Monday, April 19, 2010


The article mainly mentions public art definition and its history in these days. Through the article, I think how could we define public art now? Before, it is clearly ‘individual’, because in modern art, an artwork is sublimity. Even in the article, the artists who made their works in public place early days said their works completely irrelative surrounding things-architecture, urban design etc. This could be called ‘Integration’. Contradictory, in ‘Intervention’ view, the artists more consider about their work and environment: “site specificity”. Support organization, like GSA and NEA, they firstly put some huge sculptures to public space. However they renewed the guideline, works suggest some relationship with building, space.
But after read Serra’s insistent, it is more confused. I think his work is neutral between both of view. He declared clearly he opposes GSA guideline (later one), but it is also not just a huge sculpture. I thought the reason that he was not accepted by people and society is it was unfamiliar at that time and it was a proof that public artwork is not only ‘art’, but it needs utility, convenience for public. So definition of public art became complex to define because it needs to view diverse of side.
There’re many opinions about public art until now. I also constantly have studied this area, but I could not understand exactly at all. But if I spaced some artworks to the city, I would take ‘Intervention’ view. Because it is true that public place is not extending of white cube anymore.

No comments:

Post a Comment