Blog

Gallery Work versus Public Art

Lately I’ve been thinking about the many complexities of public art; how the creation of public art differs from private studio practice; and how many people don’t realize there’s any distinction between gallery work versus public art. Isn’t art just art, whether it’s exhibited in a gallery or the lobby of City Hall?

In truth, there are profound differences between the processes that go into creating gallery work versus public art. I think of these differences as falling into three broad categories: Audience, Intent, and Integration.

AUDIENCE

When an artist creates work for a gallery space (or a museum, or a private collection, or for the pure act of creation with no end goal in mind), she knows that her audience will be largely composed of people who are deliberately seeking out art – if she is even concerned about having an audience. These people go to a gallery because they want to encounter art. In many cases, they are even willing to pay money to see or buy art to enrich their lives. More often than not, they have been to galleries before and have some interest in, knowledge of, and past experience with art (although engaging new audiences is a hot topic for many gallery owners, curators, and arts organizations).

In contrast, the audience for public art is–you guessed it–the general public. Whether the work is outdoors or within a building, it will be seen mostly by people who didn’t seek it out. Instead, they will be confronted by it as they make their way to other destinations. These people may or may not know anything about art or have any desire to experience it. Some of them may have helped fund the creation of the work inadvertently through tax dollars, a source of revenue for certain Percent for Art programs and related initiatives; but more often than not, they probably have no awareness about where those tax dollars went, and they will make no financial transaction to encounter the finished work. Public art is, by definition, free and accessible to the public.

INTENT

Art created to be shown in a gallery or private setting often has few to zero parameters beyond the artist’s own imagination and access to resources. This work tends to be fueled by a personal impulse or idea, or possibly by a shared collaborative vision with other artists, with no restrictions around content. It might change radically from its initial concept to its final form, and that’s fine. Unlike public art, which typically must remain faithful to an initial concept accepted and approved by a committee, there’s no imperative to stick to an established plan. Furthermore, the space in which the art is shown likely will be adapted to accommodate it. Walls will be painted, infrastructure built, lighting installed, and audience pathways configured to create optimal conditions for experiencing the work.

In the case of public art, the intent of the work is more often determined through a collaboration between the artist and architects, developers, city planners, government agencies, funders, and any number of other stakeholders. Often, it is rooted in a specific social mission, such as creating an iconic visual identity for a community or making a building feel more welcoming to visitors. It must be accessible and engaging on some level for the widest possible variety of people, yet also contain—in my opinion–layers of nuance, or at least meaningfully contribute to the greater design of the space.

Related to this tricky balance, there’s an ongoing debate in the art world and beyond about how provocative public art can or should be. Some people feel that the public realm is not the place for shocking or controversial work. Other people feel art must be provocative to be good art, period. Personally, I go back and forth. I think it’s often okay, sometimes even important, to challenge viewers. I’ve also found that, more often than not, controversy around public art is less about the actual content of the art and more about the money behind it, particularly when tax dollars are involved. Take, for example, the outcry over the $800,000 price tag on Lawrence Argent’s “Leap,” a giant red rabbit designed for Sacramento International Airport.

Of course, no work of public art will ever satisfy everyone, as art is incredibly subjective; so choices also have to be made based on the unique circumstances and goals of each project. Often, these choices also are influenced by practical concerns, which brings us to the last point.

INTEGRATION

As I mentioned above, galleries tend to adapt their spaces to offer the best possible circumstances for viewing the work they choose to show. More often than not, the art is created independently from this environment and may travel to many different kinds of spaces thereafter; so the work exists as a totally separate entity from the places where it is shown.

Public art, however, is more often meant to be integrated into a public place, or at least to live in deliberate relationship to that place. It’s typically designed with the place’s history, current use, architectural structures, scale, building codes, audience, light, and other related factors in mind. It may closely harmonize with the place, acting as an extension of a building’s architectural intent (the approach I often take in my own work); it may live in a kind of neutral partnership with the place (which is how I perceive another Argent piece, the big blue bear outside the Colorado Convention Center, which is whimsical and inviting but separate from the main architecture); or it may create a kind of active dissonance with the place, which can be an exciting but risky way to go (just take the example of Richard Serra’s “Titled Arc,” which ultimately was removed from its site). Regardless, the site can’t help but inform the artwork’s identity.

Finally, public art is often meant to be permanent, so it needs to be able to age gracefully. This quality can be tricky to achieve when trying to integrate with dated architecture or when working with collaborators attracted to fleeting trends. For example, I recently worked on an upgrade of a building that was built in the 1980s with a lot of mahogany colored stone, and I was amazed at how dated that mahogany already looks. Fortunately, it was being replaced by a product that resembles white marble. Of course, it can be hard to know what materials may seem timeless now, but will look dated in thirty years! This challenge is one reason why I love to work with glass – it continually stands the test of time.

In conclusion: Both gallery art and public art hold immense value for our communities, but they require very different kinds of processes and resources. Particularly as public art initiatives become increasingly popular, it’s important for all of us to be aware of – and be prepared to support – the unique circumstances and challenges that creators of public art must consider.