the most important fault of the new

Vinex housing estates. w hich arc being built all over the country. is that

they have been plann ed as hermetic compositions. leaving no roo m toanticipate futuredevelopm ents. Vinex urbanization depends on design and

a tempting surface. while it mostly lacks an integrated. regional planning.

The relentless pursu it of visual quality compensates for a genera l loss ofdirec­

tional instruments and regu latory bodies due to government policy. As a

result of cut-backs in publicspending. the dismantling of mu nicipal servicesand an overw helming emphasis on "more free marker. less government

interferen ce." the Dutch have created a situat ion in which com mercialcom panies can deter mine the pr iorities of urban planning. This happened

in particular Vinex locations whe re desired varieties and differentiations in

the building plan were restric ted un der pressure from property developers;

but it also happened in Amsterdam wh ere local authorities had to resign

themselves to the wishes of the busi ness community to develop the Zuidas-

area, instead of the ban ks of th e river IJ. into a location of prestigious office

bu ildings.

As soon as the creeping privat ization o f urban planning liaises with the creep­

ing privat ization of public space, to r example in the newer generat ion of

sho pping mall s, the government definitively compromises its credibility

on the subjec t ofexpress ing and protect ing public int erests . The aim of the

current fixation on visual quality in pub lic space is to conceal such a poli t­

ical ban kruptcy. The rhetor ic of maintain ing esthetic standards sh ould

reassure us that th e government has never lost its grip on developments in

the public domain . Visual art appears to be most opportune .

Ofcourse it is a cold fact that a clear, collective outlook o n life as well as widely

common standards o f morality, which the government could smoothly

appeal to on behalf of all citizens, no longer exist. However, the way in

which th is ideologic vacu um is dealt with com es down to a falsificat ion of

political discourse. And th is is exactly wh at visua l art in public space is used

for. The "individual st atement" the ar tist is allowed to make within str ictly

limited cond itions is mea nt to conceal the lack of an evident set o f values in

the public do main. The social respo nsibility o f the gove rnment is farmed

ou t to a person wh o could ~ so we are supposed to believe - do the wonders

that ordinary mor tals canno t do , such as making people aware of their

surround ings, an d co nt r ibuting to th e creation of a more livable environ­

ment - issues tha t o nly two or three decades ago were considered govern­

ment duti es.

Visual an is used as a stopgap measure to mend holes in the connective tissue

of the welfare state. Public works of ar t serve as fig leavesan d sops . camou­

flagt ng political incompetence and the sell-off of the pu blic domain.

(ammon moral standards and shared principles ofl ife,which over the past

fifty years have been dismissed an d buried at the graveyard piece by piece,

are dug up again and placed as carnival-like zombies in squares and ro un d­

abo uts.

How pessimistic sho uld we be? Are there any prospens left? Which recom­

mendations can be made to turn the tide?There are two recommendat io ns

Iwould like to make.

FU"St, it is essenrial that art ists and their lobbyists admit that visual art doe s nor

sta nd for a specialized expert ise they call take for granted and fall ba ck on .

If that has taken place, atleast the discussion will reach a high er level.

Tbe second step would be to investigate the relationship between this disciplin­

ary vacuum and the political-administ rative vacuum in the public domain .

Then art ists may start to look fo r possibilities to make this relationship pro­

ductive in some way. The ourcome o fsuch an undertaking is stilla lo ng way

off. Theonly thing we can be sure of is that th ere will be no room left for

naivety and opportun ism.