Art in Public Places
December 11, 2012 | ∞ What is art? This is the question I asked myself when reviewing the proposed piece of art that will be a part of a project I have been involved with. Public art is even trickier, as it must have wide appeal and general understanding. However, in the case of this project (and many projects in many cities near and far) it is a requirement that the project include an element of public art.
Many cities have programs in place to require the incorporation of art into projects. These programs, usually called “Art in Public Places” or something similar, require the developer to place a piece of “art” into the project. This requirement usually comes in the form of a percentage of construction cost being set aside to provide for an art installation as part of the building or as a stand-alone element.
As someone who cares deeply about the quality and human experience of the places we build, I find myself strangely at odds with the concept of Art in Public Places. This isn’t because I don’t believe we should be building beautiful, engaging, interesting places. This isn’t because I don’t think that art is important. To the contrary, I believe that the mission of these programs is noble and good. We should be creating beautiful and interesting places. We should engage with humanity in an artistic way. And yes, public art is important. I’m just not sure the Art in Public Places program is the way to get the kinds of places we love. Here’s why.
Architecture is Art
I firmly believe that architecture is an art form and good architecture can provide the kind of visual interest and delight that these programs are trying to achieve. The places I love are populated with exquisite pieces of architecture that work together to achieve a delightful place full of interesting and engaging elements. These places were created by craftsmen, artists of a trade that bestowed beauty upon the buildings they helped craft. The wrought iron railing, the flamboyant brickwork, the precisely detailed moldings and cornices - these are the elements that create a symphony of visual delight. By requiring art specifically, these programs undermine the notion that architecture is the ultimate public art and devalue the importance of good architecture in the minds of the public, the city, the developer, and even the architect.
This brings me my next point:
An Indictment on the State of Architecture
Perhaps the very existence of these programs is an indictment on the state of architecture. These programs can be seen as a reaction against the banality of today’s architecture. Fed up with the monotony and lack of human engagement that our recent places have exhibited, cities took it upon themselves to require public art as a way to mitigate the cultural wastelands we have been building. At some point, architects have seemingly lost the trust of the public to make great places.
Robbing Peter to Pay Paul
This leaves me wondering if the Art in Public Places programs are actually a hindrance to the great buildings we need to complete our great places. Taking money out of the construction budget to set aside for art leaves less money on the table for just making the building great. Instead of concentrating on making great building, we get plastered on art as an after thought.
Architecture in Public Places
So where do we go from here? I would strongly advocate that we focus on getting the buildings right before looking at public art. Good architecture in the context of a good human environment will be delightful, invigorating, and enlightening. This is the true purpose of art. Cities should work with developers to craft truly great places from the smallest detail to the largest design parti. This would provide a greater service to the public than the incorporation of public art of varying quality into every project of large enough scope.
Yes there is a place for public art and it is an important element of great human environments. However, I would question the need for a piece of art to be included with every project that gets built. The highest calling of most buildings is to become great citizen buildings which means they need to get the architecture and the relationship to the human realm right before worrying about where to put the super-graphic or the dynamic LED light installation. Public art mostly belongs at places of urban significance - the public squares and parks, the vistas, the public “foreground” buildings, and prominent intersections to name a few. Art can certainly be a part of the rest of the urban fabric, however it should be organic and natural as a consequence of the character and flavor of the neighborhood.
So rather than focusing on requiring developers to place a piece of art into every project, let’s encourage developers to build great Architecture. Because Architecture (with a capital “A”) is art and will ultimately have a far greater impact on the quality of the human environment.
Reader Comments (2)
Is this the kind of thing you are worried about? http://us.gizmodo.com/5867523/art-backers-want-to-light-up-the-bay-bridge
I don't have anything against someone wanting to light up a bridge in a creative way and finding willing private funding to do it. I am mostly concerned with policies that require private developers to set aside a percentage of the construction budget for the sole purpose of providing the nebulously defined concept of public art. Most of the time I'd rather use that money for making the building a better citizen of the street.