Blog

How to Achieve the Best Public Art

Shortly after finishing my last post about the differences between gallery work and public art, I stumbled upon this scathing critique of the state of contemporary public art, with a particular focus on work created through “1% for Art” programs across the United States.

While I may not agree with everything in the essay, it does raise many crucial points about the socioeconomic climate in which public art is happening; and it got me thinking about all the ways works of public art can end up mediocre–which, by this author’s terms, means “the artwork has failed to establish any intellectual, spiritual, emotional, or aesthetic rapport with its viewers. It has not aroused the curiosity or sense of personal ownership with an audience. It has not created meaningfulness to the ‘public’ nor generated any local boosters.” As an artist who regularly creates public art projects, the thrust of this essay can be disheartening. Nobody wants to make mediocre work! Yet I do think it’s important for artists as well as administrators, developers, funders, and basically anyone involved in making public art happen to continually consider all the ways it can go wrong. The more we’re collectively aware of the pitfalls, the more we can work toward creating the best public art possible.

The article linked above offers historical context along with a lengthy analysis of the many intertwining political and economic systems that inform public art funding, selection, and creation processes. Drawing in part on the essay, but based equally on my own experiences, I thought I would highlight some of the practical challenges that artists and other public art stakeholders face in the making of public art.

1. Inadequate Budgets
I imagine any artists reading this post might be nodding their heads, as inadequate budgets are an extremely common challenge. Plenty of businesses, municipalities, and other entities want public art in their spaces, but many underestimate what it actually costs. Particularly for large-scale, architecturally-integrated work, there’s simply no way around the significant expenses inherent to a thorough design process, quality materials, and proper installation, not to mention related needs such as community outreach, permits, documentation, maintenance and insurance. For artists with the vision, skill, and experience creating public works—and this involves managing budgets, schedules, and, often, subcontractors in addition to the purely “creative” element of the work—such projects represent one’s livelihood, and they should be compensated accordingly. All too often, those not versed in the selection and creation of public art have ambitious expectations while presenting budgets that barely cover a fraction of what their vision would require. In these cases, unless more funding is secured or expectations are significantly adjusted, everyone involved will end up disappointed.

2. Lack of Understanding About Space or Scale
All too often, an artwork fails because it is lost in the space. One big challenge for the public art jury or selection committee is to identify the ideal site for the work. Particularly in the case of architecturally-integrated projects, this requires an understanding of how users of the facility operate within the space. This can be particularly hard to know in the case of a structure that doesn’t exist yet, or pre-renovation, wherein the jury is working only from the architect’s plans and perhaps a few 3D renderings. Functional constraints of the space also may result in the artwork being less than optimally sited.

Artists, too, differ widely in their understanding of scale, lighting conditions, and shifting architectural perspectives. Knowledge of materials and fabrication techniques is invaluable especially in large scale projects. The most adept are able to think like an architect, as well as artist and craftsperson. An idea for a project might seem very exciting on paper but fall short in execution (I talk a bit more about these issues in a post from March about the relationship between conceptual renderings and finished works of art). Some of the projects featured in Sacramento’s Capitol Area East End Complex serve as unfortunate examples.

As someone who works in glass, I am especially sensitive to issues that arise when this material is used for the realization of a public art installation. Given its widespread use as a construction material, from balustrades to a building’s skin, it lends itself to various graphic treatments or replacement with colored, cast, or other forms of handcrafted or artist-designed glass. Furthermore, while lighting conditions are, of course, critical for any work of art, they are especially unforgiving when it comes to glass. Works may fail, for example, due to poor lighting or excessive surface reflections. While the material’s potential for transparency is one of it’s enticing characteristics, the artist must account for what may be visible beyond the glass.

In sum, it is not enough for the artist and jury to have an appreciation of art and the community needs of a site; they must also have knowledge and awareness of materials, scale, lighting, and traffic flow.

3. Lack of Understanding About the Audience
A similar phenomenon can take place when those initiating or creating a public art project do not understand the project’s audience, the members of the public who will be encountering and interacting with the work every day. At best, public art has the capacity to become a kind of proud community icon or symbol (think Cloud Gate in Chicago, Spoonbridge and Cherry in Minneapolis, or even the Statue of Liberty); but if it isn’t tuned into that community’s interests, it can do quite the opposite, igniting frustration and outrage (see the Tilted Arc or MLK memorial controversies, for example). Good public art requires significant research, consideration, and community buy-in if it’s to be well-received and kept intact.

4. Gravitation to Passing Trends
As I mentioned in my last post, public art often has to strike a tricky balance between responding to a contemporary moment while maintaining a kind of timeless quality so that it doesn’t look completely dated in 10, 30, or 50 years. The quickest way to upset this balance is by succumbing to hot trends in design, materials, color, etc. that fade out of fashion in a few months or years. Some would argue, for example, that Joe Slusky’s “Calliope” in Berkeley looks too 1980s now. Of course, it’s virtually impossible for art not to be “of its time,” and sometimes marking a specific juncture in time is precisely the goal. Ultimately, the best work of any period will stand the test of time and survive as great art.

5. Poor Quality
This one is very basic, but unfortunately still needs to be said. If a piece of art is not crafted well or the materials are not suited to site, it will not hold up over time (and could even present safety hazards). Plenty of projects look great in photographs, but turn out to be poorly fabricated when viewed up close. This can be the result of an artist’s lack of experience with materials or fabrication techniques or trying to stretch an inadequate budget.

6. Inadequate Budgets
Finally, it’s one thing to create a work of public art; it’s another thing to make sure it is maintained in the years that follow. Weather, birds, vandalism—even skateboarders and climbers—and many other factors can have a detrimental impact over time. While artists can do many things to make sure the work is made with the best materials and constructed to endure for as long as possible, even the most robust and self-sufficient projects may need repairs or a new coat of paint once in awhile (for a good example of this challenge cropping up years after a piece was built, check out this post from 2012 about the restoration of Herbert Bayer’s Chromatic Gate in Santa Barbara). As proposals for public art are being developed, they should include plans for how the work will be maintained, and who is responsible for maintaining it, in the years to come.

What other big challenges have you encountered in conceiving, creating, supporting, or even simply enjoying public art? Share your experiences in the comments below – I’d love to hear about them.