Art in City Design

The only way art will be successful is if it gains the affection of the audience. In Crikshank and Corza’s “Public Education Policy”, the relationship between art and the surrounding public is explored. The keyword in this reading is “preservation” and preserving public art work all depends on the reception of the people. It is a simple formula: if the public loves the public art then the public art will be kept by the public and if the public does not like the public art then it will be criticized.

Another interesting theory that explained how artistic awareness can be increased and preserved in the community would be by educational means. This would create a larger scale of appreciation for art so that it will be incorporated within the community’s culture. This will also embed a sense of cultural expression for the youth because the best way to mold the youth is through early exposure and education.

Preservation is used to describe a mode in which a keeper maintains a certain thing within the physical realm but preservation in this reading’s context is about keeping the “connection” between art and people. If the connection or relationship is favored by the people and beneficial to the environment then its preservation will resemble.

Art always sends a message. Art and politics have been related throughout history, from Pablo Picaso’s Geurnica, lamenting an atrocity, to Norman Rockwell’s Four Freedoms, defining the heart of American values. Portraits have been made to glorify leaders; even the Shepard Fairey’s graphic depiction of President Obama is a modern example of art in politics. Graffiti can take many different forms and convey many different messages, but as a genre it is categorically renegade. Thus, no matter what message the art is trying to send, it is always colored by this anti-establishment tenor that springs from a sensed injustice and inequality pervasive in certain areas. I found it interesting that in the “Cool Jane” article it was noted that most people who appreciate graffiti’s aesthetic value are upper or middle class. Is this because they are deaf to the frustrated voice that defines the genre, and can only see the formal elements of the graffiti? Jane Golden said that lower-income people, whose walls are usually the ones marked, are usually disheartened by the graffiti: “…people see graffiti as a symbol of hopelessness— a manifestation of the forces threatening their survival. They have to worry about their kids getting shot, and the fact that quite literally every exterior surface is covered with graffiti is a reminder that the neighborhood is out of control….So, a three story waterfall is totally uplifting. It’s a political statement.” This quote really made it clear to my why it’s necessary to limit graffiti. Murals as a political statement make sense. And, because of their accessibility and relative low cost, they can be made community-specific and be painted over easily if the community changes over time. Not only do the aesthetics of the murals themselves transform the space and make it more welcoming, but the process of painting the mural is perhaps more important. In the Cool Jane article, former graffiti artists become muralists: if amateurish, at least inspired. Kids who may not otherwise have had an opportunity for a paying job or positive influence were able to spend time doing something productive for their community. I found the Cool Jane article encouraging and am now convinced more than ever that public participation in art projects like murals is crucial for the community’s morale. The Redevelopment Authority is a different story, and I think limited public involvement is necessary, as too many cooks can spoil the broth when it comes to Percent for Art programs that generally seem more monumental and permanent. 

         History by Kirby Gookin is one of my favorite articles so far this semester because it shares a lot of similar views with me like making art public to the mass by breaking out of the “white cube” dilemma. As Kirby described, “As museums did not traditionally exhibit the work of living artists, and most commercial galleries were unapproachably bourgeois and detached from the social realities of the world, young artists led the way in creating new and alternative means to the conventional art experience. Rejecting the neutral “white cube”, Conceptual artists like Joseph Kosuth and Lee Lozano began exploring ways to deflate art’s materiality and de-emphasize its commercial viability, while Adrian Piper  took art outside into the streets and Robert Smithson pushed it into the landscape.” This “pushing” art into the outside arena is one of the major steps that art has taken compared to its beginnings. It makes art accessible to and for everyone while museums and exhibits give a sense of artistic hierarchy, which I despise.

            Creative Time is a group that sponsored art events and festivals that pushed the efforts of public art and “enabled professional artists to test ideas and create new works for public exhibition in alternative spaces.” If I was a participating artist in that time and place, Creative Time would be an inspiration to me because it would prove that art awareness and availability are progressing. Not only did Creative Time create necessary avenues for artistic freedom but the works that they created were relevant to the surrounding times and environment. When Ney York had their rise in their art scene after the increase in its economy because of Reagan, Creative Time took in that political energy and produced a counter. Podium for Dissent (1985) was created by a group of artists that depicted Ronald Reagan on a fractured billboard sized portrait. This was a huge political punch the government but it proves how involved the artists of Creative Time are getting with their environments.

            This article is a smoking gun of artistic freedom and its progression. I even enjoyed the layout of the article because even that was rebel like from most articles. I felt that rebellion was one of the personalities for Creative Time and the reason why they flourished at the time they were in. Artistic progression is a beautiful thing.

Response Paper

During the semester it has been a bit hard for me to contextualize some of the readings on Philadelphia case studies primarily because I had never been to the city. The Philadelphia Public Art Tour really brought to life all of the discussions we have been having in this class during the semester. Walking around and seeing works of art outside of big buildings made me realize how wonderful the percentage for arts act is. Even the front of the Suburban Transit storefront had art. It made the city lively and enjoyable to walk through. The Love Letter Series was definetly one of the most enjoyable pieces of the trip. The murals were done in ways that allowed the subjects of each piece to uplift its original West Philly surroundings; the messages displayed in each of them made the art place specific which we spoke about in class. The Love letter series demonstrated successful street art. The game piece sculptures located in the plaza of the government buildings looked amazing from afar. Seeing it in the pictures I took made me appreciate it way more than when I was actually there. The eroding metal and graffiti definitely took away from the aesthetics from the piece and so did the democracy sculpture that was there originally. The democracy sculpture, omitting its awkwardly placed neighboring piece, was one of the most captivating pieces that I saw last week. The material, the detail and the meaning behind the sculpture worked with the plaza and the builds that were there. Overall I thought the tour was a success; from riding the SEPTA, to having lunch in the busy terminal market, I was able to experience the culture on a city that I have never been to. I truly appreciate the opportunity.

It being my first time, I really enjoyed our class trip to Philadelphia. Riding the SEPTA and being able to see the “A Love Letter for You” series was really exciting. The last mural we saw which was labeled #1 of the series, sat at the  between the urban and and more residential aspects of west Philadelphia. This clear division was really interesting because it sort of marked the end of a struggling urban area and the beginning of a green and more well to do area of Philadelphia. Does the public art have an influence on this? I think it does. The murals, connecting people of the community with the people traveling on the SEPTA, directly influence all who see them. Because of the series’ multitude and time taken to make it and also the graffiti like influences of the works, each piece truly creates a personal connection that anyone can relate to. This is the foundation of forming a relationship with a community in an urban area and public art; being able to relate the art to multitudes of travelers and new people, while keeping the culture of the city it dwells within. The public art of the city, the works we saw at least, was underutilized. The difference between the art in front of the art school and that in front of a more corporate building is too significant and obvious. I got the feeling as though the Municipal Services Building had such a great space and therefore great potential.  However the space and the “Your Move” pieces within it didn’t enhance the space, but instead took away from it. I think that instead of creating a playful atmosphere, it did the opposite, making the plaza heavy and unattractive. The ability to interact with the pieces was a good jumping off point however; that is important in creating a public space. 

- Alex